Autonomous Killy-Mah-Jig

Regardless of medium, a narrative needs conflict and the resolution thereof.  Arguably, the simplest approach to the conflict/resolution is the tried and true, “I wanna do X, Y, and Z, but those jackwagons won’t let me.  Ima kill ‘em all!” It’s the basis for action movies (and some comedies).  There are times when a controlling artist (director, author, writer, etc.) will want to add a dramatic level of purity to the protagonist – the knight-errant who is pure of heart and noble of spirit. Or whatever. Unless the character isn’t planning on killing anything (and let’s face it:  audiences love them some bloodshed), that puts a damper on the level of badassry our conflicted hero can portray.  So, in the story, what bad guys can a self-righteous doo-gooder safely annihilate without messing up his karma or hair? 

The problem with most “bad guys” is they could wind up being too human.  The audience might sympathize with the lowly foot soldiers of Doominess when Hero Dogood lays on the smack-down.  For example, the American Revolutionary War pitted rebellious colonists [at the time, I guess they were terrorists] against a far-off imperial overseer (the Brits).  Fast forward to the modern era, and here we have the UK as USA’s supporter (sometimes the only one).  In the film Rambo III (MacDonald, 1988), the lead character was fighting Soviet Russians with the help of (what would become) the Taliban. Now, I realize these examples have their basis in reality (ish), but that foundation is real enough and getting audience to suspend their collective sense of belief is getting harder and harder.  What’s a gal to do?

 Zombies.  Personally speaking, I think every problem in life can be solved with the application of zombies [I don’t have time to go into getting your car’s oil changed with zombies.]  In regards to the particular story-world that they exist in [cosmology, mythos, syuzhet, whatever], the zombie is – at its core:  a soulless, non-sentient, methodical automaton following a primitive programmatic destructive impulse.  They are the “faceless” antagonists.  No one feels remorse about killing zombies.  Zombies are the perfect bad guy and the perfect vehicle with which to remove moral ambiguity from massive (and entertaining!) slaughter. 

So, every good guy needs to fight the undead? 

Nope.  There are several variations that adhere to the spirit of the zombie-as-antagonist.  Nothings says, “Soulless, hell-bent automaton” quite like the skeletal, gun-toting T-800 cyborg-robot-thing from the Terminator franchise (thank you, Mr. Avatar). 

When Star Wars first came out [I guess it’s now called ‘Star Wars:  Episode IV:  A New Hope…blah blah blah], audiences didn’t know what to make of Stormtroopers.  While we find out later what the Stormtroopers are, before Lucas vomited all over my childhood made the prequels, no one had a clue what to make of these incognizant white-clad soldiers.  Where they robots?  Clones?  The reanimated corpses of former QVC hosts?  Audiences did, however, understand that they were a faceless enemy that didn’t make them think any less of Luke when he shot them.

Although they don’t really fit the definition of the autonomous killy-mah-jig, Nazis deserve special mention. No one feels bad about killing Nazis.  It’s why they’re in a video game every year.  Seriously, you can take the world’s cutest puppy; put a little swastika on its tiny fury arm and, all of the sudden you go from, “Awwh, how cute!”  to “DIE YOU BASTAGE!”  It’s where the last Indiana Jones film went awry:  no Nazi killing?!?  WTF?!?  At least Tarantino got it right.  Along this vein is the ever-popular Nazi Zombie. 

What more needs to be said??