Night of the Comet trailer

Why don’t people realise that the sky is evil? The Day of the Triffids has a meteor shower that blinds anyone who sees it, thereby allowing man-eating plants to herald in the end of civilisation; Where have all the people gone? has solar flares that reduces nearly all humanity to white powder, while The Night of the Comet similarly has the world wiped out by a passing comet (only this time the dust is red not white).

Remember kids, the cosmos is not your friend. Run from eclipses, hide from the night and bury yourself in deep underground complexes whenever an asteroid passes by. If you don’t, you’ll end up a minor footnote in the post-apocalypse, as someone else does all the fun stuff of killing zombies or running around empty cities with fast cars and big guns. Best case scenario you’re one of the flesh-eating zombies. Worse case: you’re just a pile of powder on the floor.

Night of the Comet is an enjoyable, relatively low-budget movie aimed at a teenage market drawing on a number of stable themes of the post-apocalyptic genre, including a shopping spree in a mall (reminiscent of Dawn of the Dead), and the empty, deserted and intact cities of such films as The Omega Man, The Quiet Earth and Where have all the People Gone?

The premise is straightforward: a passing comet turns anyone exposed into little more than red dust. Consequently, nearly the entire planet is wiped out by the morning. After spending the night protected from the comet’s rays, a couple of teenage valley girl sisters (Regina and Amanda) are among the few survivors left in a deserted downtown LA. They have to contend with partially-exposed survivors who have turned into zombie-like cannibals and a group of scientists who buried themselves deep in an underground bunker.

Although the source of the apocalypse is a comet (a comet that was last seen around the time of the dinosaurs), the movie is framed within a nuclear narrative. Indeed, the effects of the comet is akin to radiation – while those directly exposed were reduced to red dust, those with a partial exposure slowly decay before eventually dying. Moreover, the scientists are wary of introducing survivors from outside in their bunker for fear that they will be exposed – that a vent was left open and they were partially exposed to the comet themselves is ironic. Significantly, Amanda and Regina were protected by steel (a projector room for Regina and a garden shed for Amanda), which serve a similar function as fall-out shelters.

Notably, the film subverts common sex and gender narratives present in other horror films of the time Whereas popular contemporary ‘slasher’ films often present sex between teenagers as a prelude to their ultimate demise at the hands of Freddie/Jason et al, Regina’s sex with a boyfriend in the projector room of a cinema actually saves her from death. Moreover, both her and her sister defy the rules imposed by their stepmother – if they had obeyed her instructions and attended her Comet party they would have died.

The portrayal of gender is also interesting in the film. While Amanda and Regina are ostensibly ‘Valley girls’, they are shown in traditional female roles as shoppers (and later, in the case of Regina a mother figure to the two children), as well as adopting roles more traditionally associated with masculinity, not least when Amanda fires a machine-gun into a car and Regina opens fire on the men in the store with a gun. While other films of the era portray women as overtly masculine (such as the gunner in Hell Comes to Frogtown) or as victims, it is significant that the female leads of Night of the Comet do not lose their feminity.

Night of the Comet is  b-movie as feminist text:  this utopian post-apocalyptic fantasy enables Amanda and Regina to transform from teenager to adult. Free from the shackles of society, they discard their ‘valley girl’ personas and are liberated as independent women.

The film concludes on an optimistic note: the elder sister takes on a maternal role after effectively adopting two children rescued from the scientists, as well as having a partner in the shape of Hector (a truck driver they meet at a radio station). In addition to this ready-made family unit, Amanda conveniently finds a potential boyfriend driving down a deserted street.

Night of the Comet doesn’t take itself too seriously but it’s a highly effective movie and far more intelligent than the Mad Max clones that seem to dominate the 80s post-apocalyptic scene.

Smoke 'em if you've got 'em

The 80s obsession with World War III produced a number of excellent movies that illustrated the horrors of living in a post-nuclear world. From the UK came When the Wind Blows (1986) and the BBC’s Threads (1985), while two US television stations (PBS and ABC) respectively produced Testament (1983) and The Day After (1983). Common to all four of these productions was the grim telling of how ordinary people would fare after a nuclear attack. All are dominated by dark skies, scarcity and radioactive fallout.

Smoke ‘Em if You’ve Got ‘Em is Australia’s take on the post-apocalypse and aptly turns the aforementioned films upside down. Instead of survivors clinging desperately to life in squalid conditions and radiation sickness, it is a black comedy that offers an alternative way of dealing with nuclear holocaust.

