I've been MIA all through the festivities this year because I've been very busy with a couple of things, but also because I'm just not really in the horror movie vibe right now (Sacrilege!). I've lurked and read a lot of the (great) reviews and I've been impressed with the quality and quantity of everybody's output here, but as I see the little photographs of bloody faces, ghouls, knives etc. flow past day by day on the site I realize that I'm not really in the "horror movie" headspace right now.
But then I discovered The Walking Dead, just this week, and now, having watched the entire series in two days, I'm so excited about what I've seen that I wanted to come back here and mention it. (I understand there's a blogger website created by enthusiastic and smart horror fans...) With one or two small niggling issues, I'm totally sold on the series and I have a couple of meager observations:
First of all, I'm not going to summarize or "critique" the various elements in Walking Dead, because, well, boring, right? I could go through the scenes, the performances, the excellent moments, the complex plotting, the various homages to the rich tradition of zombie stories. (I could even pull out little framegrabs and give them witty captions like "This guy's had enough lunch" or whatever.) But there's plenty of that kind of thing all over the web and I don't think anybody needs me to talk about Lori's character development or whether Rick made the right decision or whatever.
What's vastly more interesting to me is the larger questions of horror storytelling. AMC (creators of Mad Men and Breaking Bad) (obviously) put Frank Darabont in charge of this, and really, what's provided here is exactly the antidote to my "horror fatigue" that I was discussing above. The classic, vanilla "zombie apocalypse" that occurs here is not any different than any other ZA (including classic Romero but also Zombieland). Romero's movies invented a storytelling format that's been copied by everyone else (including the makers of 28 Days Later and other near-beer variations on the idea), but they also invented the ZA, which is pretty much a constant through all zombie stories (since zombies = zombie apocalypse, which has been demonstrated elsewhere on Horrorthon).
What's different here is the post-Sopranos long-form cable-tv storytelling mode, and this is a seismic shift. Gangster movies were revolutionized by The Godfather, but even The Godfather is dwarfed by The Sopranos, which was the first example of what I'm calling a new kind of storytelling that isn't really movies or television but has more to do with long-form novels or book series. The Walking Dead uses the Zombie Apocalypse as a setting for its story (not as the story itself), so that the Achilles' Heel of horror -- inferior characterizations and drama -- is eliminated. It's not that the writing/acting/directing is suddenly at Kubrick levels or anything like that: it's simply the format itself that allows for something new that can't be done on a movie screen.
I'm not knowledgeable enough about zombie lore to properly contextualize The Walking Dead against the backdrop of the dozens and dozens of zombie movies and comics and TV shows that are out there. Nevertheless, for me, this series was like the perfect antidote to "horror fatigue," because that part of me that's so damn tired of putting up with the chronic inadequacies of horror (bad characters, bad acting, feeble human story) was so invigorated and refreshed by this series. It took forty years to get from The Public Enemy (where James Cagney defined the movie gangster) to The Godfather (which finally brought novelistic depth to the idea); it took about the same amount of time to get from Romero's prototypes and templates to The Walking Dead's far richer exploration of the idea.
So, sorry I missed Horrorthon this year, but (as I'm saying) I got a little burned out, and this wonderful AMC series was just what the doctor ordered. (Anyone who wants to talk at length about the series can meet me on the comment page.)
12 comments:
I loved the first season and own 3 of the graphic novels but I haven't started Season 2 yet. I trust it holds up? I had outrageous expectations for The Walking Dead series because of the possibility of seeing the zombie apocolypse unfold over an extended period of time rather than the same 2 hour frozen moment (which 99% of the time addresses the initial outbreak and then stops at the "zombies are everywhere" stage). I can't believe it but Season 1 actually lived up to my expectations. I hope the story reaches a satisfying conclusion or resolution to the post zombie world.
I absolutely love Breaking Bad, Dexter, Six Feet Under, the whole "new kind of storytelling that isn't really movies or television but has more to do with long-form novels or book series" that you observed. Awesome post Jordan!
JPX - you have GOT to watch this show.
I recently discovered The Walking Dead as well. I just finished episode 4 of season 2, and I began the series with mixed feelings. The characters were the biggest issue for me, it took me until the end of season 1/beginning of 2 to take notice of them because I initially found most of them to be dull, whiny, or both. Though, my outlook is quickly changing as the character’s motives, demons, and personalities start to trickle through (particularly Shane, I’m still thinking about a certain something he did, which said so much about who he is). Anyway, the problem was that I kept comparing the walking Dead to Lost (they share many themes), and as any of us who have watched Lost know, the character development isamazing, one of or the best I ever seen. By comparing the characters from the two shows, I kept finding myself thinking that The Walking Dead was the “Lesser Lost.” As I said, this is changing and I’m becoming increasingly invested in the characters.
