I love George Romero's Horror films. Here's a director that not only has great talent at scaring an audience, but also is very politically oriented in the Horror visions that he's showing an audience. What Romero depicts in his films is his prescient fears concerning the direction that this country is headed in. What better way to show those fears then in a Horror film? The Horror framework allows Romero to make his political statements acute to an audience.
His films are not didactic in anyway. Rather, Romero’s films serve as great entertainment. His films are successful attempts at properly scaring an audience, and then making that audience think for a change. It's the interim moments of making an audience squirm where Romero utilizes his social commentary on a given situation. He has a given system of shocking an audience into expectancy and then sharing his criticisms of American existence to that audience. Romero has been well aware since he made his first film The Night of the Living Dead, that the Horror framework hooks an audience member towards the director's argument. An audience member is never bored in a Romero film upon seeing acts of American consumerism, or American sexism, ect. Rather, the audience is experiencing the director's thesis viscerally.
Night of the Living Dead is a masterful Horror film because of the simplicity in which events occur in the movie. For instance, the plot of the film falls into place very easily, which ultimately makes the implications of the film very realistic. The movie doesn’t announce itself in anyway like most Horror films. It begins very innocently, and then thematically becomes more terrifying as day turns into night and more and more zombies start appearing. This structure is highly realistic for a Horror film mainly because so little happens. There isn’t much of a plot or explanation as to why the dead are coming back to life. The television broadcasters are as befuddled as the characters trapped in the house. This attitude of confusion creates a realistic sense of a panic stricken culture. Usually in Horror films, even after the main characters learn why something is the way it is, they still are panicking. In Night of The Living Dead, no one has any answers. This is what makes the film have an authentic sense of dread.
Romero’s political statements in this film are actually very general. Yes, of course, the film deals with the concept of racism. However, the overall arching question that Romero posits to the audience is, what leads to racism? Romero’s answer is a nervous culture. Acute nervousness, in Romero’s eyes, leads to ineffectualness and mental lack of clarity. This is no more apparent then in the actions of Harry Cooper (Karl Hardman), who gets many of the main characters killed in the film. He is so wound up by the onslaught of the zombies outside that he becomes the metaphor for the crazed alarmist culture that Romero fears American citizens are becoming. (The informative tv doesn’t help his state in anyway.) In the movie, he constantly berates Ben (Duane Jones), and yet Ben is right in stating that no one should hide in the basement. Cooper’s lack of mental clarity is what is making him make all the wrong selfish decisions. It’s ironic, and somewhat humorous, that Cooper is trying to protect his daughter, and yet she is a zombie. The zombie metaphor is Romero’s way of addressing his concerns over society’s becoming a brainless culture.
Really, Night of the Living Dead is the ultimate example of the effectiveness of nondescriptness; of having a low budget and using unknown actors. These elements simply make the film creepier. As stated before, the film doesn’t announce itself like other Horror films. It doesn’t initially appear phantasmagorical in terms of its look. Rather, the film has a realistic appearance of nondescriptness; especially the opening cemetery scene. The Horror elements, like the sociological elements, creep up on the audience. The setting of Pittsburgh helps. Here’s a sleepy city basically reawakened by zombies. It’s a city rarely shown in movies; an unknown territory that makes the film have a more original look. If only young Horror filmmakers learned Romero’s attributes! They should try their hand at black and white sometime. Young Horror filmmakers should also come up with original ideas that have something to do with their feelings on society. The Horror framework, as evidenced by Night of the Living Dead, is the perfect framework in which to do so. These young filmmaker’s wouldn’t even have to switch genres in order to make more “serious” socially conscious “message” movies.It’s amazing to consider that Romero already established his directorial style in his first film. For instance, when Ben (Duane Jones) relates to Barbara (Judith O’Dea) about how he felt terrified and powerless upon first encountering the zombies, his soliloquy, as it were, is being told to her just after a frightening moment occurred in the film. Ben’s soliloquy is political in nature. The zombies that Ben mentions are representations of white racist men who set out to kill black men. I feel that the implications that these zombies are brainless individuals, is a statement on Romero’s part, in relation to how murdering racists are not intelligent individuals. Is it a coincidence that the human pact that “accidentally” kills Ben at the end of the film, for fear that he’s a zombie, resembles the zombies in the movie? I think not. It’s Romero’s depiction of human hatred guised in human carelessness that makes Night of the Living Dead a truly terrifying movie.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I've been watching George Romero's films since I was a kid. It was very interesting how I didn't realize the social commentary when I was a kid. My dad, who introduced me to horror films, would never catch any of that. He was just attracted to the gore and zombies. It wasn't until I started watching the “Dead” trilogy with my cousin (years before Land of the Dead and Diary of the Dead were released), and she explained the definition of social commentary and how it was expressed in the films. Romero is definitely one of the greatest horror movie filmmakers, as well as Lucio Fulci. I really enjoyed your criticism on Night of the Living Dead, Dave. It brought me back to the good old days of watching horror films after school and on the weekends with my father and friends. “The movie doesn’t announce itself in anyway like most Horror films.” The film does have its unique qualities, and I think that's what makes it great. The question you brought up, which connects with the social commentary on racism, is one I never thought about. I knew the film brings up racism, but I never thought of reasons why everyone would act racist. It was interesting for me, as a kid, to not pick up on the racist aspect of the film, and not have any idea why Harry Cooper was stubborn when he talked to Ben. Every time I watch the scene where Harry Cooper ignores Ben and moves his family to the basement, it frustrates me more. This is the only horror film in which I root for the living, and like you said, most of the main characters perish.“Really, Night of the Living Dead is the ultimate example of the effectiveness of nondescriptness; of having a low budget and using unknown actors. These elements simply make the film creepier.” I agree with you on this. Hollywood is preoccupied with hiring well-known actors and high budget gore. They don't even understand how it ruins the beauty of low-budget films. I really enjoyed your conclusion where you bring up the point that Ben sees the zombies as white racists men that oppress him. Dave, this is a great review and I can see that you and I would agree on the message this film delivers and the issues with some horror films today.
