The Independent Movement and Cult Exploitation
Showing posts with label Night of the Living Dead. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Night of the Living Dead. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Night of the Living Dead - 5 Critical Interpretations
I've always loved Night of the Living Dead. For a no frills, bare bone, semi-outdated, cheap-o thriller, this thing still delivers.
I used to show it to my class back when I taught American literature. It fit in really well with the American gothic literary tradtion - Poe, Hawthorne, etc. At the time, I wrote up five critical interpretations to Night of the Living Dead. Two use what we call the formalist approach (all you look at is the text or film itself; you pay no mind to the author, the time in which it was written, who's reading it, etc.) One uses what we call the biographical approach (looking at the life and experiences of the author/filmmaker and determining to what extent those experiences influenced him or her in the creation of the text). And two use the psychoanalytic approach (looking at a character motivations and symbolic meanings of events in the text). Here are the five interpretations I came up with:
1. In an effort to depict the entire world being slowly overtaken by ghouls, and thus raise the stakes for the house’s helpless victims, Romero utilized a cheap yet effective representation: the mass media. Auditory and visual images of the radio, coupled with a sub-plot of local law enforcement officials hunting the living dead throughout the countryside, work as cinematic conventions to extend the action, horror, and jeopardy off screen and into the entire country. Even if the protagonists are able to make it out the door and past the ghouls in the yard, there is still no place to run.
2. Even on such a limited budget, Romero was effectively able to create tension, unrest, and uncertainty through his use of such camera angles and techniques as oblique angles, handheld camera shots, wide-angle close-ups, and low-angle framing.
A genre film, Night of the Living Dead contains moments of horror and grotesque oddness; however, because of Romero’s professional ambitions it also contains moments of dark humor, romance, and tragedy. Born in the Bronx in 1939, Romero began making his first films in 8mm while still in his teens. He later studied art, design, and theater at the Carnegie-Mellon Institute of Art in Pittsburgh, where he graduated in 1961 with a B.A. Subsequently, he formed his own Pittsburgh-based company, Latent Image, to produce industrial films and television commercials. Then, in 1967, he teamed up with another Pittsburgh advertising firm, Hardman Associates, to produce a low-budget feature-length horror film that he hoped would serve as his ticket into the film industry. As a result, Night of the Living Dead took shape more as a portfolio piece than as a self-conscious entry into fear film. Owing to its popularity and marketability, the horror film has traditionally been the proving ground for unknown directors, since it's much easier to find a distributor for horror movies than it might be for a drama or a comedy. Romero's first film was a demonstration not only that he could direct a film but also that his direction was versatile.
1. Perhaps the dilemma most central to the success of any horror film is simply the question: “Is it scary?” A question more central to the success of horror films as a genre, however, is the question: “What do we fear?” Romero might answer that query, by means of his Night of the Living Dead, threefold. First, we fear the "undiscovered country" – death. That is to say, we fear that waiting for us on the other side of the grave is, simply, nothing. Or, even worse, mindless misery and unfulfillment. We fear that we will be taken by the darkness and left to an existence of wandering the wasteland searching for unattainable contentment. Second, we fear our own potential for violence and horror. Once attacked and killed, the victims of Romero’s film – in other words, us – become the antagonists, lifeless zombies inflicting pain and death on the innocent and hurting the ones they love. And third, we fear exactly what Romero so bluntly states in the closing sequence of the film: no matter how hard we try, no matter how strong or smart we are, no matter how good or valiantly we strive to do good, it is all ultimately left to chance and we will most likely be shot in the head for our efforts by a hillbilly sheriff hunting for zombies.
2. Romero suggests that by our very nature we are, regardless of how high the risk to ourselves and to our loved ones may be, ultimately unable to put aside out petty differences and to act selflessly enough even to survive. In other words, we allow our selfishness and bitterness towards others to ultimately destroy the very behaviors and values that make us human.
So here's the question: Which of these five interpretations do you feel best gets at the heart (or brain) of Night of the Living Dead? In other words, which interpretation best helps you as a member of Romero's audience best appreciate the film?
I used to show it to my class back when I taught American literature. It fit in really well with the American gothic literary tradtion - Poe, Hawthorne, etc. At the time, I wrote up five critical interpretations to Night of the Living Dead. Two use what we call the formalist approach (all you look at is the text or film itself; you pay no mind to the author, the time in which it was written, who's reading it, etc.) One uses what we call the biographical approach (looking at the life and experiences of the author/filmmaker and determining to what extent those experiences influenced him or her in the creation of the text). And two use the psychoanalytic approach (looking at a character motivations and symbolic meanings of events in the text). Here are the five interpretations I came up with:
The Formalist Approach
2. Even on such a limited budget, Romero was effectively able to create tension, unrest, and uncertainty through his use of such camera angles and techniques as oblique angles, handheld camera shots, wide-angle close-ups, and low-angle framing.
The Biographical Approach
A genre film, Night of the Living Dead contains moments of horror and grotesque oddness; however, because of Romero’s professional ambitions it also contains moments of dark humor, romance, and tragedy. Born in the Bronx in 1939, Romero began making his first films in 8mm while still in his teens. He later studied art, design, and theater at the Carnegie-Mellon Institute of Art in Pittsburgh, where he graduated in 1961 with a B.A. Subsequently, he formed his own Pittsburgh-based company, Latent Image, to produce industrial films and television commercials. Then, in 1967, he teamed up with another Pittsburgh advertising firm, Hardman Associates, to produce a low-budget feature-length horror film that he hoped would serve as his ticket into the film industry. As a result, Night of the Living Dead took shape more as a portfolio piece than as a self-conscious entry into fear film. Owing to its popularity and marketability, the horror film has traditionally been the proving ground for unknown directors, since it's much easier to find a distributor for horror movies than it might be for a drama or a comedy. Romero's first film was a demonstration not only that he could direct a film but also that his direction was versatile.
The Psychoanalytic Approach
1. Perhaps the dilemma most central to the success of any horror film is simply the question: “Is it scary?” A question more central to the success of horror films as a genre, however, is the question: “What do we fear?” Romero might answer that query, by means of his Night of the Living Dead, threefold. First, we fear the "undiscovered country" – death. That is to say, we fear that waiting for us on the other side of the grave is, simply, nothing. Or, even worse, mindless misery and unfulfillment. We fear that we will be taken by the darkness and left to an existence of wandering the wasteland searching for unattainable contentment. Second, we fear our own potential for violence and horror. Once attacked and killed, the victims of Romero’s film – in other words, us – become the antagonists, lifeless zombies inflicting pain and death on the innocent and hurting the ones they love. And third, we fear exactly what Romero so bluntly states in the closing sequence of the film: no matter how hard we try, no matter how strong or smart we are, no matter how good or valiantly we strive to do good, it is all ultimately left to chance and we will most likely be shot in the head for our efforts by a hillbilly sheriff hunting for zombies.
2. Romero suggests that by our very nature we are, regardless of how high the risk to ourselves and to our loved ones may be, ultimately unable to put aside out petty differences and to act selflessly enough even to survive. In other words, we allow our selfishness and bitterness towards others to ultimately destroy the very behaviors and values that make us human.
So here's the question: Which of these five interpretations do you feel best gets at the heart (or brain) of Night of the Living Dead? In other words, which interpretation best helps you as a member of Romero's audience best appreciate the film?
Thursday, October 15, 2009
What Should We Watch Halloween Week?
We're going to have time to watch a quick horror movie the last week in October. I've narrowed it down to two. Both are classics. Both are good, fun films. And both are significant components of American film history. So here are your two choices. You can vote for your choice using the buttons over to the right of the screen.
First: Someone asked in class about zombie movies, and I said the the first 'modern zombie movie' must be the original The Night of the Living Dead. Is it a little dated? Yes. Does it still deliver? Yes, it most certainly does. I used to show it to my American lit class when we studies American gothic literature. It fit prefectly into the unit and, more improtantly, students enjoyed it. Here's the trailer...
Second: This is a family favorite of mine. And when I say 'family', I mean my particular family. My dad saw this in the theater when it first came out back when he was a little kid. He says it scared the crap out of him and he ran out about a third of the way in. I saw it when I was a kid, and now I watch it with my kids every year. Yes, it's funny. It stars Bud Abbott and Lou Costello, and if you don't know who they are, well, then that's reason enough fo you to vote for this film. They are classic comedy legends, and everyone owes it to themselves to see at least one Abbott and Costello movie before they die. But Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein is more than just a silly comedy. It stars Bela Lugosi as Count Dracula and Lon Chaney, Jr., as the Wolf Man. And as the actors who originally played these two iconic roles, these two guys are horror legends in their own rite. Imagine, I don't know, Jack Black and Seth Rogan starring in movie directed by Wes Craven and written by Stephen King. Spooky, creepy, silly fun. I'll say this again just to be clear: this movie has Frankenstein, the Wolf Man, and Dracula...plus a surprise mystery monster. Here's the trailer...
Be sure to vote for your favorite. Use the polling box to the right of the screen.
First: Someone asked in class about zombie movies, and I said the the first 'modern zombie movie' must be the original The Night of the Living Dead. Is it a little dated? Yes. Does it still deliver? Yes, it most certainly does. I used to show it to my American lit class when we studies American gothic literature. It fit prefectly into the unit and, more improtantly, students enjoyed it. Here's the trailer...
Second: This is a family favorite of mine. And when I say 'family', I mean my particular family. My dad saw this in the theater when it first came out back when he was a little kid. He says it scared the crap out of him and he ran out about a third of the way in. I saw it when I was a kid, and now I watch it with my kids every year. Yes, it's funny. It stars Bud Abbott and Lou Costello, and if you don't know who they are, well, then that's reason enough fo you to vote for this film. They are classic comedy legends, and everyone owes it to themselves to see at least one Abbott and Costello movie before they die. But Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein is more than just a silly comedy. It stars Bela Lugosi as Count Dracula and Lon Chaney, Jr., as the Wolf Man. And as the actors who originally played these two iconic roles, these two guys are horror legends in their own rite. Imagine, I don't know, Jack Black and Seth Rogan starring in movie directed by Wes Craven and written by Stephen King. Spooky, creepy, silly fun. I'll say this again just to be clear: this movie has Frankenstein, the Wolf Man, and Dracula...plus a surprise mystery monster. Here's the trailer...
Be sure to vote for your favorite. Use the polling box to the right of the screen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)