Courtesy of AMC
It’s Governor time, literally, as this week’s The Walking Dead uncovers what happened to the good ol’ Gov (David Morrissey) after he went cray cray, offed 98% of his army and drove off into the sunset last season. How did the show do without a single reference to the prison gang?
Let’s bitch it out…
We get an overtly art film-esque cold open (a trend this season) which gives us a vague idea of what happened to the Governor. Seemingly traumatized by his own actions (gunning down many innocent citizens of Woodbury), he’s deserted by Martinez (Jose Pablo Cantil) and Shumpert (Travis Love) who finally come to their senses and abandon The Gov in the night. One order of business before he decides to submit completely to catatonic-ville, burn whatever’s left of Woodbury (This is when I patted myself on the back for my explanation on last season’s finale on why it was wise for Andrew Lincoln’s Rick to take what was left of the Woodbury crew back to the prison rather than staying in Woodbury).
But really this episode is all about showing us a softer side of The Governor as he gets himself a new family. Eventually earning the trust of Penny look-a-like Megan (Meyrick Murphy) and her mother Lilly (Audrey Marie Anderson) and aunt Tara (Alanna Masterson), the episode is wrought with tension. Is The Governor planning some long con to eventually manipulate and exploit these women for his own evil means, or has he changed after successfully hitting rock bottom by gunning down all those innocent Woodburians? The show seems to want us to think the The Gov, now Brian Heriot, is reformed and a much more complex character than we originally envisioned, employing many techniques to get us to soften to him.
Sure, he did right by the ladies by valiantly risking his life in retrieving some oxygen tanks, and we got The Walking Dead equivalent of the “this may sting a little” trope to get us to like him a bit more – but sorry folks, I’m not buying it for second. Need I provide the laundry list of the absolutely deplorable things The Governor has done? He gunned down, in cold blood, his Woodbury army because they questioned his choices. That should be more than enough.
Courtesy of AMC
I don’t care if it traumatized him- we’ve already gone through season three and he’s a villain through and through. I chalk this up to the same reasoning that Carol (Melissa McBride) turned into a badass seemingly overnight at the beginning of this season: We’re shown a different side of The Governor because it’s convenient for the narrative, even if it goes beyond everything we know about him thus far. It’s the equivalent of telling us that all of the third season was a dream. Apparently in this world, you’re able to remake yourself because no one has a past – bats*it crazy sociopath in one moment but wander around aimlessly for a few months, have a child introduce you to the pinky-swear and you too can be a changed man in the zombie apocalypse. GUNNED DOWN the innocent, people! I’m sorry but I’m unable to trust the Governor and the whole episode I was waiting for him to switch back to the murderous nihilist we know and love.
But perhaps that’s the point. I was on edge for a good part of the episode (was anyone else waiting for him to smash that coffee cup over Tara’s head?) Judging by the way ‘Brian’ disposes of the walkers this episode, we’re meant to remember how vicious and terrifying he can be. But in this case, he’s doing it to protect the innocent rather than serve his own selfish needs. Unfortunately, I can’t shake the fact that he is ‘The Governor’, and I can’t buy into his altruistic turn.
I don’t mean to suggest that this ‘more complex’ Governor isn’t interesting or intriguing – Morrissey certainly delivers an excellent performance – but my gripe here is how it doesn’t seem to build on what we’ve encountered from him before. It seems to come almost completely out of left field. Do I believe The Governor was significantly traumatized by the massacre he committed at the end of last season? Sure- but I immediately thought about how he killed those innocent soldiers at the beginning of S3. Why wasn’t he equally as traumatized then? Remember the fish tank filled with the heads? I’m all about character development but the key is making it feel genuine. I eventually stopped bitching about Carol because we did end up getting some of the depth needed to explain her evolution – but I’m not certain we’ve gotten enough about The Governor at this point.
When we first met the Governor, I longed for this kind of thing – hoping that he would be more than just evil. But it just doesn’t work now that we’ve seen everything that he’s done. I could be jumping the gun here – as I alluded to before – perhaps this is all just a long-con for getting his ultimate retribution on Rick & Co. – rebuilding an army and charming the pants (literally) off his new recruits. As lame as that plot thread would be, at the very least, it would be in line with The Governor we’ve come to know.
