 |
| Andrew Lincoln |
Once again we find ourselves in the midst of October and the return of a month full of potential scariness. The adrenaline is pumping and we eagerly seek out our favorite films that at the core element is meant to scare us. October is often maligned as the antidote to those who hate Christmas, though even that is too rote and cliche. Instead, it is a month meant to give into our fears and enjoy a good scare. In many ways, the Walking Dead feels like it was stemmed from this concept of October being a month of fear. In fact, that could probably explain why it has lasted four seasons now.
For those who don't remember, I am someone who has chronicled my understanding of zombie culture through the debut episodes of the Walking Dead every season. I stared doing it for Divergence Magazine at Cypress College and have continued on this blog ever since. While it is a critique of the episodes in loosest terms, it is also just the moment when I take a look at my life and analyze my opinions on zombies. In fact, with the Walking Dead, it almost seems like an apropos jumping off point.
Before I dive too much further, let me share the general feelings: I do not understand the culture in the slightest. To me, zombies are the lowbrow, cheap knock-offs of Frankenstein that roam the earth and serve little conflict besides eating you. To me, this doesn't make for compelling narrative, not necessarily because you are facing a villain with undistinguished personality but more because there is no great way to complete an ending. If the protagonist wins, there are still zombies somewhere to cause conflict again. If the zombies win, well, that was an uninspired waste of time.
There have been few exceptions, including Night of the Living Dead and Shaun of the Dead, which look at the concepts from an intriguing angle. Even this year's Warm Bodies and last year's ParaNorman managed to humanize these characters in ways that, while questionable to the zombie mechanics, made for compelling storytelling. Still, zombies in general make for a cheap thrill that don't have any fulfilling conclusion. Also, it makes it hard to have any sympathy whatsoever for the protagonists. If I needed to be scared by a mysterious being, I will just consult one of the brilliant monster movies, which have the same impact as zombies, but are more finite in their conclusiveness.
 |
| Left to right: Chandler Riggs and Lincoln |
My goal is to find more substance beyond the general understanding. Last year was a major breakthrough, though after the initial episode, I stopped watching the show. When we pick up with "30 Days without an Accident," things are still as they ever were. Rick Grimes (Andrew Lincoln) is leading a group of people to safety in their hideout in an abandoned high security building. He's started a farm and there's a bunch of children, including some of his own, that live as close to normal lives as they can. All the while, the zombies outside keep banging at the gate only to get killed when the patrons inside stab them with a stake.
For the most part, the beginning half does feel like place setting for later on. Everyone seems to talk vaguely about their mortality and desire for a better life. It somehow has turned into a western but instead of barren desert, they are forced to seek refuge in buildings away from death, which would be zombies as opposed to the heat and dehydration. It is a dangerous world and with an enormous cast, there is very little time wasted on one performance. In fact, that is probably the show's biggest strengths. The performances may be a different story, but the show has evolved nicely from just being about Grimes to being about a community.
The notable plots this week include most notably Grimes coming to terms with a woman that he finds in the woods. She wants to seek refuge, but eventually goes ballistic and kills herself. It bums Grime out and is forced to seek condolence from an old guy that lives at the high security place. This is the show's strength. While my lack of familiarity with the series outside of eight episodes may seem detrimental, it does seem interesting to check in and see how Grimes has gone from rogue hero to father and sympathetic figure. I feel like the show's attempt at drama is really strong and while I feel that maybe it would get monotonous to have those moments week-to-week, it is nice in small doses.
The more zombie-centric plot is also solid. A bunch of people go in search of food at an abandoned supermarket. After a few accidents, they attract some unwanted visitors who kill one of them and leads to the episode's version of high intense moments. Everyone is on the verge of dying and all that needs to be done is some gruesome kills.
One of the other reasons that zombies aren't that interesting is that there's only so many ways to skin a cat. While having them fall through the ceiling seems ingenious, there is this strong sense that it was the extent of their success as a plot point. It was also a little cliche and banal when the big attack was hinted at before an act break. There isn't necessarily anything terrible about this, but with the slow pacing and character build-up, it seemed like something that needed more attention immediately. True, it built suspense, but the payoff wasn't worthwhile. That is, unless shooting, stabbing, and stomping on their heads in considered entertaining. All in graphic form.
In the end, I am reminded of this graph that I found in my research between the last post and this one:
I kept track of this formula throughout the episode and while it isn't entirely accurate, there is a good chunk of it where I was left wondering why this show managed to make it to four seasons. While there is an emotional core that I respect building in the show, there isn't an end goal in sight. All they are doing is defending themselves against zombies. The show will either end abruptly, or the finale will lack momentum. Zombies may present a great way to keep a series going, especially one that could theoretically keep going forever, but at the same time, unless they pull some wild cards, they are stuck with the situation for good. It also makes it hard to empathize with a single character as a result because someone is going to die at the hands of a zombie and life goes on. As a girl said in this episode "I've stopped crying." It almost feels like this is a meta commentary on the perception that the audience is having. They have stopped caring on that deep core because things could change at any point.
