In Response to Kocurek

dyhyman

To quickly summarize “Who hearkens to the monster’s scream? Death, violence and the veil of the monstrous in video games”, Carly Kocurek argues that we as a society moralize death and violence in video games by dehumanizing the enemy, by turning them into monsters. She calls for further research into the issue stating that it may be causing intergroup bias (87) or illustrate those we commit violence against as inherently monstrous (88). After sitting on the reading for some time, I am still hesitant to say that I fully agree with the basis of her argument. I understand, and agree, with the point she brings up about we as consumers justifying violence through dehumanization of the victim. In fact, we are complicit with the violence the second we purchase the game to play because we are telling the developers that we are okay with their practices of normalizing violence. However, I just can’t fully buy into her argument because I think she disregards the purpose of video games and entertainment in general.

To me, a video game is a chance to experience something that is not available in reality. It is a chance to fantasize and escape your life in favor of a digital creation of a controlled environment. That being said, games serve to give us control that we lack in real life. I think that violence in video games is just another instance of giving us dominance or control that every human craves, as morbid as it sounds. We as people enjoy having some sense of control in our lives because it gives us a sense of stability and contentment. I think that unless we are feeling the literal sensations of killing a monster/zombie/alien/human, we are physically and mentally disconnected from the violence via the game interface. It is obvious then, that the violence on screen is not meant to represent real life. Even in cases of realistic portrayals of violence, see Grand Theft Auto or Postal, you have to remember that these are games, imaginary environments that have imaginary rules. If we were to take all entertainment, games, movies, books, music, as reality, I think we would be creating unnecessary metalepsis. I argue that we need to step back and take entertainment at face value.

If Kocurek was to reevaluate her argument, I would suggest that she argue that we as a society moralize violence in video games because we understand that video games are meant to be controlled, imaginary experiences separate from our reality. To reiterate, I agree with the points she makes, I just think that she went overlooked the purpose that entertainment in general serves us. I agree that we dehumanize victims in order to justify digital violence. But I want to ask Kocurek, why does the violence exist in the first place?

Zombies: not human enough

tmsblog

In the Netflix series “Dead Set,” ordinary people are tragically transformed into flesh-eating zombies faster than the camera can follow. These zombies, which are quick on their feet and unrelenting in their search for a human meal, have bright blue eyes and emit unearthly, snarling and screeching noises as they chase and attack their prey.

While some may say that the noises emitted by these zombies add to the terror which they elicit, I argue that it would be much scarier if the zombies did not make these unearthly sounds and instead maintained their human characteristics. In the reading for today’s class, the author speaks about how simple, almost negligible changes to the “enemy” are used to justify the violent killing which takes place in many horror films or video games (Kocurek, 87). These changes can take the form of different colored blood, alien-like behaviors, or in the case of Deadset, the eyes and noises which characterize the zombies. This change makes the killing more palatable, and creates a distance between the human protagonists and the monstrous enemy. In this way, the horror of the of the zombies stems from the fear of being eaten, and a certain degree of relief is felt by brutally killing them with a head wound.

I argue that while the concept of being eaten by a zombie is indeed horrifying, the snarling dehumanizes the zombies to a point where it actually detracts from the horror. If the zombies were to lose the unearthly sounds, but rather maintain their recognizable human qualities, there would be an added, and more psychological layer of horror to the plot. In the episode, “Her Name Was Claire,” the main protagonist watches someone she knew ravenously munch on a corpse below. This past-tense implies a termination of identity– that this zombie is not longer the human Claire, but rather is a monstrous other who must be killed. But what if Claire maintained the characteristics of Claire, just with the added zombie characteristics of mania and an appetite for human flesh? This would make the hapless killing of zombie enemies much more psychologically complex, with fear stemming from not only the threat of being eaten, but also of having to smash in the head of someone who you actively know. This idea takes the concept of “dead kindred” to an extreme, such that the antagonists of the story are not some distinct, dehumanized other, but rather are still included as part of the human community. The psychological horror which stems from the thought of killing someone you know tends to strike a deeper part of the conscious, and maybe even subconscious, than the gore and violence of conventional horror (unless you are a psychopath). Further, the maintenance of human characteristics without the additive growling and animal like-behavior adds a more realistic feel to the story-line.

