Warning: The following interview with Vikings creator/showrunner Michael Hirst contains massive spoilers from this week's episode, "All His Angels."
This week, Vikings star Travis Fimmel exited the show in epic fashion as Ragnar, traded over to King Ælla, fell to a series of burnings, beatings and poisonous snake bites. Doomed to the vengeful king's viper pit, Ragnar sacrificed himself for the sake of his own legacy and for the future of his people, knowing that Ivar and his brothers would swear revenge and come calling on England for blood.
I spoke to Vikings creator Michael Hirst about the game-changing episode, "All His Angels," and what Ragnar's demise means for the rest of the series. Plus, I got Hirst's thoughts about the death itself, Ragnar's relationship with Ecbert, and why Ivar was, ultimately, Ragnar's choice to succeed him.
IGN: Knowing what we know about the real Ragnar aside, was it always the plan to kill Ragnar off? And in this manner?
Michael Hirst: It was, because I try to stick as close as I can to the historical record. And I knew there was a lot of speculation of social media about whether or not I'd do it, but it was always my intention to do that. Because that's the one thing we really know about the real Ragnar Lothbrok. But the difference was that when I first wrote the [TV series] bible, this was all happening at the end of Season 1. [laughs] When Travis [Fimmel] first joined the show, which was fairly close to when we started shooting, all he got were the first two scripts and the initial bible that told him he would die at the end of episode 10. Obviously, as soon as we got into the show and I saw what we had and what the actors brought, that all changed and opened up. But I was going to stick as closely as I could to the historical record, however harsh that historical record was at times, because it was important to me to be grounded in reality.
IGN: Obviously the show is called "Vikings" and not "Ragnar" so the story can go on without him, but what's the course now? Does the tone of the series change with him now gone? Will we get the Great Heathen Army?
Hirst: Sure, that's coming most definitely. I was clear from the start -- I was clear with History and I was clear in all the interviews I did -- that this was the story of Ragnar and his sons. And at least two of his sons, Ivar the Boneless and Bjorn, did become more famous than Ragnar. So I was always anxious to move onto them. And I have to say that we've now shot nearly 25 episodes after Ragnar's death and so we're into different worlds. The whole saga has pushed on. Although Ragnar is dead, of course he never disappears. He lives on through his influence, through his dreams and ambitions that his sons now carry. Expanding out and colonizing parts of the world. But he also lives on through his sons and so he never totally goes away. You know, which I think is true of life. And I don't think the tone changes at all. We have these young guys now who've come in and they're wonderful, but we still have the anchor of Floki and Lagertha. We still have continuity and continuity is very important I think on a show like this.
Travis Fimmel as Ragnar in "All His Angels."
Hirst: Another thing I think is important is that this isn't fantasy. In fantasy nobody gets older and very few people die. And if they do die, they can come back to life sometimes. This is a show about real people and so people do get older. If you were to go back and look at how Ragnar looked in that first season, which I've done recently, you'll be shocked and amazed. He just looked so young. He looked so fresh-faced. Then you look at what he'd become. His experiences were written in his face and Travis did a marvelous job at carrying that weight, and the makeup department worked wonders, but he looked like an older man who'd we'd followed on an incredible journey. We have children who grow up and people who get older and die and I'm very proud of the fact that it's not fantasy. That it's real and is about real events. Because these events affected the world. This death is hugely important, I know. Travis and I spent a long time talking about this episode. At one stage, I asked him "Does it bother you that you're going to die?" and he said "No, mate," you know because he's a cheery Aussie. "No, mate. It'll be fine." But actually, when it came to it he was deeply committed and deeply involved in the script and how it would all play out. The day that the scene was shot where he was in the cage over the pit, it was an extraordinary day for all of us. It was mid-winter in Ireland. It was freezing cold and pouring rain. He was up in the cage and then got dropped into the pit. Again, we tried to be as real as we can and everyone knew that it was an extraordinary moment.
IGN: The moments that Ragnar had with Ecbert in this episode, and in last week's episode too, were incredible. Their Athelstan connection aside, what is it that drives this unlikely bond between them?
