![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Dec. 14th, 2015 02:36 amThe Walking Dead isn't precisely subtext free in seasons 1 and 2, but it's mostly blunt and tired stuff. The guy who thinks zombies should always be preemptively killed and that no outsider can be trusted is Shane, who we find out is willing to murder innocents not only to survive but to get the woman (and children) he wants. (Rick's behavior at Alexandria is supposed to make us think of Shane as well as the Governor and Gareth). You could say the message is that fear corrupts, but he's presented as glib, authoritarian and misogynist from pretty much the first. He does get worse as he goes, but part of that's that it takes a while for Lori to make it clear that she's truly chosen Rick - and is going to treat her child as his, either way. There should be a phrase for the (very weak) screenwriting tactic of making the holder of a position the writer wishes to condemn deplorable in various other ways. Vice bundling? Scale-stomping? Anyway, the first sign they're serious about this difference in perspectives is the 2 finale, where Rick announces he's assumed dictatorship over the group for its own good. Circumstances have started to convince him Shane was right. So the final shot, our first sight of the prison, is certainly loaded.
An intersting thing about the premise is that it seems designed to make people who would normally agree with the implied positions of the creators situationally reject them: when civilization has fallen, there's hardly any food left, and the few sustainably fortifiable positions are occupied by terrified, isolated groups of people who have done terrible things just to survive ... Then maybe yeah, don't trust anyone, don't take chances, impose martial law and the death penalty, consider preemptive strikes on those who look murderous. The vast majority of the audience thinks this - so many and so much so that the series again and again sets these assumptions up to take a fall but the audience is never shaken. Maybe at best admits a head vs. heart division, where the still nice characters are liked better but deemed unworthy of leadership. In Gimple's hands, this becomes the engine driving things - our continued, if uneasy, support for the "hard" line is firmly assumed, and is constantly made to seem to be correct from its own perspective, since scenarios keep popping up where the minimal trust route seems to pay off and the sympathy one seems to fail. But there's always an asterisk to each: unexpected consequences of the one crop up, as well as ameliorative hints about the other. Which aren't quite highlighted or certain - and are often muddied by Things Going Wrong in either case, where just how they go wrong seems initially to entirely defy prediction. But looked at closely, bad decisions made out of fear ( often on the part of OTHER people - villains - acting on the same logic as a misguided portion of the heroes) are always tieable to the random-seeming catastrophes occurring in their wakes, whereas the bad that follows from trying to be good really is bad luck, or follows from not being good ENOUGH.
I guess a bit of this happens in 2. Hershel's been having Otis put the zombies in the barn, which fits his denial of what's happening - denial, too, can be a bad reaction to fear, like with Alexandria later. Bush pre-9/11, say. Hershel's way has prevented anyone from knowing that the girl is dead, and has created an unnecessary danger. But Shane's way is worse, since he lets them all out, which could have killed someone. And plus he murdered Otis, who might have cleared up the mystery for them in a less sickening and risky way had he lived. Hershel's demotalization is so total he engages in near-suicidal behavior that nearly gets others killed too - in fact does so, since it brings them into conflict with another group who they eventually kill a bunch of. His denial was a big part of that, but that wasn't true good, which keeps its eyes open. And as with Alexandria later, the big fuckups come from the overreactors, not the under.
Or are they equally bad? Yes, the abandonment of the red poncho man (a Schindler's List allusion?) is endangerment by omission, which Hershel's actions amount to - he does what the Governor does later, sequester a zombie loved one, but in a different fashion. And of course he keeps trying to kick out Rick's group, which his dsughter points out is against his supposed Christian principle of helping all others. Maybe not so dumb, then?
I can't remember what brings the big herd, at the end. Gunshots? Or is the point thst they could have fortified everything etc. if not at odds for so long because of the big, stupid mistakes of Hershel and Shane?
Krugman's use of the zombie concept - is that at play here? Shane comes back after arick kills him, and is killed by Walt - but in a sense comes back AS Rick, because what his resurrection proves changes leads Rick to adopt some of his mindset: if the threat can NEVER be avoided, then such measures may be required after all. I guess the parentage auestion also brsts on this? Who will shape the next generation's views, or who will manage to bring back humanity, the party of (informed) trust or that of fear? But once Rick joins the latter...
So I guess it's meaningful thst, annoying as it makes her, Lori vacillates so much. Means th deciding factor will be one of the dudes.
Glenn does get identified with a willingness to tust strsngers right away, too. And the word "hope" is brought up about him from the first. Morgan's very minimal trust is also emphasized, and connected to his inability to kill his wife, whereas Rick kills the grandmotherly zombie (and the child one) in mercy-killing fashion. Facing it. The blankets over the windows, the inabikity to move on - Morgan isn't fscing it, which is what we find out gets his son killed, since 1) the son follows his father's example and wont kill his mother, 2) Morgan let her live to kill him in the first place. The son covers his esrs when Morgan shoots, too. Head in the sand. Vs. hero Rick riding into town on his horse? Or is thst sbout how traditional notions of heroism can't apoly here? Or maybe about how xploiting animals can't. The deer incident in 2 ... Was the show doing its animal thing already?
Imprisoning Merle becoms practically a desth sentence, too, and ends uo making him worse, though the show orsts him as ridiculously bad from the start. Perhaps leaving him on the rooftop was the problem? Out of sight, out of mind. A Guantanamo kind of thing? No due process? I dunno.