Slight Spoilers below
Now just to nitpick a little bit, it appears that they have been changing zombie rules, unless I’m missing something, and please tell me if I am. In season 1 the zombies can smell humans, forcing them to cover themselves in zombie guts in one scene; however, in season 2 if the zombies can’t see or hear them, they can’t find them (example: when they are hiding under the vehicles and a horde of zombies walk by them in season 2). Another rule break I noticed is that the zombies move very slowly in season 1, but in season 2 they are shown running during the scene at the school with Otis and Shane. I could accept that the zombies might start to move quicker from an evolutionary standpoint because if there are less people (less food)then they might need to adapt in order to survive. However, this goes against the decreased or loss of sense of smell. I also am surprised that Shane didn’t come back and say, “Holy shit! they can run now.” These things just crossed my mind, but it doesn’t make the show any less good.
Final thoughts for the moment…my favorite scene so far was Carl and the deer…so powerful, and I can’t
wait to start watching this at the Alamo Drafthouse, they play new episodes every week.
JSP, I have been hassling JPX about watching the Walking Dead, and especially Dexter. I love how each season reveals another layer of Dexter, and the way we get to watch him evolve. I just can't wait to see how he'll end up by the end of the series.
Yeah! Horrorthon comes through again.
The rules changing: I'm not sure. Since the series is hitting all the Zombie Apocalypse marks (no explanations etc.) I don't really mind those ambiguities (or the narrative time ambiguities that have been pointed out elsewhere). I think the "hiding under the car" thing is fine, since barrelling through a thick crowd of Zombies like Rick and Glen would draw their attention more than a faint unplacable aroma from under the cars.
I was going nuts trying to identify two of the actors, since they looked so familiar, and I finally gave up and looked on IMDB. Andrew Lincoln (Rick) is the guy who spends Love Actually nursing his secret crush on Keira Knightley (and holds up the cards to her); Andrea, the blonde blue-eyed woman whose sister died, is the cop from Silent Hill.
The only "zombie rule" I care about is "all the dead rise" ("Romero Rules") vs. "only zombie-bite victims rise" (Zack Snyder, etc.) So far it looks like they're sticking with Zack Snyder rules, which is a little bit more reasonable, but which creates a problem of why so many zombies are so intact, since according to the Snyder rules, every Zombie was bitten by a zombie but not eaten, which seems unlikely.
Johnny, Season 2 is every bit as good as Season 1, but it's conspicuously devoid of the kind of super-expensive set-piece sequences that are all through the first season.
I was thinking about LOST a lot, too, while watching. I think I actually prefer the Walking Dead approach since yes, the characters are thinner and less well-defined, but their interactions aren't all clogged up with hyperbole, hinted secrets, mysticism, and foreshadowing as happened all the time on LOST.
Don't get me wrong: I love LOST. But it's a relief not to have all the characters' conversations turn into abstract, foreboding treatises on "faith vs. reason"/"who is the one"/"this is my destiny" the way the LOST characters' conversations did.
I love this series, Tony and I have watched avidly since it first broke last season. We are currently caught up and waiting for the second half of season 2 which will begin airing in February. Thanks so much for covering this Jordan, you were missed this October and it was a welcomed sight to see your post.
Dexter is fantastic, he's getting rather sloppy this season so it's evident there will be a drastic slip at some point. I'm betting on Deb to finally finger him.
Julie has a friend who figured it would be Dex vs. Deb in the end.
I read a stack of The Walking Dead comic books at some point, but I was in a zombie apocalypse burnout phase and decided not to pursue it (the writer writes Invicible, another of my favorite titles). I know I will have to catch up on the show sometime, too many people have recommended it. Plus I'm over that burnout phase.
(I was specifically burnt out on the apocalypse part, too.)
I have to catch up on Dexter (we ditched cable when the John Lithgow season ended), love Six Feet Under to pieces. I think the new Battlestar Galactica qualifies.
I keep saying that I want the BBC to do the Harry Potter books in long form style someday, like a miniseries for each book. Those books deserve better.
Julie and I are double Netflixing Mad Men and Breaking Bad, but Mad Men is winning.
It's funny how we've come so far in the ZA narrative that we can now label a particular plot line "vanilla." I remember the first time I saw Night of the Living Dead and realized that you could omit the zombies and have a really solid story line with great characters, forming alliances, back-stabbing, etc.
I have yet to see more zombie movies but I feel that Walking Dead has the near-perfect balance of gore and character-building.
Excellent. We've needed a Walking Dead discussion for a while now. I really dug the first season for exactly the reasons that you guys have already mentioned. It's so key to be able to extend a story like ZA and explore what happens next. "How far do they get in that helicopter at the end of Dawn?" Well, now we know.