Hirst: Firstly, I always felt that both of these episode, 14 and 15, should really be shown together. They're partnered. They're both about the death of Ragnar. It's really one extended episode. Ragnar and Ecbert felt an affinity that kind of developed as I wrote the show and as I discovered the characters. Of course, when we cast Linus [Roache], who is a great actor, we saw that the two actors were very different because Travis is a natural, but they both also felt an affinity. So that gave me the opportunity to explore the relationship between them and find the things they had in common - as well as their differences. They're very different human beings and they have a very different attitude towards ruling. Ragnar doesn't like being a king while Ecbert is a consummate ruler. And yet they understood what it took to rule. The compromises, even the death of the soul in some ways. By exercising power, you're in danger of losing your soul and becoming an inhuman character. There was a great scene between then, a lot earlier on in the show, where the two of them were just laughing, just sitting together and wondering if they were good or bad and they were laughing at it. So in a very deep sense, they understood each other.
Hirst: I think they both found in the other one something profound and something enviable. Ecbert, despite his power and despite his ability to manipulate situations found something noble in Ragnar. Which is why he had to abandon his kingly robes and don Athelstan's monkish robes and bear witness at Ragnar's death. He had to bear witness to someone who he felt was noble going to his death in a brave manner. And in subsequent episodes, this will have a big impact on how Ecbert himself will face death and so on. And there's something about Ecbert that amused Ragnar. He interested and fascinated Ragnar. The two of them had this deep relationship in spite of their differences and it was incredible for me to play with that. I just thought that the scenes between them in last week's episode, in 14, were incredbile and very playful and powerful. And intellectually interesting as well. The three of us sat down and discussed these scenes at length and the two of them went off even to rehearse them because they wanted to get it right. They wanted to do justice to the relationship. It's unusual to do in TV drama because you don't usually get time to rehearse. I think personally, those two episode were two of the best things I've ever written in TV.
IGN: Right before his death, Ragnar doubled down on the Norse gods and made a big crowing speech about Valhalla and the gods. We know he doesn't buy into any of that anymore so that was all just for show, right?
Hirst: Exactly. He says to Ecbert that his death will be an opportunity to speak about revenge and the gods and Valhalla and Ecbert says "Well, you don't believe in that anymore" and Ragnar says "Yes, but my sons do and my people do." So it's part of the immense bravery of Ragnar that he speaks things directly to his sons that he himself no longer believes. The irony, the deepest irony, is that the only way for a viking to get into Valhalla is to die bravely and he's doing that. He's dying with supreme bravery, refusing to be broken by Ælla. King Ælla has tried desperately to break him, to humiliate him, and he fails. Ragnar dies triumphantly and so he is going to Valhalla. Even though he's denounced the gods in front of Ecbert, he is in fact doing what a good viking should do.
IGN: What was it that made Ragnar come around to Ivar? Their final words involved Ragnar telling Ivar that he was his choice to lead.
Hirst: Following that storyline, from back when Ragnar wanted to leave Ivar outside to die, in a very traditional viking way where you don't have any sympathy for the weak, to now as Ragnar sees that Ivar has a lot of anger about his condition, Ragnar knows that he can use that anger and channel that anger and be very very clever. Ragnar values intelligence. It's what's made him a different viking from all the cliched vikings on TV or in movies. Ragnar himself is an intelligent guy and he sees some of those same qualities in Ivar. He even sees that Ivar has overcome a lot of obstacles simply by using the power of thought. His intelligence. He's realized that Ivar in some ways might be the future for the vikings. They all know that there's an epic struggle between the pagan gods and the Christian gods and Ragnar has chosen to invest in Ivar. On a human level, he wanted to spend time with Ivar and prepare him for the years ahead. He wanted to take him to England so he could see and meet his enemy, all while spending time with him. Just on a human level, it's a moving journey. It feels very much like a saga. We never lose sight of the fact that this is all a family drama.
Matt Fowler is a writer for IGN and a member of the Television Critics Association (TCA). Follow him on Twitter at @TheMattFowler and Facebook at http://ift.tt/2aJ67FB.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire