While the concept of reanimated, cannibalistic humans has
been around for a long time, horror director George Romero was the father of
the modern “movie monster” version, or “zombie” as they are now called. Nowadays,
zombies have over saturated all forms of media—they are in video games, comic
books, television shows, and films. Zombies have officially hit the mainstream
and like most concepts that do, the original idea has been diluted somewhat. Romero’s
first zombie film, Night of the Living
Dead, was a political statement as well as a horror film. It touched on
themes like racial unrest, small town mob mentality, and fear of change. It
seems that how a zombie film is
presented is indicative of the social climate it inhabits. This concept is
quite apparent if you compare the 1978 version of Dawn of the Dead to Zack Synder’s 2004 remake.
Dawn of the Dead
(1978)
The zombie invasion has spread and
society is breaking down into complete anarchy. Dire circumstances force
several people to band together and take shelter in an abandoned shopping mall.
Interestingly enough, the shopping mall location actually becomes another
character in the story and supplies much of the drama. Ironically, what would
seem like a dream come true, unlimited access to everything a person could ever
want, still ends up being a terrible situation. A lavishly furnished prison is
still a prison.
How people interact with each other during desperate
situations is a common thread in all of Romero’s zombie films. The idea that
the actual survivors are more of a danger to themselves than the zombies has always
intrigued me and that trope has made it into newer zombie films such as 28 Days Later (yes, I know they aren’t
“true” zombies, but they are close enough).
All of the self-sabotage and destruction allows Romero to explore the
darker side of humanity. The zombies aren’t the real monsters—we are. No matter what we do, we cannot escape our
inevitable death, even when the entire idea of death has been turned on its
head.
The zombies in Dawn of
the Dead do look sillier than their modern counterparts as gore master Tom
Savini went with a green-faced minimalist approach to their makeup look. To be
fair, this film takes place earlier on in the apocalypse so the zombies are
relatively “fresh” looking. It does add a creepier tone to the movie because
the zombies look more human and less monster-like. A huge difference between
the retro and modern zombie is the speed at which they walk. Romero zombies are
painfully slow and rely on sheer numbers to overwhelm their victims. You can
easily outrun them but eventually you will have nowhere to go and will be
trapped into a corner. It’s much scarier and excruciating to see your grisly
fate lumbering leisurely towards you, hands outstretched ready to feast on your
soft innards.
What gives Romero’s version more appeal is the raw, almost
documentary-style way the movie is filmed. There is also some dry humor thrown
in for good measure, though some people find it annoying. Laughing and crying can sometimes be
indistinguishable from each other and are connected more than people realize. There
is also more social commentary in this film mostly in reference to blind
consumerism and our lust for bigger and better things. The scenes of the
zombies feeding and fighting over the sloppy glistening viscera is a metaphor
for people greedily fighting over money and resources. It’s an image that gets
burned into your mind and is not easily forgotten. Dawn of the Dead is the work of a horror master in his prime.
Dawn of the Dead
(2004)
Zack Snyder’s reimagining of Dawn of the Dead is sleeker and more polished than the original
film, having a much larger budget available for production. It has similar
premise-- unfortunate souls trapped in a shopping mall by ravenous zombies--but
it takes the story on a more action-packed path. The biggest change to the
zombie mythos is how the actual zombies operate. In Synder’s film, zombie
infection is transmitted by a bite instead of being a mysterious force that
brings back the dead. The zombies are also very fast and vicious, more akin to
marathon runners than shambling corpses. It changes the entire pace of the film
and makes the zombies more like wild animals. The debate between horror fans
about fast versus slow zombies is a heated one, and it does work in this film,
though it gives the walking dead a much different dynamic. They lose their
“human” quality which takes some of the subversive impact out of the film.
This remake is a great looking film, with an overexposed
color palette and gritty handheld cam film style. It’s more like an action
blockbuster than an indie picture for better or for worse. I don’t think this
style necessarily detracts from the film but it does make it less relatable and
compelling. It’s just a different animal all together. The zombie makeup is
much more realistic and disgusting looking and the action sequences are
exciting and filmed well. Overall, the acting is also much more consistent
across the board with a great performance by Jake Weber in the lead role.
I can hear you saying now: “Michelle, if it looks better and
has better acting why do you prefer the original version? You some kind of hipster or something?!” The reason the remake falls short for me, is
that even though it’s a great looking film, it’s ultimately shallower
theme-wise. Snyder never really delves
into the character’s motivations for their actions and because of how
relentless the zombies are, there is very little downtime in the film to
reflect on the implications of the predicament. This
remake isn’t a bad film by any means, but it loses something important in the
transition; its heart. The focus is now on the zombies instead of the
people—that’s the main distinction between the two films. If this had been a
completely original zombie film, I think it would have fared much better, but
it just doesn’t hold up to the higher ideals of the original film.
Verdict: For this zombie fangirl, the 1978 Dawn of the Dead is the clear winner in this movie battle. While Snyder’s film is very good as far as
remakes are concerned, it just doesn’t quite capture the essence of the
original and it ends up as a dumbed-down version in the end. In effect, the “I want it now!” consumerism
that is being parodied in the ‘70s version ends up being the downfall of the
remake.
-Michelle Kisner
Like this? Please share.