That said, I guess I'm alone in starting to grow tired of certain problems this season. There were a few in the first (namely, why camping out in tents would be a good idea during a ZA). But this season, it seems every episode contains behavior that is so patently foolish as to kind of ruin my suspension of disbelief. Lowering the Asian kid down into that well was a borderline shark jumping moment for me (in an episode kind of full of stupidity). There's also a problem of pacing that the show needs to get a hold of. I'm not sure if it's a budget thing, but there's just way too much slow walking around in the forest this season.
Still, it's got enough going for it for now to keep me coming back. Too bad the premiere of Hell on Wheels was so craptastic--I was hoping that would be a great two-fer. (Actually, I did watch the second ep of HoW, and it was much improved, so maybe)
After my little rant there, I was curious if anything had changed with the writers or budget or anything this season, and I found this Hollywood Reporter article.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/walking-dead-what-happened-fired-221449
Basically, they fired Darabont before Season 2 and slashed the budget. The suits offered up helpful suggestions to save money:
"AMC had its own ideas about how to make the show more cheaply. The show shoots for eight days per episode, and the network suggested that half should be indoors. "Four days inside and four days out? That's not Walking Dead," says this insider. "This is not a show that takes place around the dinner table." That was just one of what this person describes as "silly notes" from AMC. Couldn't the audience hear the zombies sometimes and not see them, to save on makeup?"
A lot of people have complaints, and a lot of those complaints are about either character inconsistency or character stupidity.
But I don't really agree with any of the complaints, or, rather, those elements don't bother me, because I actually think that if you took them out the show wouldn't be as good. The realism of the show is dependent on the characters not really doing things the way we, at home drinking a beer watching, would do them, but the way they would actually happen in the ZA.
I'm reminded of Barbara in Night of the Living Dead, who becomes catatonically stupid and useless almost immediately, or the bald guy in the same movie who keeps delivering the wrong suggestions, or the attempt to get to the truck which turns into a total disaster with the truck blowing up etc.
I think the "real" ZA would involve everyone trying to make plans which instantly balloon into disasters requiring more plans.
And remember, the "Glenn down the well" sequence was supposed to be stupid, because Glenn had to realize it later and come to his senses.
The endless search for Sophia made about as much sense as David Bowman (in 2001: A Space Odyssey) "rescuing" Frank Poole's obviously-dead corpse rather than sticking around and stopping HAL from killing the other three (and having to bust his way back into Discovery by means of an extremely dangerous maneuver). And he forgot his helmet. People do dumb stuff in emergencies.
I don't know Jordan, I think you're giving us (potential ZA survivors) too little credit! I'm pretty sure I'd have my wits about me enough by the time of the well incident to step back and say, "Uh, aren't there 3 other wells? And hasn't that rotting pile of flesh down there already contaminated that one anyway? Good thing all the zombies down the road at the school can't find their way to this farm, though. Otherwise it would be a bummer that the old guy has BANNED GUNS on his property in a zombie apocalypse!"
One of the things I think the show is missing, actually, is any sense of long term planning that clearly should/would have happened by now. It's been weeks (months?), after all, and yet they all still seem to be in get-through-the-day mode, even when they haven't seen a zombie in days. I think people are smarter than that, have better survival instincts that that. No one has thought of trying to set up a haven on one of the GA/NC islands, for instance. Now, it would ruin the fun if they actually succeeded in such a plan, of course, but at least show us that they're strategizing for the medium long term. I mean, isn't that sort of the fun of being able to see the ZA dragged out over months? How do people adjust to such a world. The answer so far is "they don't." Maybe the pregnancy will force them into some of that though.
We're going to have to "agree to disagree" on this, Landshark. The absence of "long-term planning" is exactly the element of Zombie Apocalypse stories that I find so intriguing and compelling, because it's so realistic to how people would actually behave (as I've been saying). The point is made overtly in 28 Days Later, early on when what's-her-name lectures Cillian Murphy about how there's "only surviving" now; that all other goals go away. The foursome in Dawn of the Dead (Romero) encounter the same problem when they (or, really, just Gaylen Ross' character) realize that the comforts of the mall have prevented them from thinking beyond their own immediate creature comforts and have robbed them of their ambition to do anything else but furnish that little hideaway apartment. Tom Savini's motorcycle mob forces them to (disastrously) return to thinking about the big picture.
People are always pontificating about "what they would have done" on the Titanic or when facing Michael Meyers or whatever. "Why do they hunt vampires at sunset?" etc. But Zombie stories are particularly good at dispensing with these fantasies of competence and level-headedness.
Post a Comment