The reading for Wednesday’s class discusses the use of zombie gothic genre to both appease and target the real anxieties of society. In Deadset, this is achieved by having a zombie monster which is not quite human, but just human enough to make us think. However, if this is taken a step further, edging on more targeting of real anxiety than appeasing it, the series would be much more effective in instilling fear in the audience. That being said, I am not sure this degree of horror would appeal much to the public, and would probably never actually be enacted in film, as the main point of movies and shows is to appeal to and be consumed by the masses.

Let Your Kids Play Video Games!

ritovar

When I was a young boy, I remember being limited to the time I could play video games. It was not as fun as you would expect. Every time I wanted to play, I had to ask my parents for  permission. It was ridiculous, in my opinion, to know that my parents bought me a video game console to just sit there and build dust overtime. Despite not being able to play as much as I wanted, there was always this feeling that my parents did not approve of my satisfaction of getting killstreaks on the latest Call of Duty at the time. Today, it can be said that same perspectives remain with parents. Video games, specifically violent ones that include killing, have gained a bad reputation due to all the school shootings over the past years. However, what many parents overlook is that these games actually maintain this border between reality by modifying the game and demonstrated productivity to mental health, academics, and socialization.

In Carly Kocurek’s article, “Who hearkens to the monster’s scream? Death, violence and the veil of the monstrous in video games” she argues that the form in which many video games have been able to get away with killings in games is because the creators of the game have been able to shift the perspective of killings. The creators have indicated that the players are not killing humans but rather evil villains that monsters. Though this might be true for some games, for other games like Call of Duty, it did not apply. However, creator of the games were able to make sense of human killing games because of the modified blood or because the people being killed were just plain evil. I agree with Kocurek’s claim because it does help understand why violent video games have been able to sorrow in the industry. Therefore, the idea that violent video games are “bad” is thrown out the window. Plus, many of the people who play these games are also focused on different objectives than just merely killing.

One of the most popular games of today with people of all ages, especially children, is Fortnite. One of the main characteristics of the game is this style of Battle Royal where you have to be the last standing individual in a combat setting. The game has been able to be take off as one of the most successful game franchises of all time because it is not only free but all ages are able to play. The thing about this game is that it has been able to open opportunities for a lot of players to gain income and scholarships. This is one of the many reasons why Fortnite and other games like Call of Duty have been able to help those gamers stay on their consoles all day and night because they are reaching the goal of becoming the best to get recognized by certain scholarships and brands. Along with this, the games have served ways in which large communities of players create networks to employment opportunities based on their in-game communication and style of play. These games have become such an importance to many gamers that there are professional competitions that are streamed through large networks such as ESPN.

In addition to the opportunity for income, scholarships, and professional employments, the games have also served ways in which individuals can benefit physically and mentally. In a YouTube video by Alltime10s explains 10 ways that games are good for your health. Some of those benefits are that many films, games, and visual media that demonstrate violent and horror games actually lead to weight loss. Although it is minor, it can help those gamers who need to increase their metabolism. Plus, the games help certain hospital procedures become less painful as patients are focused on playing video games and that especially works if your goal is to kill a monster that is running away or to you. There are many more benefits to playing video games and if YouTube is not credible enough for you, the Huffington Post news website has given nine more ways video games are good for humans that come from multiple studies. Nevertheless, the goal of killing in games is much less of a problem when it is benefiting the player to a better health and opens opportunities to further excel in life with skills that they can actually apply in their jobs. So the next time you are playing a video game that is violent or not and someone tells you that you are wasting your time, direct them to these links and it might change their mind.

Links:
Alltime10s. “10 Ways Video Games Are Good For Your Health.” YouTube, YouTube, 11 Nov. 2017, www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQtMwgVT1mo.

Guarini, Drew. “9 Ways Video Games Can Actually Be Good For You.” The Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 7 Dec. 2017, www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/07/video-games-good-for-us_n_4164723.html.

Why is Dead Set Dead Set on Using Big Brother?

mawhipple

Dead Set is an extremely effective piece of zombie driven postmodern horror. One of the show’s strongest aspect is its characters in that every single character plays their role in the narrative extremely effectively. In this post I will ponder what effect these character archetypes play and how their being part of a Big Brother season changes and affects the story.

