Vikings (Season 2)
May. 3rd, 2015 07:39 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakOne of my acquisitions in London. It's been a while since I watched s1 - the review is here -, but by and large had I had enjoyed it and want to continue with the show.
First of all, did they step the vision factor up or what? I mean, as far as I recall last season Ragnar had one at the beginning, and Athelstan had one when he was tripping on magic mushrooms as part of the big ritual in Upsala, but that was about it. This season, Aslaug and Athelstan have visions all the time and Ragnar has one at the start and end. Now with Athelstan they're visual expressions of his inner turnmoil - when he's with the Christians, he sees the old gods, when he's with the pagans, he sees Christ, and always there's blood -, and Ragnar, too, sees what he fears and hopes, but Aslaug actually has genuine knowledge of the future. Which, okay, lots of historical novels use psychics, but the baby actually having snake eyes because she laid that geas on him definitely took us into the fantasy region. Mind you, the thing with Aslaug's last two babies is such a Norse epic element - i.e. her speaking a warning, Ragnar ignoring it, and the children being born with that particular geas on them accordingly - that I can't really mind.
Speaking of Aslaug, I like that the narrative didn't vilify her as Lagertha's rival, while also validating why Lagertha at the start of the season feels that is the one thing too many to ask of Ragnar and leaves him. When the three of them do end up in bed together in the season finale (and Ragnar's expression is absolutely gleeful!), it feels earned because by then Lagertha has formed her own relationship with Aslaug who has treated her consistently friendly and respectful, and also has put her relatonship with Ragnar on another level (she's no longer his wife but his direly needed military ally). (Incidentally, googling for reviews tells me that the threesome scene was cut for the American broadcast, along with a couple of other good character scenes. It certainly is on the dvd. Is this like back in the Highlander scenes when we Europeans would get the so called Eurominutes and US viewers would get more ads?) So this didn't feel like Lagertha taking back a key objection, because the circumstances that caused the decision had changed so much.
I also liked that they kept Siggy ambiguos in that she still does want more from life than being a devoted friend/servant, misses being powerful and isn't keen on Ragnar as a person, but otoh not only is a realist (by the finale, she knew Horik well enough to be aware he most likely was lying to her with his promise, he'd never actually done anything for her while asking a lot and humiliating her) but also sincere in her friendships with both Lagertha and Aslaug and definitely not up for childkilling. And I liked her bracingly honest moments with Rollo, like the one with the glowing blade where she basically gives him a "commit suicide or start to do something about living" again ultimatum, the finale one where she leaves him with the axe and the middle of the season one where he replies without evasion and honestly to her question whether he's still lin love with Lagertha.
Apropos Rollo: I had expected the fraternal betrayal arc to go on through the season and hadn't been looking forward to that, but no, they put the entire betrayal/acting on it/ending it thing in the first episode and let Rollo deal with the fallout from it for the rest of the season, which more or less was a redemption story, and far less predictable than his s1 "when will my affection for my brother give way to my jealousy?" tale.
Of the new characters, I liked King Ecbert of Wessex best by far. He's the first one to fall into the "worthy antagonist" category - especially important since both Borg and Horik are easily outmatched by Ragnar when it gets down to it -, schemes like a boss and successfully so, and like Ragnar actually can see the big picture. Not to mention they have the same tastein boyfriends when it comes to Athelstan. Mind you, the scene where Ecbert charms Athelstan by sharing Roman paintings and manuscripts with him also contained a genuine howler, historically speaking. Because look here, Hirst, you even reference Charlemagne in dialogue as a contemporary. There's no way you're selling me on a Britain in the 800s where all but some educated few have forgotten the Romans ever existed, invaded and ruled a couple of centuries. That empire Charlemagne was emperor of was called the Holy Roman Empire, and the whole powerful memory of the Romans was why he went to the trouble of having himself crowned as Emperor in Rome instead of sticking with "King of the Germans" as a title. (Oh, and btw, since he was busy conquering - and marrying - a lot of it, I don't think he was impressed enough by some Norsemen raids to shed a tear. Too busy brutally subjugating the Saxons himself when they wouldn't play ball.) (British and American tv never seems to get the Holy Roman Empire somehow, sigh and repeat.)
