S01.E05: Endure and Survive

[Luckylyn]

There are leaders who have the skills to win a war but are inadequate to lead in the aftermath.  Kathleen needed to switch gears from vengeance to longterm survival but she didn’t have a clue on how to be a peacetime leader.  

[Kel Varnsen]

3 hours ago, Luckylyn said:

There are leaders who have the skills to win a war but are inadequate to lead in the aftermath.  Kathleen needed to switch gears from vengeance to longterm survival but she didn’t have a clue on how to be a peacetime leader.  

The funny thing was it wasn't a switch from war to peacetime, because it was still a war just with a different enemy. And not being able to recognize that kind of small change, got her killed.

[Nashville]

On 2/16/2023 at 11:48 PM, Dev F said:

I think that's part of the irony of the character, actually: her shtick would've worked like gangbusters right up until the moment she actually accomplished something. When you're being ground under by FEDRA every day, "We'll overthrow these motherfuckers and kill every filthy rat that licked their boots!" sounds pretty darn good. It's only after the resistance has taken power that you start to wonder, "Waitaminnit, maybe someone should make sure we don't starve or get torn apart by fungus zombies instead of chasing after every remaining collaborator."

I would tend to agree, in the sense those ground under the heel of oppression are inclined to grasp at any straw which promises relief; allegiance to such options fades with time the longer one does not deliver on the promise, though.  

[Note: from here down I’m spitballing, not advocating]

What maintains such commitment through such “dry spells”?  A few off the top of my head:

1. Personal charisma: Michael apparently had it in truckloads, but Kathleen couldn’t get it with Amazon Prime and next-day shipping?
2. Promise of imminent results: great if you can actually deliver on the promise, but devastating if you can’t.
3. Distraction: if you can’t deliver, find a scapegoat you can blame for the lack of success.  This was the basis for my Animal Farm reference, as it sounded a LOT like what Kathleen was doing - casting herself and Henry in the roles of (respectively) Napoleon and Snowball.  All bad things are Henry’s fault, by default.

[paigow]

K.C. FEDRA was more effective against the Infected than Boston FEDRA... However, Boston FEDRA is still in charge... not sure if a middle ground exists...

[Kel Varnsen]

5 hours ago, paigow said:

K.C. FEDRA was more effective against the Infected than Boston FEDRA... However, Boston FEDRA is still in charge... not sure if a middle ground exists...

Were they more effective? The giant infected crater thing under the building was probably more than 2 weeks old so if they were still in charge it probably would have erupted under their watch.

[paigow]

2 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Were they more effective? The giant infected crater thing under the building was probably more than 2 weeks old so if they were still in charge it probably would have erupted under their watch.

K.C. cleared the entire city surface, not just the QZ. Agreed that a catastrophic event was imminent, but the quality of life - relatively speaking - was better than Boston... 

Edited February 19, 2023 by paigow

[Oxia]

Just watched this without my glasses (don't ask), so I might have missed something. But I thought Sam was messing with Ellie, he hadn't actually turned. Henry shot Sam,  realised his mistake when he saw the blood (zombies don't bleed like that, do they?) and turned the gun on himself. I will rewatch later as I must have the wrong end of the stick.

Other than that, another sound episode, Kathleen was chilling, but met a fitting end.

 

[mcree]

While the show is in the zombie genre, these Infected are not undead. They don’t die and reanimate. Initially the fungus makes you crazy and homicidal, which is bad enough. And you bleed like normal.

Sam had turned; you could see it in his face and eyes. Henry did the right thing by shooting Sam, but couldn’t live with himself.

 

[30 Helens]

It’s only been a few days since I saw E3, and I probably should have waited a little longer. Too many gutpunches in too short of a timespan. 

This show is absolutely incredible in its ability to create fully realized, multidimensional characters in such a brief amount of time. The bond between Henry and Sam was palpable from the start, and that scene of Henry painting a superhero mask over Sam’s eyes broke my heart even before the last scene stomped on it. 

As for Kathleen, she has clearly become unhinged, but she is not the typical moustache-twirling, bat-wielding sociopath that one would expect. She is the slightly dictatorial PTA committee leader who used to run a mean Girl Scout cookie drive, but has been corrupted by grief and is now using her organizational skills for evil. She is not a cartoon villain, but rather a lost soul who was probably once a mostly decent person. And physically, she is the last person you would expect to be running a violent resistance. Kathleen is your neighbor, your Sunday school teacher, your friend. That makes her all too real, and all too terrifying.

