We Can('t) Kill People (Patreon)

The is a double feature, covering episode two and three of season one of the Santa Clarita Diet as I think that these two episodes are essentially one long episode that was split into two - it concerns Shelia’s attempts to figure out the practicalities of her new diet and the ways in which the show deal with the theme of consumption

From a certain point of view these two episodes reinforce my impression from the opening - this is not a television show about zombies. It’s a sitcom, a very good sitcom, but it’s increasingly difficult to see this as a “pure” horror TV show. What this means is that it raises some slightly complex questions about what horror actually consists of - the Gothic/horror has always been a form which lends itself to hybridity so if you have any kind of formalist definition of what horror actually is, then SCD just doesn't fit. If anything, if you think of horror as a mode or genre then SCD functions as a kind of aesthetic co-opting of a particular style. Basically, formal definitions of genre are completely blown apart by SCD and shows that it is far better to think of horror as a particular set of discourses (which can embody a whole range of aesthetic and generic conventions). 

From this point of view, what interesting about SCD is that is reveals the extent to which ideologically loaded forms (such as the US sitcom) are never completely stable. We’ve talked about this on HV before, especially in relation to John Carpenter’s Halloween - what that film shows is that even in in the idyll of suburbia there is a hideous violence which can never entirely be expunged. In SCD we have a family sitcom - they get into fights with their neighbours, they have work trouble, Abby their teenage daughter is skipping school. All of this is the fodder iof every sitcom of the last twenty years or more, a form which seeks to universalize and reflect the bourgeoisie middle classes neurosis back to itself. Within the Santa Clarita Diet though, we get to see what is normally concealed by the ideological operation of the sitcom, which is the violence which underpins the perceived “normality” that the sitcom is supposed to universalize. This is, in a way, why horror and comedy go so well together - does a husband and wife squabble reflect the pressure of a stifling heteronormativity? Yes, BUT ALSO it’s because she is a zombie who just murdered a man and refuses to stop talking about eating his balls. If they don’t get the listing, then these two wacky people are going to be in trouble with the boss! Yes, BUT ALSO they try and eat a live chicken. Horror is the dark joke within the comedy form, revealing the dark monstrosity beneath the surface. (This is probably best exemplified in Joel’s character, who desperate to maintain the surface appearance of normal married life reveals himself to be willing to help his wife murder someone and store their body in a chest freezer)

And here we come to an important point - the two episodes are essentially about the explicit acknowledgement and justification of violence. It’s there under the surface in the aggression of the asshole cop neighbour (who has a garage full of riot gear and smoke grenades) and the barely constrained rage of the comic book guy (who in a deeply satisfying moment gets slammed to the floor by Abby) But of course, it is Sheila who embodies and performs violence most explicitly, and as with the first episode it comes out in an impulsive, hedonistic burst of catharsis. What is interesting is that Joel and Sheila try, at least, to plan out their murder (the ideal candidate would be a “young, single Hitler” being a stand out line) but their plans fall through and depend instead of a moment of emotion. What is suggestive here is the possibility of a middle class couple explicitly planning out the violence which secures their own position. Where is this violence going to be directed? Outward towards oppressive institutions such as the cops - in this case, no. Rather at the end of episode three, after failing to kill a local weed dealer at a long empty house, the stoned Joel gets into a fender bender with a sport car driving jerk who makes them pull over to scream at them both. Sheila tears his throat out and leaves Joel to take charge of the clean up. What I’ve been left thinking is that there is a limit to the number of times that the show can rely on these cathartic explosions of violent consumption. As with capitalist economies more generally, the show will have to essentially plan out Sheila’s consumption in a more strategic way, so here’s the question - where is the consumption going to come from? Will the show return to this idea of a young single Hitler - a violent consuming that has the potential to make the world a better place, or will it reinscribe the middle class consumer as essentially a capitalist realist figure, happy to indulge its libidinal desires without every really challenging the structures which secure “normal life” I can’t help but think a lot of this depends upon how Joel and Sheila explain their murders to Abby - at the moment they seem to be leaning towards hiding the consumption of people from Abby, but I think this will be a reveal at some point - what better dark joke for Abby than to find out her normal life is underpinned by the fact that her mother kills and eats people, after all, who knows what really happens behind the manicured lawns of suburbia. 

Speaking of which, there’s an issue that these two episodes are intricately bound up in - namely, property. Episode two and three make the real estate job angle much more prominent and the home as commodity is absolutely part of this theme of consumption, especially given how much the idea of the home as commodity has become normalized in american pop-culture. Next time then, it’ll be time to talk about the housing question. 

FAVE LINE: “....are you gonna f*ck it?” “Yes.” 

.