Ace of Spades HQ

« Thanks For the Well-Wishing Emails (and the Tips!) | Main | Excitable Andy: Bloggers About "Sniping," Not "Governing" »

December 19, 2004

The Zombie Renaissance

In the past couple of years, three superior-to-superb zombie films have been released: 28 Days Later, the equal-if-not-superior-to-the-original remake of Dawn of the Dead, and just out on DVD, maybe the best zombie movie ever made, Shaun of the Dead, which works not only as a comedy, not only as a loving spoof -- or rather homage -- to the best zombie films before it, but also works pretty well as a legitimate pure-zombie-survival picture.

If you haven't seen Shaun of the Dead, rent it immediately. It's great. The opening scenes do a great job of establishing character -- something that zombie films actually do a pretty good job of, overall, for reasons I'll explore later -- and providing great laughs. The early scenes rely upon the old-but-still-robust trick of the "audience superior" position -- that is, the audience knows more than the characters do, and the result is either tension (in a thriller) or giggles (in a comedy).

As Shaun goes through his boring daily routine, he keeps hearing snippets on the news about crashed sattelites and strange attacks by people who seem to be dead, but none of this registers, as he's far too busy to keep up with the news. Good laughs come as a newscaster is about to deliver some information the audience has heard in a dozen other zombie movies, but Shaun just changes the channel before hearing the critical information.

And so he goes through his hapless, pathetic life, only vaguely aware that the world is about to come to an end.

And then it gets even funnier.

What is it about zombie movies that make them so good? Take any genre on horror film, and I'll bet dimes to donuts that zombie flicks have the highest ratio of quality to crap of any of them. Sure, there are lots of awful zombie movies, but there are a lot more awful slasher movies and vampire movies and especially werewolf movies (quick-- name three good werewolf movies off the top of your head).

Zombie flicks approach a .500 batting average-- far above any other genre of horror. Is there any other sort of horror movie where you can go into a theater and say, "There's about a 50% chance this is a legitimately good, well-crafted movie"? I don't think so.

Why do they tend to be so good? How do they continue to delight and surprise while working, by and large, within the same basic and narrow parameters established by George Romero's Night of the Living Dead? I think it's a combination of several factors.

1. Zombies are, essentially, uninteresting monsters. They're scary monsters, to be sure -- make-up effects that realistically simulate the ravages of post-mortem degeneration make them the most gruesome of creatures -- but they're not terribly interesting. They're simple, they're undifferentiated, they're a mob of shambling idiots without personality or charisma.

And this is the strength of the zombie film. Because the monsters themselves aren't compelling as characters, the zombie film forces the writers and directors to put the emphasis on the really interesting stuff in any movie-- actual human characters and human interaction.

Dracula is, I suppose, compelling as a character, but directors become so enamored of his Gothic anti-hero angst there's little room to make the human characters anything more than ciphers and cliches. (Fright Night is a good vampire movie that has human characters more interesting than the monster.) Dracula is effectively a Gothic horror superhero, and vampire films are infected with the childlike power-fantasy tropes of superhero comic books.

Now, most good monsters remain memorable because they serve as metaphors for the human condition -- vampires, sexual obsession and sexual danger; werewolves, the animalistic murderous rage that lurks within all of us; Frankenstein, a similar capacity for violence borne not of rage but of moral innocence or, perhaps, moral insanity.

But still, all that is just metaphor. We may see elements of the human condition in Dracula, but only elements. It's hard to glean much about the human state from his transformation into a pack of rats.

In zombie films, the zombies do also serve as metaphors -- often brilliant ones, about the unthinking violence of the mob, unquestioned conformism, the drudge-heavy routines of our everyday lives, and, famously, rampant consumerism (both literal and metaphorical).

But the focus isn't on zombies-as-metaphors-for-the-human-condition. In zombie pictures, the focus is actually on humans, humans dealing with stress and violence, and humans dealing with each other. The most interesting conflicts in zombie films tend not to come between human and zombie, but between human and human.

