Okay? I'm going to look at the wall for a little while.
I'll play a little music...
Hum te tum...
...
...
Okay, still here?
Right. Today we're going to talk about killing people.
Fictional people that is. Fictional characters. Specifically, when characters are "killed off" by their creators. Now, I myself have killed characters in my fiction and my plays, so I'm no stranger to the
We're going to look at this through the lens of AMC's Walking Dead (not the comic book, and that's an important distinction that'll come up later) because they've been killing people at a prodigious rate.
Robert Kirkman, when asked point blank about the death of Dale, one of the central characters who, in the comic, dies MUCH later, had this to say:
"That scene right there, Carl would never have had the strength to pull the trigger and save his father from Shane zombie if he hadn’t had that ordeal with Dale and felt responsible for killing Dale because he wasn’t able to shoot that zombie," he says.
"It’s exciting to me to think about someone who may have read 90 somewhat issues of 'The Walking Dead,' can watch one episode and go, 'Oh my God, they killed Dale, I did not see that coming. That was totally shocking.'"
So, we can believe one the one hand that this was to build Carl's character.
Or, we can look closely at the second statement and read a little between the lines: he's shaking up the comic book fans.
I'm inclined to believe the latter for a few reasons. 1) In the comic book, Shane is shot by Carl while ALIVE, and it is a much more poignant moment. 2) Dale's death was absolute choreographed horseshit. Are you telling me this guy just wandered into an empty, featureless field and SOMEHOW missed the shambling, blood drooling zombie that materialized by magic next to him? 3) He straight up says it shook up the comic book fans.
This is a crappy reason to kill a character. It's playing the card of "Look how clever we are as writers! We did what you didn't expect!" but it's not good storytelling. For that matter, Walking Dead the TV show has been plagued by some really bad storytelling.
Now, that being said, characters CAN be killed to suit a lot of good purposes. Here's a few good choices:
Killing A Character to Heighten Tension
But wait! Didn't I just get done saying how this is nonsense? Well bear with me here. The difference, and it's a big one, is that this decision to kill Dale hinges upon this being a cross-media franchise, where the two existing storylines have completely diverged. More than anything, it reads as a simple marketing tool: reading the comic will get you NO foreknowledge, so you'd better keep up with the TV show.
Now, here's a good example of a character being offed to heighten tension:
For those who don't know and just had the sky taken from them, this is Wash's death in Joss Whedon's Serenity. This comes quite far into the movie, near the climactic final battle between our heroes and two overwhelming forces. It's important to note that another major character, Shepherd Book, has by this point also been killed off.
Book's death, however, is one of the "tragic emotional variety." More on this later.
This death right here, with Wash getting a spike through the chest mid-joke, is sudden. It jolted audiences out of their seats. Wash is known for joking one-liners, and to kill him so quickly, without a chance to mourn or prepare, really knocks the danger level up a notch. So much so, in fact, that whenever another major character is seriously wounded in the ensuing melee, the audience starts to think that NONE of our heroes will make it out alive.
This is tension done right. It puts the audience out of their comfort zone and makes them second-guess the "rules" of the story.
Killing a Character to Show a Turning Point
This is a tricky one. When I say "turning point", I'm referring to a radical change in either the group or individual dynamic of a character or group of characters. Kirkman also explained that Dale's death signified the "death of reason" for our group of zombie slayers.
I can ALMOST swallow this, but I have to say that the writing has been so unbalanced that Dale only really felt like the "voice of reason" for about two episodes. The group dynamic hasn't even been established very well.
Now you want a major turning point for characters? Show Boromir getting axed.
I used to be an adventurer like you, but then I took an arrow to the-
oh are we not doing that any more?
Photo by DNS D licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic
Photo by DNS D licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic
When Boromir dies in The Fellowship of the Ring, the group dynamic is sundered and the story takes a huge shift into three plotlines: Merry and Pippin held captive, Frodo and Sam with Gollum, and a dwarf, an elf and a man walking into a bar somewhere.
It's a big deal. Frodo realizes that his companions can pose as much or even a greater threat to him than his enemies, so he leaves on his own.
Killing a Character for Information
Here's one the Walking Dead got right. When Shane was offed by Rick, there was some emotional gravitas there (not much if you ask me...the stupid blighter should've died in Season One), but what really gave audiences a great big cup of wtf was Shane rising from the dead a moment later to try to eat Rick's brains.
This is also used effectively in Alien, in the iconic scene where the nasty little critter emerges from John Hurt's chest over dinner:
Do not watch unless you have an overwhelming urge for nightmare fuel.
This is now all part of the "Alien" mythology: they gestate inside us, pop out, and run amok, all to an ominous soundtrack.
Lastly:
Killing a Character for Emotion-ing the Audience
Holy wow has Walking Dead effed this up. Some reviewers have referred to the "gut punch" of Sophia being offed mid-season, in a surprise half-finale.
I might agree, but...who the fuck was Sophia?
For that matter, who was Billy? Patricia?
These characters have been so horrendously underwritten that I barely know any of them. T-Dog has had so few lines I started to think I dreamt up a black guy just to ease my politically correct brain.
If you want your audience to feel anything, be it sympathy, satisfaction, morbid curiosity...you have to give your characters some weight.
When Boone died in Lost in season one, I was actually pretty shocked, and a little upset. His character wasn't always likeable, but I found him quite interesting and he was decently well developed. He palled around with John Locke, got over his creepy step-sister issues, and ultimately started to become a productive member of the group.
Though frankly, I'm not sure I've gotten over her.
With Dale's death, I mostly felt frustration. The character was just starting to feel interesting, getting some footing, showing his role in the group...and then BAM. Gone.
I felt ten times more emotional weight when Jim died in Season One. We learned that Jim was only alive at all, because, in his own words, "the dead were too busy eating my family."
...
No, no picture joke. Have some class, people.
From there, Jim goes a little stir crazy but manages to pull himself together enough to help defend the camp. And then...disaster! He be bit! And when, ultimately, he dies, it's a slow, quiet death. He passes on with dignity, asking the group to leave him behind and refusing a valuable firearm when Rick offers it as an alternative to zombi-fication.
It's a powerful moment, and Walking Dead should take note of it.
Jackie? Who's Jackie?
C'mon now, if Walking Dead had their own Uhura, I would know about it.
So, by all means, Walking Dead. Kill away! But make sure you're killing in the name of something.
Share On
No comments:
Post a Comment