The Walking Dead: I'll TELL you how, buster.
Because I finally watched the fourth season of The Walking Dead, and I never got around to talking about the third season, and despite the record evident on this very journal, I do actually want (and even sometimes try!) to finish things I said I would might. (Although there's, like, A LOT to talk about for the series overall before delving into
( Read more... )
Firstly: I love your brain like whoa. Dunno where to start... how bout just getting the YOU'RE WATCHING THE SHOW WRONG, PEOPLE bits out of the way?
If their development sometimes appears cyclical it's because they're on a downward spiral
This. As we've discussed, the 'badly written/no character development' criticism BAFFLES me. Yes, I had the benefit of bingewatching. Yes, that makes it easier to see arcs and throughlines. But people. This is basic stuff.
I'm not raging at casual viewers here, or even really fandom, much as it frustrates me, because fandom's gon' fandom. It's the people writing (at least sometimes for money) reviews/articles intended for broad consumption.
Even if the devolution arc weren't SO LITERAL (which it is), as you say, we know how to obsessively track and discuss the most minute details of our week-by-week shows if we believe it's worth our while. We should reasonably expect reviewers'/mainstream article writers' professional responsibility to actively try to identify these themes and structures THAT ARE CUNNINGLY HIDDEN... um, right there out in the open, you guys. *points*
I honestly don't get it. I'm not an idiot, but usually being analytical about my shows is something I have to do consciously or it's all just feels. BUT OBVIOUS PATTERNS ARE OBVIOUS: urban to agrarian to nomadic; freedom is outside the jail, is one the run, is in being confined/inside the jail (briefly, *sob*).
And on it goes: Rick's Good Man parameters/clear delineation b/wpeople and walkers - 'we don't kill the living' - turns into killing threatening randoms, is a step away from summary execution (policeman becomes vigilante), is a step from killing his friend (and PS, Lori haters, fair enough that this scares her. She's not adapting to the new normal as quickly as Carl (or Rick), and also, IT IS SCARY that her husband MURDERED THEIR FRIEND, even if he had it coming. Lay off.)... ie spiralling down until... well, until he rips a man's throat out with his teeth. And that's just Rick!
THIS IS BEAUTIFUL BUT NOT PARTICULARLY SUBTLE STORY CONSTRUCTION, PEOPLE.
What DO we get? AV Club reviews. And I'm picking on Zack because The Worst.
I could quote and then yell at you about any of his reviews, but lets go with The Killer Within:
"to put it another way, The Walking Dead has to be about more than just a bunch of people getting chased by zombies and eventually dying."
...
This from a man in whose Still review we find this:
"'Still' finds The Walking Dead in stall mode, removing even the slightest hint of plot in favor of an hour long diversion about Beth and Daryl bonding over moonshine and arson."
ZACK. YOU CAN'T COMPLAIN THE WRITERS NEED TO DO MORE THAN ACTION/HORROR, AND THEN COMPLAIN WHEN THEY DO CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT. YOU ARE TMF WORST.
(Also, on gruesomness of Lori's death: "Simply inspiring a knee-jerk, physical reaction in your audience isn’t enough for an ongoing story. There needs to be follow through, and I’m wondering if the writers understand that."
LOL ZACK U SO HILARIOUS. ... Oh you're serious. *sideeyes Zack Handlen SO HARD*)
Although I find his reviews so consistently, even wilfully obtuse that they're actually intellectually offensive, in fairness, it's not just him. From women writing about how anti-feminist Lori is (making me Hulk out), to this random gem of failed basic comprehension: "Glenn's nonchalant 'There’s walkers in the barn and Lori's pregnant'" (my emphasis)...
I give up.
And coming back to your nitty gritty on music and other references (and thanking for kindly linky-linking in one convenient post!)... again, right? It's so unfair that a show that includes a staggering depth of allusion is still written off, BY SO MANY PEOPLE, as dumb, or superficial, or lightweight. I just... WHUT.
Has this ever happened for any other show, to this degree, and by people who're getting paid to write this bullshit?
All of which, essentially, is me agreeing with everything you just said.
Reply
the 'badly written/no character development' criticism BAFFLES me. Yes, I had the benefit of bingewatching. Yes, that makes it easier to see arcs and throughlines. But people. This is basic stuff....
THIS IS BEAUTIFUL BUT NOT PARTICULARLY SUBTLE STORY CONSTRUCTION, PEOPLE.
Right? ALL THIS. I've been going trying to figure out just what exactly the fuck, because ... what exactly the fuck? And I CANNOT nail it down. (Although it's mixing into some other wider thoughts on storytelling that'll probably become yet another post, although thankfully this time NOT about TWD or anything specific.) Like, it feels like some kind of freak combination of factors, reinforcing each other. Something to do with expectations and the wider context and the public conversation that's happening around this and comparing it to other Acclaimed Shows. And ... it's like, okay, fine, I haven't seen them all but I'm quite happy to grant that they are more skillfully constructed, and communicate their story super-clearly, or whatever. That TWD isn't communicating its story the way they do, or isn't balanced the way they are - which, if those shows are the ones setting expectations for how "good" writing communicates or is paced or weighted, if their storytelling "language" and style is perceived to be THE Template For Good Storytelling, I guess I can kiiiiiind of see where you get the basis for criticisms like Zack Handlen's, because by that template it feels like the mix is off? Too much action, too much character-focus, The Writers Don't Get It because they're not doing it the way those brilliant writers over there do it. (Mind you, in his specific case, it mostly comes off as him being a complete poser, talking down to the writers because it's not like he's risking getting called out for saying they're messing it up.)