The first thing that I find the Big Brother backdrop being effective in is the fact that the real show establishes cast archetypes. Typically in reality shows they attempt to cast people who fit a specific profile hoping that the individual personas will play out in specific ways that make for good television drama and compelling story. Dead Set capitalizes on this same premise as their cast is equally made up of the archetypes but the setting of Big Brother allows this to be more natural. From the creepy perverted Joplin, douche stud Marky, flamboyantly gay Grayson, down to earth Space, attractively naive Pippa, kindhearted Angel and beautifully strong Veronica, the show is made up of stereotypical personalities. Throw in the disgustingly self-centered Patrick and flawed heroine Kelly and the show is all set for a perfect storm. The characters get to act in very stereotypical ways defined by their basic characteristics. This allows a predictive story yet a compelling one as it is one that has been repeated so many times over the years in vastly different mediums.

The most interesting aspect that Big Brother has on the impact of Dead Set however is in the characters who have no relation to the show. It is in Riq as well as Alex where the true heart of the story lies. It is these two characters who honestly acted fully with pure hearts throughout the show with care for their fellow humans and never crossed boundaries such as killing or mutilation of live people. Together the two work together solely for survival and it is a great tragedy when Riq is forced to kill Alex after a bite but even then both handle the situation with absolute class. They show complete respect and adoration for one another that is truly touching and they are both true heroes worth rooting for.

Meanwhile all of the other characters are all fallible in their own ways and nearly all cross boundaries in their efforts to survive. Almost all of the cast members at one point or another vote to kill another person in effort to save themselves. The worst offender is of course Patrick who is a completely despicable human showing zero remorse for his actions towards others but even the “main” protagonist Kelly shoots multiple people and lest us not forget cheated on her boyfriend. A common trope of Zombie apocalypse situations is where the line between good and evil becomes quite blurred in the nature of survival. The question of what is allowed to be morally done in an effort to see the next day leads even the heroes of stories to cross the line. I find it very intriguing that the characters in Dead Set who engage in such behavior that crosses the line are all essentially members or creators of the reality show Big Brother. In the same way that reality show manipulates events to create heroes and villains for their audience, the lines of reality are too crossed in the apocalyptic world where good and evil is not as clear cut as it seems.

Media, Cameras, and Zombies

julia

The end of the Bishop’s chapter leaves us with the anecdote of a student who post 9/11, “claimed he had be emotionally prepared for the tragedy, not by his family, community, or government, but by the zombie movies of which he had long been a long-time appreciator” (Bishop 36). This sentiment can be easily tied to the inclusion of survivalist fantasy elements in many zombie films, which give viewers the strange sensation of believing themselves capable of surviving an apocalypse because they’ve seen someone else do it on television. The characters of Dead Set mirror this mentality in the last episode, when they toss ideas around about how to kill Patrick. They have detailed and logically sound ideas, but they got all of them from the media. None of them have been in such a situation before, but they feel they have expertise because they watch television. Important to note here is also that it is Kelly who is the most effective leader and zombie killer post outbreak. Unlike many of the other characters, she is portrayed as much more working class, and her likeability is posited against the uselessness of Patrick and the show contestants. Although many of them are also seemingly lower and middle class (though again, the British cultural context is missing from my comprehension) the fact that they applied to be on a reality show and are making money by indulging their own vanity and fulfilling the voyeuristic desires of the British public. The end of Dead Set depicts the remaining show’s contestants being literally what consumed by their fans, furthering the metaphor which ties zombies to the ravenous media public. Are the media creators (Patrick, Kelli) then the creators/originators of the zombie virus?

I’m also interested in the camera work of Dead Set, outside of just the usage of the Big Brother cams. For example, often when characters are sneaking around, the camera will turn the corner for us, showing the audience directly what the character would see. This technique serves to pull the viewer into the plot and amps up the suspense, rather than distancing. Additionally, the close up shots of dead corpses and zombies eating flesh is revolting, but keeps me interested in the narrative. Other times, the camera uses distancing techniques, such as during a kill, the camera gets fake blood splattered on it. The shot reminded me that what I was watching was being filmed, and immediately pulled me out of the action.

Whose Braaaains Are Next? Ours

adferrazOne Comment

I’ve seen enough zombie media to know that there are only ever two outcomes in these types of movies or TV shows: either the characters die, or they become zombies themselves. For example, whenever I watched a long-running zombie show such as The Walking Dead, I would only be interested up to a point, and then I’d give up and stop watching; after all, the show has to end eventually, and realistically no one can survive, so what’s the point of still continuing to watch?

