This felt like the first truly good episode of the series. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that it’s the episode that strayed the furthest from the game. Who knew Nick Offerman could do drama...
This felt like the first truly good episode of the series. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that it’s the episode that strayed the furthest from the game.
Who knew Nick Offerman could do drama very well, huh? Yeah I know comedic actors doing dramatic performances isn’t a new thing but for every Jim Carrey there’s a Tiffany Haddish. So it’s nice to see that Offerman has the chops.
This felt more like a short film than an episode of a television show, honestly. It’s contained. Like a low-budget indie, with an apocalyptic setting as an excuse to only have two actors in it the whole time.
It was beautiful. But, I thought the On The Nature of Daylight’s needle drop was a little eh, I know people are loving it but it just seems obvious and uninspired. Especially when Arrival already did it ad nauseam, (also did people already forget about that movie and how important that piece was to it?).
I think the first episode was amazing. But this episode is a masterpiece. Edit: WTF. People are review bombing this episode on IMDb. 1.1% of votes on episode 2 are 1/10. 21% of votes on episode 3...
I think the first episode was amazing. But this episode is a masterpiece.
Edit:
WTF. People are review bombing this episode on IMDb. 1.1% of votes on episode 2 are 1/10. 21% of votes on episode 3 are 1/10.
Well, you see, the episode focused on a gay love story. And that really upsets the worst kinds of people. These people really can't stand the fact that they have become economically insignificant...
Well, you see, the episode focused on a gay love story. And that really upsets the worst kinds of people.
These people really can't stand the fact that they have become economically insignificant to the point that Hollywood pretty much ignores them now. So they band together online to make their hateful voices heard and pretend they have more people on their side than they actually do.
Yeah... The first person I ran into online (outside of this site) talking about TLoU kept complaining about the new episode "catered so hard". After repeated questioning they refused to clarify...
Yeah... The first person I ran into online (outside of this site) talking about TLoU kept complaining about the new episode "catered so hard". After repeated questioning they refused to clarify what that meant.
I suppose I can bring myself to empathise with the crowd who wanted a zombie show to be always filled with zombies and action, as well as those who disagree with changes made when adapting from...
I suppose I can bring myself to empathise with the crowd who wanted a zombie show to be always filled with zombies and action, as well as those who disagree with changes made when adapting from game to show. It's always a little jarring when a piece of media you enjoy is changed for whatever reason; when what's in your mind confronts what's on the screen.
But I'm not a player of the game. I'm sure I watched a play-through years ago, and enjoyed it at the time, but I didn't enter into the series with that at the forefront of my mind. I also didn't expect such a tender and self-contained episode from a zombie show.
It had me almost sobbing at multiple points. The pacing, atmosphere, and acting were all superb- but having watched Chernobyl (also headed by Craig Mazin) maybe I shouldn't be so surprised? And this is described as the happy episode by Druckmann (Tweet by Neil_Druckmann @ 4:25 AM · Jan 30, 2023), though, possibly, ironically.
I think Film Crit Hulk had a lot to say about this particular episode and how it was beautiful, but also how queer love is too beautiful and fleeting for happily ever afters....
I think Film Crit Hulk had a lot to say about this particular episode and how it was beautiful, but also how queer love is too beautiful and fleeting for happily ever afters.
Thank you for sharing this. The end particularly resonated with me, albeit for a different reason: Another trope that's similar to "bury your gays" but less visible in the broader culture is...
Thank you for sharing this. The end particularly resonated with me, albeit for a different reason:
Specifically with this trope, I can ask why this sort of thing is 95% of what happens in these stories and why it’s always so cathartic for everyone else? Honestly, why is it more powerful if they die, regardless of circumstance? Because, in the end, who is this all really for?
Another trope that's similar to "bury your gays" but less visible in the broader culture is disabled people constantly dying in media and that being portrayed as a good thing. ("Hollywood Promotes the Idea it is Better to be Dead than Disabled") When so many stories are told about disabled people are about how dying is better than being disabled, because it ends their "suffering," leaves people better off without them, or both, it sucks. Why is a story more powerful if disabled people die? At this point, wouldn't it be more powerful if we actually lived for once?
I guess whether or not that trope applies to this episode is debatable, since it does show them having a life together and both of them die. (I haven't seen it.) But damn it hurts to live through a pandemic that's disabling and killing people (still), and to hear about a story apparently showing how disabled folks don't have a place in a (fictional) pandemic future.