This is true of the best horror films of course. Whatever your favorite horror picture is, the moments you remember the most-- and quote the most -- are the parts between people, not the conflicts with the monsters. Sure, Sigorney Weaver's power-loader fight with the alien queen was great stuff, but it's Hudson's "Game over, man! Game over!" that sticks most in the mind. The shark in Jaws was okay, but everyone talks about Quint scratching his fingernails on the blackboard, "Show me the way to go home," the scar-competition, and Quint's chilling description of the sinking of the USS Indianapolis. Imagine Jaws filmed more like a Dracula movie, with all the emphasis on the shark itself-- not a very intereting movie.

And in my favorite horror movie -- The Thing -- yes, the part with the head-scuttling thing was great, but the best parts involved the panicked and paranoid human characters arguing who ought to have access to the weapons.

Strip away the lurid premise of zombie films, and you often have, at their heart, a fairly serious examination of human characters and human flaws and the violence humans wreak upon each other when animated by anger, greed, jealousy, or simple panic.

2. The human characters in zombie films are also, essentially, uninteresting-- at least as far as conventional Hollywood melodrama defines interesting. Zombie movies are both horror movies and disaster/survival movies. The cataclysm isn't a natural disaster, as in The Poseidon Adventure or Volcano, but it's a disaster just the same -- zombie movies are supernatural disaster movies.

The typical disaster movie writes characters around their career and skill-set. The main character is an expert rock-climber, or he's a super-smart geologist who predicted this eruption months ago (but no one would listen to him, because he's a scientific loose-cannon maverick), or he's a world-famous climatologist, or the world's very best fireman specializing in high-rise conflagrations.

Smart, skilled people are of course interesting people in real life. But in movies, they tend to be a bit cliched and two-dimensional. We hear so much about how smart and omnicompetent they are -- and how they were right all along while others were so wrong -- that their actual humanity tends to be underwritten.

Zombie movies tend not to feature super-scientists who just whip up anti-zombie elixers in their basement lab. They tend to be everymen schlubs-- television salesmen tend to be an overrepresented profession -- with limited "interesting" skills at all. Sure, there's often a cop who's pretty good with a shotgun, maybe some SWAT guys who know their way around an M-16, and occasionally a thief who can pick locks, but they tend not to be the central heroes, and in any event their skills aren't exceptional. They're not common skills, but they're the sort of skills that lots of people in your neighborhood have.

Again, as the emphasis on skills and talents and genius is de-emphasized, the characters in zombie movies tend to be defined by their core human attributes. Who's brave? Who's panicky? Who's an outright coward?

And of course-- who thinks he should be the leader, and who actually has some skill at leadership. And the politics and power-struggles that flow from that.

3. A naturalistic style of writing and direction. Eschewing the tropes of the typical heroic, or superheroic, Hollywood picture, zombie pictures tend to be naturalistic, even slice-of-life affairs. There are few big melodramatic moments, few realizations that, say, a talented but cocky fighter pilot must get over his father-complex in order to be the winner of the Top Gun class.

This all seems to come directly from Romero's original picture, which is less a Hollywood picture than a European one in its preference for understated drama and quiet moments over Big Ephiphanies and Heroic Transformations.

And that quieter, more realistic tone tends to make zombie movies -- as lurid and as ridiculous a premise as the re-animated dead may be -- more credible than most moster films.

4. Low Budget, Huge Canvas. Zombie movies get bonus points for pluck and moxie because, despite their low budgets, they tend to posit the biggest horror scenario of all-- a world destroyed by supernatural forces.

Bigger-budget films tend to involve a haunted house, a deserted island, a village sealed off from intercourse with the rest of the world -- small worlds into which the supernatural intrudes.

Romero, once again, decided that his pitiful budget shouldn't keep him from just destroying the whole damn world. He wouldn't just have a zombie outbreak in a small Pittsburg suburb -- no, that's where the action takes place, but via news reports we understand that it's the same all over, and that entire world is ending. He couldn't show that, of course, but he didn't really need to. If a newscaster comes on and says "San Fransisco is overrun," well then, so be it.