My one quibble with this episode: Why do TV characters always cut across their palm when they want to draw blood? Cutting your hand open means limited functionality and extreme pain every time you try to reach or grab for something, which would be about 90% of the time. Why not cut the side of your arm, or your shin, or a hip? Same blood, but fewer consequences. It annoys me every time.

[paigow]

13 hours ago, 30 Helens said:

As for Kathleen, she has clearly become unhinged, but she is not the typical moustache-twirling, bat-wielding sociopath that one would expect.

My Chemical Romance - Welcome To The Black Parade describes her perfectly...

A world that sends you reelin'
From decimated dreams
Your misery and hate will kill us all

[Dobian]

On 2/11/2023 at 11:17 PM, aghst said:

Did mostly sociopaths survive the fungus apocalypse?

This was the same theme with Walking Dead, where the handful of people left are the worst or stupidest people you can imagine.  I would think that in a real apocalypse you would have groups - mainly from our military - who would re-establish pockets of civilization.

[Nashville]

On 2/12/2023 at 1:17 AM, aghst said:

Did mostly sociopaths survive the fungus apocalypse?

Doubtful - but sociopaths will be the ones more focused on accumulation of power versus, say, baseline survival support.

 

20 hours ago, Dobian said:

This was the same theme with Walking Dead, where the handful of people left are the worst or stupidest people you can imagine.  I would think that in a real apocalypse you would have groups - mainly from our military - who would re-establish pockets of civilization.

Those “worst” are also the first to glom onto whatever bureaucratic admin/desk jobs become available, which is why you’ll often find them in positions of quasi-authority.

[rebel2u]

I've been watching this show sort of off and on and I haven't read many previous comments on other episodes or the entirety of this episode's comments so if I am writing what has already been stated, I apologize.

Is anyone else sympathetic to Kathleen in the loss of her brother Michael, I think it is?  Henry took the most kind and forgiving man he had ever known, the best man he had ever known,  the leader of his people, and sacrificed him for Henry's own brother.  Kathleen loves her brother just as much as Henry loves his.  Michael probably could have kept their whole movement going, so, additionally, Henry essentially sacrificed all the people in his movement.  Yes, Sam has/had leukemia, and Henry was understandably heartbroken over this.  But now Michael, Henry, Sam and Kathleen are dead or infected.  Isn't one person killing another innocent person for their own reasons an act that, in normal times, we put people in jail for?  I'm team Kathleen all the way.  If my beloved brother had been sacrificed to a group that was going to (probably) torture and was going to kill him, I'd be doing what she did.

This is an interesting show.  A disease that affects the entire population, those who have this disease preying on the population that has not been infected, people trying to survive, good and bad fighting it out, and, wow, even a character that is deaf.  I think this show has already been done, and, imho, the first show was done a lot better.

 

Edited March 9, 2023 by rebel2u

[Hanahope]

17 hours ago, rebel2u said:

Michael probably could have kept their whole movement going, so, additionally, Henry essentially sacrificed all the people in his movement.  Yes, Sam has/had leukemia, and Henry was understandably heartbroken over this.  But now Michael, Henry, Sam and Kathleen are dead or infected. 

Sure, can feel for Kathleen.  but all those other deaths/infections are on her for her desire for vengeance. She could have mourned her brother, promised to do what he wanted for the people, and let it go as to Henry (understanding that he was trying to save Sam).  Had she not continued to hunt and go after Henry and Sam, she might have been able to focus on the threat of the infected.  but she was willing to 'worry about that later' in order to go after Henry and Sam now.  

Henry did what he did.  was he now supposed to surrender to Kathleen and let her kill him and Sam?  Kathleen decided to keep it going and had she not, her people might have been saved.

[nodorothyparker]

This was a good episode and good story arc but it also confirms for me that for all aspirations to the contrary this show is still just a much more expensive version of The Walking Dead. The meditations on whether the things we do make us bad people, can you still call yourself a "good guy" if your intentions are still more or less good even if you do awful things, greater good vs. the value of single life that survived against all odds, does the removal of old social rules and obligations just free us to be more of what we already were, all questions that show explored albeit often in much more drawn out maudlin terms.