I also read the writers didn't even know what illness/disability he had, saying it was MS or ALS, which are pretty different. That lack of care, plus the "bury the disabled" trope, has kind of turned me off watching beyond episode 1, unfortunately.
I had a lot more written but it's hard to get into it without spoilers. Suffice to say, I think if you actually watch the episode, you'll come away with a very different conclusion. I don't think...
I had a lot more written but it's hard to get into it without spoilers. Suffice to say, I think if you actually watch the episode, you'll come away with a very different conclusion. I don't think anyone came out of the episode thinking it suggested disabled folks don't have a place in the post-apocalypse.
But that last bit sounds like incorrect hearsay. They talked about this on the official podcast, they specifically aimed to portray MS or early ALS (overall a degenerative neuromuscular disorder of some kind) but also did not want to specify which for the audience because it's inconsequential for what the story is actually about. Still, a few prominent outlets have also identified this as being cancer, when it obviously is not to anyone that has watched even a single episode of House MD that covers a neuro condition, so this entire topic of conversation might already be fraught if one is relying on media coverage and not a firsthand experience with the episode.
I'm fine with spoilers if you'd like to elaborate - either I still won't watch it, or the spoilers will make me more inclined to try it. In fact I read a couple recaps just now. I feel like my...
I'm fine with spoilers if you'd like to elaborate - either I still won't watch it, or the spoilers will make me more inclined to try it. In fact I read a couple recaps just now.
I feel like my point still stands. Regardless of the story's context, a disabled man dying this way is part of larger collection of work and societal opinions. It sucks that so many stories about disabled people are about us dying, and that it's usually portrayed as a bittersweet but happy ending. In this case the writers say it's "happy" because they had many years together, and had dialog to this effect. But they wouldn't have killed themselves if Frank hadn't been sick, right? They probably would have wanted to spend more time together. So it's not as if the decision has no relation to disability.
And I don't really feel like the last bit was hearsay, since I was talking about the MS/ALS comment directly from the writers, not articles discussing cancer. MS and ALS are different enough that it still matters to me. Even if the writers thought the specific disability wasn't relevant to the audience, people in the writer's room needed to know what it was in order to do research, get feedback, and portray it accurately. That's what I meant by lack of care; real life people have these illnesses, which have quite different symptoms and prognoses, and real life people are told (explicitly or implicitly) that it would be better for everyone if they died "on their own terms" instead of hanging on.
Anyway. All I really wanted to do was make a connection to what @moocow1452 posted and thank them. Just as "it's a beautiful love story" doesn't erase the "bury your gays" trope, in my mind neither does it erase the "bury your disabled" trope. I don't expect most people to agree. It's pretty hard to see the societal pull of "the world would be better off without you" if it isn't directed at you.
There's a lot going on here but I guess the first make or break point is this: does this mean that no disabled (or gay) people should ever die in a work in an effort to avoid the trope? Or am I...
There's a lot going on here but I guess the first make or break point is this: does this mean that no disabled (or gay) people should ever die in a work in an effort to avoid the trope? Or am I misreading the situation here? If yes, I think that's a whole can of worms. If no, then here's what I think can be derived from this episode.
Spoiler alert here.
Firstly, Frank isn't disabled for enough of the episode for him to really be "the disabled person" by default. We witness scenes of a relationship over the course of years with him and Bill being a happy couple against many odds. His identity is not "disabled", at least not to the extent that his entire character should only be seen that way. It's just how life goes for him.
When he eventually is disabled by what seems to be a genetic condition (which would be extremely rare in this world at this point), they do not linger or show much of his symptoms. Not because he doesn't have any, but they're not really romanticized or focused in any way by the camera or exposition, as that's not really what the episode or show wants to be about. The show is attempting to make statements on how destructive love can be. Most of what you see are the faces of Bill and Frank as they look lovingly at each other in their old age. What really matters are the choices that they make to and for each other, not what they go through in their time together.
Besides some minute visual symptoms, the biggest symptom we see is that he cannot paint Bill's face anymore. The painting is warped in that way many would be familiar with when looking at an image created by someone with a neuro disorder. Bill is watering Frank's flowers in the background (something which Bill would have never done before an earlier scene showing the growth of their relationship) and they share a moment together. You see something in Frank's face set.
The next day, Bill wakes up to Frank in his wheelchair, an act which Frank says it took him most of the night to do. He tells Bill this will be his last day as he is old, satisfied, and cannot find the will in him to proceed.
This is basically the extent of Frank's disablement as portrayed in the show. Does it have to end in mutual suicide? Probably not but considering what happens to basically everyone else in the story (almost everyone dies in their own terrible, bleak, awful ways that they would not want or choose), they have the best possible ending of anyone in this world. It's not too fantastical, really.