Anyway, back to Ecbert, who is enough of a Romans fanboy to use Roman baths extensively to conduct state business in, a habit that I suspect was mostly dictated for the Doylist reason to have an excuse to get a Ragnar nude scene for Ragnar's and Ecbert's first encounter/negotiation. Not that I mind. He gets to display a sardonic sense of humor, ruthlessness but also a degree of compassion (for Athelstan), and so far is the only ruler on either side who hasn't at least some of his decisions be dictated by wanting revenge. No wonder that Athelstan while pining for Ragnar is seriously drawn to him and doesn't want either of them to die. Neither did I, but given Ecbert isn't the main character, I was more afraid for him.
Athelstan ending up back with the Saxons due to misfortune and experiencing a sense of displacement and in between worldness to match the one he originally felt with the Vikings was a good way to keep him as an outside/inside character, plus it made his decision to go with Ragnar at the end truly voluntary. Elements like him rediscovering the joy of writing and copying manuscripts were so very well done that it's a shame Athelstan's arc contained yet another historical howler early on, i.e. when the angry bishop has him crucified because he's an apostate before Ecbert rescues him.( Michael Hirst, I get the symbolism, but there's just no way a Christian bishop would have ordered anyone crucified, complete with crown of thorns. It would have been regarded as the ultimate blasphemy. Now, Athelstan subjected to other brutalities because of his apostasy, absolutely, but NEVER the cruxificion, and even worse, one that mimics the one of Jesus to the detail of the crown of thorns. Any Christian, including a bishop, who'd have done that and in front of lots of witnesses to boot would have made himself a candidate for excommunication and a nasty death.) I also appreciated that Athelstan's inner division wasn't simply over once he was back with the Vikings; he'd made his choice, but the part of him that was Christian wouldn't go away, hence him seeing Christ and still praying, which leads to the intimate scene with Ragnar.
Historical howlers aside, there were a few s2 elements where plot obviously overruled character logic and/or characters getting depth. Take Lagertha's second husband. He's such a one note jerk that it's obvious he only exists so Lagertha can kill him later and become Jarl/Earl in her own right. Which begs the question: why did she marry him in the first place and put up more than four years with the treatment he dealt her? Yes, there's the historical valid reason of status and nourishment since she was on her own with a still a child Björn when she left Ragnar, but surely a woman like Lagertha, a famous shieldmaiden and a beauty, could have done better than this guy. But to make him less than a one note jerk would have necessitated Lagertha actually having a non-abusive positive relationship with him and might have caused the audience to feel something other than glee at his well deserved death, and hence he wasn't, never mind that this made it baffling why Lagertha picked him and then didn't end it years ago. I'm torn as to whether or not Floki's behavior towards Helga also counts as dictated by plot reasons, in that case, to mislead the audience. The thing is, Floki's mid season seeming change of attitude towards Ragnar came out of nowhere and made absolutely no sense unless you assume what turned out to be the case, that Ragnar and Floki were running a long term con on Horik. However, Hirst clearly wanted the audience to buy into Floki's seeming treachery or at least believe in the possibility of it in order to make the reveal it had all been a plan a great "wow" moment. And thus Floki acts misleadingly even when no one but his much beloved wife is around, which you can just about justify by his general excentricity and concern for her. Just about.
(Sidenote: I have no problem with Ragnar and Floki running a long term con otherwise. Considering Ragnar is among other things an Odin descendant/favorite/avatar and Floki obviously a Loki one, it's a very pleasing nod to mythology and the way Odin and Loki act there.)
Let's see, what else: adult Björn is well cast and really looks like he could be the grown up version of the kid which plays Björn in s1 and the first episode of s2. The Princess of Mercia being a nymphomaniac had me roll my eyes, but at least there was no slut shaming, but instead Ecbert simply saw it as part of the deal and didn't treat her as less of an ally because of it. Oh, and Borg really was the clueless sort: I mean, I knew as soon as the seer said there was an eagle in Borg's future that this season, we'd get that particurly nasty bit of Viking business, the blood eagle, and I'm a post modern tv watcher. As a Viking, he shoud have at least considered the possibility.
