Where There Be Zombies

I've been on a zombie kick of late, having watched 28 Days Later, 28 Weeks Later, Dawn of the Dead (1979), and Dawn of the Dead (2004) all in the past few weeks.

The zombie genre was invented by George A. Romero. His status as Master Zombie has been intact since his first zombie classic, Night of the Living Dead (1968). Shot in black and white, Night of the Living Dead was like nothing anyone had seen before. It was gritty, low budget, scary, gory, and funny. It was an entertaining horror picture that became a cult classic, and as with all cult classics, it found a rabid fan base that will protect it and its creator at all costs.

I have bad news for the cult fans. I'm not one of them. Having re-run George Romero's films in the past few months, and most recently compared Dawn of the Dead to its 2004 re-make, I must confess: Romero's movies are not very good.

I will be met by a hail of dismembered body parts for saying that, but I can no longer live in the Romero closet. For a long time I talked up Romero's work as much as the next horror fan. His work was "groundbreaking." His films were "classics." He "changed" modern cinema.

I recently went on IMDB and read some fan reviews of Romero's work. Time and time again, I found the words "social commentary." Romero fans have often said that Night of the Living Dead is a 60's social commentary, and they go on to paint every Romero zombie picture with the same brush. Romero, they say, is a director with a message.

Early on in his career, Romero denied the social commentary angle. Night of the Living Dead was a decent horror movie made on the cheap, which he threw in the back of his truck and took to NYC in hopes that someone, anyone, would want to screen it. He couldn't have cared less if anyone saw a message in it. He simply wanted to freak people out while they ate popcorn and, hopefully, they'd make Romero a buck in the process.

The Romero cult will have us believe that everything in Romero's films somehow illuminates our societal ills. Many see the zombies as a metaphor for people walking through their crummy lives. In Night of the Living Dead, when Duane Jones (who is black) takes refuge in a house with a white woman, the Romero cult tells us that this is a commentary on the '60s: the black guy hiding out with the white woman while the angry zombie hoards (a metaphor for the lynch mob) try to kill him for it.

It's simply not true. Romero has said himself that Duane Jones was right for the part, and that any "commentary" seen in the film is purely coincidental.

You can't tell that to the cult crowd. Saying that zombie movies don't have social commentary reduces zombie movies to what they are: zombie movies (it should be noted that the word 'zombie' never appears in Night of the Living Dead, and only once in Dawn of the Dead; the tag was applied by the fans). Using the ruse of "social commentary" gives the cult crowd something to feel good about. It raises the genre to new heights. If someone knocks a cheap zombie movie for being what it is, the cult crowd have a natural defence: they see the secret, while others do not. They're "in the know," while others are the zombies.

I would be fine with leaving the cult crowd alone for believing whatever they want, but I take issue with them when they demand that others believe their "social commentary" theory, too. Film critic Danel Griffin's statement concerning Romero's zombie series is typical: "[Romero] uses them to represent the rich class’s pathetic attempts to exploit the feeble and then turn on each other as they fight for the bones."

If you say so, but not according to Romero. While drafting Night of the Living Dead, the filmmakers weren't sure what the zombies were even going to do. They came up with cannibalism because they felt it was the most shocking thing to film. They were right, but they did not do it to depict the exploitation of the poor.

It wasn't until later in his career that Romero read his fan mail and got on board the commentary train. When he did, it was a disgrace. Land of the Dead's "commentary" is so transparent that it is literally laughable.

Here's another typical review from a revisionist-critic, in this case Wesley Morris of the Boston Globe:

In his " Dead" trilogy ("Night of," "Dawn of," and "Day of "), Romero used the zombie to satirize America. "Dawn" was released in 1978, and it was both a pioneering work of suspense-schlock and scathing social commentary: The dead come back to life in order to keep consuming - and in a mall no less...[In the 2004 re-make] few of the original movie's political and philosophical preoccupations (abortion, capitalism, patriotism, individualism) remain.

