Vikings 4.14
Dec. 23rd, 2016 08:17 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakThe one where Ragnar and Ecbert discover existencialism while Lagertha becomes Hagen of Tronje.
The Ragnar and Ecbert section of the episode was superb, "chamber play" ( = German Kammerspiel) in the best sense of the world, what happens when you trust two of your actors to make dialogue with no physical action at all (well, in terms of fighting, that is) in the same room throughout the episode more rivetting than most, if not all, of your battle scenes. I already liked the "we're corrupt" between Ecbert and Ragnar in s2, two top notch power players admitting their similarities, but this sequence, featuring both of them after the audience has known them through four seasons in the sunset years of their lives, went deeper and was fantastic in every second. Kudos to the actors, kudos to the writing. More about it later.
Meanwhile, however, the Lagertha and Aslaug sequence had one big problem, and no, it's not Lagertha committing murder per se. Every main character (except for Björn? But he's young) has done his or her share of dishonorouble deeds in the course of the show. And what Lagertha did last and this episode certainly is not worse than various acts by Ragnar, Rollo, Ecbert, Floki in the show's past, not to mention that Lagertha in the past has also been on board with killing, say, the wife and children of King What Was His Name Again in the name of wiping out an enemy's entire line. No, the problem was motivation. I had no trouble believing Floki killed Athelstan out of jealousy (whatever Floki told himself the reason was), because said jealousy had been amply featured throughout the show. So Athelstan's murder, while a shock, had gotten consistent build up. Rollo killing the Viking warriors and settlers in France as a way to make a clean sweep and establish himself with his new French allies? Again, startling but ic and logical in terms of what he wanted to achieve. Ecbert ordering the massacre referred to in this episode in a way that gave him plausible deniability while also ridding him of the suspicion among the other British kings of letting the Vikings in? Makes perfect sense from Ecbert's pov. And so forth.
Otoh, for Lagertha to kill Aslaug 22 years after Ubbe's birth for taking Ragnar away, after Aslaug had already surrendered, had pointed out that letting her leave peacefully would be in Lagertha's interest because it means Lagertha won't invite a feud with her (Aslaug's) sons, and was in the process of leaving - for this to make emotional sense I'd have to believe Lagertha spend the last two decades secretly hating Aslaug and just waiting for her chance, and that this hate was so strong it overrode not must every moral but common sense in her. Because what did she gain from killing Aslaug at this point, other than the satisfaction of having killed Aslaug (who got the better of her in their verbal exchange - Lagertha sounded downright pathetic when accusing Aslaug of witchery re: Ragnar, while Aslaug kept her cool and pointed out Ragnar never needed magic for his choices)? Nothing. What did she lose? Any high ground re: Aslaug she might have had, plus the chance for (all of) Aslaug's sons with Ragnar to accept Lagertha's takeover of Kattegut. If she didn't want to kill them before because they were also Ragnar's sons, why create a situation that by the laws of their society begs for a blood feud? And an inter-family blood feud, the worst, which in the sagas usually ends with entire families and their tribes wiped out. For Lagertha to risk all this, I'd have to asssume her hatred for Aslaug was so strong it overrode everything else, every other consideration. And there simply was no build up for this. Especially if you compare with with the Floki and Athelstan situation.
Now, there are of course mythical precedents. I mentioned the sagas, where this type of behaviour happens all the time. And the way Aslaug dies is imo a direct allusion to one of the most famous myths. Aslaug earlier says to Lagertha "I am not my mother, nor indeed my father", and while she doesn't name them, Aslaug's parents in the show (as established in her first episode) and in myth are Sigurd/Sigfried and Brynhild. By shooting the departing Aslaug with an arrow from behind, Lagertha recreates Sigurd/Sigfried's death at the hand of Hagen; a death which both in the Edda and in the Nibelungenlied is specifically staged as a not-heroic deed, treachery instead of the result of a fight, and while coming about partly through Sigurd/Siegfried's own earlier actions (the betrayal of Brynhild), it is still distinctly framed as murder from low motivations, and triggers the bloody death of an entire dynasty. Vikings has repeatedly recreated mythical situations - Floki going through Loki's punishment for the murder of Athelstan, Ragnar hanging from a tree as Odin did - so a restaging with the Hagen and Sigurd/Siegfried situation fits with this. But if that was always the intention, then there should have been far better preparation for it in the writing for Lagertha. As it is, the descent into the Hagan role in the last two episodes feels really artificial, coming about through Doylist, not Watsonian reasons.
A word about Ubbe and Sigurd (the son) before I move on to the great part of the episode again: Ubbe continues to shape up as the most likeable (if not the most interesting - that's Ivar) of Aslaug's kids, while Sigurd continues to come across as the jerk. But as opposed to Lagertha's actions in a good continuity way, in that Sigurd's two named reasons for refusing to avenge his mother (she loved Ivar, not us, she had sex with Harbard) are actually hailing from things the shows established earlier - both Ubbe and Sigurd watching the first Harbard visit and nearly dying in the ice, and Ivar before his departure for England taunting Sigur with his mother loving him best. Ubbe rejecting Sigurd's slut shaming re: the Aslaug/Harbard relationship, defending out while pointing out he witnessed the same Sigurd did, also prevents the show coming across as supporting Sigurd's pov, and their brief discussion whether or not Harbard was in fact a god is a good thematic connection to the Ragnar and Ecbert discussions.
