AMC
"Why should it take an apocalyptic scenario for a man with actual balls to have value?"
People have attributed a lot of metaphorical significance to
zombies since George Romero released his second undead movie,
Dawn of the Dead, in 1978. In that movie, the zombies hung around the places they used to lumber through in life, specifically an awesome mall with a fully stocked gun store outside of Pittsburgh. The suggestion there was that these people were already “zombies” before they were dead, but, presumably, with a little more interest in the food court Sbarro (then again, maybe not).
Where zombie metaphors aren’t obvious, people tend to use the undead horde as stand-ins for whatever group they currently don’t like. Hate the Tea Party? Zombies. Christian conservatives? Zombies. War protesters? Zombies.
Zombies, though, at their best are a natural disaster: a Hurricane Katrina, Haitian earthquake or Japanese tsunami. They are a worldwide extinction-level threat that forces the living characters to be stripped down to what they really are. Watching these plots unfold, you have to ask yourself how you’d handle a similar situation. Are you a leader or a follower? Are you strong or are you weak? Are you a man or are you a member of the indie-folk rock band Modest Mouse? There’s not much call for banjo and ukulele players in the zombie apocalypse is what I’m saying. Pick up a few survival skills, Isaac Brock, if you know what’s good for you.
Zombies, Metaphors And Masculinity
That’s when metaphor gets turned on its head. Where zombies might be used to represent aspects of our culture, the actual survivors represent us as individuals. On FX’s
The Walking Dead, we are presented with two
alpha male characters who are vying for group leadership: Rick Grimes and Shane Walsh. One of those guys is the perfect leader: not only can he keep his people alive in a world filled with zombies, but he can actually find a way to make that world a safer, more livable place. The other one is Rick Grimes.
I think this speaks to a larger issue with men in the real world. Specifically, how society expects the modern man to be a sweaty, weak-kneed manchild who is overly concerned with ruffling the feathers of people who have no business being covered in feathers in the first place. A mangina who knows in his sensitive, bleeding heart that violence doesn’t solve anything and killing the bad guy, be it serial killer, murdering terrorist or genocidal evil dictator, makes you just as bad as he is. War, man, what is it good for?
It would be awesome if that stuff were true, but it’s make believe. Sometimes the bad guys don’t stop being bad until they’re dead. Violence can and has solved lots of problems, and war, I’m sad to say, can serve a purpose -- like freeing an entire society, ending slavery or stopping a holocaust. And if you haven’t ruffled somebody’s feathers with something you’ve said, then you’ve never really said anything worthwhile in your life.
Rick Grimes, played by Andrew Lincoln, is supposed to be the hero of The Walking Dead, but why? Because he’s a decent, sensitive man? Every decision Rick makes ends up with another member of their group injured or dead. Here come some spoilers: Merle, Carl, Otis, Sophia, Amy, Jim, Ed, and Jacqui have all died or nearly died as a direct result of actions Rick has taken in the show.
Meanwhile, Shane, played by Jon Bernthal, is the guy the show wants you to think is too unstable and violent. But he’s the reason every single character alive on the show is still alive. That includes Rick’s harpy wife, his slackjawed kid and even Rick himself. Shane actually kills Otis so that he can get away from a group of zombies to save Rick’s kid, who got shot in the chest in the first place (by Otis, no less) because Rick was an idiot.
The thing, of course, is that it’s a zombie show. People are going to be eaten once in a while, or you don’t have much of a show. Without hordes of cannibalistic zombies, gruesome kills and constant paranoid danger at every turn, you just have a show about a bunch of whiny, insipid white people sitting around on a farm, killing time between pharmacy trips by complaining about one other and shooting cans/logs as target practice. And, I mean, nobody wants that.
The problem, I think, is the writers’ societal conditioning. The way they were raised in this man-hating era is causing problems within the story. There’s no question that if there were really a zombie apocalypse (like the one I’ve been planning and preparing for my entire adult life), a Shane will keep you alive and a Rick will have a zombie picking pieces of you out of its teeth. Why should it take an apocalyptic scenario for a man with actual balls to have value? Why should cowardice and conformity be accepted as virtues?
Why would a guy who wants to calmly discuss the barn full of hungry zombies as if it’s some sort of zoning problem be a better leader than the guy who wants to kill them all immediately? I guess we’ll have to keep watching The Walking Dead to find out, but right now I’m not convinced.
- The Walking Dead, 10pm Fridays, FX
Posted by The Correspondent
on 23:04. Filed under