I finally found two hours to sit down and watch the premiere of the new series, Kings, on NBC. And, like you, I followed that up with a thoroughly enjoyable read of Brett’s coverage of the first episode, particularly his ruminations on just how closely this story will stick to the original. As he put it, further exploration into the topic should wait until Kings has given us more.
So, I enjoyed the premiere, and I was very happy to find that I completely agree with popular opinion regarding Ian McShane: he is, in fact, fantastic. (I’ll admit, I’ve never seen Deadwood, but now I’m thinking it might be time to buy some new TV on DVD.) However, two things about Kings left me puzzled. Both regard the premise of the show in two very different ways.
The first is with respect to this being “a contemporary re-telling of the timeless tale of David and Goliath,” as described by NBC. David and Goliath is a great war story that, clearly, we still discuss today. But as for its relevance on a broader scale? What historical application did it have to David’s battle with Saul for the throne of Judea? How was it applicable to God forbidding David from building the temple because his hands were full of (metaphoric) blood?
I’m not questioning the validity of the tale; rather, I’m saying that calling Kings a modern day David and Goliath is hemming it into a very small box. And if those were its limitations, the series should have ended after the first fifteen minutes. I know it might be nitpicking, but the tag is pretty off-base as a broad stroke to describe the series.
The story of the young David had plenty of broad themes to choose from, some of which will anyway be a large part of this series. Saul versus David. David’s meteoric rise. Or how about a modern day retelling of the friendship of David and Jonathan? Sure, that would require a bit of a retool, as David (Chris Egan) and Jack (Sebastian Stan) haven’t quite gotten off on the right foot. But as a theme for the story, that would cover a lot more timeline than the David and Goliath tale. (Speaking of Jack: It’s interesting that the creators used a common nickname for John in naming this modern day Prince Jonathan. The Jewish name Jon, no “h”, is always short for Jonathan, whereas the Christian name John, yes “h”, rarely is. So Jonathan=Jon≠John, while Jonathan≠John=Jack. Just thought I’d share that bit of useless knowledge.)
The second confusion I’m having is more a question of accuracy. I found it difficult to understand what made Gilboa a monarchy as opposed to a democracy. Clearly Silas is in charge, but when a government relies on corporate funds, rather than its own treasury, can a king really be called King? In a (Democratic) democracy, corporations and individuals pay taxes, which are then distributed back to the people in the form of social services. (Crazy Republicans, thinking people might just prefer not to be taxed in the first place!) On the other hand, a monarchy taxes people to build its treasury for war and clothing. And sometimes DUIs. The corporate support on Kings smells of democracy.
Also, would a king accept a “no” from a member of his council, as Silas did when he himself suggested going on the offensive in the war with Gath? And, would a king really build his capital into a capitalist city? (Granted, we haven’t really seen examples of capitalism yet, but who else would house their offices in a skyscraper?) Plus, where’s the pomp and ceremony of an England? Silas sometimes seemed like a savage empowered following a coup, dressed in his CEO finest. Modernity is one thing, but there are certain constants in a monarchy that would never be cast aside. I found that area lacking.
I can imagine that it might have been the modernization of this story that tripped the show’s creators up. For instance, utilizing a city like New York that was, in reality, built by hard work and democracy, as the capital of a kingdom, where individual businesses aren’t usually central to success, is a rather incongruent attempt. The show also borrowed a few leadership ideas from corporate boards and administrative cabinets, furthering the notion that Silas is a president and not a ruler. No, I didn’t expect him to wear a robe and carry a scepter, but, as Jonathan Rhys Meyers will soon return to do so brilliantly on The Tudors, a king must command. Every audience with his advisers, no matter how critical the person may be, must remind everyone present that the king is above them all.
Especially in a sovereignty where God plays such a large role, and it is accepted that the king has been chosen by Him. Speaking of which, clearly Reverend Samuels (Eamonn Walker) receives messages from God. Why is he relegated to driving his own broken-down car as the show opens?
I think I would have loved to see the modernization of this empire be of more of an economical and technological nature, and less of an architectural and governmental one. To see what Rome would have looked like today, with international trade, treaties, going to war with modern technology … that would be awesome. Cell phones replacing messengers, and televisions instead of town criers? Definitely.