But this isn't really what you're thinking about as you watch the episode. You're watching a loving relationship come to an unfairly short but somehow sweet ending despite its nature, in a world where everyone else gets a brual finish not on their own terms. It's sad and bittersweet and it's tragic and it's a bit awkward in the right way. It's not done lightly and there's a lot of depth here, it's not some Nicholas Sparks work. The response isn't just people revelling in emotional manipulation. Tokenistic things don't get responses like this.
The reason I don't think that it falls too immediately into the burial tropes is just that it's not really of consequence that Bill and Frank were gay or that the impetus to their self-destruction was because Frank became disabled. The story would have played out the same if they were a straight couple or if Frank had any kind of other highly debilitating condition, like advanced cancer. The point seemed to be to show how two people self-destruct from not feeling like they can love each other anymore. This show is full of people doing this, and this was supposed to be one variation on the theme. The two characters here, no matter who or what they were, were always going to die this way.
When you're dealing with an idea this tough, there's no real clean way to instill it sentimentally into a reader because it's supposed to hurt a little. Everyone is supposed to find a way to feel that hurt here. For you it sounds like the fact that it was a genetic condition that affected someone's ability is the tragedy. For me, it was the idea that someone could be satisfied enough to say it's done. I'm sure other people found another angle.
But at no point, in any interpretation of this episode, is the message "you're not worth keeping alive if you're disabled" ever communicated. It explicitly attempts communicate the opposite.
CW for frank discussion of ableism, I guess. No. But while there are still so few stories featuring disabled (or gay) characters, it does suck to see this trope in the majority of those that do...
CW for frank discussion of ableism, I guess.
There's a lot going on here but I guess the first make or break point is this: does this mean that no disabled (or gay) people should ever die in a work in an effort to avoid the trope? Or am I misreading the situation here? If yes, I think that's a whole can of worms. If no, then here's what I think can be derived from this episode.
Everyone is supposed to find a way to feel that hurt here. For you it sounds like the fact that it was a genetic condition that affected someone's ability is the tragedy.
I mean, as a disabled person I don't think that disability is a tragedy, so... perhaps we're talking past each other at this point? I'm hurt that the main way media and society conceives of disabled people is as a tragedy.
Anyway, maybe one day I'll be in a place where I'll feel like watching this. Maybe one day, when there isn't a pandemic threatening my health and my life, and the health and lives of every high risk disabled person. When there are alternative TV shows and movies, stories where disabled people work together and some of them survive the apocalypse, like we have so far with COVID. When society supports disabled folks and makes it possible for us to have meaningful lives, however long they are, instead of incentivizing us to shorten them by denying adequate support. I think then I'll be ready to watch this episode, and simply take it at face value, instead of as a representation of a much larger problem.
Admittedly, this might be a semantic terminology issue. I'm using tragedy in the classical literary sense (i.e. comedy/tragedy dichotomy), not the common definition because I was trying to...
I mean, as a disabled person I don't think that disability is a tragedy, so... perhaps we're talking past each other at this point? I'm hurt that the main way media and society conceives of disabled people is as a tragedy.
Admittedly, this might be a semantic terminology issue. I'm using tragedy in the classical literary sense (i.e. comedy/tragedy dichotomy), not the common definition because I was trying to highlight that sometimes good art seeks to be painful and not fun (i.e. tragic, not comic). The point is that certain art is supposed to instill negative feelings, and a good piece of work can instill it through multiple avenues. That's why I also provided mine, and suggested others may have their own alternate ones. A lesser work would be much more aligned to certain shorthand or tropes, and be construed as "emotional manipulation".
In this case, the tragedy isn't that Frank is disabled. Again, he is not identified as "disabled" by default in the actual context of the show. The tragedy is in the two characters not being able to live without being able to love each other they way they want to (a line that is explicitly said at one point). I included this because you are convinced the tragedy of this episode is over Frank's disablement (based on expectations set by things outside of this work) and that is all that has been mentioned but I am also suggesting that because I (and I assume others) found the tragedy of it in a different place entirely, you may find the tragedy to be rather different when you see the events and plot in its actual context.
So they both still would have chosen to die if Frank hadn't been sick/disabled? That's not the impression I've gotten from recaps and such, but if that's the case, sure, I might see the story...
