The Clever Emptiness of 'House of the Dragon'
It's a good show in the moment, but...
The bitter aftertaste left by the last two lackluster seasons of Game of Thrones made me reluctant to even start House of the Dragon when it premiered in August. As the co-host of the sci-fi, poli-sci podcast Space the Nation, however, I felt duty-bound to give the show a try.
Cards on the table: it’s been much better than I expected. Each episodes has been well-crafted, with the kind of plot twists that are unexpected in the moment but in retrospect are consistent with how the characters have been drawn. It’s been an utter joy to watch Paddy Considine embody an political archetype that is not usually well-drawn in fiction: the leader who doesn’t take to power naturally, who makes what he thinks are good decisions along the way even if they are fair to middlin’, and is literally eaten alive by the pressures of ruling.
So I am looking forward to watching the season finale airing this Sunday. I will enjoy watching it in the moment. But — you knew there was a but — this first season is reminding me what I liked and what I didn’t like about Game of Thrones. And most of what I like isn’t in this prequel.
Game of Thrones worked in part because of the world-building and in part because it was willing to kill any character. That gave the plot some serious stakes. But the show also brought other strengths to the table. It had some of the more interesting character arcs ever presented on television. Sansa Stark credibly evolved from airhead teenage princess to ruthless power-broker. Jamie Lannister grew a conscience. Theon Greyjoy started off callow and ended up something quite different. Over time, Daenerys Targaryen… you know what, let’s not go there. Except for that last one, these were convincing arcs!
While House of the Dragon has only had one season, the show has flash-forwarded enough so that it encompasses more time than the entirety of the Game of Thrones’ run. And none of the new show’s protagonists have changed all that much. Indeed, in the case of Matt Smith’s Daemon Targaryen or Fabien Frankel’s Christopher Cole, they are entirely unchanged. I’m not sure Rhys Ifans’ Otto Hightower has changed his facial expression once during the show’s entire run.
House of the Dragon is, like Game of Thrones, about the pursuit of power. But that is the only plot in House of the Dragon. There is not a trace of humor in this show. There’s no Tyrion or Bronn or Davos or Arya muttering witty asides about the day’s events. Heck, even the Hound got off some good one-liners. All power pursuit and no play makes House of the Dragon a dull show.
One could argue that House of the Dragon has also avoided Game of Thrones’ excesses of “sexposition” that were best satirized in a Saturday Night Live skit that has mysteriously disappeared from the interwebs. House of the Dragon treats royal sexual abuse with more gravity. The effect, however, is to make such plots even more unpleasant to watch. The scenes where Queen Alicent handles her son’s rape of a maid are ugly. I suppose that is the point but the effect is to double down of the show’s grimness. By the end of the ninth episode all I could notice was how frequently Olivia Cooke, as Alicent, suffered from Resting Appalled Face.
That leads to the final problem with House of the Dragon. GoT set up the Starks as the protagonists to root for in the first season, and for good reason: they seemed like upstanding folk caught up in a risky game of power. In HotD, the focus is on the Targaryens, and none of them (save perhaps Rhaenys) are as compelling. Which promoter of incest will wrest the Iron Throne from the other promoter of incest?
At the end of GoT’s first season of, Ned Stark was killed. That ensured Sean Bean’s epic run of character deaths but, more importantly, it also laid the groundwork for a show in which there were real stakes. Lots of interesting characters remained and there were reasons to be concerned about their future. When Viserys Targaryen died in HotD, it removed the show’s only compelling character.
I’m going to watch House of the Dragon’s season finale, and I will likely enjoy it in the moment. But the aftertaste will likely be sour.
Sansa's arc made her more than a ruthless power broker. She was virtually the only contender for power who actually was committed to governing her people responsibly--hence the acclaim she received at her coronation as Queen in the North. By the end she was my favorite character, supplanting Jon, who for his part saved whole peoples from destruction. None of the characters in HotD seem to have any concerns at all for anything more than their family's power.
I don't think it's a masterpiece, but I do think it demonstrates the difference of a woman-led writer's room. Daemon is a great example - many characters don't change necessarily, but their complexity steadily increases.