The movie is set in the days after a nuclear attack on Melbourne and while the scene above ground is the traditionally post-apocalyptic setting of a bombed-out city, below ground a party is going on.

It is this concept of partying at the end of the world that underlines the futility of trying to survive in the immediate aftermath of nuclear attack. Death by radiation sickness (even in a bomb shelter) is inevitable so you might as well live life as though it is your last day (which it probably is). This fatalistic sentiment is rare in post-apocalyptic films.

Juxtaposed with the end of the world party are the two other types of post-apocalyptic survivors: the pockets of dirty survivors scouring the ruins for supplies above ground and the family next door who are trying to survive as long as possible on a can of baked beans a day. The party-goers allow both groups to join in the revelry (although the father next door is resistant): due to the high doses of radiation everywhere any attempt to survive is ultimately futile.

This fatalistic attitude is summed up by the title: Smoke ‘em if you’ve got ‘em implies that there is nothing that can be done about the situation so you might as well enjoy yourself while you can. Indeed, this pessimistic philosophy can be seen as a hedonistic response to the Cold War as well as nuclear war: excessive, self-destructive partying is presented as a valid answer to the threat of nuclear annihilation.

Even though the characters are aware of their forthcoming demise, time and time again, they fall back on old habits, such as the teenager who asks a woman whether she is on the pill before they have sex; the man who decides not to take heroin as is too addictive, or the man who toys over whether to ask a woman to dance: he waits too long and she is dead by the time he has summoned up the courage to ask her.

Most poignantly, though, is the videographer who carefully records the night’s events on his camcorder and then puts the film into an envelope for development. He neatly fills in the address before realising that there is no point. He throws the useless film against a wall while screaming in anguish. Not only is there no-one to develop the film, there will be no one to see it in the future and no point recording the past

As the film ends, so the party draws to a close; a mixture of radiation sickness and violence killing the partygoers. The two friends whose idea it was to have the end of the world party decide to go upstairs to settle on deckchairs waiting to be destroyed by a mop-up bomb. Significantly, they express no regrets.

Smoke ‘Em if You’ve Got ‘Em, Dir: Ray Boseley, Australian Film Commission, 1988. It is quite rare and is difficult to get hold of. Running time is 50 mins.

A Texas road sign displays warnings about zombies in January 2009

Zombies are everywhere at the moment: a book mashing up the living dead with Jane Austen (Pride and Prejudice and Zombies) is a best-seller, numerous zombie films and games have been recently released or will come out later this year and even Woody Harrelson justified hitting a photographer recently because he thought they were a member of the living dead: “I was startled by a paparazzo,” Harrelson said, “who I quite understandably mistook for a zombie.” So why is there a cultural zombie invasion at the moment? What is it about the living dead that means they are popping up at on every corner?

Contemporary Anxieties

This increased prominance to the living dead has not gone unnoticed by the press. The Daily Telgraph asks in an article published today Zombies and vampires: why do we love the undead?, The Arizona Republic’s article notes that Zombies are a Rising Trend, while Time magazine claims ‘Zombies are the New Vampires‘. If anything, Vampires were staked in the heart by a zombified Van Helsing years ago and in their place have risen up an army of the undead who have plagued our tv screens, games consoles, movie theatres and books.

All monsters play on the fears of their contemporary audiences: vampires depict fears regarding sex and sexuality; Frankenstein’s monster highlights anxieties relating to modern science and Werewolves symbolise man’s fear of its own animal passions. Zombies are very much a reflection of late 20th/early 21st century fears, representing a complex range of contemporary anxieties. However, even though zombies symbolise death, disease, de-humanisation, and the fragility of both ourselves and our society, this is not the reason why they have become so engrained in our culture.

It’s because zombies are fun.

Chainsaws and Shotguns

Zombies are a loveable punchbag to offload our frustrations out on; the zombie apocalypse appealing precisely because the old rules of society have collapsed, thereby allowing us live out survivalist fantasies. Moreover, there is no guilt in dispatching a undead walking corpse with a shotgun or chainsaw, only the pleasure of seeing their blood and brains explode. What isn’t there to love about the living dead?

Lost Zombies is a social media initiative, where contributors send in clips for a community-based documentary about a zombie apocalypse. Elsewehere, zombie flash mobs appear in cities, with people dressing up as blood-splattered undead. This is an alternative reality where zombies are real and the post-apocalyptic world is already happening; the boundaries between real and virtual blurred, with zombies a tool to undermine established society and culture. The axiom of Dawn of the Dead where zombies are us, us them is no more apparent: we want to be the mindless zombie and live through a zombie apocalypse.

