Review of 'Walking Dead' S2-#11

     ‘Walking Dead’ is an American drama about zombies. I’ve watched it for mere fun until now, but eleventh episode of season 2 captured my attention, compelling me to think about complex matters.

     To simply describe the situation, several people from the protagonist’s group, including the protagonist, gets into conflict with another survivor group. During the process, the protagonist notices that one boy from the other group is left behind, with his leg stuck in the iron door. As the protagonist is depicted to be always nice, he saves the body, although most of his team members disagree. Returning to the base, people lock the boy in the shed, and have debate about what to do with him. As most of them fears that the boy would bring his group to the farm they are settled in, all people except one person suggest that they should murder the boy. The only person who disagrees gets disappointed about others’ moral values, but still he can’t convince others not to do so. Consequently, others, including the protagonist, go to execute the boy, but fails as they notice that protagonist’s boy is watching. Meanwhile, one antagonist in the group pretends to let the boy go, but secretly kills him in the forest. At that night, the person who disagreed gets severely injured as a zombie opens his stomach. Though he is not turning into a zombie as he isn’t bitten, the damage is so harsh that an operation cannot be held. To relieve the pain the man is having, a guy from the group shoots him in the head.

     There were two questions that popped up in my mind when I first watched it. First, I wondered, ‘who decides what is right or wrong? Even though the boy is a potential threat, is it morally right to kill him?’ Considering these two questions, I thought that it would be creepy if such problem is broadened to the world we’re living in. In the drama, the thing that most people asserted was right in their perspectives. As a result, even ‘killing’ was justified, and nobody suggested an opposite opinion, because they thought they might get disadvantages for it. Today, in the world we’re living in, the most frequently used democratic method is the principle of majority rule. However, can anyone be certain that such system is completely democratic and righteous? How about people who gets disadvantages, just because the majority agrees they should get them? Moreover, the boy gets killed secretly in the forest, and the antagonist who committed it pretends he doesn’t know anything about it. This is a bit weird thought, but maybe this episode is indirectly criticizing the modern society, where people try to do things illegally if their objectives are not achieved.

Furthermore, it was really ironic that the person who shouted true moral values gets killed by a zombie. Why do good people always die first in the dramas or movies? Maybe it’s to make the story more thrilling and interesting. However, isn’t it actually depressing as such events imply that people who do right things get disadvantages? I know it’s a broad interpretation to conclude as such just by watching the drama, but it was a bit sad as I saw lots of these happening in real life. I murmured ‘Awwh…’ in the dormitory room when the man died, because he was so pitiful and the status-quo of our society nowadays was so bitter.

‘Walking Dead’ was always only humorous and fun, but not that day. This great episode gave me an opportunity to think about what’s right, and the tragic reality.