Courtesy of AMC
This week on The Walking Dead we continue our focus on The Governor (David Morrissey) as he ‘joins’ a new camp. Was it wise of the show to spend another week away from the prison group?
Let’s bitch it out…
Well I called that one. The potentially reformed Governor is no more as this hour, we see the ol’ crazy evil Governor re-animating before our very eyes. After all the ranting I did last week about how unbelievable it was to buy into the Governor’s shift, I’m relieved to see him behaving in a way that makes some kind of sense rather than continuing with the jarring 180 turn. Thankfully there’s a bit more care in the Governor returning to us as ‘Brian’ clearly struggles before yielding to his old ways.
The floodgates seem to open when he takes that golf-club to poor, unsuspecting Martinez’s (Jose Pablo Cantil) head as he offers to ‘share the crown’ of leadership over his new camp. Initially I thought that killing Martinez was solely a means to ensure The Governor’s past would be forever hidden from his new family, but his subsequent rise to power and rebuilding of his Woodbury life would suggest otherwise. Although it’s a bit over-the-top that he’s so literal in his restoration (I mean, even the fish tank/lake?), I did appreciate the attempts this time around to show us some (believable) complexity within the character. His insistence that he “doesn’t want it”, alluding to regaining a leadership role as he’s dragging Martinez to certain death, the subsequent tears he presumably sheds in remorse after the deed is done, or the quiet attempted escape in the night shows us there is indeed a small desire to keep Brian Heriot alive.
Killing Martinez may very well have been to keep the Governor’s past a secret, but at the end of the day the Governor takes over the camp because he sees no other way to keep his new family safe. It’s only when he discovers he’s unable to sneak away in the night, forced to return to the RV camp that he tells Lilly (Audrey Marie Anderson) that his actions are all in the name of survival. Many may see this as pretty obvious, but for me it actually functions as authentic character development (finally!). The rebuilding of the Governor shows us that yes, indeed he’s completely unhinged, but at least now we can try to understand why.
Courtesy of AMC
He admits it himself – he knows he’s not doing “the right thing” – he’s doing what he believes is necessary for survival. If that means killing those who stand in his way, so be it. The Governor believes his is the only way which causes him to surround himself with people who are supportive of that way. Just before the Woodbury shootout, his makeshift army started to question his orders, which in turn, set him off to silence them. With no one left to fall in line (Martinez and Shumpert abandon him) he’s suddenly lost his will to live. Enter Lilly and Co. who bring him out of this state by essentially following him without question. You can almost feel him suppressing everything he’s got when he goes on supply runs with Peter (Enver Gjokaj) and Mitch (Kirk Acevedo). He’s not meant to take orders from others, hence his mutiny. Perhaps that’s the significance behind keeping those that oppose him as trophies in his fish tank(s): it delights the Governor to seem them immortally contained, reminding him of his superiority over them.
With a new camp bowing to his whims and charmed by his manipulation – it comes as no surprise that the Governor’s vengeance for Rick, Michonne (Danai Gurira) and the rest of the prison gang starts bubbling back up the surface. Clips from next week’s episode suggest another showdown between the Grimes gang (and possible kidnapping – let’s hope it’s not Steven Yeun’s Glenn or Lauren Cohan’s Maggie) is on the horizon. What we have is essentially a reboot to the S3 finale – but this time the Governor has a more palpable motivation. After presumably defeating the viral outbreak, the Grimes gang is depleted and unprepared making it unlikely that they’ll emerge triumphant for a second time against Woodbury 2.0. Buckle your seat belts because I think we’re about to lose a couple of major characters come next week!
Courtesy of AMC
Other Observations:
- I found it interesting that neither Pete, Mitch or The Governor were concerned about who attacked and ransacked that camp in the woods. Furthermore, who was responsible for setting up that protective moat of mud zombies? It seems like there’s a much bigger threat to the RV camp than the Grimes gang. Perhaps whoever that is will be responsible for the Governor’s undoing?