Apocalyptic Gallows Humour

The very nature the zombie apocalypse is inherently ambivalent: a preposterous unreality (the dead coming back to life and eating the living) effectively a meta-joke that both shies away from, and at the same time implicitly addresses, more possible apocalypses such as pandemic viruses, environmental disaster, economic collapse or even nuclear holocaust. Nearly all these cataclysms are a product of man’s folly and potential to destroy itself: ultimately they are as ridiculous as the zombies that mock them.

More than comedy-horror escapism, zombies are a form of contemporary surrealism; an apocalyptic gallows-humour that parodies our fears of the future. The complex duality makes the zombie continuingly engaging and relevant for contemporary audiences. There is a winking post-modernism associated with zombies, so instead of openly fearing the living dead, we embrace them as old friends. By laughing at zombies we are literally laughing in the face of death and of the absurdity of humans causing a post-apocalypse sometime in the future.

Left 4 Dead

My game of choice over the last few months has been Valve’s zombie first-person shooter, Left 4 Dead. Set during a zombie apocalypse, Left 4 Dead captures the immediate aftermath of the end of the world perfectly: the four human survivors have to negotiate thousands of zombies against a backdrop of empty offices, burnt out buildings and broken-down trains, planes and automobiles. However, Left 4 Dead is more than just a brilliant game, its emphasis on co-operative gameplay is highly significant as it echoes a broader movement towards global co-operation on a political, social and economic level.

Co-operation

While Left 4 Dead’s subject matter is generic (the zombie-apocalypse-due-to-pandemic-virus idea comes straight from I, Legend and 28 Days Later), its game play is revolutionary. Co-operation is key and it is one of the few games where you cannot hope to win unless you’ve got teammates you can trust. While there have been games with co-op modes before (such as Resident Evil, Gears of War and the Battlefield games), nothing is on the scale of Left 4 Dead.

This is a game where you have to stick close to the other players: you are relying on them and they are relying on you through an intricate balance of genuine co-operation. If you decide to do your own thing, not only will you die a quick death but you will probably be condemning the rest of your party as well. You are forced to play nicely with others: even if you leave, the game warns you that you’ll be ‘letting your teammates down’.

In the game you are not an individual as much as you are part of a group; a concept common in armies, sports teams and Socialist/Fascist theory but rare in computer games. That a game is effectively encouraging collectivism is significant, not least as recent months have seen a greater emphasis on the collective as opposed to the individual in political circles.

Left-wing 4 Dead?

Left 4 Dead was released in the US on November 13 2008, less than 10 days after the election of a liberal president who openly professed conciliation as opposed to unilateralism. While it would be a stretch to argue that Left 4 Dead is left-wing, it certainly is a game that symbolises a wider cultural shift from right to left. It emphasizes the importance of the team for success rather than the individual; the solitary superhero character prevalent in games and movies (as in Quake, Die Hard, Tomb Raider, Rambo and numerous others) is rendered redundant. This is a game primarily concerned with the collective.

Recent circumstances have forced the political elite to take a more co-operative route. This was on display at the recent G20 summit in London, with the leading powers agreeing to work together and take a co-ordinated economic approach to address the recession/credit crunch. Meanwhile, in the UK, the Labour Government – once so keen to declare their prudent fiscal conservatism – has abandoned New Labour monetarism to effectively nationalise failing banks. This was a display of state power over the market; of public over private and of the collective over the individual.

Elsewhere, Earth Hour in late March saw cities across the world plunged into darkness as people and institutions turned off their lights for 60 minutes, in what the organisers claimed was ‘a global call to action for every individual, every business, and every community – a call to stand up and take control of the future of our planet.’ This mass collective action suggests that only if everyone joins together, can climate change be addressed and possibly averted.

Left 4 Dead: A metaphor 4 our times?

Left 4 Dead is a game set in an apocalyptic world where co-operation is the only hope of salvation: only by co-operating with your teammates can you ever hope to escape from the zombie horde. Likewise, recent months have highlighted that only by co-operating on a mass scale can we  hope to avoid another Depression or impending environmental disaster. Left 4 Dead may be only be a zombie game in style, but in spirit it reflects a co-operative philosophy that is increasingly relevant for the contemporary world.

In any case, expect a slew of Left 4 Dead clones to emerge in the near future. In the meantime, Valve will be releasing free downloadable content for both Xbox 360 and PC on 21 April 2009.