Season 2 is deifnitely already doing th standing army thing, with the bag of guns and Dale vs. Shane.
Andrea sides with the Governor because she wants safety after being in the wikdernss for so long, so that fits. And her loss of her sister makes her first suicidal, then homicidal, so. Life is shown to be worth living becsuse of the deer, for Rick/Lori/Carl - and the deer and children are thus associated, as life retune, is anundant in nature etc. Whereas Andrea changes her mind because ... Of what, power? Guns? She has sex with Shane after they kill zombies, I think?
So her arc makes sense. Does Lori's?
An intersting thing about the premise is that it seems designed to make people who would normally agree with the implied positions of the creators situationally reject them: when civilization has fallen, there's hardly any food left, and the few sustainably fortifiable positions are occupied by terrified, isolated groups of people who have done terrible things just to survive ... Then maybe yeah, don't trust anyone, don't take chances, impose martial law and the death penalty, consider preemptive strikes on those who look murderous. The vast majority of the audience thinks this - so many and so much so that the series again and again sets these assumptions up to take a fall but the audience is never shaken. Maybe at best admits a head vs. heart division, where the still nice characters are liked better but deemed unworthy of leadership. In Gimple's hands, this becomes the engine driving things - our continued, if uneasy, support for the "hard" line is firmly assumed, and is constantly made to seem to be correct from its own perspective, since scenarios keep popping up where the minimal trust route seems to pay off and the sympathy one seems to fail. But there's always an asterisk to each: unexpected consequences of the one crop up, as well as ameliorative hints about the other. Which aren't quite highlighted or certain - and are often muddied by Things Going Wrong in either case, where just how they go wrong seems initially to entirely defy prediction. But looked at closely, bad decisions made out of fear ( often on the part of OTHER people - villains - acting on the same logic as a misguided portion of the heroes) are always tieable to the random-seeming catastrophes occurring in their wakes, whereas the bad that follows from trying to be good really is bad luck, or follows from not being good ENOUGH.
I guess a bit of this happens in 2. Hershel's been having Otis put the zombies in the barn, which fits his denial of what's happening - denial, too, can be a bad reaction to fear, like with Alexandria later. Bush pre-9/11, say. Hershel's way has prevented anyone from knowing that the girl is dead, and has created an unnecessary danger. But Shane's way is worse, since he lets them all out, which could have killed someone. And plus he murdered Otis, who might have cleared up the mystery for them in a less sickening and risky way had he lived. Hershel's demotalization is so total he engages in near-suicidal behavior that nearly gets others killed too - in fact does so, since it brings them into conflict with another group who they eventually kill a bunch of. His denial was a big part of that, but that wasn't true good, which keeps its eyes open. And as with Alexandria later, the big fuckups come from the overreactors, not the under.
Or are they equally bad? Yes, the abandonment of the red poncho man (a Schindler's List allusion?) is endangerment by omission, which Hershel's actions amount to - he does what the Governor does later, sequester a zombie loved one, but in a different fashion. And of course he keeps trying to kick out Rick's group, which his dsughter points out is against his supposed Christian principle of helping all others. Maybe not so dumb, then?
I can't remember what brings the big herd, at the end. Gunshots? Or is the point thst they could have fortified everything etc. if not at odds for so long because of the big, stupid mistakes of Hershel and Shane?
Krugman's use of the zombie concept - is that at play here? Shane comes back after arick kills him, and is killed by Walt - but in a sense comes back AS Rick, because what his resurrection proves changes leads Rick to adopt some of his mindset: if the threat can NEVER be avoided, then such measures may be required after all. I guess the parentage auestion also brsts on this? Who will shape the next generation's views, or who will manage to bring back humanity, the party of (informed) trust or that of fear? But once Rick joins the latter...
So I guess it's meaningful thst, annoying as it makes her, Lori vacillates so much. Means th deciding factor will be one of the dudes.
Glenn does get identified with a willingness to tust strsngers right away, too. And the word "hope" is brought up about him from the first. Morgan's very minimal trust is also emphasized, and connected to his inability to kill his wife, whereas Rick kills the grandmotherly zombie (and the child one) in mercy-killing fashion. Facing it. The blankets over the windows, the inabikity to move on - Morgan isn't fscing it, which is what we find out gets his son killed, since 1) the son follows his father's example and wont kill his mother, 2) Morgan let her live to kill him in the first place. The son covers his esrs when Morgan shoots, too. Head in the sand. Vs. hero Rick riding into town on his horse? Or is thst sbout how traditional notions of heroism can't apoly here? Or maybe about how xploiting animals can't. The deer incident in 2 ... Was the show doing its animal thing already?
Imprisoning Merle becoms practically a desth sentence, too, and ends uo making him worse, though the show orsts him as ridiculously bad from the start. Perhaps leaving him on the rooftop was the problem? Out of sight, out of mind. A Guantanamo kind of thing? No due process? I dunno.
Season 2 is deifnitely already doing th standing army thing, with the bag of guns and Dale vs. Shane.
Andrea sides with the Governor because she wants safety after being in the wikdernss for so long, so that fits. And her loss of her sister makes her first suicidal, then homicidal, so. Life is shown to be worth living becsuse of the deer, for Rick/Lori/Carl - and the deer and children are thus associated, as life retune, is anundant in nature etc. Whereas Andrea changes her mind because ... Of what, power? Guns? She has sex with Shane after they kill zombies, I think?
So her arc makes sense. Does Lori's?