Which were, again, hands down fantastic. Starting out as a strategic mind game, moving on to a drunken night together, mourning Athelstan while admitting they both loved him, discussing the point of religion - with Ragnar directly quoting Angel in the AtS episode Epiphany that if nothing matters, everything does, while Ecbert doesn't believe society can function without the ethical frame work of religion (though he puts it in a less anachronistic way) - and basically getting each other on a level nobody else gets them. A case can be made that each is who the other would have been if born in their respective society. And while both are as honest with each other as it is possible for them to be - Ecbert acknowledging immediately he ordered the settlement massacre, Ragnar upfront declaring his desire both for his death and for his sons to then avenge him with a big invasion - they also are keeping things back; with Ecbert, I'm just assuming, but Ragnar of course presents Ivar as utterly harmless, a poor cripple, and makes no mention of his instructions to the boy. They wouldn't be Ragnar and Ecbert without those caveats.
Ragnar explicitly seeking his death wasn't a surprise, and wanting that death in a way that guarantees what he couldn't get in life anymore, everyone uniting to do what he wants them to do, is a very Ragnar way to go out. Otoh Ecbert not being able to kill Ragnar himself was a surprise, not least because Ecbert is one of the least sentimental men around, and a hardcore pragmatist, but he's got at least one good strategic reason, which is that the Ragnar-avenging sons invading Northumbria is of course far preferable to them invading Wessex. But why granting Ragnar his death wish at all, instead of leaving him alive as an ineffectual prisoner? That's where sentiment does come in, I believe, both Ecbert's respect for Ragnar as his equal and might-have-been, and the Athelstan factor. The subtext was never really sub for either relationship, but they both explicitly speaking of their love for Athelstan was still much appreciated. And of course Ragnar, being Ragnar, had to point out that Athelstan loved him better, while Ecbert, being Ecbert, had to snark back "Then you should have protected him better". (Incidentally, since they spend hours and hours together alone in that throne room drinking and having it out, there's more than enough room for a Best Enemies one night stand together. I'm just saying. It would be IC for either man.)
In conclusion: loved the part of the episode that took place in Britain, shook my head at the part that took place in Kattegut, except for the Ubbe and Sigurd scene.
The Ragnar and Ecbert section of the episode was superb, "chamber play" ( = German Kammerspiel) in the best sense of the world, what happens when you trust two of your actors to make dialogue with no physical action at all (well, in terms of fighting, that is) in the same room throughout the episode more rivetting than most, if not all, of your battle scenes. I already liked the "we're corrupt" between Ecbert and Ragnar in s2, two top notch power players admitting their similarities, but this sequence, featuring both of them after the audience has known them through four seasons in the sunset years of their lives, went deeper and was fantastic in every second. Kudos to the actors, kudos to the writing. More about it later.
Meanwhile, however, the Lagertha and Aslaug sequence had one big problem, and no, it's not Lagertha committing murder per se. Every main character (except for Björn? But he's young) has done his or her share of dishonorouble deeds in the course of the show. And what Lagertha did last and this episode certainly is not worse than various acts by Ragnar, Rollo, Ecbert, Floki in the show's past, not to mention that Lagertha in the past has also been on board with killing, say, the wife and children of King What Was His Name Again in the name of wiping out an enemy's entire line. No, the problem was motivation. I had no trouble believing Floki killed Athelstan out of jealousy (whatever Floki told himself the reason was), because said jealousy had been amply featured throughout the show. So Athelstan's murder, while a shock, had gotten consistent build up. Rollo killing the Viking warriors and settlers in France as a way to make a clean sweep and establish himself with his new French allies? Again, startling but ic and logical in terms of what he wanted to achieve. Ecbert ordering the massacre referred to in this episode in a way that gave him plausible deniability while also ridding him of the suspicion among the other British kings of letting the Vikings in? Makes perfect sense from Ecbert's pov. And so forth.
Otoh, for Lagertha to kill Aslaug 22 years after Ubbe's birth for taking Ragnar away, after Aslaug had already surrendered, had pointed out that letting her leave peacefully would be in Lagertha's interest because it means Lagertha won't invite a feud with her (Aslaug's) sons, and was in the process of leaving - for this to make emotional sense I'd have to believe Lagertha spend the last two decades secretly hating Aslaug and just waiting for her chance, and that this hate was so strong it overrode not must every moral but common sense in her. Because what did she gain from killing Aslaug at this point, other than the satisfaction of having killed Aslaug (who got the better of her in their verbal exchange - Lagertha sounded downright pathetic when accusing Aslaug of witchery re: Ragnar, while Aslaug kept her cool and pointed out Ragnar never needed magic for his choices)? Nothing. What did she lose? Any high ground re: Aslaug she might have had, plus the chance for (all of) Aslaug's sons with Ragnar to accept Lagertha's takeover of Kattegut. If she didn't want to kill them before because they were also Ragnar's sons, why create a situation that by the laws of their society begs for a blood feud? And an inter-family blood feud, the worst, which in the sagas usually ends with entire families and their tribes wiped out. For Lagertha to risk all this, I'd have to asssume her hatred for Aslaug was so strong it overrode everything else, every other consideration. And there simply was no build up for this. Especially if you compare with with the Floki and Athelstan situation.
