Alan Sepinwall wrote a negative review of Sunday night’s
Game of Thrones episode, “The Battle of the Bastards,” and spent part of his
Monday defending his review to those accusing him of writing negatively as a
way to “go against the grain.” The comment section under the review includes a
barrage of insults about Sepinwall’s performance as a critic. Fans of the
episode did not like reading bad criticism. Sepinwall, in response, reminded
fans that his opinion of the episode—and any episode of TV he reviews—shouldn’t
invalidate their feelings about the art they love. Later, a person tweeted him
that he was the only critic to contribute a “rotten” score for “The Battle of
the Bastards” to which Sepinwall replied with his invented #SepinwallCrimes.
I found the whole exchange curious. I remember feeling
protective of the shows I loved a few years ago. I’d visit TV sites and blog
pages almost cautiously because I didn’t want a more negative review to tarnish
my love for whatever episode it was. I didn’t lambast any critics for reacting
different to an episode I enjoyed, but their opinion would sort of bum me out
about the episode for a few days. I’d think, “Maybe I’m a daft so-and-so. Maybe
the episode did have some problems. They are the professionals!” I thought that
the fans crushing Sepinwall for his opinion were like me in spirit a few years
ago. They love Game of Thrones and probably felt a natural high after “The
Battle of the Bastards” and hoped critics would love it as much as them.
Validation represents part of it. It’s silly, but it’s a tiny truth.
Sepinwall’s the most popular and respected TV critic working today. If he
doesn’t like something you loved, you might think you have bad taste or you
might think you’re wrong. Again, it’s silly, but TV critics fix the barometer
of what’s good and what’s not.
My first impressions of seemed simplistic the more I thought
about Sepinwall’s review and the anger over it. I matured as a person and a
consumer of arts after LOST ended. Contrary opinions to episodes I liked or
didn’t like no longer made me doubt myself. Perhaps, these fans needed to grow
up a little. But, no, that’s too easy. Bryan Curtis of The Ringer released a
podcast yesterday about the rise of TV critics. Curtis thinks they have
superseded the importance of movie critics. Damon Lindelof commented: “You just
go, ‘Oh my god, that episode of Game of Thrones, was just—I’ve never seen
anything like that. That’s amazing.’ And then you go online and these other
critics are basically sort of saying the same thing, but they’re doing such a
better job of saying it was amazing.”
Critics, as Chuck Klosterman wrote in his latest book,
dictate what we remember as important from a given era. The Hollywood
Reporter’s Dan Fienberg described his role in culture as a curator. The
opinions of professional critics matters more than the opinions of fans on
Twitter or message boards or IMDB ratings. Critical response overwhelmingly
praised and loved the episode. Sepinwall stressed in his tweets yesterday the
greatness of disagreements but corrected misperceptions about why he disagreed
with the majority love of the episode. Neither side will understand the other.
Critics already think of fandom as an overzealous and irrational group
comparable to fundamentalists in religion, so they will not understand the root
reason behind their backlash to a bad review. Fans don’t want to be spoken
for—unless it’s positive.
Critical opinion becomes more significant after a show has
ended. The Game of Thrones legacy—how critics will remember it—already has been
hinted at in critical circles. Vox’s Todd Vanderwerff thinks it’ll be seen as a
fad but remembered as a good show which found success because it became a
fad/trend. I already wrote about more writers covering the series in April. The
Rotten Tomatoes page for GoT episodes runs three pages deep. More writers than
I expected covered this season. The New Yorker and NY Times paid two writers
recap the show for their site. Not many critics consider it an artful or high
culture show, but coverage of the show gets the clicks.
Sepinwall’s review stood out to me because he commended the
tremendous technical production of the effects and he criticized the writers
for not writing a story to justify the tremendous effects. The effusive praise
of the episode centered on the epic scale of the battle, Sansa’s vengeance
against Ramsey, as well as meta ideas about the show commenting on itself
through Ramsey and the battle representing conflicting fan desires, which is
fine. If you’ve got the “textual” evidence to support your arguments, write
what you want. I liked “The Battle of the Bastards” but I liked “No One” more,
an episode most hated (some even called it the show’s worst ever). Game of
Thrones distracts its audience with huge theatrics: shocking twists, brutal
violence, and epic battles. The 20-minute battle was produced at awesome scale
for TV, but it was replete with the redundant tropes of battle the show had
used multiple times in past battle episodes.
The story’s been GoT’s problem for a while. The world’s too
big, the characters too many, and the seasons too short. If the rumors about
two final seasons with six episodes apiece are true, it’s not enough. Weiss and
Benioff have cut characters and plot without abandon in season six. They’ll get
there. The majority of critics and fans seem tired of the stalling storylines
of the show and would like the show to ‘get on with it’. They have and will
continue to ‘get on with it’ and it’ll be fine but also sort of hollow and
unsatisfying because the writers are taking short cuts.
Anyway, I think fans feel angry after reading a critic’s
negative review because the critic’s opinion will last and form part of the final consensus of the show’s cultural
significance/importance.
