TheDeadWalk
02-22-2004, 05:25 PM
Once again, I'm doing an essay for my Film 344 class. I posted my rough draft of my Dawn of the Dead analysis, and my final draft scored me a 23/25... not bad. It's tough though, knowing that I received a 24/25 on a back to the future analysis comparison of Crispin Glover from Friday the 13th part 4, from teenager to father in one year.
I won't post a title of what I'm going in depth with, I'd like you to all read, and maybe tell me if you get the jist of my thesis or not. Also, suggestions would be great! Thanks!
----------------------------------------------------------------
In 1968, George A. Romero created arguably the best horror film of all-time, “Night of the living dead”. Shot over the course of several weekends in his hometown of Pittsburgh, Romero’s low budget film about strangers inside a farmhouse attempting to fend off an army of the living dead served as a shocking metaphor about the turbulent sixties. During this period, Americans nationwide questioned their safety, wondering if the Cold War would finally take its toll as society could have been ravaged at any moment via nuclear war. Citizens were distraught as our country saw three political figureheads assassinated, one of which was President John F. Kennedy. Television had begun showing harsh brutalities in the ongoing Vietnam War, while various political and race riots contributed to the turmoil on our own soil. While widespread panic was surfacing, George Romero’s zombie film spoke a powerful message about what was going on, and what could happen if panic wasn’t contained properly.
In “Night”, seven strangers are stranded in a secluded farmhouse, as flesh eating zombies lurk on. The characters unsure of what to do, envelop into either close-minded stubbornness, or retort to a state of panic. Each of the characters can’t figure out how to properly handle the ongoing problem. While all saw a common enemy in the impending outside hordes, the tension besetting inside the house was what served to destroy them all.
Romero’s feature protagonist is Ben, a strong versatile black man who wishes to lead everyone to board up the farmhouse and keep it secure. His nemesis is that of Harry Cooper, a middle aged white man who dislikes Ben and every idea he has. The two engage in several arguments, with Cooper even throwing out subtle racist comments. In the film’s third act, Cooper’s idea of hiding into the cellar overnight was the safest, as Ben who is the only remaining survivor gets forced into the cellar, where he remains safe from the zombies overnight. The shocking irony to Ben is that the angry white bigot was right. Other racial metaphors continue into the morning after, when Ben emerges out of the cellar. He is mistaken for a zombie and is thrown into a bonfire after being shot. It is implied that would Ben have been white, perhaps there many have been hesitation before being shot by his own rescuers.
The zombies in “Night” do not serve a mindless perspective. Their frightening representation is that of the decay of the ordinary people in the being drawn out through the country’s turmoil. They lurk onwards toward the house; being driven by redundant noise, along with a botched fueling attempt that led to an explosion. To Romero, this was where you were to wind up, enduring such close mindedness and widespread panic as opposed to rational behavior.
With all of the above frightening messages served in this cult classic, Romero eventually rewrote “Night of the Living Dead” and had famed special effects artist Tom Savini direct the remake in 1990. The remake contained the same basic messages, but faced problems in getting it well received. The 1990 remake was twenty-two years later, and the Cold War was over. Vietnam had even become long forgotten, and all that could be taken from the newer version was its face value: a horror movie about zombies.
One wonders if Romero knew that his message wouldn’t be received the same was twenty-two years ago, and if he did, why was it remade? Fans of the Romero zombie trilogy have been yearning for a fourth “dead” installment, but instead get a remake that was considered a box office disaster. In my opinion, the remake was a potential stepping stone for Romero to revive the zombie genre. After critical lambasting of 1985’s “Day of the Dead”, Romero would first have to prove that he still had the ability to create a successful horror film, before acquiring sponsorship for an entirely new film. Using a classic film, as basis for a remake, is less risky than financially supporting a new idea and if a success, this film could have revived the zombie genre and Romero’s filmmaking status. Though with a poor box office turnout of less than $20 million, there is little room for assumption as to why Romero’s fourth dead film has yet to be made. It could perhaps be that George Romero is finally taking the advice from Roger Ebert’s “Day of the Dead” review, where Ebert boldly stated “George Romero should quit while he’s ahead.”
