That's I Survived a Zombie Apocalypse to you.
Hmmm. This was an
interesting watch.
Firstly I have to say that overall I think the first episode
was decent, and the series will
probably be decent, possibly edging
towards good. I wouldn't say it was a disappointment and I wouldn't really be too
quick to criticize the show's watchability. I watched this after a long day, an
hour is fair amount of television, and at no point did I feel like packing it
in.
There are also a lot of areas where ISAZA has displayed some
real quality, of the type that makes you think 'someone's done a good job
there'. The set, in particular was excellent, with enough miscellaneous junk and
detail to be totally convincing. The zombies were also excellent, both as visual
impact, effective gamerunners, and actors. The post-production, although very noticeable,
I think, has a nice feel that keeps things immersive.
Titles: Also excellent |
On a grand level, this show is a hybrid: part
people-living-together reality show, cf Big Brother, part
action-adventure-gameshow, but with added horror, cf Release the Hounds,
although for me, the action side of this show feels more similar to Raven: TheIsland, in which zombies are substituted for Raven's iconic hooded demons,
but otherwise the basic idea of 'do tasks while evading the baddies' and 'one
mistake deaths' are carried over.
Before zombies were cool |
I can also accept, on a conceptual level, that subjecting
the contestants to these long periods of inactivity within a dangerous wider
environment is a good part of the game being created here. Nothing interesting
will happen, but, by keeping the players in 'game-mode' near permanently, the responses
when things later do happen are more
genuine.
I don't really mind this; if you're going to have a lot of nothing happening, you might as well film it, and if you're going to film a lot of nothing happening, you might as well take the best bits and use them to add depth to the show. The result is a slow show, slower than I would have liked, but I can understand that, in general, this show will be, in part, a genre I do not really engage with, so it's not too distressing. Also, this show has nothing like a diary room, indeed, there is none of the now ubiquitous confessional interview self-commentary.
I don't really mind this; if you're going to have a lot of nothing happening, you might as well film it, and if you're going to film a lot of nothing happening, you might as well take the best bits and use them to add depth to the show. The result is a slow show, slower than I would have liked, but I can understand that, in general, this show will be, in part, a genre I do not really engage with, so it's not too distressing. Also, this show has nothing like a diary room, indeed, there is none of the now ubiquitous confessional interview self-commentary.
No, instead of any traditional means of commentary, we
have... well, mostly silence, as often the players aren't talking, either due
to focus on a task or to need for stealth. However, occasionally, we hear
comments from two 'army-style' disembodied voices. Their conversation explains
what is going on, but is too curt and infrequent: short phrases are used instead
of full sentences, making the dialogue seem unnatural for what it's trying to
evoke, and unhelpful for describing things to the audience.
The cut-away public information sequences bothered me for
two reasons. First, they were too slow. I didn't actually think they were
unfunny, but they were providing too little joke for the amount of time I had
to watch them. But second, and more significantly, they confused me
conceptually.
In this world, a zombie apocalypse has taken place. It goes
without saying. We see the events taking place, often through the building's
cctv cameras, via radar, and via the army feeds. We see profiles of the
contestants recorded as if they were at home, recording a video diary
themselves. That's fine, but we also see 'on the ground' cameraman-style shots
of the action. We see ambient shots, showing us the environments from the
contestant's pov. We see overhead shots, taken by drone, that could be
presented as surveillance footage, but isn't. During challenges, we see close-ups of important objects. But mainly, we see a lot zombies -- the problem is that we nearly, but do not quite see a programme which
could have been made within the universe that the story is set.
Greg James, who does a good job
in terms of balancing the tone between fun and scary, contributes to this
problem by living in a sort of middle-state: his world is similarly ravaged by
apocalypse, but so far we have yet to see him harassed by zombies. Perhaps it will come in later weeks. He is
presented as a broadcaster, reporting on the events, but he displays knowledge
of what's to come, and he jokes around. Add into this the public service
interruptions, and, it feels like the cannon here is perhaps supposed to be
that Greg James is presenting a super light-hearted version of the news crossed with the most morbid reality show ever on the
post-apocalyptic BBC, which not only doesn't make sense, but doesn't correlate
with the way the actual show is put together -- a lot of emphasis on this novel community, this group having to live in difficult circumstances.
Greg James: A good host, but where is he? |
This is a problem that really affects my suspension of disbelief.
The show declines to acknowledge that is isn't real, and present itself, as almost any drama does, as a window from our world into theirs. Instead it claims, mildly, to be from its own universe, and by having that
pretence run over into the structure of the show, it ends up drawing the
audience's attention to the reasons it can't
be a real piece of transmission, and, zombies aside, there are enough of those
to bug me.
This all serves to highlight my main issue with the
show: almost all of the action sequences are having to resort to alternating very
close and therefore shots not shot at the same time as the action was happening, shots of zombies with the
shots of the contestant doing the task, in order to convey the sense of threat
from zombies. The money shot: the shot we want to see because it conveys danger,
is the shot with contestant and zombie, one in the foreground and one in the
background. It happened so frustratingly unoften in ISAZA, perhaps around 3 times in the hour that I started to
wonder whether the contestants were really even ever in much (fake) danger of
getting killed by zombies, and that made the sequences a lot less exciting.
