Beyond Dramatic Irony: 'Fear the Walking Dead' and the Nature of the Prequel

M. King Adkins

What happens when we don't just know something the character doesn't, we actually know how their world will end?

Fear the Walking Dead

Airtime: Sundays, 8pm
Cast: Kim Dickens, Cliff Curtis, Frank Dillane, Alycia Debnam-Carey, Elizabeth Rodriguez, Mercedes Mason, Lorenzo James Henrie, Rubén Blades
Subtitle: "Pilot"
Network: AMC
Air date: 2015-08-23

AMC’s new series, Fear the Walking Dead is a prequel, meaning a good part of its allure relies on our knowledge of what awaits these characters. Early in the first episode, we find Travis Manawa (Cliff Curtis) on his back beneath the kitchen sink, doing some minor plumbing work. His partner, Madison Clark (Kim Dickens), watches him work, teasing him by saying they should call an actual plumber. As Travis finishes up and checks the water flow, he says with satisfaction, “I think I just saved us 300 bucks.” In any other series, this sort of lighthearted banter might do nothing more than establish the couple’s relationship. Any viewer of The Walking Dead knows, however, that soon 300 dollars won’t actually mean anything, and the pipe he’s just repaired won’t work anyway. Indoor plumbing is part of a world that will soon simply cease to exist.

The precise term for such moments in drama is dramatic irony. These are points in a story where we as an audience know something the characters don’t. Dramatic irony is a standard plot device, and used well incredibly effective at creating tension (and not just in drama: the sitcom Three’s Company survived almost entirely on dramatic irony).

Fear makes more a pointed use of it later in the episode, when Madison confronts a young man at her school, Tobias (Lincoln A. Castellanos), who has tried to smuggle a knife past the front door metal detectors. Tobias insists that dark corners of the Internet are forecasting a massive plague, but Madison dismisses his fears as the product of typical online paranoia. We want desperately for Madison to believe him though, because we know what she doesn’t: the situation is worse than even Tobias realizes.

A more poignant, symbolic moment occurs later, when Travis – who is also a teacher – tries to get his English students interested in Jack London’s short story, “To Build a Fire". The story centers on one man’s struggle to survive in a hostile wilderness, but particularly on his unwillingness to heed warnings about just how deadly that wilderness can be. At the end of Travis’s lesson, one jaded student wakes from his nap to say frankly, “I don’t care about building a fire.” What more must the fates do to warn us?

But as these examples suggest, the sort of irony at work in a show like Fear the Walking Dead seems an extreme version of the technique, a version that has become more and more common with the rise of the prequel – shows like Caprica, Gotham, and Bates Motel. In Bates Motel, we already know what Norman Bates will become, and our knowledge colors every moment of the plot as we watch him slowly get there. When Norman witnesses the death of his dog, his mother and brother offer sympathy for his loss; we know the significance of the loss, the role it will play in his growing psychosis. Such moments take dramatic irony to a completely other level, in part because they aren’t single moments in the plotline -- rather they affect absolutely every aspect of this fictional world, present and future.

This technique -- what I might call pervasive irony -- occurs in another way in the film Titanic. We know from the opening credits how the story will end: there is no possibility the ship won’t wind up at the bottom of the ocean. That changes our entire experience of the story. We aren’t simply held in suspense as a character figures out what’s really happening; we know the entire horrible outcome in advance. As a result, we find ourselves in the odd position of hoping, irrationally, that somehow history will happen differently this time, that somehow things will work out: the lookout will spot the iceberg, the boat will turn in time, the engineers will find some way to stop the leak. The tension becomes more extreme in that we fight our own knowledge, wishing in vain to undo what is already done. (Quentin Tarantino seems to have uncovered some interesting potential in this kind of irony, offering up recent films -- Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained -- in which he satisfies that peculiar desire we feel to see history changed.)

Shakespeare toyed with the possibilities of pervasive irony 600 years ago in Romeo and Juliet. The story of these “star-crossed lovers” was well known in the Elizabethan era (other writers had tried their hand at writing it), and thus the audience for Shakespeare’s version would have known the story well and expected its tragic ending. In response to this situation, Shakespeare broke the rules of Elizabethan tragedy, moving the crisis moment – the moment from which things cannot be undone -- from the third act to the very final scene. The result is that a theatergoer would be expecting things to go badly, but would find those expectations frustrated by the play’s relatively comic structure. The play holds out hope that, both against all odds and what the audience knows to be true, things will work out, only to dash those hopes utterly in the final seconds.

As in Romeo and Juliet, the most important moment of dramatic irony in Fear’s first episode has to both do with structure and our learned responses to dramatic irony. Certainly, the producers play up the tension arising from our knowledge of what will happen, but they also occasionally frustrate our expectations, to keep us off balance. Nowhere is this strategy more apparent than in the opening scene. Nick (Frank Dillane), Madison's son, wakes in an abandoned church, with boarded windows, broken furniture, and belongings scattered everywhere. The place is filthy and disheveled in the way of many of the locations seen in The Walking Dead, and we assume we must be seeing a similar, post-apocalyptic setting. As the scene unfolds, Nick goes in search of “Gloria", calling out for her and moving slowly, in a daze, through the church. He finds blood on the wall, and it seems obvious to those of us who know the world of The Walking Dead what must have happened. His panic, and ours, grows, as he follows the trail of blood only to find Gloria feasting on another corpse. She turns to face him and we know instantly she has turned. Nick apparently knows as well: he turns on his heel and runs for his life. We watch in slow motion as he flees the church, running with wild abandon from the walker behind him…

…until suddenly he is struck by a car. As he lies on the pavement, the camera pulls back to reveal not simply one car, but a vibrant Los Angeles street full of cars. It takes a moment – and that’s the beauty of what has happened – for us to realize that, while Nick has clearly had an encounter with a walker, it is only his first encounter. In this version of the series’ world, the walker crisis has not yet taken root. (In fact, the producers let us in on this fact before the premiere, through promotional material and sneak previews, adding yet one more level to our expectations.)

It’s too early to tell whether Fear the Walking Dead will find the same level of success as The Walking Dead. Those are big shoes to fill. Even a few episodes in, it’s unclear whether these characters will be worth rooting for (is there a Daryl in the group?), and whether their stories will be as compelling as those in the original. I’m not convinced a prequel can survive merely by overlaying everything with dramatic irony, no matter how intense that irony is; there’s an early sense in which Fear appears to be trying to survive in that way. Can watching other people learn the rules of this new world be as satisfying as it was to learn those rules for the first time ourselves? The show has proven, however, that it isn’t merely an attempt to capitalize on the success of The Walking Dead. The use of these different types of irony within the series is one of the ways in which the episodes' structure offers the potential for real depth.

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.