Cloverfield and Diary of the Dead as (Post)Apocalyptic Filmmaking.

[andrea_f...@live.com]

There was a bunch of apocalyptic movies in the 90s exploiting the
vibes surrounding the approaching millennium. As it happened, the
latter part of the 90s was relatively stable. The late 80s and early
90s saw the fall of Iron Curtain and communism relegated to the
dustbin of history. There were economic good times under Clinton, who
was a ‘new kind of Democrat’. There was the rise of Tony Blair in UK
too. It was as though the right vs. left dichotomy was a thing of the
past. Clinton was a free market globalist liberal who could work with
conservatives in congress. With the rise of internet stocks, it seemed
as though most Americans would become prosperous. As the 90s
progressed, many believed the US was ‘building a bridge to the 21st
century.’ Clinton was even called the ‘first black president’, as
though race no longer mattered. We could almost forget about the Gulf
War, the LA riots, and the Oklahoma bombing. Crime rates were
falling. NY, once considered irreversibly in decline, was again a safe
place to live. Of course, there was the threat of terrorism, but
Americans shrugged off the first attack on the twin towers in the 90s.
The fact that the towers had stood the test and the culprits
apprehended and brought to justice made most Americans feel safe and
invincible. There were some major bombings overseas–most notably in
Africa–, but the world wasn’t much alarmed as, well, the third world
was the third world–as usual. As long as we could occasionally lob
missiles at nations like Afghanistan or Sudan, we thought we were
safe. More troubling for us was the disintegration of the deal
between Israelis and Palestinians. Perhaps, that was a portent of
things to come.

Anyway, most of us were in a celebrating mood as the new year/decade/
century/millennium dawned. So, all those Hollywood films about the End
of Days or Armageddon were made and watched in jest; it was more like
an apocalyptic chic than anxiety about what might REALLY happen.
(Similarly, radical chic has always been for the privileged secure in
their belief that the revolution would never touch their lives.) We
felt so secure and strong that even the idea of the sky-falling-down
was part of the cool celebration; we hyped it as though to mock it.
So, we had movies about satan’s evil plans, an asteroid about to tear
Earth a new arsehole, or some other concoction about everything
blowing up reeeeaaaaaal good. They were nothing more than cinematic
fireworks, pure popcorn movies. 2000 came around, people celebrated
around the world, and all seemed well. To be sure, the stock market
tumbled, but most Americans felt it was a momentary lull to pull back
from the excesses of the 90s, the hip-hop age. So, we ended up with a
‘humble’ president in the man of George W. Bush. We looked to a period
of stability, sobriety, and slow-down before things would start
booming again.
But, then 9/11 happened. The feeling of invincibility went out the
window. The stock market fell even more. But, Americans, being
Americans, rallied and supported the lightening war against
Afghanistan and achieved quick victory. It was as though America would
own the 21st century. The attacks on 9/11 gave US the moral capital to
use its force around the world.
But, then came Iraq. Bush wanted to be a man for the ages. He gambled
and lost–at least in the short term. He couldn’t have given a better
present to anti-Americans, leftists, and Islamic radicals. Even his
supporters grew embarrassed of their commander-in-chief and then, even
of the military, and began to harbor doubts about American power
around the world. Oddly enough, genuine apocalyptic fears reached
critical mass only after 2003. The Iraq war was the catalyst–not only
because of the long-drawn-out war and political complications in Iraq,
but because of the moral revulsion created by Abu Gharib, Guantanamo,
and the issue of torture–, but there were other factors too.
Being out of power politically, leftists and liberals–who control the
media, academia, and entertainment–grew angry and unhinged and
produced books, music, and movies whose purpose was to make Americans
and the world feel disgusted at America-under-Bush as much as possible–
politically, diplomatically, militarily, culturally, morally,
environmentally, etc.
The Katrina disaster was everything rolled into one–fears about global
warming, unpreparedness of our government, racial tensions,
ineffectiveness of Bush, national disconnect among regions, the
divisions between ‘haves and have-nots’, etc. Liberals and leftists
had a field day making, turning it into a secular version of ‘god
punished us for our sins’. It was their Noah’s Ark story... from which
we needed a Messiah(and guess who?).
In the 90s, with Clinton at the helm, Hollywood gave us stuff like
“The American President” and “The Contender”. With Bush as president
and Congress dominated by the GOP, leftists and liberals in the media
were determined to make as many Americans hate their own country as
much as possible. The main reason why young people have turned
overwhelmingly liberal in the last several years is because they
depend on popular culture and celebrity news for information on much
of anything. For most young people, the Bourne Trilogy, Matrix
movies, V for Vendetta, articles in Rolling Stone ragazine, statements
by Rock stars, TV talk shows, MTV, and etc. are the source of their
worldview. Initially, due to 9/11, leftists and liberals were
restrained in their anti-Americanism, but Bush’s Iraq misadventure
gave them an opening. As the war dragged on and disgusted even many
American conservatives who felt duped by Bush and his ‘neo-con cabal’,
the leftist and liberal attacks on Bush’s America grew stronger and
gained momentum. Even superstar conservative film makers gave us a
pretty bleak vision of the world. Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ”
was blistering and bleak, not a movie to feel good about. His next
film, “Apocalypto” was about the corruption and fall of a civilization
intoxicated with hubris and arrogance. And, his drunken meltdown did
severe damage to his career in a Jew-dominated industry. Clint
Eastwood made two excellent films–Flags of Our Fathers and Letters
From Iwo Jima–, but they weren’t rah-rah movies by any means. They
were defeated at the box-office, and conservatives had little to rally
around–not their president, no cultural figures, no nothing... except
some blustering talk radio hosts becoming more irrelevant by the day
as they’d thrown their lot with Dubya.