In this case, the tragedy isn't that Frank is disabled. Again, he is not identified as "disabled" by default in the actual context of the show. The tragedy is in the two characters not being able to live without being able to love each other they way they want to (a line that is explicitly said at one point). I included this because you are convinced the tragedy of this episode is over Frank's disablement (based on expectations set by things outside of this work) and that is all that has been mentioned but I am also suggesting that because I (and I assume others) found the tragedy of it in a different place entirely, you may find the tragedy to be rather different when you see the events and plot in its actual context.
So they both still would have chosen to die if Frank hadn't been sick/disabled? That's not the impression I've gotten from recaps and such, but if that's the case, sure, I might see the story differently. But from how you describe it, it sounds like he struggled to get into his wheelchair without help and decided he no longer had the will to continue. (Probably as a straw that broke the camel's back.) Was there anything else, aside from disability-related limitations that prompted his decision?
Anyway I believe you. I believe that most people watching this, and the people who wrote it, and the people who acted in it, don't think the tragedy comes from someone choosing to die because of their disability. I believe that everyone thinks the context, a long complex love story, is what makes it tragic. But this is part of my problem.
Disabled people choosing to die is usually portrayed in media as noble, or bittersweet, or the "right" choice to end their (and other people's) suffering. It isn't a tragedy. In fact, the writers talk about this particular story as a happy ending - "Their story is actually happy. Even if it’s sad, it’s happy. They win." And in isolation, maybe that's fine. In the context of the story where most people die horrible deaths, sure. But I would much rather if people actually thought that disabled people choosing to die was sad and a reflection of a broken world, not romantic, because it's happening right now in places like Canada and most people don't even know.
Anyway, this is my last post on this - I haven't watched it, and it feels ridiculous to be even having this discussion. I appreciated a link someone shared, connected it to a similar trope, and that's it. I even said whether the trope applies here is probably debatable. I guess I should have clarified that I also don't feel like debating it.
Yes, narratively speaking, they were always going to choose to die together. What we got is simply one path from meetcute to death, but it could have been any other path as well. It's something of...
Yes, narratively speaking, they were always going to choose to die together. What we got is simply one path from meetcute to death, but it could have been any other path as well. It's something of an emotional bottle episode where we simply just see the life of two people who thrive and have a happy life together in a dead, bleak world—something which nobody else will have.
Regarding the moment Frank chooses to die, I actually meant it to be when I said we see something in his face set: it was when he could no longer paint Bill's face. Frank is the character who was into grand romantic gestures (he's the one who said "Let me love the way I want to" multiple times in the episode). I skipped over a lot of the details to only really highlight when any of Frank's disability is in the forefront. In retrospect, it doesn't really suggest the ratio of how much it's in the episode at all. It's actually a very, very small part of the whole thing and there's so much more to their relationship beyond this. I also said the episode shows the opposite of "the disabled don't deserve to survive in the post-apocalypse" because it's evident that Frank has been in this state for quite a long time, and they have lived and thrived together regardless long before this scene (this episode jumps years ahead multiple times) because they are dedicated to each other. So yes, it can be read as the result of the advanced stage of his neuromuscular disorder but that could have been slotted out for anything else, like crippling depression or a critical injury. Frank didn't die because he was disabled, he died because this is a show about destructive love.
Anyway, this is my last post on this - I haven't watched it, and it feels ridiculous to be even having this discussion. I appreciated a link someone shared, connected it to a similar trope, and that's it. I even said whether the trope applies here is probably debatable. I guess I should have clarified that I also don't feel like debating it.
Look, I was just out here saying "watch the episode before you judge it" . All I've done is elaborate on why I think the episode is worth watching despite your preconceptions and highlight where the differences are, I have not actually debated with any of the other things you've brought up. Otherwise I would have brought up the multiple members of my own family with neurodegenerative disorders, and my high genetic risk of developing one myself in the future. My overwhelming thought when I kept seeing you refer to Frank as "disabled" as his only identity was that Frank is not "the disabled character" the same way my family is not "my disabled family".
Well, I watched it, and I still feel the same way. In fact, it seemed worse than I imagined. The episode clearly shows multiple instances of Frank doing things differently than he used to due to...
Well, I watched it, and I still feel the same way. In fact, it seemed worse than I imagined. The episode clearly shows multiple instances of Frank doing things differently than he used to due to his disability (using a wheelchair instead of running, painting in a more abstract way, eating a liquid diet and using a straw), which implies that he's decided his life isn't worth living anymore because of these changes.
These are changes people live through and adapt to every day. I fucking love my wheelchair. I miss playing viola, but my energy limitations led to me discovering slow crafts like making zines and embroidery. I can't cook, but I help my partner think up ideas for meals. I can't go for regular walks, but I get so much joy from sitting out on the porch every morning and listening to the birds.