First of all, did they step the vision factor up or what? I mean, as far as I recall last season Ragnar had one at the beginning, and Athelstan had one when he was tripping on magic mushrooms as part of the big ritual in Upsala, but that was about it. This season, Aslaug and Athelstan have visions all the time and Ragnar has one at the start and end. Now with Athelstan they're visual expressions of his inner turnmoil - when he's with the Christians, he sees the old gods, when he's with the pagans, he sees Christ, and always there's blood -, and Ragnar, too, sees what he fears and hopes, but Aslaug actually has genuine knowledge of the future. Which, okay, lots of historical novels use psychics, but the baby actually having snake eyes because she laid that geas on him definitely took us into the fantasy region. Mind you, the thing with Aslaug's last two babies is such a Norse epic element - i.e. her speaking a warning, Ragnar ignoring it, and the children being born with that particular geas on them accordingly - that I can't really mind.
Speaking of Aslaug, I like that the narrative didn't vilify her as Lagertha's rival, while also validating why Lagertha at the start of the season feels that is the one thing too many to ask of Ragnar and leaves him. When the three of them do end up in bed together in the season finale (and Ragnar's expression is absolutely gleeful!), it feels earned because by then Lagertha has formed her own relationship with Aslaug who has treated her consistently friendly and respectful, and also has put her relatonship with Ragnar on another level (she's no longer his wife but his direly needed military ally). (Incidentally, googling for reviews tells me that the threesome scene was cut for the American broadcast, along with a couple of other good character scenes. It certainly is on the dvd. Is this like back in the Highlander scenes when we Europeans would get the so called Eurominutes and US viewers would get more ads?) So this didn't feel like Lagertha taking back a key objection, because the circumstances that caused the decision had changed so much.
I also liked that they kept Siggy ambiguos in that she still does want more from life than being a devoted friend/servant, misses being powerful and isn't keen on Ragnar as a person, but otoh not only is a realist (by the finale, she knew Horik well enough to be aware he most likely was lying to her with his promise, he'd never actually done anything for her while asking a lot and humiliating her) but also sincere in her friendships with both Lagertha and Aslaug and definitely not up for childkilling. And I liked her bracingly honest moments with Rollo, like the one with the glowing blade where she basically gives him a "commit suicide or start to do something about living" again ultimatum, the finale one where she leaves him with the axe and the middle of the season one where he replies without evasion and honestly to her question whether he's still lin love with Lagertha.
Apropos Rollo: I had expected the fraternal betrayal arc to go on through the season and hadn't been looking forward to that, but no, they put the entire betrayal/acting on it/ending it thing in the first episode and let Rollo deal with the fallout from it for the rest of the season, which more or less was a redemption story, and far less predictable than his s1 "when will my affection for my brother give way to my jealousy?" tale.
Of the new characters, I liked King Ecbert of Wessex best by far. He's the first one to fall into the "worthy antagonist" category - especially important since both Borg and Horik are easily outmatched by Ragnar when it gets down to it -, schemes like a boss and successfully so, and like Ragnar actually can see the big picture. Not to mention they have the same taste
Anyway, back to Ecbert, who is enough of a Romans fanboy to use Roman baths extensively to conduct state business in, a habit that I suspect was mostly dictated for the Doylist reason to have an excuse to get a Ragnar nude scene for Ragnar's and Ecbert's first encounter/negotiation. Not that I mind. He gets to display a sardonic sense of humor, ruthlessness but also a degree of compassion (for Athelstan), and so far is the only ruler on either side who hasn't at least some of his decisions be dictated by wanting revenge. No wonder that Athelstan while pining for Ragnar is seriously drawn to him and doesn't want either of them to die. Neither did I, but given Ecbert isn't the main character, I was more afraid for him.
Athelstan ending up back with the Saxons due to misfortune and experiencing a sense of displacement and in between worldness to match the one he originally felt with the Vikings was a good way to keep him as an outside/inside character, plus it made his decision to go with Ragnar at the end truly voluntary. Elements like him rediscovering the joy of writing and copying manuscripts were so very well done that it's a shame Athelstan's arc contained yet another historical howler early on, i.e. when the angry bishop has him crucified because he's an apostate before Ecbert rescues him.( Michael Hirst, I get the symbolism, but there's just no way a Christian bishop would have ordered anyone crucified, complete with crown of thorns. It would have been regarded as the ultimate blasphemy. Now, Athelstan subjected to other brutalities because of his apostasy, absolutely, but NEVER the cruxificion, and even worse, one that mimics the one of Jesus to the detail of the crown of thorns. Any Christian, including a bishop, who'd have done that and in front of lots of witnesses to boot would have made himself a candidate for excommunication and a nasty death.) I also appreciated that Athelstan's inner division wasn't simply over once he was back with the Vikings; he'd made his choice, but the part of him that was Christian wouldn't go away, hence him seeing Christ and still praying, which leads to the intimate scene with Ragnar.