For many people, it really seemed like US was helplessly on the ropes.
That the so-called mightiest nation was hopelessly mired in a poor and
desperate country made many people lose confidence. And, Bush
increasingly seemed like an idiot or buffoon, incapable of even
stringing together simple sentences. He had talked tough like a Texan
cowboy before the war on Iraq, but as the war dragged on, he sounded
more like a retarded dummy on someone’s lap.
Just when US seemed to be in big trouble, we heard more news about the
rise of China. Trade deficits were going through the roof. And,
national borders were utterly broken. If patriotic conservatives were
unable to do anything about the Invasion by foreign illegals–a problem
plaguing Europe as well–, was there a future for the Western world?

There was a true cloud of apocalyptic fears gathering in our culture
and politics. If the pre-2000 apocalyptic films were in jest, films
since the Iraq War took on genuinely dark overtones and conveyed the
real possibility of an apocalyptic or post-apocalyptic landscape.
It was this sense of malaise which laid the ground for Obama’s rise.
Though a cheap, dirty, thuggish, and self-promoting Chicago machine
politician–and black nationalist and stealth Marxist radical–, he had
the fortune of being handpicked by the super-rich and super-powerful
liberal and leftwing Jews who run the national media, culture, and
academia to run as the New Hope of mankind. Of course, many sappy
white gentiles loved him too, especially the privileged ones whose
socio-historical consciousness was formed in schools taught by
liberals and by PBS documentaries and Hollywood films that give us the
impression that blacks are inherently nobler than the insipid, bland,
and generic honkeys.
If white girls voted for Obama out of political jungle fever, white
boys voted for him because they’d been castrated into metro-sexual
faggoty-ass dweebdom.
But, there was a political, spiritual, and cultural climate for this
kind of CHANGE. There was a sense that Clinton had ultimately failed
us in the 90s. US grew richer but the boom did end in bust, and
Clinton was no moral exemplar. So, Hillary couldn’t convince people
that she represented something new. As for Bush’s compassionate
conservatism, it turned out to be socialism-with-tax-cuts-for-the-
rich; as for his cautious and humble foreign policy, oh well. As for
McCain, he looked old and mummified. He didn’t have the look and
spirit of something new. So, there was Obama. By going with Obama,
Americans could pretend to be back in the year 2000, starting the
millennium anew. It’s as though we’d made a mistake in 2000 by going
with Bush–not that Gore would have been any better. They were both
insipid white males. Of course, many Americans are wary of black
politicians and black folks, but Obama looked and sounded special. He
had some of that black soulfulness without coming across as aggressive
and intimidating; he mastered the art of Oprah’s pompous fatass
bullshittery which melts the hearts–and minds–of stupid white dupes
who dream of a Great Black Hope who’s worthy of admiration and respect
and not out to intimidate or beat up. He seemed intense without really
being angry. He seemed smart without being intellectual. To be sure,
he’s a pompous, self-centered, narcissistic, and insufferable jiveass
motherfuc*ing jerk, but in this Age of the Celebrity, that sort of
thing sells.