Morris' theory goes like this: the film takes place in a mall, so it shows materialism. The dead come back to "consume" the "consumers." Abortion is also mentioned. Ken Foree asks if a woman wants a baby aborted. She says no. This shows that people were talking about abortion 6 years after Roe v. Wade. Scathing! As for the patriotism, I wish Wes would show me where that is in the original. And the individualism? I guess that is a reference to not wanting to be become a zombie, but if that is the case, how is the 2004 re-make any different?

Time makes people nostalgic. Morris was turned the way many people are that remember things from their youth: sentimental, even about zombies. They remember things that weren't there. They have been told so many times that Romero's zombie movies are poignant, gritty, low budget social commentaries, that they believe it. Trust me, if Romero had the cash in 1979, Dawn of the Dead would not have been shot in one mall location, and he wouldn't have had a minuscule cast. Years later, for Land of the Dead (2005), he did have the cash and it was a flop.

Predator - Misunderstood
There is no way to change the tune of the cult crowd. You can't refute their reasoning because you can make "social commentary" statements about any film ever made. Take Predator, the Arnold Schwarzenegger vehicle. You might think that it is about an alien lifeform coming down to Earth and killing people. But you're wrong. I think it is a movie about illegal immigration. Note how the Predator migrates to earth and only kills what he finds. He doesn't go into towns or cities to mutilate people. He stays in the forest, acts in an environmentally responsible way, and tries to live in peace. Then Arnie and his militaristic regime move in and murder him merely because he's different. Shame on them.

Right now you think I'm crazy, and you're right: the Predator theory is a laugh. The reason it is a laugh while the Living Dead theory is not (at least to the cult crowd), is this: Predator cost a lot of money to make and it was a commercial success.

Dawn (2004)
That's what a cult film is: a movie that that does better in home theater sales than it does at the box office. If Romero's series had been highly successful in theaters, there wouldn't be a cult crowd to draw up all kinds of interesting theories about it. Yes, I know that Romero's Dawn of the Dead grossed well worldwide during its release. But it will disappoint (or perhaps not, come to think of it) the cult crowd to know that the Dawn of the Dead re-make was the most successful zombie move in history, beating Romero's by a long shot.

Does Romero deserve respect for kicking off the zombie genre? Of course. Do I enjoy Romero's movies? Absolutely. But that is about as far as it goes. I enjoy them for what they are.

Unfortunately, they have become very, very dated. The effects simply do not hold up. The zombie make-up is poor (most of the green/grey paint ends at each background actor's neckline). The foam body parts are obviously foam. The intestines are kind of gross, but only kind of. The character development that the cult crowd talks about is simply not there. The character are fun and at times humorous, but in a campy way. Which is fine, because that is how I view Dawn of the Dead: campy fun. As a horror movie, it does not instill much horror.

Reiniger - Dawn (1979)
Before anyone writes in to tell me that I shouldn't go after a film for its effects when it was made in the 70s, too bad. A film must be judged on all of its merits. People born fifteen years ago will not be scared by this movie, but they will be scared by The Exorcist (1973), The Omen (1976), Halloween (1978), Alien (1979), and The Amityville Horror (1979). My advice to filmmakers everywhere is if you do not have the funds to produce believable effects, don't use them. Find another way to frighten people. Having said that, I will admit that the make-up people on Dawn of the Dead (1979) made Scott Reiniger's the most frightening 'zombie face' in film history. It's the ultra-phony blood and guts that turns me off.

I will surely get creamed by the cult crowd, because I think that the 2004 Dawn of the Dead re-make, directed by Zack Snyder, is heads and tails better than the original as a horror movie. It is more frightening, the characters are well developed, it is fun, and it is humorous where it intends to be. I am stunned that the cult crowd tries to pass off the original as social commentary, but seemingly find none in the re-make. How is this possible? All of the same elements are there, so the social commentary is theirs for the taking.

Why don't they? Again, we go back to the same reason why any film becomes a 'cult classic,' while another does not. The re-make is not a cult classic because it was a commercial success. It's not welcome in the club. It made a lot of money by reaching not just a keen, knowledgeable cult crowd, but a wide spectrum audience.

You know, the zombies.

Photos: Yahoo Movies