Dawn of the Dead 1978 Poster

For my birthday last year my wife gave me a special box-set edition of  one of my favourite films: George Romero’s  Dawn of the Dead (1978). I  let the black box sit on the shelf, waiting for the perfect occasion to watch and enjoy it like a good wine. Recently, I decided the time was right to watch it again, so I ripped open the plastic cover, selected one of the three versions of the film and settled down for a night of  zombie apocalypse.

And it wasn’t that good.

This is a biggie for me: DOTD is a movie that has comfortably sat at the top of my list of favourite films since I was a teen and was the subject of one of my essays for my MA. I even use DOTD  publicity stills for my various online avatars.

Unfortunately, Dawn of the Dead as slow and lumbering as the zombies that populate it. Yes the central metaphor and underlying social commentary is brilliant: zombies as consumers / consumers are like  zombies (zombies literally consuming flesh in a shopping mall). But as a post-apocalyptic movie, a horror movie or just a movie full stop, it is severely lacking.

First off, there is pretty minimal characterisation. All four characters are pretty one-dimensional: Stephen is annoying, Roger is reckless, Peter is  careful and Francine is defenceless. None of them seem to have any meaningful thoughts concerning the end of the world, nor do they appear to have any lives before they go to the mall. They are little more than empty shells.

Maybe this is all part of George’s bigger narrative of consumerism destroying humanity but I think it has more to do with his disinterest in characters (as he decrees during his commentary accompanying the DVD).

Without any real characterisation, we are left with a number of action sequences. Some good, some bad but almost all overlong and badly edited.

And then there is the ending when the bikers invade the mall. I found myself cheering for Tom Savini and his biker buddies. They were fun. They smashed stuff up. They threw pies at the zombies. They were, in fact, more likeable than any of the main characters (possibly with the exception of Peter). I was actually upset when they died.

So what does this mean? Did I build up Dawn of the Dead into a sacred cow that was not worthy of my deference? I’ve got two other versions of the film in my glossy box-set for me to watch (European Version and Director’s Cut) before I make up my mind to watch.

However, I have a nagging suspicion that the movie will end up like a zombie itself: still walking around in my sub-consciousness way past the time when it should have died for good.

Survivors

The post-apocalypse is going through something of a renaissance on British TV at the moment. A remake of ‘Day of the Triffids’ has been announced; Halloween saw the zombie-Big Brother mini-series ‘Dead Set’ while the  weeks running up to Christmas saw a remake of ‘Survivors’ – the classic 70s post-apocalyptic series set in a world where nearly everyone has perished to a highly infectious disease. While it had its moments, ultimately the remake was an unsatisfying affair, with a succession of nagging gripes that overshadowed a pretty slick production.

70’s Survivors: Modernity Rebooted

The first series was a classic case of a ‘cosy catastrophe’ (a term coined by Brian Aldiss in relation to John Wyndam’s ‘Day of the Triffids’), with a very intelligent take on what was likely to transpire in a world where nearly everyone had succombed to the virus and all the trappings of civilisation had broken down.

There were numerous nice touches, not least a scene when one of the characters notes that the orange they are eating is likely to be the last orange they will ever taste: the infrastructure that had produced, transported and sold those oranges had gone and would not return in their lifetime.

If time and space had been ‘annihilated’ by technological improvements in transport and communications from the industrial revolution onwards, the post-apocalyptic world had re-established those boundaries once again.

On a week-by-week basis, ‘Survivors’ tracked the decline and fall of modernity as the few people who weren’t killed by the virus huddled together in tiny groups as the remnants of modern society (notably food and fuel) began to expire. They had to effectively reboot society to a pre-industrial age, learning traditional skills like farming if they were to survive.

It was great stuff – especially the first two series and had aged remarkly well for a 30 year-old tv programme: when I watched the episodes a couple of years ago for the first time, I was hooked and saw them pretty much back to back.

Survivors Remake: A very ordered apocalypse

Although conceptually similar to the original, the new series of ‘Survivors’ is based on Terry Nation’s novel, with a number of changes to characters and events from its 70s predecessor.  Jenny was killed off early on but her sprit lives on in the shape of doctor Anya; Tom Price is no longer the weasel he was in the original, replaced by an amoral bank robber who shares his name but little else. The series also more accurately reflects a multi-cultural Britain than the overwhelming white, middle-classness of the original.

The main thrust of the show is similar to the original: the few remaining survivors huddling together in an empty world populated by anarchic gangs and dwindling resources. Characterisation is decent, especially the aforementioned ‘new’ Tom who is compelling ambivalent, while the relationship between Al and Najid is particularly interesting. Unfortunately, Greg’s now a little dull and Abby is still annoyingly looking for her son (she spent a whole series looking for him first time around and she was still interjecting pretty much every conversation with a ‘Have you seen my Peter’ in the remake).