It's intensely upsetting to watch people live a life like mine, or like other disabled people's lives, and for it to be a reasonable, sensible thing that they decided to die.
My overwhelming thought when I kept seeing you refer to Frank as "disabled" as his only identity was that Frank is not "the disabled character" the same way my family is not "my disabled family".
Disabled and disability aren't bad words. I'm a disabled person. It's not my only identity, but it impacts every part of my life. In describing Frank as disabled, I wasn't saying that was his only identity - that was entirely your interpretation.
I don't really know what to tell you then because if the hope was to show someone thriving at all in this world, then this really isn't the show to try first place, disabled or not. Nobody thrives...
I don't really know what to tell you then because if the hope was to show someone thriving at all in this world, then this really isn't the show to try first place, disabled or not. Nobody thrives here. I still don't think that's really the proper read on why Frank decided that but if we're working backwards from the fact that he chooses to die, there's probably not going to be any good way to approach it.
But hey, check out Station Eleven instead. That may actually have a version of this you'll like better since that's a more positive and hopeful post-apocalyptic show (that's also from HBO).
In describing Frank as disabled, I wasn't saying that was his only identity - that was entirely your interpretation.
You didn't provide any other way to interpret your thoughts on him above, unless I missed something major. That was the only thing you wanted to acknowledge about him, and didn't acknowledge anything else I was saying about him. I still don't see any real attempt to acknowledge what I tried to discuss but I'm tired of arguing with people on this site about their conclusion-first approaches to reading things (especially as justification for why shouldn't bother trying to read those things in the first place).
This felt like the first truly good episode of the series. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that it’s the episode that strayed the furthest from the game.
Who knew Nick Offerman could do drama very well, huh? Yeah I know comedic actors doing dramatic performances isn’t a new thing but for every Jim Carrey there’s a Tiffany Haddish. So it’s nice to see that Offerman has the chops.
This felt more like a short film than an episode of a television show, honestly. It’s contained. Like a low-budget indie, with an apocalyptic setting as an excuse to only have two actors in it the whole time.
It was beautiful. But, I thought the On The Nature of Daylight’s needle drop was a little eh, I know people are loving it but it just seems obvious and uninspired. Especially when Arrival already did it ad nauseam, (also did people already forget about that movie and how important that piece was to it?).
I don't think Arrival was/is appreciated enough. Villeneuve did a low-key masterpiece in my view.
I think the first episode was amazing. But this episode is a masterpiece.
Edit:
WTF. People are review bombing this episode on IMDb. 1.1% of votes on episode 2 are 1/10. 21% of votes on episode 3 are 1/10.
Well, you see, the episode focused on a gay love story. And that really upsets the worst kinds of people.
These people really can't stand the fact that they have become economically insignificant to the point that Hollywood pretty much ignores them now. So they band together online to make their hateful voices heard and pretend they have more people on their side than they actually do.
I have to wonder how much of it is a lone bigot with a bot army.
Wouldn't it be nice if it was just a few idiots? But unfortunately the world is still full of raging, violent homophobes so I doubt that's the case.
Yeah... The first person I ran into online (outside of this site) talking about TLoU kept complaining about the new episode "catered so hard". After repeated questioning they refused to clarify what that meant.
I suppose I can bring myself to empathise with the crowd who wanted a zombie show to be always filled with zombies and action, as well as those who disagree with changes made when adapting from game to show. It's always a little jarring when a piece of media you enjoy is changed for whatever reason; when what's in your mind confronts what's on the screen.
But I'm not a player of the game. I'm sure I watched a play-through years ago, and enjoyed it at the time, but I didn't enter into the series with that at the forefront of my mind. I also didn't expect such a tender and self-contained episode from a zombie show.
It had me almost sobbing at multiple points. The pacing, atmosphere, and acting were all superb- but having watched Chernobyl (also headed by Craig Mazin) maybe I shouldn't be so surprised? And this is described as the happy episode by Druckmann (Tweet by Neil_Druckmann @ 4:25 AM · Jan 30, 2023), though, possibly, ironically.
I can't wait to see what's next.
