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.

Lazy Zombie will eat your brains

Yet another article has been published about the prominance of zombies in popular culture: ‘Zombies emerge when the economy ebbs‘. I was pretty excited when I saw this as I thought it would have something new to say about zombies and linking the undead to the economy.

It refers to a so-called ‘Zombie Index’, stating “when the going gets tough, analysts say, the tough turn to entertainment in which reanimated corpses embody our collective anxiety.” It backs this up with a reference to White Zombie’s release in 1932 during the Great Depression and 1968 (when Night of the Living Dead was released) as an year of economic downturn. Sounds impressive. Unfortunately, this argument is rubbish.

An article from Time from Dec 27 1968 entitled, The economy in 1968: an expansion that would not quit. Hardly a sign of zombies being linked to economic downturn. Also, if memory serves correctly, there weren’t many zombie movies  during the 70s recession or during the early 90s.

If anything, zombies have been a cornerstone of horror (mainstream and niche) for years now, with Shaun of the Dead, Dead of the Dead (remake), 28 Days Later, 28 Weeks Later, Land of the Dead & Diary of the Dead, not to mention a legion of bad b-movies all made during ‘good’ economic times.

Zombies emerge when the economy ebbs is not a bad article but in essence it says pretty much the same things as Time (Zombies are the new vampires), the Daily Telegraph (Zombies and vampires: why do we love the undead?) and Arizona Republic (Zombies are a rising trend) have each said in the past 10 days or so.

If there are any lazy journalists out there wanting to fill a column with an article about the undead, I suggest you follow this formula.

• Introduce the article by talking about how popular zombies are the moment (you HAVE to mention that Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is a bestseller and how there World War Z and Zombieland are coming out soon).
• Talk about the history of zombies. Remember there are only six classic films you can refer to so use them wisely: White Zombie, I Walked with a Zombie, Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, Shaun of the Dead and 28 Days Later. Don’t bother googling any other zombie films. They probably aren’t important anyway.
• Good idea to get some quotes. They can either be academics (Canada.com), authors (Arizona Republic and Time) or  just use that Woody Harrelson quote about thinking a photographer was a zombie (Daily Telegraph)
• Talk about what zombies mean. It is important to trot out the same crap that everyone else says: zombies have been used as a symbol of consumerism in Dawn of the Dead and the Vietnam War in Night of the Living Dead. Remember that they also symbolise the faceless crowd and play on fears of contagion.
• You don’t need to think about a new angle. However, if you’re feeling adventurous, make zombies seem even more current, link them to the economic recession. Don’t worry about little things like facts or doing proper research: it will take far too much effort.
• You might want to make a reference to vampires just for good measure.

Surely I should be happy that mainstream publications are printing articles about zombies. But I’m not: there is so much more they could be saying about zombies that is genuinely new and interesting. What about zombies as social media (Lost Zombies)? What about all the zombie flash mobs? Why’s it always the same consumerism/faceless crowd crap academics and writers have been saying for years now?

Of course, there is always my post about zombies (Help! Zombies are surrounding me!)…

“Zombies connect because they’re lovable menaces, funny, and easy metaphors.” Seth Grahame-Smith (author of ‘Pride and Prejudice and Zombies’)

“In the world of traditional horror, nothing is more popular right now than zombies. The living dead are here to stay.” Katy Hershberger of St. Martin’s Press.

All quotes from the Arizona Republic’s article, Zombies are a Rising Trend.

Zombie Apocalypse by Konami

Normally the words ‘zombie’, ‘apocalypse’ and ‘Xbox 360′ make me weak at the knees but somehow Konami’s forthcoming ‘Zombie Apocalypse‘ for Xbox 360 and PS3 doesn’t excite me much. Not only does it have a crap and unoriginal name but the gameplay is a pretty unashamedly blatent rip-off of Left 4 Dead. ZA is a co-operative game where up to four survivors battle against a ton of zombies. It’s third-person instead of L4D’s first-person but the premise sounds pretty much the same. Zombie Apocalypse will be available on Xbox Live and Playstation Network sometime in the Summer, so at least it should be cheap.

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.

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.