I won't post a title of what I'm going in depth with, I'd like you to all read, and maybe tell me if you get the jist of my thesis or not. Also, suggestions would be great! Thanks!
----------------------------------------------------------------
In 1968, George A. Romero created arguably the best horror film of all-time, “Night of the living dead”. Shot over the course of several weekends in his hometown of Pittsburgh, Romero’s low budget film about strangers inside a farmhouse attempting to fend off an army of the living dead served as a shocking metaphor about the turbulent sixties. During this period, Americans nationwide questioned their safety, wondering if the Cold War would finally take its toll as society could have been ravaged at any moment via nuclear war. Citizens were distraught as our country saw three political figureheads assassinated, one of which was President John F. Kennedy. Television had begun showing harsh brutalities in the ongoing Vietnam War, while various political and race riots contributed to the turmoil on our own soil. While widespread panic was surfacing, George Romero’s zombie film spoke a powerful message about what was going on, and what could happen if panic wasn’t contained properly.
In “Night”, seven strangers are stranded in a secluded farmhouse, as flesh eating zombies lurk on. The characters unsure of what to do, envelop into either close-minded stubbornness, or retort to a state of panic. Each of the characters can’t figure out how to properly handle the ongoing problem. While all saw a common enemy in the impending outside hordes, the tension besetting inside the house was what served to destroy them all.
Romero’s feature protagonist is Ben, a strong versatile black man who wishes to lead everyone to board up the farmhouse and keep it secure. His nemesis is that of Harry Cooper, a middle aged white man who dislikes Ben and every idea he has. The two engage in several arguments, with Cooper even throwing out subtle racist comments. In the film’s third act, Cooper’s idea of hiding into the cellar overnight was the safest, as Ben who is the only remaining survivor gets forced into the cellar, where he remains safe from the zombies overnight. The shocking irony to Ben is that the angry white bigot was right. Other racial metaphors continue into the morning after, when Ben emerges out of the cellar. He is mistaken for a zombie and is thrown into a bonfire after being shot. It is implied that would Ben have been white, perhaps there many have been hesitation before being shot by his own rescuers.
The zombies in “Night” do not serve a mindless perspective. Their frightening representation is that of the decay of the ordinary people in the being drawn out through the country’s turmoil. They lurk onwards toward the house; being driven by redundant noise, along with a botched fueling attempt that led to an explosion. To Romero, this was where you were to wind up, enduring such close mindedness and widespread panic as opposed to rational behavior.
With all of the above frightening messages served in this cult classic, Romero eventually rewrote “Night of the Living Dead” and had famed special effects artist Tom Savini direct the remake in 1990. The remake contained the same basic messages, but faced problems in getting it well received. The 1990 remake was twenty-two years later, and the Cold War was over. Vietnam had even become long forgotten, and all that could be taken from the newer version was its face value: a horror movie about zombies.
One wonders if Romero knew that his message wouldn’t be received the same was twenty-two years ago, and if he did, why was it remade? Fans of the Romero zombie trilogy have been yearning for a fourth “dead” installment, but instead get a remake that was considered a box office disaster. In my opinion, the remake was a potential stepping stone for Romero to revive the zombie genre. After critical lambasting of 1985’s “Day of the Dead”, Romero would first have to prove that he still had the ability to create a successful horror film, before acquiring sponsorship for an entirely new film. Using a classic film, as basis for a remake, is less risky than financially supporting a new idea and if a success, this film could have revived the zombie genre and Romero’s filmmaking status. Though with a poor box office turnout of less than $20 million, there is little room for assumption as to why Romero’s fourth dead film has yet to be made. It could perhaps be that George Romero is finally taking the advice from Roger Ebert’s “Day of the Dead” review, where Ebert boldly stated “George Romero should quit while he’s ahead.”