But where’s the lush emptiness surrounding the castle that, historically, monarchs have enjoyed? The grounds, the forest, the rooms that are never visited? It’s funny, because the one modern monarchy that we can really point to is in England, where, with all the modernity of London, rolling properties still abound from coast to coast. Even Buckingham Palace, as downtown as it is, still seems isolated behind that gate. It’s 10 Downing Street that sits right alongside the curb (how weird is that compared to the White House?) And, Silas’ executive chair replacing a throne? Petitioners allowed to witness cabinet meetings while waiting to have their voices heard? An outside treasurer who can bully the king into continuing a war? Like I posited before, not very monarchy-like.
All of these disparate pieces can make for a great show, and I’m very optimistic that I’ll keep recording Kings after episode two (the make or break episode). I just couldn’t quite understand where democracy ended and monarchy began. And that should really be a key plot point in retelling the story of the kingdom of Judea, no?
Clacked by Aryeh S.
on Mar 25, 2009 @ 14:09 EST5EDT
Haven’t seen this yet but will do so soon and then return to discuss your points :-) At the moment I don’t understand a word you are talking about – just this: watch Deadwood. It’s really *expletive deleted* awesome.
*POST AUTHOR*
My wife loved it too.
But, I’m watching Hot Rod right now…why is Ian McShane in that???
I don’t see this show as a re-telling of the story as much as them using the original as a jumping off point. Also in the second episode, Prosperity, there is further explanation about the “corporate” sponsorship by the Queen’s brother as well as some additional intrigue.
I am enjoying it for the excellent production value as well as the interesting dialogue. Of course Ian McShane could read the phone book and it would be better than most things on TV.
*POST AUTHOR*
Absolutely it’s not, which is the point. Why is THAT how NBC chooses to sell it?
https://www.nbc.com/Kings/about/index.shtml
I agree with JFTA that this is more an “inspired by” tale than anything else.
As far as the political system goes, I don’t think it has to be analogous to either the English or American systems. Its funny to think how much different our the American system would be if the revolution had occurred fifty years earlier or later than it did.
I think its interesting to see how their system works, instead of trying to find a system in our world that’s similar.
Even monarchy’s need the will of the people to survive (Just ask the French). What is the history of his country that led them to wanting a monarchy? Does Democracy exist in their world?
IIRC, the car that the Reverend driving was pretty nice. I think more important than how he got there was the setup for the meeting with David in the first place. If Samuels really is a prophet than he knew he had to be there. (I find it much less likely that the King, despite his power, could get away from court as much as he must have without causing a stir with the Guard). Its telling that the prologue, both the Coronation and the meet with David and Samuels, were not in the earlier script that I read. I think it was more important for the meeting to occur, with its biblical ties that meeting has.
My suggestion is to explore this social/government/economic system instead of trying to to fit it into what we know, at least while you can. I don’t think this show is going to do well enough to stick around, though I do believe NBC is behind it enough to give it a full season run. Hopefully they’ll be able to craft a suitable story.
*POST AUTHOR*
Well sure, if you want to take the easiest route. :-)
No, I definitely agree that it’s important to accept the world that’s been created, instead of trying to apply what we know. I just felt, after watching the premiere, a struggle to understand what they were doing, BECAUSE it’s so hard to separate the two. I figured it was worth putting my questions to the public, to be skewed alive for them! (just kidding).
Oh no, its not the easy way, its more fascinating! (Ok, I was a Government major in college, so I might get all nerdy about this).
All I’m saying if you spend too much time trying to find something similar, you might miss what they’re trying to do (or, hopefully will). What does it mean that the King can be blackmailed by Industry, represented by his brother-in-law? What about his Cabinet, and how far can they oppose the opinions of their King… We know they can to a point, but at the same time we know there’s now a line they dare not cross.
Again, I think at the end of the day the show won’t be able to live up to its potential (As seen this week by the way they wasted Miguel Ferrer), but its going to be a blast watching.
I can’t fault NBC marketing. Everyone’s at least heard of David and Goliath, but how many people actually know the story of Saul and David? I went to Sunday School, and I can’t remember it.