In Raven: The Island, they perfectly flipped this by having
no suggestive shots of the demons, then having the demons actually arrive very
suddenly, creating a noticeable and growing tension that they could be here at
any moment. Conversely, ISAZA, by the third time it's done a, contestant (no
zombie) / ZOMBIE / contestant (no zombie) / ZOMBIE sequence of shots, is
not only drawing my attention to the fact that the zombie shots are clearly pickups (and hence this show isn't real, etc. etc.), but also telling me that the zombies are not going to strike for a while
and so everything is currently fine. And that's not tense.
Towards the end of the episode we got a couple of good
chases, and those were fun, they gave the opportunity for the contestant
and zombie shots this show desperately needs more of, although this opportunity is agonisingly still not taken. I can't help but think that something has gone wrong if twice in this episode a player can be chased the length of the shopping centre without a decent shot being captured.
In all of the main challenges so far, the contestants have succeeded, and often 'just in time'. This makes me a little cynical, but I still hold out hope. The nature of the show means we see challenges where a producer can adjust the difficulty at their whim, we have to trust that the games are fair. Hence, I really hope the challenges are being controlled by a passionate game designer, or perhaps zombie fanatic, rather than a committed TV exec determined to play out the narrative they have imagined.
The only shot in that entire sequence to show both parties. |
In all of the main challenges so far, the contestants have succeeded, and often 'just in time'. This makes me a little cynical, but I still hold out hope. The nature of the show means we see challenges where a producer can adjust the difficulty at their whim, we have to trust that the games are fair. Hence, I really hope the challenges are being controlled by a passionate game designer, or perhaps zombie fanatic, rather than a committed TV exec determined to play out the narrative they have imagined.
Take, for, example, the supplies challenge from the 2nd half
of episode 1: (mild spoilers) the producer could make the challenge impossible but
probably safe by having the zombies wake up as the players search for the key;
they could make it very dangerous by having them wake up just as the players
enter the supply room (an evil game designer might do this). They could make a guaranteed
close result by having the zombies wake up just before the contestants are ready to leave, alternatively, they
could make the game exciting but very winnable by having the zombies wake up
just as the players are leaving.
To do any of these seems a little dishonest though. The game
is appears a test of speed, a hit-and-run burglary on the zombies' base, and so
surely the right way is that the zombies 'ought' to wake up after a fixed time,
regardless of the contestants' progress. Doing things this way has its
disadvantages: the game might be catastrophically lost, or very easily won
without the big scare moment taking place. It also presents an extra danger: if
the players are slightly below par, the zombies may well wake up while they are
obliviously in the store room: this is the worst outcome for the players, but
not the one correlated to worst
performance, that would be failing to find the key and simply getting
chased back home. Some might say such an outcome would be unfair: especially
with the stakes so high. A more mischievous person might point out that the
danger was apparent, and if the players had both entered the storeroom without
appointing a lookout (as happened), they risk their own (fake) lives.
The fact that the zombies woke up so perfectly suggests this
was not the case. Perhaps, then, there was a Fort-Boyard France timer
clause going on: the players might have been timed out if they took too long, but if they ran under, the zombies wake up and give chase feebly so that the
audience can be presented with a just-in-time narrative: in practice this
seems like the best option, although use it too often and it becomes predictable.
I can hold out hope this was the case, it correlates with the outcome we see later in the episode when Leah arrives: the contestants open the door as quickly as possible, and let her in just before the zombies arrive. Had they resolutely decided not to let her in, she would surely have been (fake) killed; but had they hesitated a little before going for the door... we know the zombies would have arrived at some point, and I hope that that point might not have been too much later on.
On this front, a few more episodes will be needed to tell: do games always go perfectly, or is there a proper correlation between player performance and outcome? This, for me, will be a key point in whether I enjoy the series or not.
I can hold out hope this was the case, it correlates with the outcome we see later in the episode when Leah arrives: the contestants open the door as quickly as possible, and let her in just before the zombies arrive. Had they resolutely decided not to let her in, she would surely have been (fake) killed; but had they hesitated a little before going for the door... we know the zombies would have arrived at some point, and I hope that that point might not have been too much later on.
Leah running from zombies. No, this was the best shot they had of it. |
On this front, a few more episodes will be needed to tell: do games always go perfectly, or is there a proper correlation between player performance and outcome? This, for me, will be a key point in whether I enjoy the series or not.
What can I say to wrap things up then? ISAZA is a very
ambitious programme, and a tragedy of brave, ambitious programme making is that
the weaknesses stand out much more than the strengths. Mostly, ISAZA delivers,
the fear it creates in the challenges is notable, and if nothing else, the players are totally engaged: always a
good sign. The stylistics of the show are very good, and really, there are lots
of areas where it does well. I praise and thank whoever made it, but there are
currently a few too many barriers for me to say I really like it.