Now that the series is coming to an end, there are some comments of disappointment from fans and critics alike. The question of whether the series expresses feminist aspects or not, is a much-discussed one, as it has been in recent years already. In my opinion, it did not do so, both dramaturgically and aesthetically, even though one or other of the episodes may have played with it over and over again, and may have served such hope.

In terms of agency and empowerment of female characters in this series, in dramaturgical analysis, the figure of Arya is the only one actually allowed by the authors/directors to have a relevant influence on the plot. In order not to be misunderstood, other female figures have moments of power and strength within the events depicted and on vertical episodic plot sections in the explicit narrative, out of revenge or delusion, but not on the overall plot. In this respect, the figure of Arya is the only one, because she is established as the dramaturgical counterpart to Jon, since the second episode in old theatre tradition welded to him. (cf. Stutterheim 2019, 2017)

In the dramaturgy, in order to answer a corresponding question, one looks not only at what the respective figure is allowed to do at the moment, how powerful they might appear; but also at the influence that the authors and the director concede on the overall structure and development of the implicit theme.

Let’s take a quick look at the female characters who are still ‚in the game‘:

First of all, there is the figure of DANAERYS (Emilia Clarke). She got introduced into the overall plot via her brother, who instrumentalised her as a commodity. Her appearance is reminiscent of a Barbie doll and thus implicitly appeals to a broad group of the audience who may have played with her in childhood or have always wished to do so. On the other hand, it also reminds a little of Marilyn Monroe. Of course, the figure is blond and blue-eyed.

As at the beginning of the story, the figure of Danaerys get guided through the entire story by male companions and advisors. The only exception is Missandei (Nathalie Emmanuel), who also had to be brought out of the action in episode 8.4 in the sense of the dramaturgical balance of the overall plot. The fact that this happens brutally may not only serve the moment in which the increasing madness of the figure of Cersei (Lena Headey) has to be shown. This execution also reflects the brutality of the scenes in the context of which the character of Missandei got introduced. Also, Missandei is also classified as a sinful woman, in the sense of the moral concept that defines the series. Daenerys had an intimate advisor in her, who is now no longer needed from a dramaturgical point of view, but whose horrifying departure becomes dramatically relevant in the form of the background of Cersei’s cruelty.

The Daenerys figure was built up over the first half as a possible positive figure and future queen, but this turns in episode 4.4. From this episode on she is increasingly portrayed as unpredictable, domineering and cruel. This got prepared with the event in the tower of Undead and the encounter with the sorcerer (2.10), in which she gives up the dream of her own family for the dragons and the sorcerer, who welcomes her – albeit in a somewhat macabre way – by her dragons, kills her before he can explain himself more precisely. Since this encounter with dark magic, the character has become more and more a cruel and possessed egomaniac who would do anything to become queen without restriction. Underlining their power and position, they are carried away to use cruel violence and to declare it justice. This figure only makes good and positive decisions if one of her advisors strongly recommends this to her. The figure presents a supposed power that may be due to her qua birth, but she got guided by an intelligently staggered group of figures, which apparently only accompany her. Dramaturgically seen, these advisors let the figure act as a representative of male world view. If she does not follow the male counsellors, sooner or later it won’t end well for her.

Thus, concerning the figure of Daenerys, no independence in the sense of any current or theory of feminism is established.

SANSA. One of the favourite figures for a large part of the female audience. This figure presents all feminine qualities of the ‚good good woman‘ (cf. Gelfert 2006). This Sansa learns with ease everything a woman should know, sew and be submissive, behave, walk upright, smile. (cf. Fiedler 2017 ) Her dream was to find her place in the castle by the king’s side. She got harmed, and the figure represents all the more femininity in the sense of American conservative Christian moral. The ultimate goal is the continued existence and independence of the family. That’s what she lives for now. Winterfell must continue to exist and preserve its independence. Sansa represents the North with its moral rules and traditions (cf. Stutterheim 2017). That is what the Sansa character stands for. This figure serves a social context that is determined by fundamental Christian values and in which there is the role of the woman as the wife, princess/queen, co-director, who thinks independently but withdraws in the case of cases, but who must be protected and rescued in an emergency. Also, she gets shown as someone who takes this situation for granted.

CERSEI LANNISTER. This figure was designed from the beginning as immoral and selfish. Their only acceptable side, as Tyrion (Peter Dinklage) expresses in 8.4, is their maternal love for their children. This good nature, however, was also shown as overshadowed by her character and so she had to lose them, the children of sin. First to evil, then to an act of revenge, then to religious fanaticism.