And this trick partly relies upon the naturalistic tone of these movies -- after all, realistically, people get their disaster news not from first-hand witnessing of the events -- not by globe-hopping via the Concorde or Air Force One to each major disaster scene -- but from the radio and from the television.

Signs used this trick to good effect, of course. One of the biggest damn scares in the whole movie came from some low-res video footage of a Mexican birthday party in which an alien is just barely glimpsed in background. The shot cost peanuts to film, but it was far more effective than a $100,000 CGI shot showing monsters in all their glory. The realism of the manner of conveyance -- just seeing crap on television -- makes it all seem more credible, and therefore more scary.

There are other reasons for the quality of zombie pictures, of course. Zombies are just fun; Romero called them "blue collar monsters," unlike, say, the dissipated metrosexual aristocrats that all vampires seem to be, and perhaps that's part of their charm. They're Wal-Mart terrors, red-state horrors.

And it's cute that most zombie films never quite get around to explaining why all of this insanity happened. There are often theories, but usually no definitive explanations. Horror is supposed to induce a feeling of disquiet, and leaving questions about the reasons for the moral chaos just witnessed tends to keep that disquiet alive, whereas a nice little "And here's what happened" explanation would tend to remove it.

But at any rate. I don't know if independent film-makers can top the recent three great entries in the zombie genre, but based on past performance, I'm willing to give pretty much any zombie movie at this point a look.

posted by Ace at 03:53 PM

Comments

Small nitpick... That scene in "Signs" you talk about? It wasn't in Mexico, it was in Brazil.
On

Posted by: madne0 on December 19, 2004 05:00 PM

Zombie movies are training films, as far as I'm concerned. When the shit hits the fan, I'll be prepared.

Posted by: Moonbat_One on December 19, 2004 05:30 PM

Wolfen, Silver Bullet, and An American Werewolf in London

Posted by: John S on December 19, 2004 05:32 PM

Wolfen? Boring.

Silver Bullet? I don't know. I saw only a little of it. Seemed pretty dunderheaded and cheesey to me, from what I saw.

Teen Wolf-- maybe.

Posted by: ace on December 19, 2004 05:37 PM

I think I'm gonna go snort some Trioxin.

Posted by: Brass on December 19, 2004 06:23 PM

Check out "Dog Soldiers." Taut, gorey movie about British soldiers on a training mission in Scotland who tangle with werewolves.

Posted by: butch on December 19, 2004 06:32 PM

Dog Soldiers

American Werewolf in London

Wolfen

Silver Bullet

The Howling

Ginger Snaps

They're all very good to decent.

The Nicholson one blows, but that's because it is more about book editing than werewolfing.

Posted by: Jeff Larkin on December 19, 2004 06:55 PM

I have a taste for craptastic movies. Also have loved any story which contains a vampire since I was a youngun.
A crappy-ass vampire movie is like, hypnotic nirvana.

What was the name of that one with Wesley Snipes?

Posted by: lauraw on December 19, 2004 06:57 PM

Gee, was Silver Bullet actually any good? Maybe I'll have to check it out for serious this time.

I understand that Dog Soldiers was well-received. I'd be interested in seeing that one.

Lauraw,

"Blade," and then the sequel, whatever it was called. Probably Blade II.

Posted by: ace on December 19, 2004 06:59 PM

A reviewer had a funny line about the Jack Nicholoson werewolf film Wolf.

He said, "On a snowy Vermont road, a mild-mannered doormat of a tweedy book-editor is bitten by a rabid wolf, and slowly transforms... into Jack Nicholson."

I wouldn't say Wolf sucked. It had its moments, and it had a nice look and sound. I enjoyed the "Superhero discovers his powers" moment of the film, as I always do.

I thought the James Spader twist was pretty good.

But honestly-- when two werewolves fight, do they wrestle? One would think they'd slash and bite, rather than throwing each other around and attempting Super Suplex Sleeper Holds.

Posted by: ace on December 19, 2004 07:02 PM

I thought "Dog Soldiers" was pretty good. It was definitly extremely violent and bloody, which is good in a werewolf movie.

I loved "Underworld" which is a werewolf/vampire movie. Lots of action, a hot chick and guns. If you liked "Blade" you'll probably like "Underworld".