However, when watching Dead Set I somehow hoped for a different outcome (at least for the characters I liked—I have to say I was waiting from episode 1 for Patrick to either be killed off or zombified). But the show is a miniseries with only one season, so it makes sense that all the characters either died as humans or became members of the living dead. I have to say, at the very end of episode 5 when Kelly was in the diary room, I know it was unrealistic, but I still had a shred of hope that she would make it out of the Big Brother House alive. But true to character, this is a show written by Charlie Brooker, who we all know from Black Mirror constantly critiques media culture, and that’s why I was struck by one of the final shots of the series finale: the image of Kelly’s zombie face, covered in blood, staring accusingly at us, the viewers, through multiple television screens.

This is another example of the hypermediation we talked about in class last Wednesday, and it might be too obvious to say so, but this scene really hammers home the media critique theme of the  show by calling attention to the act of looking that we, the viewers, are doing on our own screens, which mirror the television screens in the shot above. This scene seemed to me to be Brooker’s way of turning the message of the show onto the audience and critiquing the way we consume media most of the time: mindlessly. So who’s next to be zombified? Arguably, the audience ourselves.

We’re Not the Only Ones

cawebster

I want to continue our class discussion of “hypermediation” in Dead Set by examining the closing scene from episode 3. In this scene, Riq and Alex are safe from the zombies for a moment, in the house in the woods, watching the Big Brother live stream on TV. All the other channels are out, but Riq is hoping to catch a glimpse of Kelly to confirm that she’s alive. About two minutes before the end of the episode, he does.

First, he sees four of the Big Brother contestants from this season walk across the screen and says to Alex, “We’re not the only ones!”

She responds, “They’re miles away; we might as well be looking at cartoon characters.”

This exchange could happen under any circumstances between two people watching any television program. Isn’t Riq’s observation the point of television? Whether we’re watching the news, a fictional program, or reality TV, television, like any form of media, gives us figures with whom to empathize, sympathize, and relate, reminding us we’re not alone – “we’re not the only ones.” But take a step back, like Alex, and we realize that whether or not the characters we’re seeing are real, they can’t hear us and we can’t communicate with them. Once we realize this, Riq’s ability to see Kelly onscreen almost distances them further. Now he has proof she’s alive, but for all the efficacy he has in helping her stay that way, he might as well not know.

I was especially struck by this scene because of the way I watch Dead Set on my computer. I pull up the Netflix window, but because the show is scary and I’m a weenie, I don’t blow it up to full-screen. I keep the window open so that I can see my desktop and applications around the program so I can remind myself that it isn’t real when the action gets too intense.  Being aware of the screen on which I was watching Riq watch Kelly on another screen really heightened the drama of this scene: in the same way that Riq can’t help Kelly from his vantage point, I couldn’t do anything to change the ultimate outcome of the show.

Riq takes that problem into his own hands and goes to Kelly. He makes the TV program real so he can affect it. Should we try to affect the truth we find in Dead Set – the zombification of humanity by the media?

Patrick Cuts Off The Hand That Feeds Him

Stef

Holy crap. I’m not sure what the rules are with cursing so I’ll stick with that statement for now. I have yet to see a more gruesome depiction of the zombie story, so thanks for that. But despite the general goriness of the show, I genuinely thought it provided a realistic and logical depiction of how a zombie apocalypse would go down. The zombies didn’t ever break their own rules (fast, but dumb) and the characters reacted in a way that followed along with their characters (Pippa – screaming, Patrick – self-centered, etc). But there are some moments I’d like to break down.

First, the scene which gives this post its name. The horrifically uncomfortable, totally gruesome Grayson slicing scene. Here Patrick is tearing apart the now-deceased Grayson for “bait” for his so-thought brilliant plan, while berating the rest of the house for not having his sense of entrepreneurship and keen sense of leadership. He also adds in narration at times, commenting on the morsels of flesh he pulls from Grayson’s corpse. What caught me in this scene was how Patrick mocked the group for not having “real” jobs, or actual work ethic, and claimed they were a bunch of useless good-for-nothings. Patrick seems to have forgotten that those people were the reason why Patrick had a job in the first place. He has transformed the Big Brother contestants from actual human beings into money-making pieces of flesh. Hopefully (maybe) this is a less obvious moment that Brooker put into the show as a method to hint at his greater point.