BRIENNE of Tarth (Gwendoline Christie). This character is one of the variable characters with which the authors play with us. She is a classic secondary character who serves to better understand the character(s) of the main character(s), their motivation and actions. In particular, the figure serves to accompany Jaime and Sansa. Moreover, implicitly, it offers an identification for those in the female audience who cannot compare themselves with the beautiful girls and women figures, who are also too tall or find rather sporty or not pretty.

The fact that it get ultimately shown in detail as a relationship with Jaime (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) has a dual function here. On the one hand, it is used to show the figure of Jaime after the court as a man still capable of love. After winning the battle side by side, in which we got shown that they had saved each other’s lives, this was only consequent. Then one had to sort Brienne into the camp of the female figures according to the overall layout in order to restore order. For this, she had to love, become jealous and even stand in the snow crying, which discriminates against the figure twice over, as I here and now boldly assume. For on the one hand, as mentioned in various critiques, as a crying abandoned woman, this Brienne is the opposite of the intrepid and capable warrior. Then, this is my hypothesis, she misjudges in her jealousy the actual reason, the true character of Jaime. She obviously didn’t listen to him. He’s not leaving for Kingslanding to save his sister blindly. The task of this character is to protect the subjects from insane actions. But on the other hand, this chracter is one of those the authors change and use as varaible, as one of the few who are arranged to install surprising and less logical elements in the narrative.

What remains is ARYA, the figure who is the only one allowed to unfold and live independently. She is the ‚Wonder Woman‘ of this series, like these ‚the Godkiller‘ (cf. Stokowski 2019). This character has worked, learned and fought to lead an independent and as far as possible self-determined life. Accordingly, she had to reject Gendry’s (Joe Demspey’s) long-awaited proposal. As mentioned above, Arya mirrors Jon, and therefore it is a dramatic necessity to keep this in dramaturgical balance to the male main character.

In this respect, it is consistent and little surprising that at the end of the series even more women from the ensemble are left behind, murdered, referred to the back seats.

bibliography

Fiedler, Leslie A. 2017 Love and death in the American novel. 3rd printing Dalkey Archive ed. Normal, IL: Dalkey Archive Press.

Gelfert, Hans-Dieter. 2006. Typically American: How Americans became what they are. 3rd, updated and supplemented by an epilogue America 2006. Aufl., original edition ed. Munich: Beck.

Stokowski, Margarete. 2019. „Wonder Woman & Hannah Arendt.“  Hanser Accents Miracles (66.1 May 2019):12-17.

Stutterheim, Kerstin. 2017 Game of Thrones – dramaturgy of a TV series. Paderborn Fink Publishers / Brill

Stutterheim, Kerstin. 2019. „Game of Thrones 8 Episode 3 – Armageddon. The Long Night.“ Glaz, 1 May 2019.

by Kerstin Stutterheim

These days’ discussions about ‘the culture’ in Hollywood and elsewhere are directing the focus towards interaction between male executives and female actresses or team members. The word goes that more women behind the scene would change the way women are treated and represented. Yes, that is step one, long overdue. But will that be the definite solution – or do we think of some further aspects to change this kind of behaviour?

What about productions written and directed or produced by female professionals? Agnieszka Holland, Vera Chytilova, Deepa Mehta, Chantal Ackerman and Agnes Varda are for sure some and they are important role models in this regard, but other female writer-directors are still telling the same old stories. Gertrud Stein once wrote that it takes a hundred years, three generations, to change habits and narratives.^[1] Is generation one still in charge?

Media productions, in particular mainstream TV and cinema productions, are in more or less subtle ways influential in priming gender constructions. And they have their freedom to tell stories in grandfather’s style, since neo-liberal thinking forbids criticising successful productions from the Anglo-American World. This is true in particular for productions made in Hollywood or by HBO, which are seen as working opportunities as nearest to heaven as one could imagine. The ‘Bechtel-Test’ is a nice first tool but it does not really indicate the importance of female characters within a narrative. Nor can dialogues meeting the ‘Bechtel-Test’ give these characters a true appreciation, which will make them embodiments of modern independent women who are allowed to live an autonomous life.

Fatherhood, motherhood, and the biological family are core elements of the ‘American Dramaturgy’.^[2] And that specific form of designing the narrative, and much more importantly the implicit dramaturgy, mirrors the culture and feeds back into the understanding of gender, hierarchies and more into the Anglo-American film industry, thus the global world as well.