I think Film Crit Hulk had a lot to say about this particular episode and how it was beautiful, but also how queer love is too beautiful and fleeting for happily ever afters.
https://www.patreon.com/posts/77978201?utm_campaign=postshare_fan
Thank you for sharing this. The end particularly resonated with me, albeit for a different reason:
Another trope that's similar to "bury your gays" but less visible in the broader culture is disabled people constantly dying in media and that being portrayed as a good thing. ("Hollywood Promotes the Idea it is Better to be Dead than Disabled") When so many stories are told about disabled people are about how dying is better than being disabled, because it ends their "suffering," leaves people better off without them, or both, it sucks. Why is a story more powerful if disabled people die? At this point, wouldn't it be more powerful if we actually lived for once?
I guess whether or not that trope applies to this episode is debatable, since it does show them having a life together and both of them die. (I haven't seen it.) But damn it hurts to live through a pandemic that's disabling and killing people (still), and to hear about a story apparently showing how disabled folks don't have a place in a (fictional) pandemic future.
I also read the writers didn't even know what illness/disability he had, saying it was MS or ALS, which are pretty different. That lack of care, plus the "bury the disabled" trope, has kind of turned me off watching beyond episode 1, unfortunately.
I had a lot more written but it's hard to get into it without spoilers. Suffice to say, I think if you actually watch the episode, you'll come away with a very different conclusion. I don't think anyone came out of the episode thinking it suggested disabled folks don't have a place in the post-apocalypse.
But that last bit sounds like incorrect hearsay. They talked about this on the official podcast, they specifically aimed to portray MS or early ALS (overall a degenerative neuromuscular disorder of some kind) but also did not want to specify which for the audience because it's inconsequential for what the story is actually about. Still, a few prominent outlets have also identified this as being cancer, when it obviously is not to anyone that has watched even a single episode of House MD that covers a neuro condition, so this entire topic of conversation might already be fraught if one is relying on media coverage and not a firsthand experience with the episode.
I'm fine with spoilers if you'd like to elaborate - either I still won't watch it, or the spoilers will make me more inclined to try it. In fact I read a couple recaps just now.
I feel like my point still stands. Regardless of the story's context, a disabled man dying this way is part of larger collection of work and societal opinions. It sucks that so many stories about disabled people are about us dying, and that it's usually portrayed as a bittersweet but happy ending. In this case the writers say it's "happy" because they had many years together, and had dialog to this effect. But they wouldn't have killed themselves if Frank hadn't been sick, right? They probably would have wanted to spend more time together. So it's not as if the decision has no relation to disability.
And I don't really feel like the last bit was hearsay, since I was talking about the MS/ALS comment directly from the writers, not articles discussing cancer. MS and ALS are different enough that it still matters to me. Even if the writers thought the specific disability wasn't relevant to the audience, people in the writer's room needed to know what it was in order to do research, get feedback, and portray it accurately. That's what I meant by lack of care; real life people have these illnesses, which have quite different symptoms and prognoses, and real life people are told (explicitly or implicitly) that it would be better for everyone if they died "on their own terms" instead of hanging on.
Anyway. All I really wanted to do was make a connection to what @moocow1452 posted and thank them. Just as "it's a beautiful love story" doesn't erase the "bury your gays" trope, in my mind neither does it erase the "bury your disabled" trope. I don't expect most people to agree. It's pretty hard to see the societal pull of "the world would be better off without you" if it isn't directed at you.
There's a lot going on here but I guess the first make or break point is this: does this mean that no disabled (or gay) people should ever die in a work in an effort to avoid the trope? Or am I misreading the situation here? If yes, I think that's a whole can of worms. If no, then here's what I think can be derived from this episode.
Spoiler alert here.
When he eventually is disabled by what seems to be a genetic condition (which would be extremely rare in this world at this point), they do not linger or show much of his symptoms. Not because he doesn't have any, but they're not really romanticized or focused in any way by the camera or exposition, as that's not really what the episode or show wants to be about. The show is attempting to make statements on how destructive love can be. Most of what you see are the faces of Bill and Frank as they look lovingly at each other in their old age. What really matters are the choices that they make to and for each other, not what they go through in their time together.
Besides some minute visual symptoms, the biggest symptom we see is that he cannot paint Bill's face anymore. The painting is warped in that way many would be familiar with when looking at an image created by someone with a neuro disorder. Bill is watering Frank's flowers in the background (something which Bill would have never done before an earlier scene showing the growth of their relationship) and they share a moment together. You see something in Frank's face set.
The next day, Bill wakes up to Frank in his wheelchair, an act which Frank says it took him most of the night to do. He tells Bill this will be his last day as he is old, satisfied, and cannot find the will in him to proceed.
