Since you're reading this, I'm going to assume a few things: that you know the Walking Dead is more than just a show about zombies, for a start. That it is, in fact, not even primarily a show about zombies, but rather about societal collapse, and how do you refigure the rules of civilized human behavior once civilization is gone? At least, that's what it's about in the end of the second season, which is where I stand right now. It's an ensemble piece, no question, with few or no weak links, but would it still carry the magic it does if Norman Reedus' Daryl Dixon wasn't there? I'm not sure it would.
Daryl is a bow-hunting redneck with a genius for survival; probably an outcast and loser back when the shirts and ties were still running the world, but it all belongs to Daryl now. He's politically incorrect as they come, surpassed in this only by his no-good, one-handed, Harley-riding, possibly dead older brother Merle (played by Michael Rooker, which tells me he has to be coming back). (Merle last showed up in Daryl's hallucination, warning him that he's become a "bitch" to the "pansies, nigras and democrats.") When his compassion is roused, as when a little girl goes missing, Daryl becomes the strong beating heart of the group, the only one who believes she can survive because he did, himself, when he was abandoned in the wilderness at her age. On the other hand, once he loses faith and begins to distance himself, he shows tendencies towards Colonel Kurtz-dom, with grisly trophies (a necklace of zombie ears, animal bones strung outside his tent) and an extreme lack of social grace.
The first I saw Reedus, I was flipping through channels and stumbled across the middle of Messengers 2: the Scarecrow. I was on my way to a soccer match, and so didn't want to linger, but I'm sucker as the next guy for a spooky scarecrow movie, so I paused for a minute, and then I couldn't look away. Not because it was so great (although it is, in retrospect, possibly the Citizen Kane of creepy scarecrow movies; see separate review), but because I could not for the life of me figure out if the Norman Reedus character was a good guy or a bad guy. I assumed I knew the story: decent but flawed family man moves his family to the wrong farmhouse for a new start, and the Resident Malediction begins to chip away at him via his various Achilles heels until he loses control and has to summon all his strength to overcome it and save his family. Right? But this guy is usually played by Dylan McDermott or Jeff Fahey or James le Gros, a role probably soon to be taken over by the James Marsdens of the world. One look and you see what's up: a good guy deep down, just got some weaknesses, but basically well-meaning.
But Reedus? You can watch him forever, at least in a well-written role, and never make up your mind about whether he's a good guy or a bad guy. Every time you think you've got him pegged one way or the other, he does something to plant a new doubt. Nurturing a crush on him is problematic. He invites the darkest kind of animus projection, and triggers anxieties more often than romantic fantasy. I've seen him described as "gorgeous", but he's not that, not at all. He's scary looking, with a face like a Halloween mask. There's something just slightly wrong about the sunken eyes, the puffy flesh, the dank helmet of lifeless hair, but it doesn't matter. His sex appeal, troubling as it is, is undeniable, as is his talent, and the boldness with which he uses it.
The thing is, there's nobody else like him. And how many actors can you say that about?
No comments:
Post a Comment