The last decade or two one had to experience an on-going backlash in presenting female characters – in TV as on the big screen.

The unwritten rule of designing a successful movie or series for US-American or British audiences involves the narrative referring to conservative Jewish-Christian beliefs, which are mingled with historical experiences thus priming the Cultural Memory^[3] of these nations. And, apparently, one can find here traditions, topics, and themes from the American Novel in film narratives. The American novel is a result of the change from Catholicism (or other religions) towards the father-cantered Protestantism, which was the religion of the mass of that time in the developing US. The novel as medium emerged as the new mass medium.^[4]

Other elements of ‘American Dramaturgy’ reflect the influence of ‘the Code’ and its moral stakes for representational spaces towards film productions in Hollywood^[5] and elsewhere.

One can understand how influential the priming of conservative Jewish-Christian gender construction is when it is found in the implicit dramaturgy of modern productions, when one looks at most recent productions. Examples could be endless, I am choosing here randomly some out of the highest ranked and most discussed productions of this year 2017, so far. In Dunkirk (Nolan, USA 2017) for example women exist only as ‘extras’ – representing nurses and handing out bread and tea, which does not represent their roles within the historic event. In this movie, all women have to die amongst the wounded and/or terrified soldiers since they are in ships which have been bombarded and are sinking at the shores of Dunkirk. One can find several layers of association given the style the film is made in – the Nazis were brutal and bombarded Red Cross ships, but also: the weak are first victims, always.

Another example is Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, USA 2017), which is opulent and strikingly disappointing. For this sequel, women are reduced to appearing either as an attractive killing machine, or predesigned after the physical appearance of that figure but as most lovingly acting holograms. One other female character is set up as an asexual being focussed on her duty, thus she has to die early. But in total, the movie is dedicated to men and their desires for power and total independence, which allows just as much love as it can to enable them to become part of a real biological family, although this may happen just for a short time, not for life. (Spoiler!: hence in the end father and daughter were united. Implicit, that makes the biological/family relation the most important aspect of the implicit dramaturgy. The ‘moment of catharsis’ is the solution and fulfilment of the whole action – father will meet his daughter after many years not knowing if she made it and survived. The option indicated in an earlier scene, that this young woman is a result of true love and hence not designed, could just by her existence change the life of female characters shown as living underground, is not strong enough to be part of the solution – or a set up to develop another sequel. Those women hoping for change are shown as prostitutes and spies in one, which is an old figure one can always find, for example in Deuteronomy (the Old Testament), as the story about Rahab and the Canaanites.^[6]

will be continued – one day, here or elsewhere

[1] (Stein, 1990)

[2] (cf. Frenz, 1962; Stutterheim, 2015)

[3] (cf. A. Assmann, 2010, 2012; J. Assmann, 1992; Gelfert, 2006, 2011)

[4] (Fiedler, 2017 )

[5] (Maras, 2016)

[6] (Raṿeh, 2014)

Assmann, A. (2010). Memory in a global age: discourses, practices and trajectories (1. publ. ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Assmann, A. (2012). Memory and political change (1. publ. ed.). Basingstoke, Hampshire u.a.: Palgrave Macmillan.

Assmann, J. (1992). Das kulturelle Gedächtnis: Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen Hochkulturen. München: Beck.

Fiedler, L. A. (2017 ). Love and death in the American novel (3rd printing Dalkey Archive ed.). Normal, IL: Dalkey Archive Press.

Frenz, H. (Ed.). (1962). Amerikanische Dramaturgie. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Verlag.

Gelfert, H.-D. (2006). Typisch amerikanisch: Wie die Amerikaner wurden, was sie sind (3., aktualisierte und um ein Nachwort Amerika 2006 erg. Aufl., Originalausg. ed.). München: Beck.

Maras, S. E. (2016). Ethics in Screenwriting – New Perspectives. In S. Maras (Ed.), Palgrave Studies in Screenwriting (pp. XXV, 263 p. 219 illus). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Raṿeh, I. (2014). Feminist rereadings of rabbinic literature (K. Fish, Trans.). Waltham, Massachusetts: Brandeis University Press.

Stein, G. (1990). Erzählen (Narration. Four lectures by Gertrude Stein). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.

Stutterheim, K. (2015). Handbuch angewandter Dramaturgie. Vom Geheimnis des filmischen Erzählens. Frankfurt am Main u.a.: Peter Lang Verlag.

many thanks to Sue Warren