I've got to be one of the only people that was let down by the "Dawn of the Dead" remake. I didn't think it lived up to the hype. It did have a lot of good scenes, but it also had a lot of stuff that was obviously designed just to move the plot forward in the right direction. Way too much swearing too. Not the well placed swearing like ace does. Just swearing for the point of swearing.

Posted by: michael dennis on December 19, 2004 07:28 PM

I'm so excited to see "Shaun of the Dead" ... it's next on my netflix list -I have to send back "Ringu" and "Ju On" ... (think I dig scary movies?) The recent zombie remake was pretty darn good, although I didn't appreciate the "up-to-speed" zombies.

Posted by: carin on December 19, 2004 07:44 PM

Ace, have you ever read "Danse Macabre" by Stephen King? It would probably be increadibly dry to anyone that isn't a horror fan, but he explores alot of the stuff you're talking about here in depth. Very interesting. He has a few sections on zombies, maybe I'll see if I can find 'em.

I actually met Romero once. At a convention center just outside the mall where the original "Dawn" was filmed. Best line, after I got done drooling and had him sign my copy of Dawn, Romero says: "You kids weren't even born when this movie was made. Hell, this building wasn't even here. It was just a parking lot full of zombies."

Romero's a classic. He has another zombie flick coming soon that I can't wait for.

Posted by: francisthegreat on December 19, 2004 09:57 PM

Ace--

A few comments:

-- This is just about the best thing you've ever written. Not just because the subject is near-and-dear to my heart (horror movies), but it's just written very well.
-- You really should stop by my site every once in a while; I raved about Shaun of the Dead back in September:
http://garfieldridge.blogspot.com/2004/09/movie-review-shaun-of-dead.html

Anyways, glad you loved the movie, it's great for all the reasons you mentioned, and will be on my ten best of the year (honestly; and I see *real* movies too).
-- The fact that The Thing is your favorite horror movie makes you ten times cooler than I first thought.
-- I will now stop sucking your dick now.

As for zombie movies in general, I like them, but so many of them miss perfect opportunities. For example, take the Dawn of the Dead remake, and the birth of the zombie baby. Why the chicken out? Why not have the baby *eat* it's way out of the mother? Presto, classic scene, everybody remembers it forever.

Oh, BTW, about DOTD Redux-- they're in Wisconsin, right? Since when does Lake Michigan have an island? Or undrinkable salt water? That ending didn't make much sense.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge on December 19, 2004 10:19 PM

My wife and I must be the only two people on the planet who thought 28 Days Later wasn't all that great.

Posted by: Xoxotl on December 19, 2004 10:19 PM

dave: "raved"? I'm starting to wonder about you. Maybe you really do have something in common with Snap.

Just kidding. I'm okay with it even if you are, which I'm sure you aren't.

That saltwater bit was one of the plot devices that turned me off. The water might be undrinkable, but not because of the salt. The trip down to the parking garage was kind of stupid too.

It would have been nice to see a zombie actually eating a victim instead of just biting them. What was their motivation? Couldn't the living just wait until the bodies started to rot to the point that they were no longer mobile. It shouldn't take more than a couple of weeks if the weather is warm.

Posted by: michael dennis on December 19, 2004 11:15 PM

Lately I've been into the Japanese zombie films. Like Stacy, Junk, and Wild Zero (which is more an excuse for Guitar Wolf to be in a movie that a true zombie movie, but it's still good). All are worth checking out if you're a zombie movie fan.

I can't wait for my copy of Shaun of the Dead to show up.

Posted by: G.D. Munem on December 19, 2004 11:23 PM

Dang, you hit the horror trifecta -- mentioned two of my top 3 horror favorites (Alien and The Thing) and the director of the other one (George Romero, for Creepshow, which has some dandy zombie action as well).

Even without those hat tips, though, it'd be a nice write-up. You should submit it to Metaphilm.

