Sunday, February 9, 2014
I usually watch The Walking Dead on Sunday nights, one episode at a time, eagerly following the lives and deaths of it's many characters. Watching it episode after episode ,like I am today, has drawn my attention to just how consistently gory the show is. The level of action varies widely, with some shows focusing more on character development than others, but there is not one that doesn't have at least two very graphic scenes of zombies being killed, usually by hand, with lots of squirting blood. I find myself wondering, is the blood and gore really necessary to the success of The Walking Dead?
What I love most about the show is watching the main characters learn, adapt, and survive in a post-apocalyptic scenario that is inconceivable to me as I sit in my warm house eating take-out pizza. The shortage of food, lack of electricity, the constant need to be on the move, and distrust of fellow human beings is compelling enough to keep me watching. The writers and actors realistically portray the variety of ways that the human mind can be tested, destroyed and strengthened under constant and extreme stress. Just watching each individual struggle to overcome - or not- is completely engrossing.
I realize that without the zombies and constant threat they create, the story would not hold together. But is all of the gore necessary? There have been episodes so graphic, with close up shots of internal organs being laid for bait, limbs being cut off, characters being decapitated, that I have been tempted to change the channel. My mom stopped watching the show for a while after watcing a scene that nearly made her vomit. A show should entertain, provoke emotions, and make you think, but I really don't think it should make you sick.
I get it, the show relies on violence between people who may remind us of ourselves and an enemy who could easily have been anyone we know, semi-dead people still wearing street clothes who thirst for living flesh. That is the core of the story. Some bloodshed is necessary to drive home that the zombies are a true threat and the basis for the survival stress is real. I think going to the disgusting extremes mentioned actually can be counter-productive either causing people not to watch or desensitizing the viewership to the bloodshed entirely.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMade some grammatical mistakes i had to change. Sorry!
DeleteKeith, this post is very well written! You do a good job of providing imagery in your post and depicting how gore does not necessarily add to the enjoyment of the viewer. I couldn’t find too many glaring grammatical errors in your post, but the way you phrased some of your sentences felt kind of long and awkward to me.
Your sentence,
"The level of action varies widely, with some shows focusing more on character development than others, but there is not one that doesn't have at least two very graphic scenes of zombies being killed, usually by hand, with lots of squirting blood."
I feel could be split up into 2 separate sentences,
"The level of action varies widely, with some shows focusing more on character development than others. But there is not one episode that doesn't have at least two very graphic scenes of zombies being killed, usually by hand, with lots of squirting blood."
It might just be a personal preference of mine, but I thought it was worth mentioning.
I do have to disagree with your post, however. In my opinion, I would say the use of extreme gore in the Walking Dead does contribute greatly to the show. These graphic elements changes the mental state of the characters as they adapt to a new environment, and aids the show in depicting the chaotic lawlessness following a zombie apocalypse. It's kill or be killed, your morals aside. The disgusting bits of the show remind us of the extreme duress that these characters experience face from episode to episode.
Gore is a risky thing to use in films and shows. If used in correct amounts, gore can interest and draw in viewers. But there is always the risk that it would instead completely gross the viewers out, or making the show ridiculous and cheesy. Shows just need to find a balance of gore that will hook the viewer, and not drive them away.
Keith, Kevin is right. This post is very well written. I am not sure why watching episodes one at a time draws your attention to the gore any more than watching them in succession would, but I will take your word for it. I particularly like the imagery that you write with. Your explanation of the gore made me flinch a bit, which is a testament to the quality of your images.
ReplyDeleteI have one real issue with this post, and unfortunately, it is a big one. This post really isn't an argument. I wanted these responses to mirror those that you will write on the AP exam. This response reads more like a personal reflection about gore in "The Walking Dead" than an argument. You have neither convinced me of anything nor attempted to. You do draw a conclusion: "bloodshed is necessary to drive home that the zombies are a true threat." First of all, is this true? Second, what is your evidence for making this claim. All arguments need evidence to support them. If you had embedded your experience with "The Walking Dead" into a larger argument about gratuitous violence in television, with scientific evidence, then you would have had a really nice argument.