- Although I disliked their one-dimensional characters, I let out a bit of a squeal when I saw Kirk Acevedo (known to me as Charlie on Fringe) and Enver Gjokaj (Victor on Dollhouse) share the screen. It had me recalling happy memories of beloved sci-fi shows on FOX that were cancelled all too soon.
What did you think viewers? Are you glad that the Governor we know and love is back? Will he overtake the prison? Who will meet his/her end in the crossfire? Is it obvious that The Governor is our rat feeder or is that still a mystery? Any significance to the book that Pete was reading in the cabin – cliff notes to Shakespeare’s Richard III? 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.
Well, Angie, time to address you directly. You are currently pursuing a PhD in media studies, right?
You wrote:
“The potentially reformed Governor is no more as this hour, we see the ol’ crazy evil Governor re-animating before our very eyes”
I totally disagree with your usage of the following terms: “crazy” and “evil”.
The post-apocalyptic, chaotic environment is, well, an environment, what else? That said, the environment’s significance lies wholly within the realm of possible human perception and interpretation of it. Now, it is not enough for one to say that the environment is like a jungle. That it is, for sure. The key difference here is that a few (?) human animals happening to possess mindsets and emotional response mechanisms inherited by virtue of _once_ having operated within the constraints of civilizational (not necessarily civilized) existence modes are still around and must come to terms with the jungle conditions surrounding them.
Angie, when you are talking about a “potentially reformed Governor”, the thing that comes to _my_ mind is an individual who has adaptively learned a few things about the jungle so as to subjectively maximize his future chances for survival.
Now, you have also asked:
“Are you glad that the Governor we know and love is back?”
Being a woman, I certainly cannot afford and, in the final analysis, do not even _want_ to “know” this guy. But, when it comes to “loving” him, Andrea’s story is very telling. Unfortunately, present day moralizers seem not to be able or want to look beyond their pedestrian “slut / victim” bifurcations. This kind of Manichaeism is very, very convenient…
Amanda, although you argue your point quite adeptly, I must continue to disagree with you that The Governor is justified in his actions in the name of adaptivity and survival.
How does The Governor’s lust for revenge on Michonne and Rick speak to survival when they pose no immediate threat? Perhaps there is most justification for going after Michonne, but Rick? His crime was simply being the leader of another camp. The Grimes gang showed no interest in concerning itself with Woodbury, until its people were kidnapped and terrorized.
I could perhaps be swayed by your argument if there wasn’t a more imminent threat closer to the RV camp as I alluded to in the review.
How do you reconcile the Governor’s delight in collecting trophies in his fish tanks? I don’t see how that is merely a product of “maximiz[ing] his future chances for survival”.
Furthermore, you seem to be reading far too much into words that are clearly meant emulate a colloquial conversation. My use of “know” and “love” shouldn’t be taken so literally, instead referring to the pleasures afforded in viewing a television drama.
Hi Angie,
You wrote:
“Amanda, although you argue your point quite adeptly…” and
“… you seem to be reading far too much into words that are clearly meant to emulate a colloquial conversation”
Thank you. It is not my intent to come across as adversarially polemical but rather to engage you in intellectually stimulating dialogue, especially given your academic orientation. Hopefully, your eventual thesis defense will go smoothly without any manifestations of certain pettiness and narrowmindedness often encountered in such committees… 🙂 As for “colloquial conversation”, I will leave this side of things to others who seem to be way more suited for such approaches…
You ask:
“How does The Governor’s lust for revenge on Michonne and Rick speak to survival when they pose no immediate threat? Perhaps there is most justification for going after Michonne, but Rick?”