This is basically the extent of Frank's disablement as portrayed in the show. Does it have to end in mutual suicide? Probably not but considering what happens to basically everyone else in the story (almost everyone dies in their own terrible, bleak, awful ways that they would not want or choose), they have the best possible ending of anyone in this world. It's not too fantastical, really.
But this isn't really what you're thinking about as you watch the episode. You're watching a loving relationship come to an unfairly short but somehow sweet ending despite its nature, in a world where everyone else gets a brual finish not on their own terms. It's sad and bittersweet and it's tragic and it's a bit awkward in the right way. It's not done lightly and there's a lot of depth here, it's not some Nicholas Sparks work. The response isn't just people revelling in emotional manipulation. Tokenistic things don't get responses like this.
The reason I don't think that it falls too immediately into the burial tropes is just that it's not really of consequence that Bill and Frank were gay or that the impetus to their self-destruction was because Frank became disabled. The story would have played out the same if they were a straight couple or if Frank had any kind of other highly debilitating condition, like advanced cancer. The point seemed to be to show how two people self-destruct from not feeling like they can love each other anymore. This show is full of people doing this, and this was supposed to be one variation on the theme. The two characters here, no matter who or what they were, were always going to die this way.
When you're dealing with an idea this tough, there's no real clean way to instill it sentimentally into a reader because it's supposed to hurt a little. Everyone is supposed to find a way to feel that hurt here. For you it sounds like the fact that it was a genetic condition that affected someone's ability is the tragedy. For me, it was the idea that someone could be satisfied enough to say it's done. I'm sure other people found another angle.
But at no point, in any interpretation of this episode, is the message "you're not worth keeping alive if you're disabled" ever communicated. It explicitly attempts communicate the opposite.
CW for frank discussion of ableism, I guess.
No. But while there are still so few stories featuring disabled (or gay) characters, it does suck to see this trope in the majority of those that do exist. Especially when it reinforces societal beliefs about disability -- for example, real disabled people get told to their face, "if I had that [condition], I'd kill myself." We're told our lives are valued less (either explicitly or implicitly) by a bunch of societal pressures -- below-poverty-level (or nonexistent) disability benefits, recommended (or involuntary) Do Not Resuscitate orders, medically assisted dying laws expanding to non-fatal disabilities, government officials saying it's "encouraging" that most of the vaccinated people dying of COVID are disabled, murders of disabled people by their caregivers sometimes being called things like "mercy killings" -- so I guess seeing our deaths portrayed as being "moving" and "bittersweet" in multiple pieces of popular media is just another drop in the bucket.
Still sucks, though.
I mean, as a disabled person I don't think that disability is a tragedy, so... perhaps we're talking past each other at this point? I'm hurt that the main way media and society conceives of disabled people is as a tragedy.
Anyway, maybe one day I'll be in a place where I'll feel like watching this. Maybe one day, when there isn't a pandemic threatening my health and my life, and the health and lives of every high risk disabled person. When there are alternative TV shows and movies, stories where disabled people work together and some of them survive the apocalypse, like we have so far with COVID. When society supports disabled folks and makes it possible for us to have meaningful lives, however long they are, instead of incentivizing us to shorten them by denying adequate support. I think then I'll be ready to watch this episode, and simply take it at face value, instead of as a representation of a much larger problem.
Admittedly, this might be a semantic terminology issue. I'm using tragedy in the classical literary sense (i.e. comedy/tragedy dichotomy), not the common definition because I was trying to highlight that sometimes good art seeks to be painful and not fun (i.e. tragic, not comic). The point is that certain art is supposed to instill negative feelings, and a good piece of work can instill it through multiple avenues. That's why I also provided mine, and suggested others may have their own alternate ones. A lesser work would be much more aligned to certain shorthand or tropes, and be construed as "emotional manipulation".
In this case, the tragedy isn't that Frank is disabled. Again, he is not identified as "disabled" by default in the actual context of the show. The tragedy is in the two characters not being able to live without being able to love each other they way they want to (a line that is explicitly said at one point). I included this because you are convinced the tragedy of this episode is over Frank's disablement (based on expectations set by things outside of this work) and that is all that has been mentioned but I am also suggesting that because I (and I assume others) found the tragedy of it in a different place entirely, you may find the tragedy to be rather different when you see the events and plot in its actual context.
So they both still would have chosen to die if Frank hadn't been sick/disabled? That's not the impression I've gotten from recaps and such, but if that's the case, sure, I might see the story differently. But from how you describe it, it sounds like he struggled to get into his wheelchair without help and decided he no longer had the will to continue. (Probably as a straw that broke the camel's back.) Was there anything else, aside from disability-related limitations that prompted his decision?