Posted by: Guy T. on December 19, 2004 11:25 PM

Fully agree on the greatness of Shaun, disagree about 28 Days and the DotD remake. 28 Days started well and turned into a damsel-in-distress caper. The DotD remake wasn't really a "remake" at all, of course. It was fine as far as it went and had some hair-raising moments, but the original is a masterpiece. Less scary than the remake, perhaps, but light years more entertaining.

Ace, what about factor number 5 -- namely, claustrophobia? One of the most universal human fears, and one which the better zombie flicks exploit brilliantly. In fact, the element of claustrophobia practically requires that the zombies be cannibals: Their only mode of attack is to surround and envelop the victim, and once they've done that, there's pretty much only one place left for him to go. Talk about disappearing "into" a crowd.

Posted by: Allah on December 20, 2004 12:03 AM

P.S. I don't get the sense in Night of the Living Dead that the world is coming to an end. It is in Dawn (both versions) and Day of the Dead, but at the end of Night the rednecks seem to have things pretty well in hand.

Not an important point, but worth noting.

Posted by: Allah on December 20, 2004 12:07 AM

Well, I liked Wolf, even though it was less a horror film than a film about the necessity of aggression. And, yeah, Night of the Living Dead does end implying that the situation is under control.

I really wonder about the "Posse" scenes in Day of the Dead, however: you get a distinct sense that Romero would prefer the Earth be overrun by cannibal dead than admit that rednecks with guns could save the world.

Posted by: John Nowak on December 20, 2004 02:38 AM

Seeing as how Dawn of the Dead was sort of a sequel to Night of the Living Dead, I always assumed that the the zombie problem only seemed like it was under control. Sure, the rednecks in a rural area outside Pittsburgh could drill most of the zombies in the head, but what of more populated areas with a lot more dead people? And stricter gun control laws?

Anyway, I'm surprised that nobody brought up Resident Evil. Not a great movie, but entertaining and plenty gory. And for a flick that was based on a video game, it's pretty good (think of Super Mario Bros and shudder).

And ace, you'll be happy to find out (if you didn't already know, that is) that Romero has a new movie coming out next year called Land of the Dead, and it's about humans living in a walled city after zombies have overrun the world.

Posted by: Sean M. on December 20, 2004 04:27 AM

More recent than "28 Days Later" was "House of the Dead."

Horrible zombie movie.

Of course, part of it might be your point about explaining WHY/HOW it happened.

The main reason, though, was that it was just a shitty movie.

Posted by: Rob @ L&R on December 20, 2004 08:46 AM

This, ace, is why you rock.

I loved Shaun of the Dead, and I'm not much into horror or zombie movies, usually.

Posted by: NickS on December 20, 2004 08:51 AM

This is easily the most thought ever put into zombie movies done on a politics blog. And from Time magazine? Zero recognition.

I'm just sayin'.

Posted by: Beck on December 20, 2004 09:07 AM

Great essay. You have been ON FIRE! P.S. Everybody, what about Return of The Living Dead. Funny, clever, suspenseful. There'd likely be no Shaun of the Dead without Return.

Posted by: slickdpdx on December 20, 2004 12:35 PM

I'm with Allah. Underwhelmed by 28 Days and thought the new DotD was good, but didn't begin to approach the original. Liked Dog Soldiers very much. Haven't yet seen Shaun, but it's at this very moment creeping through the US mail on its way to my door (along with the collected "Our Gang").

Anybody see Le Pacte des loups [Brotherhood of the Wolf]? I thought it quite like a werewolf movie as Umberto Eco might envision one.

But then, I'm also a fan of Wolfen. Silver Bullet? Puh-lease.

Posted by: Jeff G on December 20, 2004 12:36 PM

I'm with Ace here - Enjoy Zonbie flicks for many of the reasons stated. I would like to add that I also enjoyed the original Resident Evil a great deal, especially the initial "disaster scenes", as well as the soundtrack. (yea, yea - it contained a lot of cheese too, but I can be pretty forgiving of that at times. I especially liked how the SWAT team removed their breathing gear right before entering a very likely biohazard area. Guess the actors needed the face time ;) )

Posted by: gnu on December 20, 2004 01:03 PM

I thought "28 Days later" was really weak and derivative. In the very beginning the hero wakes up in a hospital to general devastation. This conceit was was lifted whole from a 60's cult film "Night of The Triffids". The rogue soldiers were cliched beyond belief - are we to beleive that the rest of the world is functioning outside the British Isles but not talking to anybody on the radio? 28 days is a short time for military discipline to fall apart, especially when it was obvious that these creatures were going to run out of steam eventually all on their own. Which they did.