Anyway, Obama is the fantasy voodoo doll that will supposedly erase
our memory of the past 8 yrs, or even 16 or 20 yrs. It will be the end
of apocalyptic fears, and the start of something new–or so Americans
(and fools around the world)think. With the economic catastrophe–
largely caused by liberal Jewish finance capitalistss who supported
Obama and have much to gain from Obama’s administration–, people want
some kind of relief, new sign of hope.

So, what is the nature or mood of our apocalyptic anxieties? Consider
a film like “Children of Men”. Though far from a great film, it
frighteningly depicted a plausible scenario of total social breakdown.
It really presents a vision of hell and effectively exploits all our
fears–low birthrates among whites, illegal invasion, terrorism, state
power, militarism, mob rule, etc. Also, it’s documentary style makes
us feel trapped and claustrophobic. Events seem unpredictable and
real than staged and choreographed. In its cluttered and chaotic
universe, Hollywood suspense is an unaffordable luxury. Things happen
or they don’t. You get shot or you don’t–but you’re bound to be hit
sooner or later. “Children of Men” is ultimately a sensationalistic,
trashy, and shallow, but it’s impossible to shake off its harrowing
effects. Some people have compared “Children of Men” with “Blade
Runner”, but the comparison is fundamentally flawed because the world
of “Blade Runner”, though dark, is fascinating and awe-inspiring( and
cool) rather than revolting or repulsive. I can imagine fans of Blade
Runner wanting to visit the world of Tyrell corporation and the
replicants, but who’d want to spend a single minute in the world of
Alfonso Cuaron’s film? So, at the very least, Cuaron succeeded in
creating a genuinely unnerving apocalyptic landscape.


Two other films of comparable style and effect are “Cloverfield” and
“Diary of the Dead”. Neither is great by any stretch of the
imagination but both are effective in the way of “Children of Men”.
They both convey horror and despair beyond the scope of crowd-pleasing
spectacles.
Cloverfield is post-9/11(and the Iraq War) as “Independence Day” and
“Pearl Harbor”–and the End of Days films of the 90s–are pre-9/11. When
NY and the White House were blown up in “Independence Day”, the
audience cheered–not out of anti-Americanism but out of incredulity.
And, audiences who flocked to see “Pearl Harbor” felt safely distanced
from the actual event and marveled at it as movie theme park. Movies
like Titanic and Pearl Harbor, though apocalyptic in tone, tended to
be hopeful, romantic, and grandiose. Okay, so US was attacked by the
‘Japs’ and thousands died. Never mind the grisly details and just get
your kicks out of all those special effects; besides, we know US won
WWII anyway. As for Titanic, the jaw-dropping special effects
overwhelmed the fact that people were getting killed in the disaster;
besides, Celine Dion’s song and the love story made it all so
meaningful and sweeping. Also, it too is set in the past, and we know
the world survived WWI, WWII, and the Cold War since the Titanic
disaster; as such, it was an exercise in nostalgia as well as a
celebration of the latest movie techno-gizmo in cinema.

Films such as these were specifically made to be crowd-pleasers. When
buildings blow up in “Independence Day”, we are not expected to
visualize or think of actual people dying inside them. We were meant
to look upon them as ‘cool effects’.
But, I doubt if anyone was laughing or cheering when NY is struck by
calamity in “Cloverfield”. When we see a building fall in the
distance, it reminds us of what happened on 9/11. And, the home video
style keeps us close to and on the vulnerable level of the characters;
we have no superiority-of-safety over them–other than the fact that we
are not actually there.
The weakest part of the movie is the monster itself, awesome though it
is. Somehow the realism of the home video is undercut by the existence
of something so far-out and grotesque.(It’s as though a Noah Baumbach
film got invaded by Godzilla). But, the style carries the movie
through, especially since the focus of the film is about survival and
cooperation than monsters wreaking havoc. We remain close to the
characters, almost as if we are being-john-malkoviched through each of
them.