It is also interesting that the Walking Dead could be perceived as the turning point for AMC. Of the flagship shows, Breaking Bad and Mad Men both are more character and plot driven. While the Walking Dead shares similar cinematic qualities, it is more about the thrill and the zombie death scenes. However, it is also way more lowbrow and not requiring consistency in order to enjoy the moments that are being sold. In a way, that explains AMC's odd choices in programming, as they branch into comedy (Small Town Security) and comic books (Comic Book Men). It isn't about dramatic prestige necessarily anymore. In fact, the Walking Dead is quickly becoming AMC's only life line for sustainability. That would mean that I am probably going to have to do this several more times.
"30 Days without an Accident" doesn't necessarily sway my vote on overall appeal of zombies, though this may be one of the stronger episodes that I have seen from my series. We get a sense of characters and I get a better sense of the community building and trying to survive. I feel like they are quickly turning people from sympathetic into clinical killers, as seen in the moments when a teacher tells children to suck it up and fight with knives. It is the cruel reality of an apocalyptic universe, but at the same time, I feel like it is only making the show one big zombie fest.
 |
| Scene from ParaNorman |
Onto the main point of this series: do I understand zombies? What is more impressive is that unlike last year, I had a plethora of resources to choose from, including varying degrees of opinion on their rise in popularity. It has far evolved from the belief that it is a representation of America's struggle with England during the Revolutionary War. It seems ridiculous that it is still a problem, though a strong subconscious start. In fact, the popularity has probably grown even more. With films like ParaNorman, Warm Bodies, and World War Z, they still walk among us for better or worse.
My research started at IGN where I read a story called "Two Conflicting Theories on Why Zombies Are So Popular." It is the most visceral of my sources, as it was reasoned to be about morose fascination that people have. The first was with "Fascination with Abomination" in which it turns into a sympathetic attempt to humanize zombies. The other was "An Excuse for Bloodshed," which is more self explanatory. Each definitely contribute to the psyche of audiences who watch the show, notably because while the zombies as a whole remain faceless, they do stem from the human species, which makes it harder to not believe that they were at some point a reasonable person. Bloodshed reflects more of a repression that humans have of not being able to kill. By making something that can be killed without emotion (while conflicting with the first theory), it releases our sickest desires and almost serves as catharsis.
In this video from DNews, things become deeper. While at the core, it is the ability to kill a human being without emotional hang-ups, it has more psychological reasoning here. Compared to the popularity of vampires during the Black Plague in which the spread of famine lead to using the blood suckers as a scapegoat, zombies are representatives of tragedy. Sources cited claim that economic downturn and feeling useless are both factors. In this case, zombies work as a community and feel unaccepted by those around them. There is a sense of isolation in their own community that makes things begin to click better.
The biggest, most revelatory source that I have dug up is this video in which John Vervaeke shares a deeper understanding:
The brilliance of the video stems from the idea that it psychologically connects with the human. In a way, we are all zombies in some format or another. Zombies are the ideal life. We long to be part of a community and acceptance. We long to have lack of self-awareness. In the case of zombies, they are nomadic creatures that have no home and are killed by anyone who steps in their way. Their nonexistence reflects an emotionally dead form of the human being that longs to be rejuvenated. True, it may come from the fear of not being understood and the spread of famine and the apocalypse, but at the core, zombies are popular because they are relative. In an economic downturn, it feels more prevalent because that is how many feel.
In closing, I am still not a fan of zombies. It is arguable that I will never be, though that has been proven wrong. There is a collective group of films with them as central plot points that I really enjoy. However, as a whole, I feel like they serve little purpose beyond easy and heartless kills. We don't need to understand them and thus we can be monsters without any of the guilt.
I stand that zombies don't make for interesting narrative villains as much as Frankenstein or any monsters really. Where there is potential for an end game in several other categories, zombies don't have that. Survival is futile and I don't feel like it makes for strong suspense. What separates zombies from Frankenstein (yes, I am aware that Frankenstein is the creator and that his monster is the actual iconography, but the wording is just too clunky to repeat)? They are both dead tissue brought back to life, but Frankenstein in the general sense was created by humans playing God. That alone is compelling. Zombies just feel like afterthoughts thrown back onto the earth, and the fact that they could spread in massive numbers only makes it harder to accept.
However, the Walking Dead hasn't quite gotten a hold on me just yet. I am more impressed that it has survived (no pun intended) this long. Maybe there is more of an emotional core than I give it credit for. I did find a lot of the episode to have a human element worthy of consideration, but even in terms of narration, it is hard for me to really get into any of the characters. The deaths that were in this episode, even the very brief one, didn't hold any emotional punch for me. That alone may be the fault of the show, or the zombie concept in general. See you next year.
Comments
Post a Comment