In the second episode *SPOILER* we find out that Silas seized power from the previous tyrant-king of Carmel, Vesper Abadon. It’s unclear whether Carmel was renamed to Gilboa, or is merely part of that territory. I think the implication is that the area has always had monarchic rule. In fact, we don’t know if there are democracies at all in this world.
Silas married William’s sister Rose in exchange for his corporation’s support of his rule. It had nothing to do with taxes or democracy. William literally considers himself a kingmaker, while Silas considers that debt repaid many times over.
I don’t know exactly which council member you are referring to, but remember the minister that nearly rose to his feet in objection before Silas stared him down? The king then has his general arrange for the man’s assassination, to which the general’s only reply is to inquire whether his wife is to killed as well. Open defiance among the king’s advisors is not tolerated, and I think they all know this, even though it is couched as an accident for the public’s sake.
I like that the pomp and ceremony of Shiloh and the court feels American rather than British or other European, complete with suits and skyscrapers. It definitely helps the otherworldly atmosphere.
Samuels’ car had the feel of the wagon wheel breaking in the desert to me. It was clearly a preordained meeting. Driving his own rather nice car showed that this holy man did not surround himself with wealth and temporal power.
The show really should have been on Showtime and not NBC.
*POST AUTHOR*
You think? As much as I enjoy cable net shows, I always feel as if they’re at a disadvantage when it comes to their ability to really tell a yarn. Their seasons are so short, that I sometimes feel that we end up robbed of some good story (like here and there on The Sopranos, for one).
I’d wonder if the ability to spread out over the 15 hours or so of a network show wouldn’t better serve Kings, which is sure to be very sprawling.
Just a show specific thought, as in many cases I’d agree with you.
Kings only has 13 episodes and with the ratings it’s getting on NBC it will be the only episodes. At least SHowtime normally give their shows a chance, something networks don;t do.
NBC seems really committed to the show, so I think we will at least get all 13 shown.
I do think, though, that HBO or Showtime, it would get a longer run. As a counterpoint (because sometimes I love playing Devil’s Advocate with my own arguments, I’m just that crazy), look at Rome.
Rome was originally announced as a 2 year series. But HBO did almost cancel the 2nd season anyway before deciding to go ahead and finish it.
Hmm, well I’d have to disagree with you somewhat on your analysis of what a modern day monarchy would look like. First, I think it’s clear that this meant to be a capitalist monarchy, but that’s not really the oxymoron you think it is. The brother-in-law/CEO who holds such sway with the King is really no different than say, a powerful noble from ages past without whose cooperation and support a king would not be able to function. Monarchs of old were very rarely the tyrannical autocrats you imagine they were – ruling a kingdom in the 15th century (especially a large one) required endless concessions and compromises with powerful interests and rival nobles or clergy members.
Also, as to the lack of the traditions and trappings of monarchy, remember that this is a relatively new kingdom (as was Saul’s in the bible). Silas was born in meager circumstances and came to prominence as a soldier (the Isrealites wanted a King, and God reluctantly gave them one in Saul – we’re being asked to presume something very similar happened in Gilboa).
It’s set in a world in which the ideas of Adam Smith evolved, but the ideas of John Locke never got published. Anyway, I quite like how they are building Gilboa in this show. I even like the fact that Rev. Samuels drives his own car (just as the humble servant Samuel from the bible would never dream of being so self-important as to have the bronze-age equivalent of a chauffer driving him around).
One more thing: another poster above said “As far as the political system goes, I don’t think it has to be analogous to either the English or American systems.”
That’s exactly right, and I think it’s the reason some people are getting confused. They were expecting palaces, dukes, lords and viscounts, and they don’t even hear anyone say “your majesty” (although that one part when Silas throws David against the wall while using the royal “we” was, I thought, an exuisitely well-timed exeption to that rule) Well, that’s all part of the western world’s approach to monarchy, and what we’re seeing in this show is a recreation of the Kingdom of Israel. There was no titled, landed aristocracy in the Kingdom of Israel – there was just the king, his family, the priesthood … and everyone else.
*POST AUTHOR*
Yeah, so that’s where my struggle is. It’s that I can’t imagine what a modern day monarchy should look like. Because, clearly, it’s not meant to look like England, where the seat of rule is elsewhere. It’s hard to grasp where history should end, and the update should begin. However, capitalism and monarchy are not concepts that can co-exist. Monarchies do not believe in market economies and distribution of wealth. In fact, capitalism was only able to arise after the end of feudalism. Noble support of the monarch is very different than corporate sponsorship of the king’s budget. In the latter scenario, the real power lies in the market, not the castle.
While it’s true that the kingdom is young, the Kingdom of Judea was unsurpassed by none when it came to pomp and circumstance. In it’s infant state, prophets roamed the countryside. While those times were not one of organized unity, the Israelites had established leaders, both religious and other, and had communal places of worship, a system of taxation, and industry. By the time they asked God for a king, they lacked for nothing but a unified military and diplomatic face for the nation. Saul and/or Silas may have been born with nothing, but their respective kingdoms were already waiting for them with the trappings of great power and wealth.
I agree that I like what they’re saying by having Samuels be his own man. My complaint is that God and religion play, at best, a secondary role, in a recreation of a kingdom that carried the ark before them as they marched to battle. And, this is besides the point, but Samuel the prophet had countless servants and slaves. He may have been humble, but he didn’t drive his own carriage. He was God’s messenger.
True, Judea had no aristocracy. But, it did have a substantial “upper class” in the form of an overly large royal family, priests, minor prophets, military leaders, etc. This is similar to the early days of any new dynasty in England or France. Aristocrats are just the king’s family a few hundred years down the road. By the time Judea split into two kingdoms, they had more than their fare share of nobility.
I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with the creators’ choosing to update each and every aspect of monarchy, or Judea. Rather, it’s a struggle to understand the mixing of concepts that are incongruent. And, that go completely against their historical reference point. NBC has the liberty to do whatever they want; they just shouldn’t say that it’s supposed to be similar to anything that’s come before.
Aryeh S.: However, capitalism and monarchy are not concepts that can co-exist. Monarchies do not believe in market economies and distribution of wealth. In fact, capitalism was only able to arise after the end of feudalism. Noble support of the monarch is very different than corporate sponsorship of the king’s budget. In the latter scenario, the real power lies in the market, not the castle.
Good points, but allow me to point out that capitalism in its most basic form has always existed, going back to when people traded 2 cows and a daughter for that nice bit of riverside real estate with the well …
However, I get your point. You mean to say that a market economy can’t coexist with a command economy, and in their purest forms, you’re absolutely right. But wouldn’t a compromise be possible? I’d think it would certainly be possible. After all, England did just that for almost 300 years. Imagine an ecomony where free enterprise was encouraged – people could start businesses, earn profits, etc. Add in a progressive, modern tax system, and voila, you have a modern, functioning capitalist monarchy. Rome actually had something quite similar, as well. Just imagine a system very similar to ours, except there with no voting by the people for government positions: every government job was assigned by the monarch himself. There would be no need for a legislature, either, since the monarch was the (ostensible) embodiment of the will of the poeple.
As for God playing a minor role (thus far) in the story, I’d beg to differ. God is playing a pivotal role if you stop and think about it. Everything from the whole butterflies-as-a-crown metaphor to the conversation with Rev. Samuels and Silas in which Samuels says “You are *not* my king.”
Also – as for God playing a pivotal role, the last episode just emphasized this: remember Silas meeting with Samuels on the roadside at night? Silas hits the deer – a message from God that he interprets to say “something beautiful has to die for me to get what I’m asking for” (e.g. ritual sacrifice). Silas then goes back to his mistress and their son, kisses him on the forehead one last time, and ends that relationship with her. In his mind, he’s paying God’s sacrifice: for saving the child’s life, God demands he gives up this whole secret life he’s been living with her. I’d say that’s a pretty pivotal role that God is playing.
*POST AUTHOR*
Fair point. I haven’t seen the last episode yet, so I can’t speak to it.
I guess, by a pivotal role for God, I expected Samuels to be held in higher regard by Silas. It just seems to me as if Silas treats him like that cousin you wish you could be rid of but you feel responsible to look out for and keep around. That kind of took me by surprise.
*POST AUTHOR*
Sorry to say, I’m out. At some points, I just couldn’t wrap my head around the world they’d created. When I could, it just didn’t work for me.
But, enjoy it! I know my wife plans on continuing to!
Ah! You’re really missing out!
Ignore the world and enjoy the character dynamics.