Next, mainly because I think it was pretty humorous, the police scene. What we saw there was a moment where someone (the police) was trying to make sense out of a completely nonsensical situation. These police officers were the last holders of authority, and they’ll be damned if they lose it thanks to some smelly zombies. I particularly liked the “I’ll let you off with a warning […] You could at least say thank you” bit at the end. Yet I think Brooker put that scene in there for a reason other than a bit of much needed comic relief. Those officers were desperately trying to hold onto some sense of normalcy by going about their regular patrols. I can’t help but think how others might try to retake control of their lives in times like those.

Dead Set Doesn’t Hold Back

grpecheck

As upset as I was that literally everybody that we met in Dead Set becomes zombie bait by the end of the show, I have to say I really respect Charlie Booker and the direction he took this show. It is definitely sad that nobody, between the characters we were rooting for initially (like Grayson), those we came to love (like Riq, who made a badass turnaround in the final three episodes to shed his helplessness motif and become pretty courageous), and those we just loved to hate (like Patrick, ugh), survived. That being said, I was awfully okay with the fact that this show didn’t drag out the survival of characters and just killed off everyone in a spectacular display of blood and gore.

 

The reason I feel this way is because, for the first five or so seasons that it ran, I was a really big fan of The Walking Dead on AMC. In my estimation, The Walking Dead really set the initial gold standard for televised zombie horror. It was gripping, there were great but flawed characters and a solid plotline. However, as of today, I have not watched the show since my sophomore year at Davidson and I realized yesterday after its midseason return (which I did not bother to watch) that I do not even know what season the show is on at this point.

 

So what happened? Well, to put it bluntly, The Walking Dead got boring. It fell into an incredibly repetitive rut with the plot in which Rick and his cohorts find some new “safe” location that seems perfect, some evil person or people show up and create an issue, it all comes to a head in the final episode or two, one of our favorite characters gets killed off, and Rick and his gang escape to a new “safe” location. Rinse, wash, repeat. I know our current villain, Negan, seems to be sticking around but after four or five seasons of Rick and his gang running around, going on supply runs, and climatic end-of-season finale firefights with villains, it got repetitive and I stopped watching.

 

That’s why I have to tip my hat to Charlie Booker. He doesn’t make the show longer than it needs to be, nor does he have any issue with creating a depressing yet clear ending to the show. The conclusion of the show has me thinking about a modified conception of the 7 theses of monster culture, specifically the second one, “The monster always escapes.” I think, for Dead Set, I would revise that thesis to be “The monster cannot be overcome.” I’m no horror expert, but most “modern” horror I’ve watched has a sense of inevitability that the monster will always be lurking, and even if the monster is killed, the protagonists who kill said monster often deal with long-lasting effects of their encounter with the monster.

 

All this is to say that Booker, unlike the writers of The Walking Dead, embraced that inevitability of the monster’s immortality without boring us to death. So hats off to you, Charlie Booker. You may have written a demoralizing end but at least you did not let your show become its own zombie and leave us begging for you to put a bullet in its head.

The Importance of Appearance

darunck

Dead Set appears at first glance to me to be just another zombie show that does not deviate heavily from the already popular trends with a group of unlikely and unprepared survivors coming together to try and survive against a mass of man-eaters, while providing commentary on society.

One thing that stood out to me in particular is the zombies seem to have an obsession with not just living humans, but also the image of humans, indicated by their frequent attachment to television screens and mirrors but do not attack. Zombies having strong attachments to the human image is possibly a comment about society today, as people often have inclinations to be focused on the way in which themselves and others are presented. Conveniently most of the characters are actors within the show already and easily presented as justifiably strange or interesting characters. When the group first observes the mass of zombies one character goes so far as to ask if they’re not on television and one implies that wifi is at fault for messing with your molecules. Comments like these indicate that the speakers struggle to observe the world outside of themselves and are shallow to a comical degree. Thoughts did not turn to friends, family, or loved ones, but to irrational and unhelpful conclusions that gives them an excuse to talk. It is unclear how much personality remains within zombies as a zombie did show hesitation by not immediately attempting to eat her when faced with one it had been physically involved with. However this does indicate that zombies might be able to differentiate between people and are not so simple to only care about food.