And maybe that's just the snobbery you're stuck with when you decide to use the zombie genre to explore the themes you're interested in, and too bad, sucks to be you (if you happened to want people to pay attention to anything you might be saying). There's something about genre that just isn't taken seriously in the mainstream (although that's slowly changing), so you can't possibly be tackling serious ideas unless it's played as a super-blatant, usually political/ideological allegory, and then people are like, Oh, It's About A *Thing*, Doncherknow. *cough*STID911Truthiness! And TWD is this weird, gross, fairly messy, very black-humoured thing without any strong agenda-statement in sight. BB and MM and The Wire and so on and so forth are all examining Very Serious Issues We Face or Were Shaped By. And even with zombies, we can look back and say, oh, Romero was making a Commentary On Mindless Consumerism, or whatever. But TWD tossed consumerism out with the first season, and started digging for the next thing down, because there's nothing new to say about mindless consumerism (or whatever ideology du jour) in the context of zombies. But I think that might also be part of the problem, that as blatant as it's being with its subtext and framing, it's not making many firm statements about what they're examining in the way that people are used to looking for to latch onto, or debate; it's mainly asking questions rather than providing any kind of Statement - much less Answer. And therefore, by our current metric for judging if a show is "saying something", it's not, and people don't expect it to, and so don't notice, and so don't expect...... freaking etc.
Reply
Right. Deep breaths. Because YES. THIS:
comparing it to other Acclaimed Shows.
to me, it feels like people coming from a Rembrandt self-portrait, and then dismissing a Van Gogh for being inferior.
EXACTLY. OMG. I actually think that's a perfect analogy. I am so unbelievably sick of, and bored with, the reductive comparative criticism TWD is invariably saddled with. I mean, comparative criticism is fine, in its place, and it's an interesting and valid form of criticism. But it's not the ONLY form of criticism. If anything though, it is also, in my opinion (ha!), an even MOAR hyper-subjective form of criticism because it's not just evaluating a piece of art against what that art is trying to be, but against art with completely OTHER intentions and goals, which consequently means a reviewer is applying their own taste to two completely separate things and judging between them, even though apples and oranges. Or Rembrandt and Van Gough. I think I am going to start calling this The Razer Fallacy.....
Quite frankly, I could not give half a shit how successfully Mad Men or Breaking Bad, for example, or even The Great Zombie Films Of Our Age, achieve what they set out to achieve, in the context of evaluating how well TWD achieves what it sets out to achieve. If an individual thinks TWD, in and of itself, is uneven or does not enough/too much horror, gore, action, character development, introspection whatever, then... well, clearly I think that person's an idiot because I believe show is extremely well balanced, but whatever, we all love/hate what we love/hate. But if that individual is asserting TWD isn't as good just because it doesn't do story the same as MM or BB... well, frankly my dear who gives a damn?
As for the anti-zombie/genre snobbery aspect of all of this... Indeed. But also, the fact that anti-genre people don't like a genre show is at least logically consistent, albeit, I would argue, the same old pretentiousness. But as you highlight, particularly with that Cracked article, poor old show cops it from the zombie afficianados as well, and I just cannot compute that reasoning. Like, I actually cannot make it make sense. You like 'Fight the dead, fear the living' Cracked? Yeah, that's basically the whole fucking show. George formatted the whole genre that way? Oh, ok, I'm sorry, I missed the part where we complain now when someone plays around with genre tropes and formats and subverts things and actually does something original. What exactly about the zombie nature of this show is so objectionable to you, Cracked writer? I NO UNDERSTAND.
But y'know what? Maybe that's it. Because then you've got me (and others possibly including Danai "Michonne" Gurira, if some of her coments at Paleyfest a few weeks ago are any guide - she wasn't previously into horror AT ALL, still isn't really; talks about receiving scripts and reading once and going oohh, and again and going OOOHHHHH, and again and going OMG THIS IS AMAZING I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE. I heart her.) who is a genre show fan, but NOT a zombie/horror afficianado... but who FREAKIN LOVES THIS SHOW. Precisely BECAUSE OF how it uses its zombie-ness as a hook on which to hang its super interesting explorations of conflicted morality and humanity and real world dilemmas where there ARE NO clear cut answers or easy right or wrong and where the toll taken on our protagonists is felt, deeply, and the impact on their humanity seriously examined, and not just washed clean in some kind of Rambo-esque hail of automatic gunfire. SO SUE ME FOR FINDING THAT REALLY FREAKIN INTERESTING.