My old band, “The Charming” was heavily influenced by George Romero's and Lucio Fulci's films. We wrote a song, in which we combined many of the plots from the dead films and Fulci's zombie films. The song is called the Plague. You won't understand the lyrics, but it be cool if you checked it out.
myspace.com/thecharming
The band broke up and formed again with new members. I played bass on the recording that's on the myspace.
it'd*
myspace.com/thecharmingnj*
I enjoyed reading your blog because I feel that the “Dave” I get to know through your entry is the same Dave who I have class with every week: someone who is capable of intelligently analyzing a film, but still maintains an avid passion for the cinema. Your excitement for the topic at hand is palpable, but the critical eye that you bring to your subjects is mentally stimulating, and shows the reader that you have the knowledge and understanding to appreciate film on a level that extends beyond its entertainment value.
Your discussion of Romero’s "Night of the Living Dead" was very thought provoking, and I was happy to see that you chose to examine the political nature of Romero’s work, rather than focusing on something more obvious, such as the film’s impact on “zombie” movies. I love your observation that "Night of the Living Dead" doesn’t have “much of a plot,” or provide an explanation “as to why the dead are coming back to life,” but you still give the reader your own interpretation of why this is: “no one has any answers. This is what makes the film have an authentic sense of dread.” Your set-up for delving into the film’s political commentary is also very interesting, stating that the film asks, “What leads to racism?” and that Romero’s answer is “a nervous culture”; however, it is at this point that your analysis takes on a new complexity, and some of the open-ended concepts lead to confusion.
“A nervous culture” is a fine response to the question the film poses, but it is also a very broad response, open to multiple interpretations. In your entry, you never strictly define what a “nervous culture” is. Is it “nervous” in the sense that it is fearful of the unknown (i.e. whites being fearful of blacks “intruding” upon their neighborhoods), or is it a fear of change in general? In your analysis of Harry Cooper, which is very well done, I felt that you were implying that this nervousness was a fear of unknown “others,” since you note that Cooper “becomes a metaphor for the crazed alarmist culture that Romero [felt] American citizens [were] becoming.” Based on this interpretation, it sounded as if Cooper were a representative of the white, racist patriarchy, and that his fear of the zombies was a metaphor for the 1960’s white male, who feared a unified uprising of oppressed “others” (i.e. African Americans, particularly those involved with the Civil Rights Movement, the “Viet-cong,” or the ominous, enigmatic communists). This could be a fitting commentary for Romero to make, given the time period, and your analysis of Cooper’s behavior, particularly his derogatory treatment of Ben, further supports this idea; however, a few sentences later, you mention that “the zombie metaphor is Romero’s way of addressing his concerns over society becoming a brainless culture.” You then continue that Romero implies that “these zombies are brainless individuals,” but also “representations of white racist men.” Since Cooper is an example of a white, racist man, but he is horrified by the zombies, how can the zombies serve as a representation of racists like himself? This is the main point of confusion for me; since Cooper and the zombies are at odds with one another, the interpretation of the zombies’ roles cannot change without a shift in the way one reads Cooper’s character.
In essence, there are multiple ways to examine "Night of the Living Dead," and particularly the role of the zombies. The various interpretations that your assessment of the film offers are clever, and well thought-out, but by opting to commit yourself to one set reading of the movie, (you ultimately state that the zombies represent a “brainless,” racist culture) I feel that you wind up negating some of the interesting points you made earlier on. Since the film does not come to any definitive conclusion about the zombies, as you previously pointed out, perhaps your analysis could also benefit from this “open for discussion” quality. You argue both points so well that it seems a shame to limit the film to only one of these possibilities; instead, why not be more ambiguous, allowing your critique to challenge the reader in the way that Romero’s film challenges the viewer? It certainly has the ability to do so.
Post a Comment