While it is a highly polished effort, ultimately this reinterpretation of ‘Survivors’ is somewhat lacking.  The original series was great precisely because there was this sense of anarchy, with the few people who were immune to the virus having to rebuild society by themselves. While there were pockets of authority (such as the paramilitary group and the London-based settlement), in effect the survivors had to fend for themselves. Order had collapsed and no-one was going to save them.

However, perhaps in a reflection of a contemporary society where the Government is more powerful than ever before, the remake cannot seem to imagine a world without the state. The sole remaining Government minister trying to rebuild order from an eco-centre, while there is a woeful  sub-plot about the underground research facility, faintly reminiscent of the Umbrella Corporation in Resident Evil, who are trying to find a cure for the disease. These are run by BAD SCIENTISTS who kill innocent people in the name of research and eventually sweep up Abby at the end of the series, as apparently her immunity to the virus can be the source of a cure.

It is as though some executive didn’t think that the basic premise of a post-epidemic Britain was enough for the main characters to overcome, so they had to introduce a shadowy organisation as well. This detracts from the main concept of surviving in a world without modern trappings and becomes just another bog-standard scenario where the good guys overcome the big bad organisation.

I was surprised that they didn’t really take into account many changes in the past 30 years, especially the internet (which was originally developed as a way to communicate after a nuclear war) – the only real sign of modern technology was when characters seemed waved their mobile phones in the air hoping to find a signal. However, at least initially there would have been some chatter online about the virus, before electricity and the ISPs died. Other recent post-apocalyptic productions (ie. ‘Diary of the Dead’) pointed to this trend and it is surprising that Survivors by-passed it completely.

Ultimately, the remake of ‘Survivors’ was a disappointment. The look and feel of the programme was too clean and there was never really a sense that this was a genuinely post-apocalyptic world. Yes, the cities were empty and gangs rode around streets in sports cars but 28 Days Later this was not. Where were the dead bodies lining the streets or did all the flu victims neatly go home to die? Why were the main characters not stubbled and unwashed? Why did no-one complain about the smell? Where were the rats? And where the over-riding anxiety that this was the end of the world as we know it?

Despite these problems ‘Survivors’ managed to garner enough of an audience to get a second series commissioned, which is due to be broadcast later this year.

Dead Set

Where would you like to be when the zombie apocalypse hits? Would you want to be hanging out in an abandoned farm-house? A suburban shopping mall? Or an underground military facility? Probably the last place I would want to be at the best of times is the Big Brother house, forced to live with a variety of wannabe-celebs while each of my words and actions were monitored by the world at large.

Imprisoned with these unappealing people while outside is being eaten by hungry zombies is even less appealing. However, this is the premise of ‘Dead Set’; an E4 mini-series for Halloween that mashes-up the zombie genre with reality tv.

‘Dead Set’ is a brilliant premise not least because the Big Brother contestants are effectively cocooned from contact with from the outside world during their stay. By fusing together the zombie genre with reality television, there is considerable scope for social commentary and for gentle mocking of shows like BB.

While the five-part series had its moments – especially in the form of the zombie Davina – ultimately the series could not fulfil the expectations of its concept. Characterisation was weak (with the exception of the particularly odious moustached producer Patrick); the horror was deritative with too many nods to other (better) movies;  the pacing was flat and the plotting mediocre.

When I was watching it, I had this nagging feeling that they took the lazy option. While there was an undercurrent of media satire (people watching Big Brother are zombies) it wasn’t strong enough. Why bother set the progamme in the Big Brother house if they didn’t use it more – the characters could have stayed in the set as a relatively safe option for an extended period of time (as in ‘Dawn of the Dead’) while outside the world descended into chaos. The mundane actions of the contestants would have been highlighted even more if they were in there for weeks as opposed to days. This would have allowed more interesting scenarios such as viewers determined to watch Big Brother even though there were zombies outside, or  zombies sitting on the sofa watching/wanting to eat the Big Brother contestents? Alternatively, they could have made more of the zombies-as- contestants analogy, although considering the programme was made with the full backing of BB, this was probably unlikely to be realised.

While ‘Dead Set’ was enjoyable it certainly wasn’t ground-breaking and considering the potential of the concept, it should have been better. However, it is interesting that after ‘Shaun of the Dead’, zombie apocalypses are becoming increasingly mainstream and I wouldn’t be surprised if there were more zombie mashups to come.