What I find exasperating, is that I would have thought that melding together of the zombie-genre show, AND the serious exploration of the human condition, would have appealed to BOTH zombie afficianados AND anti-genre-viewers. I continue to be genuinely baffled that a formula which is responsible for creating one of my favourite shows of all time, seems to catch so much vitriol from both ends of the spectrum instead. Poor show :(
Which... look. tl;dr I agree with everything you just said. Again. WHAT A SURPRISE.
Reply
So, continuing Cracked's stellar roll, fucking David Wong has got up on his soap box to lecture about how TWD hates humans. I wasn't going to read it because OMFG, but then later in a somewhat more tolerant mood I gave it a go because Wong is frequently insightful - and then he occasionally misses the point so hard I get secondhand whiplash. THIS WOULD BE ONE OF THAT. By a few paragraphs in, all I was wondering was whether he actually watches the show, or just wanted to preach away on his own hobbyhorse. I ended up skimming, trying to find content that would change that impression, but when the first two subtitles are #4. When Shit Goes Wrong, Only the Badass Killing Machines Will Survive and #3. Communities Are Cool and All, but in a Crisis It's Every Man for Himself and the content of those points only veer off even more wrong-headedly, I wasn't about to bother with the second page. I had reached MAXIMUM BOGGLE. And in record time, too. Man, and I thought shipping goggles had industrial strength warp capabilities - but I'll take them over self-righteousness goggles any day of the week.
You like 'Fight the dead, fear the living' Cracked? Yeah, that's basically the whole fucking show.
Yeah, that's the tagline - except see what that writer tacked onto it without so much as a single mental blip at having done so?: "and find out what makes society work and what's killing it in the process." Hey guess what, guy? That's not part of the tagline because that's not what the show is fucking doing. That's what YOU ASSUME it's doing. And maybe that's David Wong's problem too, the context he's bringing into judging what he thinks the show's saying, I don't know and can no longer bring myself to care. Because you know what? As long as it keeps getting record viewing numbers and keeps telling the story it wants to tell, which it really does seem to be, regardless of various obstacles - then really, that's more than enough for me. Especially since I get to squee over it with you! XD (Gotta give a shoutout to Vulture for their reviews, though; they don't go hugely deep but their very willingness to just engage what the show's giving them rather than pontificate on Why They Know Better Than The Show basically makes them works of genius in this field.) The combined critical DERP over this show is still kind of boggling/infuriating - but at the same time, it's so completely human nature, you know? But since I only have limited energy for now, and the choice between about how to spend it, I think I'll go for loving the show and leaving the ~h8ers~ to their thing. (I'm so hip with the lingo, daddio.)
Danai "Michonne" Gurira ... receiving scripts and reading once and going oohh, and again and going OOOHHHHH, and again and going OMG THIS IS AMAZING I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE.
<3
I really hope all these guys are getting feedback that tells them that there are people out here who get what they're doing - not just the fangirling/boying about zombie slaying and badassing and hawtness (all valid factors, of course), but this kind of reaction, too. And that those responses are getting through all the noise of people shitting on it. Because, damn.
Reply
"Glenn's nonchalant 'There’s walkers in the barn and Lori's pregnant'"
....I give up.
AND THEN THERE'S THIS. W. T. F. I ... I'm out. There's comprehension fail, and then there's this.
moar edited because maybe I should try not to swear so much
AUGH edited AGAIN because apparently Cracked and I are simpatico atm (or, you know, maybe it's the week before Halloween so zombie chatter is So In Right Now):
But zombie stories get me every time. Why? Because they're a story where our monster plays like a societal problem. Zombies are an insistent and dramatically useful malevolent force you can plan against.
[...]
I can't defend any non-pilot episode of The Walking Dead, but damned if their third season poster tagline doesn't sum up what makes zombie movies worthwhile. Fight the dead, fear the living, and find out what makes society work and what's killing it in the process. George A. Romero formatted the whole genre that way: an implacable zombie epidemic pushes the surviving members of society to face their racism or consumerism or municipal governing corruption, and they either survive by fixing it or die instructively.
That format has become so clear and iconic, it got its Mel Brooks-level parody with Shaun of the Dead way back in '04 ... which puts us a full decade past the point of "we can do these tropes explanation-free because audiences know them cold.
I really don't think it's a coincidence that the pilot episode is so widely praised where the series as a whole is panned, even though it's really not doing anything all that particularly different from the rest of the series, it's just that it can still be smooshed into a Standard Zombie Narrative format, wherein societal ills can be confronted and "fixed". As opposed to confronting the human condition and inevitable mortality, which can't be fixed; and those who develop, embrace, and follow through unswervingly on their "solutions" to the "problem" are all the ones who die, regardless of what their solution is, because there isn't one. Apparently we know these tropes cold but CAN'T recognise when they're not being employed, in favour of something else. *headdeeeeeeesssssk*
OKAY I'M GONNA STOP NAO.
Reply
Leave a comment