Now, there are of course mythical precedents. I mentioned the sagas, where this type of behaviour happens all the time. And the way Aslaug dies is imo a direct allusion to one of the most famous myths. Aslaug earlier says to Lagertha "I am not my mother, nor indeed my father", and while she doesn't name them, Aslaug's parents in the show (as established in her first episode) and in myth are Sigurd/Sigfried and Brynhild. By shooting the departing Aslaug with an arrow from behind, Lagertha recreates Sigurd/Sigfried's death at the hand of Hagen; a death which both in the Edda and in the Nibelungenlied is specifically staged as a not-heroic deed, treachery instead of the result of a fight, and while coming about partly through Sigurd/Siegfried's own earlier actions (the betrayal of Brynhild), it is still distinctly framed as murder from low motivations, and triggers the bloody death of an entire dynasty. Vikings has repeatedly recreated mythical situations - Floki going through Loki's punishment for the murder of Athelstan, Ragnar hanging from a tree as Odin did - so a restaging with the Hagen and Sigurd/Siegfried situation fits with this. But if that was always the intention, then there should have been far better preparation for it in the writing for Lagertha. As it is, the descent into the Hagan role in the last two episodes feels really artificial, coming about through Doylist, not Watsonian reasons.
A word about Ubbe and Sigurd (the son) before I move on to the great part of the episode again: Ubbe continues to shape up as the most likeable (if not the most interesting - that's Ivar) of Aslaug's kids, while Sigurd continues to come across as the jerk. But as opposed to Lagertha's actions in a good continuity way, in that Sigurd's two named reasons for refusing to avenge his mother (she loved Ivar, not us, she had sex with Harbard) are actually hailing from things the shows established earlier - both Ubbe and Sigurd watching the first Harbard visit and nearly dying in the ice, and Ivar before his departure for England taunting Sigur with his mother loving him best. Ubbe rejecting Sigurd's slut shaming re: the Aslaug/Harbard relationship, defending out while pointing out he witnessed the same Sigurd did, also prevents the show coming across as supporting Sigurd's pov, and their brief discussion whether or not Harbard was in fact a god is a good thematic connection to the Ragnar and Ecbert discussions.
Which were, again, hands down fantastic. Starting out as a strategic mind game, moving on to a drunken night together, mourning Athelstan while admitting they both loved him, discussing the point of religion - with Ragnar directly quoting Angel in the AtS episode Epiphany that if nothing matters, everything does, while Ecbert doesn't believe society can function without the ethical frame work of religion (though he puts it in a less anachronistic way) - and basically getting each other on a level nobody else gets them. A case can be made that each is who the other would have been if born in their respective society. And while both are as honest with each other as it is possible for them to be - Ecbert acknowledging immediately he ordered the settlement massacre, Ragnar upfront declaring his desire both for his death and for his sons to then avenge him with a big invasion - they also are keeping things back; with Ecbert, I'm just assuming, but Ragnar of course presents Ivar as utterly harmless, a poor cripple, and makes no mention of his instructions to the boy. They wouldn't be Ragnar and Ecbert without those caveats.
Ragnar explicitly seeking his death wasn't a surprise, and wanting that death in a way that guarantees what he couldn't get in life anymore, everyone uniting to do what he wants them to do, is a very Ragnar way to go out. Otoh Ecbert not being able to kill Ragnar himself was a surprise, not least because Ecbert is one of the least sentimental men around, and a hardcore pragmatist, but he's got at least one good strategic reason, which is that the Ragnar-avenging sons invading Northumbria is of course far preferable to them invading Wessex. But why granting Ragnar his death wish at all, instead of leaving him alive as an ineffectual prisoner? That's where sentiment does come in, I believe, both Ecbert's respect for Ragnar as his equal and might-have-been, and the Athelstan factor. The subtext was never really sub for either relationship, but they both explicitly speaking of their love for Athelstan was still much appreciated. And of course Ragnar, being Ragnar, had to point out that Athelstan loved him better, while Ecbert, being Ecbert, had to snark back "Then you should have protected him better". (Incidentally, since they spend hours and hours together alone in that throne room drinking and having it out, there's more than enough room for a Best Enemies one night stand together. I'm just saying. It would be IC for either man.)
In conclusion: loved the part of the episode that took place in Britain, shook my head at the part that took place in Kattegut, except for the Ubbe and Sigurd scene.