Anyway I believe you. I believe that most people watching this, and the people who wrote it, and the people who acted in it, don't think the tragedy comes from someone choosing to die because of their disability. I believe that everyone thinks the context, a long complex love story, is what makes it tragic. But this is part of my problem.
Disabled people choosing to die is usually portrayed in media as noble, or bittersweet, or the "right" choice to end their (and other people's) suffering. It isn't a tragedy. In fact, the writers talk about this particular story as a happy ending - "Their story is actually happy. Even if it’s sad, it’s happy. They win." And in isolation, maybe that's fine. In the context of the story where most people die horrible deaths, sure. But I would much rather if people actually thought that disabled people choosing to die was sad and a reflection of a broken world, not romantic, because it's happening right now in places like Canada and most people don't even know.
Anyway, this is my last post on this - I haven't watched it, and it feels ridiculous to be even having this discussion. I appreciated a link someone shared, connected it to a similar trope, and that's it. I even said whether the trope applies here is probably debatable. I guess I should have clarified that I also don't feel like debating it.
Yes, narratively speaking, they were always going to choose to die together. What we got is simply one path from meetcute to death, but it could have been any other path as well. It's something of an emotional bottle episode where we simply just see the life of two people who thrive and have a happy life together in a dead, bleak world—something which nobody else will have.
Regarding the moment Frank chooses to die, I actually meant it to be when I said we see something in his face set: it was when he could no longer paint Bill's face. Frank is the character who was into grand romantic gestures (he's the one who said "Let me love the way I want to" multiple times in the episode). I skipped over a lot of the details to only really highlight when any of Frank's disability is in the forefront. In retrospect, it doesn't really suggest the ratio of how much it's in the episode at all. It's actually a very, very small part of the whole thing and there's so much more to their relationship beyond this. I also said the episode shows the opposite of "the disabled don't deserve to survive in the post-apocalypse" because it's evident that Frank has been in this state for quite a long time, and they have lived and thrived together regardless long before this scene (this episode jumps years ahead multiple times) because they are dedicated to each other. So yes, it can be read as the result of the advanced stage of his neuromuscular disorder but that could have been slotted out for anything else, like crippling depression or a critical injury. Frank didn't die because he was disabled, he died because this is a show about destructive love.
Look, I was just out here saying "watch the episode before you judge it" . All I've done is elaborate on why I think the episode is worth watching despite your preconceptions and highlight where the differences are, I have not actually debated with any of the other things you've brought up. Otherwise I would have brought up the multiple members of my own family with neurodegenerative disorders, and my high genetic risk of developing one myself in the future. My overwhelming thought when I kept seeing you refer to Frank as "disabled" as his only identity was that Frank is not "the disabled character" the same way my family is not "my disabled family".
Well, I watched it, and I still feel the same way. In fact, it seemed worse than I imagined. The episode clearly shows multiple instances of Frank doing things differently than he used to due to his disability (using a wheelchair instead of running, painting in a more abstract way, eating a liquid diet and using a straw), which implies that he's decided his life isn't worth living anymore because of these changes.
These are changes people live through and adapt to every day. I fucking love my wheelchair. I miss playing viola, but my energy limitations led to me discovering slow crafts like making zines and embroidery. I can't cook, but I help my partner think up ideas for meals. I can't go for regular walks, but I get so much joy from sitting out on the porch every morning and listening to the birds.
It's intensely upsetting to watch people live a life like mine, or like other disabled people's lives, and for it to be a reasonable, sensible thing that they decided to die.
Disabled and disability aren't bad words. I'm a disabled person. It's not my only identity, but it impacts every part of my life. In describing Frank as disabled, I wasn't saying that was his only identity - that was entirely your interpretation.
I don't really know what to tell you then because if the hope was to show someone thriving at all in this world, then this really isn't the show to try first place, disabled or not. Nobody thrives here. I still don't think that's really the proper read on why Frank decided that but if we're working backwards from the fact that he chooses to die, there's probably not going to be any good way to approach it.
But hey, check out Station Eleven instead. That may actually have a version of this you'll like better since that's a more positive and hopeful post-apocalyptic show (that's also from HBO).
You didn't provide any other way to interpret your thoughts on him above, unless I missed something major. That was the only thing you wanted to acknowledge about him, and didn't acknowledge anything else I was saying about him. I still don't see any real attempt to acknowledge what I tried to discuss but I'm tired of arguing with people on this site about their conclusion-first approaches to reading things (especially as justification for why shouldn't bother trying to read those things in the first place).