All "28 Days later" did for me was conjure up images of the better movies they stole their ideas from and make me wish I was watching THEM instead.

Posted by: JohnB on December 20, 2004 01:08 PM

BTW, be sure to check out the DVD extras on the remake of Dawn of the Dead. There's a hilarious piece with SWAT bubbas giving instructions on how to put down zombies. The characters are actual LAPD SWAT instructors. They're pretty fluid on the draw.

Posted by: Ernst Blofeld on December 20, 2004 01:19 PM

Well, since Asian zombie flicks are making an appearance, Bio Zombie and Versus should be mentioned. I was more impressed with the former rather than the latter, but I'm in the minority that prefers Azumi over Versus.

Posted by: rw on December 20, 2004 01:31 PM

'Shaun of the Dead' was an instant classic, but the best end of the world/zombie movie has to be the underrated ‘Night of the Comet’ - two 80’s valley girls battle zombie mutants. While Shaun takes refuge in the British comfort zone, the pub, the girls take refuge in the American comfort zone, a mall.

I didn’t see some of the 'Night of the Living Dead 'offshoots because the original exceeded my tolerance for gross-outs, but if the funny parts outweigh the grossness, zombie movies are okay.

Posted by: mary on December 20, 2004 01:34 PM

The other salient feature of zombie movies is the character with the really strange skill set.
i.e., the two girls in "Night of the Comet" and the inevitable 'I thought everybody knew how to do that'.

Posted by: ed_in_tex on December 20, 2004 01:37 PM

"Night of the Comet" was better than spirit fingers, and we all know that spirit fingers are gold.

Posted by: Brass on December 20, 2004 02:14 PM

This is definitely the best zombie movie thread I've read today.

I liked the one that starts out in a TV news studio... as the news being reported gets worse & worse, the TV people begin to throw down their headphones & haul ass out of there! Which one was that? Funny!

Posted by: mnw on December 20, 2004 04:52 PM

Who was it coined the phrase "motiveless malignity"? I don't think he was talking about zombies though.

In your post, Ace, you deal with disaster zombies; but what about voodoo zombies? The plantations, the sugar mills, the powders and potions, the rifled graves...

- White Zombie
- I Walked With A Zombie
- The Serpent And The Rainbow

All very good flicks too.

Here again, for the same reason you pointed out: the creatures are so dull that we have to focus on the humans, usually the voodoo master guy and a hero. Now, if you look at all the great characters in film and literature, the one quality they share is persistence. And mad scientists and voodoo zombie-master guys invariably have persistence, and lots of it, plus a damn good motive behind it - usually "they'll pay for what they've done" or some variation thereof. All of which makes them interesting characters. That, plus their battles with the inevitable snot-nosed "you have created a monster" know-it-all voice of conscience guy.

Voodoo zombie flicks are structured a lot like Frankenstein flicks, aren't they.

Posted by: Brian on December 20, 2004 05:39 PM

The best is still Return of the Living Dead 2.

"BRRRAAAAAINNNNSSSS!"

"You told, you told, now you die like me."

Posted by: Xoxotl on December 20, 2004 08:54 PM

You forgot "Send more cops." And who can forget Zombie Michael Jackson?

Return of the Living Dead was one of the best in my book.

Posted by: michael dennis on December 20, 2004 09:43 PM

I'm probably in the minority who thinks DotD remake is better than the original. Tauter, scarier, less bombastic(we get it Romero, zombies=consumerism, get on with the movie already). I even preferred the third of the series - Day of the Dead, though by then Romero angst was getting old and predictable.

No mention of the far superior Evil Dead zombie movies?
Less preaching and more good-natured Zombie action! Early Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell.

Posted by: barbula on December 21, 2004 02:43 PM