The case of Michonne is rather straightforward. In the animal kingdom, physical revenge exacted by those who have suffered losses of blood relatives (especially offspring) at the hands of others on the perpetrators is not uncommon. Closer to human affairs, there’s vendetta…
In my opinion, the situation with Rick can be viewed through the prism of antagonism between two “tribal” leaders who have been attempting to fashion _their_ tribes on the basis of a mixture of post-apocalyptic realism and fading echoes of civilization. In my view, if this _is_ indeed the end of civilization, Rick’s “tribe”, being “retro”, is bound to be defeated by the Governor’s “tribe” that promises “newness” and permanent divorce from the “weak past”. The Governor is anthropologically as well as “ideologically” compelled to eradicate the “weak” in order to snuff out any civilizationally inherited compunctions that may still be lurking in his psyche regarding the desirability of going back to same old, same old…
Angie, as far as the imminent threat to the RV camp is concerned, I would venture to say that the Governor may be tactically flawed but strategically justified. He _has_ to extinguish the demonstration potential of Rick’s “retro” ways in order to establish his “new order” which will be looking to a hitherto unexplored future. His is a promise of adventure by plunging into the unknown. Rick’s vision assumes some kind of man made miracle that will eventually allow women to attend PTA meetings in the future…
Finally, you wrote:
“How do you reconcile the Governor’s delight in collecting trophies in his fish tanks? I don’t see how that is merely a product of “maximiz[ing] his future chances for survival”
Anthropology, Angie, anthropology. Just look at cannibals in the South Pacific… 🙂 Basically, what I see is this. The Governor represents anthropological renewal. If so, he has to go through phases / rounds in which he progressively sheds more and more of his “retro” interpretation of such things as “family”, “friends” and so on in favor of a young, cruel, unapologetic alterative that does not promise comfort (no more Woodburies) but a seductively implied future full of triumphs and horrors.
Good review. It was an okay episode, however, the ending is what really pushed it over that hill to make it interesting. Let’s hope that they don’t disappoint.
==> “It was an okay episode”
okay for whom? would you care to be a bit more specific?
==> “however, the ending is what really pushed it over that hill to make it interesting”
So, presumably, whatever preceded the “hill” was _not_ interesting? Why? By the way, I presume that the “ending” you are referring to is getting a glimpse of the characters “we” are rooting for, right?
==> “Let’s hope that they don’t disappoint”
Presumably you are referring to the scriptwriters, right? Could you give us an idea of how “we” or “you” would be disappointed? Curious…
Amanda, although I appreciate you wanting to engage CMork93, I don’t think that deconstructing his every sentence is the way to do it. We appreciate all the people that take the time to comment on our posts but we don’t want them to feel like they’re being picked on. I think your response, respectfully, borders on that.
Which indirectly enlightens me as to the kind of posting environment your blog is aimed at (finally !!). Before I go, you may want to take out that reference to your Ph.D. studies. It is more trouble in _this_ environment than it is worth it, if you know what I mean… Perhaps you should have come out sooner and clarified your position instead of letting Jessie to do _your_ work…
So long.
Hey, CMrok93
Kindly disregard my previous post (I wish I could delete it altogether). Wrong environment (for me) ! 🙂 Enjoy your show _your_ way. Hopefully it will not… disappoint you ! 🙂
As always, great review, Angie. I personally enjoy this era of television viewership, in which I am able to not only view a show, but engage with others via the www. to engage in intellectually charged conversation about the fundamental cultural assumptions that the show conveys to us (the audience). I don’t always agree with your analyses but your posts are insightful and witty. As far as the episode is concerned, I was simply bored. I hope the WD soon becomes more exciting than smartphone solitaire and laundry-folding.
Now, Amanda…
I had to read your post(s) a couple of times to get past the adversarial tone of it and while I actually agree in part with you (and in part with Angie), you would sound less “adversarially polemic” if you refrained from statements like:
“Well, Angie, time to address you directly. You are currently pursuing a PhD in media studies, right?”
“Anthropology, Angie, anthropology. Just look at cannibals in the South Pacific…”
AND
Making reference to her eventual thesis defense as though the analyses contained in her post has any bearing on whether her defense would be successful and moreover, as though you are in a position to judge that.
Perhaps you truly didn’t intend to be “adversarially polemic” (as you claim) – but if that is the case, what, pray tell, on earth were your intentions with statements such as those outlined above?