Historical howlers aside, there were a few s2 elements where plot obviously overruled character logic and/or characters getting depth. Take Lagertha's second husband. He's such a one note jerk that it's obvious he only exists so Lagertha can kill him later and become Jarl/Earl in her own right. Which begs the question: why did she marry him in the first place and put up more than four years with the treatment he dealt her? Yes, there's the historical valid reason of status and nourishment since she was on her own with a still a child Björn when she left Ragnar, but surely a woman like Lagertha, a famous shieldmaiden and a beauty, could have done better than this guy. But to make him less than a one note jerk would have necessitated Lagertha actually having a non-abusive positive relationship with him and might have caused the audience to feel something other than glee at his well deserved death, and hence he wasn't, never mind that this made it baffling why Lagertha picked him and then didn't end it years ago. I'm torn as to whether or not Floki's behavior towards Helga also counts as dictated by plot reasons, in that case, to mislead the audience. The thing is, Floki's mid season seeming change of attitude towards Ragnar came out of nowhere and made absolutely no sense unless you assume what turned out to be the case, that Ragnar and Floki were running a long term con on Horik. However, Hirst clearly wanted the audience to buy into Floki's seeming treachery or at least believe in the possibility of it in order to make the reveal it had all been a plan a great "wow" moment. And thus Floki acts misleadingly even when no one but his much beloved wife is around, which you can just about justify by his general excentricity and concern for her. Just about.
(Sidenote: I have no problem with Ragnar and Floki running a long term con otherwise. Considering Ragnar is among other things an Odin descendant/favorite/avatar and Floki obviously a Loki one, it's a very pleasing nod to mythology and the way Odin and Loki act there.)
Let's see, what else: adult Björn is well cast and really looks like he could be the grown up version of the kid which plays Björn in s1 and the first episode of s2. The Princess of Mercia being a nymphomaniac had me roll my eyes, but at least there was no slut shaming, but instead Ecbert simply saw it as part of the deal and didn't treat her as less of an ally because of it. Oh, and Borg really was the clueless sort: I mean, I knew as soon as the seer said there was an eagle in Borg's future that this season, we'd get that particurly nasty bit of Viking business, the blood eagle, and I'm a post modern tv watcher. As a Viking, he shoud have at least considered the possibility.
no subject
Date: 2015-05-03 07:55 am (UTC)And more on Aslaug, I, too, was relieved that she wasn't painted as Lagertha's evil foil. The show does pretty well with their complex female characters, Mercian princesses aside. (Said princess even gets a clichéd reason for her nymphomania, so prepare for more eyerolling.)
I certainly know nothing of a threesome between Ragnar, Lagertha and Aslaug, so, yes, that was definitely cut from the US broadcast.
King Ecbert is completely awesome. He should get his own spinoff, really. Collecting pretty ex-monks and sighing irritatedly at the idiots who surround him, while taking long baths and plotting.
Ugh, Jarl Borg. (Sorry. I just developed a completely irrational dislike for this character, partially caused by the actor's wild-eyed expression. Geez.)
Historical authenticity: the show really mostly seems to be a sort of "best of Vikings" medley. I mean, first of all there is Ragnar, whose very existence is disputed - one of the candidates who may have inspired the character is Horik I. of all people (who, by the way, did not die at the time his Vikings equivalent does). They are also covering events that are spread out over several centuries of Viking history, and there are some people lurking among our merry band of warriors who are historical persons, but lived quite some time later. And then, they're using Ahmad ibn Fadlan as a reference quite a bit, who also wrote roughly two centuries later, and is not exactly known for being the most objective source. So all of this is a bit of a tall tale.
no subject
Date: 2015-05-03 09:26 am (UTC)Threesome: I see someone put it up for the poor American viewers, so here it is. Does Ragna have the most satisfied "Score! At last! That's what I wanted from the start!" expression or what?
Re: clichéd reason, if it's that she was raped at age 12 by her brother, that's already been said in the last but one episode where she was introduced. Why show writers think this makes one a nymphomaniac is beyond me, but all too often...
Glad we agree on Ecbert. Long may he reign. :)