The silver-lining here is how seeing The Governor go through this transformation (oddly enough) got me thinking about Bob Stookey (Lawrence Gilliard Jr.) Just as Lilly and Tara are (relatively) quick to trust ‘Brian’, the prison gang seemed to very hastily embrace Bob. Who knows what kind of horrible things he’s done in the past? Carol will likely go through the same process as she finds a new group – and in that sense, seeing another side of The Governor nicely enhances the viewing of the series as a whole, engaging us not only in what we see, but how we think about what’s going on in the periphery.
I appreciate The Walking Dead‘s efforts in trying to paint The Governor as a more layered and complex character, but in this case, they’ve just coloured too far outside the lines for my taste.
Other Observations:
- Why the hell did girls leave the comforts of that apartment building? It makes absolutely no sense. They’ve got water, a good supply of food, shelter – why would they go into the open road?! Even ‘Brian’ should have been smart enough to convince them to stay. Does it service his endgame?
- A closed shower curtain is never a good thing is it?
- Note to single men: The eye-patch is apparently irresistible to the ladies.
What did you think viewers? Are you okay with this new Governor? Do you think he’s reformed/can be redeemed? Will he end up joining the prison group as an ally? How will Martinez’s knowledge of The Governor’s past affect how his ‘new family’ sees him? Sound off in the comments below.
A gentle reminder that we adhere to a SPOILER FREE zone here, so please keep any plot points from the graphic novels to yourself.
The Walking Dead airs Sundays at 9pm EST on AMC.
My boyfriend and I were actually confused at the beginning of the episode, thinking that we PVR’ed the wrong one (from season 3) but we really enjoyed this episode and change from the drama happening back at the prison. I’m totes with you though, the Governor is the bad guy and can’t just change overnight but maybe he found peace/purpose in his new family. I wonder if they’ll do a similar episode for Carol, I really hope she comes back this season.
Hmmm, let us see here:
So, the Governor is the “bad guy”. Why is anyone or anything bad (or good, for that matter)? Humanity is almost at an end. Therefore, one cannot expect “humanity” to be of particular significance; just fading memories of what was…
Terms such as “peace/purpose” and “new family” beg the question: Why such “retro” attachments in the first place? I would imagine that quite a few viewers are hoping for some glorious turnaround so humans can shine again in their time-honored ways… What if this NEVER happens? What then? Is it “war of all against all” as the Romans used to refer to images of social chaos? Is there any other way of watching the show other than to be tethered in contemporary Euroamerican mindsets?
As for “change”, especially the “overnight” kind, well, well, how many women out there would REALLY be pleased by such a prospect? I mean, REALLY…
What if, alternatively, the near-extinction event were to be looked at via its implications for all moral codes that find justification in the civilization in which they take hold?
Notions such as sociopathy may be irrelevant to a post-apocalyptic chaos. That does not mean that new moral codes will not emerge if (?) the few surviving humans were to somehow embark on building a brand new civilization. However, this takes time…
While viewers understandably take (?) pleasure in passing judgment on the show’s characters actions, all the time safely ensconced within our current, (mainly) Euroamerican, civilizational “moral space”, they may want to focus on our mindset and language limitations in imposing civilizationally perceived order and purpose in history’s no man’s land.
I think the catalyst for The Governor’s change was the destruction of Woodbury. When you think about it, his identity was based around his position of power in that place, so without it, without his henchmen, he’s nothing. Imagine how psychologically devastating that would be, to have your entire world reduced to nothing – especially in a dangerous world where death is literally waiting around the next corner.
The episode spent plenty of time showing a numbed, nihilistic version of The Governor mingling almost invisibly with the walkers. I think by the time he arrived at the apartment block he was ready to lay down and die – the only thing keeping him going was the picture of his family and that created a sympathy with the little girl and her family.
There are plenty of catalysts to go around in a post-apocalyptic chaos. As far as the Governor is concerned, the near-extinction event itself acted as a catalyst which propelled him to being the “Governor” instead of some frustrated working stiff.