That was a rhetorical question; you don’t have to answer it.
Peace,
J.
This is for both Angie and Jessie ==>
I assume that Angie wrote or consented to the following and posted it prominently here on a permanent basis for a good _reason_:
“About tvangie
Angie is a TV addict currently pursuing a PhD in media studies. A freelance researcher and writer on the side – she really misses talking about her favourite shows because none of her friends watch them. Help her out”
Let me parse it out and see what the relevance of the above is ==>
a) “Angie is a TV addict”
Ok, Angie likes to watch TV a lot; now what?
b) “currently pursuing a PhD in media studies”
Some people may consider this to be inconsequential. I beg to differ. Unless Angie comes out and enlightens us as to why she mentioned it, I am going to post on the basis of presumably working hypotheses, including academic… humor.
c) “A freelance researcher”
To me “research” points towards a rather organized and curious mind
d) “and writer on the side”
I would _love_ Angie to expand on this…
e) “she really misses talking about her favourite shows because none of her friends watch them”
Again, this is rather intriguing territory. Why does Angie think / know that her “friends” don’t watch those shows?
f) “Help her out”
How?
This is _strictly_ for Jessie ==>
You wrote:
“Making reference to her eventual thesis defense as though the analyses contained in her post has any bearing on whether her defense would be successful and moreover, as though you are in a position to judge that”
AND
“what, pray tell, on earth were your intentions with statements such as those outlined above?”
If you have some experience with the academic world, you surely must allow for the possibility of academic… humor. Besides, in _that_ world, certain research activities are undertaken in order to challenge the mind and received knowledge / opinion (even if eggs are broken along the way) as opposed to making people feel good about themselves…
I am not even sure what to say to you. Really…I mean, really. You took the time to pick apart each of these statements and really, it was nonsensical…almost silly, to do so.
Other than that, my actual response is…seriously? Like, seriously?
Why? Because, for instance, “Angie is a T.V. addict” could mean several things, as could “a writer on the side.” These things needn’t be expanded upon; these are colloquial statements, likely meant to compose a witty, lighthearted description of TVangie.
“These things needn’t be expanded upon; these are colloquial statements, likely meant to compose a witty, lighthearted description of TVangie”
If so, let Angie confirm this. I am sure that, say, CMrok93 will be happy to hear it… Unless Angie comes out and says that her reference to her Ph.D. studies is “lighthearted” and _not contextual_ with respect to her reviews, I believe I have reasonable grounds to stick to my working hypothesis.
Amanda, dear Amanda. I am not sure what your point is. I don’t believe that the ‘comments’ section on this blog is to make the writers feel good about themselves. I merely pointed out that some of the statements you made (not your arguments) are adversarial and may (although I don’t know this) make someone feel bad about themselves. Now…that wouldn’t be the point of “academic…humor” either, would it?
For the love of god, that was a rhetorical question.
Peace – seriously, find peace.
J.
I believe our fundamental disagreement stems from the fact that you consider form to be more important than substance, at least as far as this blog is concerned.
If it turns out that Angie will eventually show up and indicate that this space is for “lighthearted”, perhaps, mainstream conversation and no place for either academic jokes or musings, well, _then_ we may have very good reasons to part posting company.
As for your frequent references to “peace”, I happen to be an avid reader of Tolstoy’s best known literary piece ! 🙂
Addendum:
Now everything is clear. No need to continue the conversation. Have fun 🙂
I don’t particularly think this conversation is going in a productive way. Let me chime in briefly – we write reviews to express our opinions as individuals (which invariably reflects our personal backgrounds/histories etc.)because we love television. We simply want to share those opinions for those who want to read them. We welcome comments from people who agree, disagree and everywhere in between. And yes, I happen to be pursuing a PhD as well as doing freelance writing- but that information is included so that readers can get a little bit of context into the person composing the reviews. I welcome comments, even those that wish to engage in a more academic tone, however we don’t want to exclude, allowing everyone, academic background or not, to participate.