That's not a criticism as much as an acknowledge that this is what the genre is and for all of its big budget and terrific staging it's still a genre show. You know the moment a character starts to show hope that there's going to be life somewhere after this and commits to taking the trip with you that it's going to end badly. Children who aren't main characters or main characters' children rarely do well long term and sometimes not even then. Somebody is inevitably going to do something shortsighted in a world that isn't forgiving of shortsightedness and ends up bringing the whole thing crashing down.

I generally like Melanie Lynskey well enough even if find many of her characters near interchangeable. I always say watching shows like this that it's a wonder that anyone can be logical or rational at all rather than full bore crazy or broken by grief and that we as viewers have a tendency to judge characters for how we think they should act by our current standards in a still sort of functioning world rather than the world they're scraping by in. It's good writing when you can see where both she and Henry were coming from in acting as they did even when it's also obvious that they're also making things worse for everybody overall.

It was nice to see Ellie actually get to be a kid for a bit, even if it also ended badly all too soon. The scenes of her and Sam passing the magic slate back and forth were lovely, so of course now my teen who had never seen one before wants one. I hadn't thought of them in years but we quickly found you can still buy them online.

[WritinMan]

On 2/13/2023 at 10:42 PM, Capricasix said:

It’s easier for British (or Australian, or New Zealander, or Irish) actors to mimic an American accent than it is for Americans to mimic theirs.

Well, they like to think so yet many of them are just as bad at it as we are doing a British accent.

There are a few actors who are great at it. Hugh Laurie is one. But many British actors sound like they have to use a deeper tone of voice, talk (too) slowly, and sound like they're from the South or Chicago--no matter where the character is actually from.

Edited April 9, 2023 by WritinMan

[DrSparkles]

On 2/13/2023 at 9:11 AM, cardigirl said:

I think the whole discussion of who has the right to decide whose life is worth more was broached pretty well. Clearly, Kathleen couldn't understand the need for her brother to die, so that Sam might live. Her brother was a good man, a great man, I guess, if we go by what was said about him. (We don't actually get to meet him.) And he was betrayed by someone who loved him, because Henry loved Sam more than he loved Kathleen's brother. 

Kathleen's brother was killed by FEDRA, clearly a corrupt organization. Kathleen became corrupt in her need for vengence. But her questions about others' actions, the collaborators, and how did they feel now, when they were about to feel the consequences of their actions. All of that was a little murky. What exactly was the need for FEDRA to have informers for? Why were they hunting Kathleen's brother? The resistance was resisting what?  

This is where the show is more like a video game (to me). No real explanation of anything. Just our two heroes in danger constantly, a semi-defined goal of getting Ellie to someplace where they are working on a cure.

Why is there no cooperation between safe zones?  Is it impossible to maintain any kind of communication system? Is wireless radio the only way to communicate long distances? Is there agriculture anywhere? Some kind of food production? Pockets of oases where chickens, pigs, cows survived, or is everyone living on 20 year old cans of Chef Boy-ar-dee (which, btw, would contain flour)? 

Back to who gets to live and who gets to die ... Sam is clearly an innocent. He's young, cute, and adorable. Someone worth caring about. So protect the innocents at all cost? When Joel told Ellie he was sorry she had to go through all of this (i.e., fighting for her life, shooting someone, listening as Joel finished him off), he was mourning her lost innocence. 

Perhaps Kathleen's brother would have willingly gone to FEDRA, if it would save Sam. Perhaps not. But in a world of limited resources, people start making decisions about how to spread the resources around. When Kathleen said children die all the time, she was baring her grief. Why was Sam's life worth more than her brother's? 

Joel said earlier in the show, that the only people you fight for are family. Since Sam was not Kathleen's family, she couldn't see why Henry would do what he did. Since Kathleen's brother was not Henry's brother, he could do what he did for his family, Sam.

While I was silently cheering when the hoards of infected came up and got rid of the resisters, I thought the basic question of how does one decide who gets the resources to live and who doesn't was a great one. More of a philosophical discussion than I would expect from a show based on a video game. 

P.S. Comparing this situation to the COVID situation, there was a lot of scary talk on both sides.  

P.P.S.  Apparently children were still being born after the start of the infection. Both Ellie and Sam were younger than the 20 years this infection has been going on.
 

I’m so very tardy to the party, but wrt your first PS, wait… what??

I feel like, yes, there will be a lot of sociopaths who survive (& thrive) in a post-apocalyptic world. I, on the other hand, will simply ☮️ out 👋🏽.