History’s no man’s land is an inherently nihilistic landscape. Therefore, responding to this or that catalyst is a matter of biology and, really pushing it, anthropology. None of the old, received civilizational wisdom and restraints matter. Essentially, action is determined by the vagaries of the moment. As far as those who still cling to notions of some kind of “retro” revival, something is telling me that, if all this were real, they would be sorely disappointed with the emergent “newness” and “order”…
As was said above, I think the traumatic catalyst for the Guvnah’s breakdown was the destruction of Woodbury (in his mind, at the hands of Rick and Co.). With that in mind, his massacre of the First Woodbury Citizen’s Brigade was a symptom of that trauma rather than its cause.
Of course, I felt that incident was a rather contrived way of disposing of a bunch of unwanted characters (particularly contrived given that there are herds of ravenous ghouls roaming the countryside). Seems to me, a more “logical” way of getting rid of the red shirts would’ve been to have them set upon by a herd (if I recall my Lovecraft correctly, I believe the correct collective noun for ghouls is a glibbering). Sure that would prompt questions of “hey, where’d that herd come from all of a sudden?” and “why couldn’t they save themselves with their automatic weapons?”, but it’d still seem less implausible than the Guvnah foolishly massacring his admittedly mutinous power base.
Anyway, I wasn’t under any illusions that this episode would attempt a redemption of the Guv. Hell, the intro musical montage even explicitly said, “I ask for no redemption.” As a result, one of the saving graces of this rather poor episode was waiting for the Guv’s evil nature to emerge — I particularly liked the bait-n-switch of him finding the gun, thinking, “Oh man, that family’s in for it now”, only to have him say, “Eh, keep my gun, I found me a new one.”
The main problem I had with this episode was that this family was holed up in that apartment for a few years (musta had a lot of hammerspace in that truck for several years worth of impeccably preserved food!) just waiting for a “strong male character” to rescue them and show them how the world works. I mean, one of them was a cop (or at least a cop-in-training). You’d think that in the course of her ghoul-killing, she’d’ve noticed that head shots took ’em down effectively. Must have gone to the same Police Academy as Steve Gutenberg and Bobcat Goldthwait… Anyway, even for a show with such a terrible track record of dealing with gender roles, this seemed especially galling.
Although I agree that the Governor has had a breakdown of sorts, I disagree that this was caused by Woodbury’s “destruction”. Rather, it was precipitated by a Hitlerian, “downfall of the gods” attitude manifesting itself in the massacre of the crowd that did not rise to HIS occasion and expectations. Setting the physical buildings on fire was the last act of someone wanting to eradicate all reminders of the failure of a grandiose vision.
Irrespective of present day, civilizational / political correctness, a “strong male character” is key to approaching the post-apocalyptic chaos. Biology reigns supreme… I mean, ask Andrea; the female in her biological prime, not the civil rights lawyer of yesteryear!
I think we’re on the same page with regards to the Governor’s “breakdown”. It could’ve been worded better, but “the destruction of Woodbury” I referred to was intended to mean the failure of that grandiose vision (which seemed to be the Governor’s attempt at recreating a “normal” life of security and comfort with himself firmly in control amidst the chaos of the apocalypse). The loss of Woodbury was really the loss of that control as represented by the refusal of the townspeople to continue the assault on the prison.
With regards to gender-roles, I still think the show unnecessarily — and unrealistically (though realism should not really be a concern in a series about cannibalistic corpses) — depicted those characters as damsels-in-distress waiting, Rapunzel-like, to be rescued by a Prince Charming. I mean, they can survive for years in a zombie-infested apartment block, but can’t go for a quick supply-run to the nearby old folks home (which I was rather expecting to be revealed as the nursing home from “Vatos”)?
When it comes to the underlying timeline, well, TV shows have been taking liberties with realism for decades. An example that immediately pops to mind is the “rapid aging” of certain child characters in popular daytime soaps.
I am going to go on a speculative limb here and take a second look at the gender question. Since the beginning of time, women have been putting men through various tests aimed at discovering what they are really all about… Civilization has codified such tests by ritualizing them and dressing them up in “acceptable” garb. Anthropologically speaking, the coin has two sides. On one hand, manly toughness, even ruthlessness, is a prerequisite; but so is animal attraction that conditionally promises some duration of involvement.
If my speculation has legs to it, it may explain Lilly’s behavior. Also, she is the one with the daughter.
Going back to Andrea for a moment, Shane and the Governor may just represent her attempts at doing justice to her anthropological condition the best way she “knew”(always hobbled by her civilizational past).