In a movie like “Independence Day” or the far superior “War of the
Worlds”(Spielberg), the spectacular style diminishes the human
dimensions. We become impressed with the pop-wagnerian spectacle and,
as a result, happy to sacrifice our sympathy with ant-like humans.
This was the moral argument against Star Wars and LOR film from
certain quarters. Not that Lucas or Jackson personally endorses the
destruction of millions, but the vastness of their narrative canvas
reduces the destruction of entire worlds into mere afterthoughts. We
don’t have such luxury in “Cloverfield” and “Diary of the Dead”. We
cannot marvel at the awesomeness of something blowing up or crashing
down in “Cloverfield” without it affecting our characters–rather
badly. There is no safe vantage point to which we can cut in and out
of.
When 9/11 happened, many people said it looked like a movie–where
violence looks real but no one gets hurt. Secure in our knowledge that
no one actually dies, it’s easy to be seduced by the nihilism of movie
violence; the style takes precedence over the moral substance of a
violent act(after all, it’s all fake, right?) We’d long felt a
disassociation between the imagery of destruction and its physical
outcome. Being mostly familiar with movie disasters, we’ve come to
regard calamities as something created in a magic factory. But,
people were confronted with the fact that on 9/11, real people were
getting burned, falling out of buildings, getting buried under the
rubble, etc. 9/11 forced many Americans to rethink violence,
tragedies, and even heroism. We’d all grown accustomed to movie heroes
of superhuman power always coming out on top. Oliver Stone’s film WTC
showed us that even the toughest and bravest Americans–firemen,
policemen, etc–are only human, and that true heroism is quiet and
resilient. (Sadly, it was a flop, and again, we have movies like “Dark
Knight” making gazillions from morons hooked on Hollywood fantasies–
and plunking down their hard-earned cash only to make Liberal Jews who
run that empire richer and richer). Perhaps, people in other nations
who’ve experienced greater calamities first hand have a different view
of reality and history–on the other hand, the popularity of mindless
Hollywood movies all over the world indicates that all peoples have
short memories and trouble with the truth. (Most disturbing of all is
the flippant and nihilistic treatment of nuclear disasters and
earthquakes in Japanese anime.)

The core conceit of “Cloverfield” negates the luxury of perceptual
detachment in favor of spectacle over characters. We are forced to
accept that it is a home video of people navigating through a
frightening urban landscape; it’s kinda like “Metropolitan” crossed
with “The Warriors”(or perhaps “Open City”)–with a bit of “Saving
Private Ryan” thrown in for good measure.
As such, everything we see is fixed at the human level. There can be
no montage to a non- or supra-human angle for the purposes of
aestheticism or a ‘cool’ view.
Of course, the whole thing was conceived and executed for effect,
mainly for a fresher kind of chills and thrills for young moviegoers
bored with most conventions. No one’s looking for anything natural or
truthful in “Cloverfield”. It could even be argued it is less honest
than your average Hollywood movie which comes with no pretensions
except to entertain and rake in the money.
Still, the ground rules set by “Cloverfield” makes greater interest
than on average.
For starters, the visuals, always attuned to the characters’ will to
survive and help one another, don’t carry the implicit baggage of
nihilism contained in the third person perspective; there are no
‘interruptions’ of unfolding events with fancy editing, slow-motion,
and other tricks which accentuate style over content. Because our
access to reality is only through our characters, we share their
vulnerability every step of the way. It is this sense of being trapped
in time and space with an handful of characters that increases the
level of apocalyptic anxiety. There is a sense of a calamity too big
for the human senses and mind to process. We feel like human insects–
quite different than looking down on people as insects; looking down
on people-as-ants, we smugly share god’s perspective.

In reality, a cut in space or time from one perspective to another is
simply not possible; everyone is trapped in his own reality. Most
movies are constructed of many perspectives, both subjective and
‘objective’. As such, the viewer almost gains the perceptive power of
a god or, at least, an angel.

To be sure, access to multiple perspectives can make the viewer feel
even more helpless and terrified as in the famous scene in “Alien”,
which cuts back and forth between a group of people tracking the
whereabouts of the monster and a man unawares in a tunnel. But, the
conventional movie with third person perspective can always cut to a
safe haven no matter what; it is based on the notion of the
invincible, or at least, the innumerable camera. In “Cloverfield”,
there is only one camera, which underlines the fact that everyone has
only one life. As with “Blair Witch Project”, there is and can be no
reality outside or beyond the camera. The camera in “Blair Witch
Project” or “Cloverfield” is mortal and vulnerable. It breathes, runs,
lives, and dies along with its handler.

If Blair Witch Project was a cheapie indie film, “Cloverfield”,
despite its ‘simple’ conceit, is surely an expensive film. It is all
the more remarkable for this fact for it has seamlessly interwoven the
expensively outlandish with the ‘cheaply’ realistic. Because of the
dogged consistency of its style–and the dedication and talent of its
actors–, genuine anxiety and horror are maintained throughout. Some
may condemn it as a case of Hollywood appropriating indie techniques
for no other purpose than to make a buck, but it isn’t the first nor
will it be the last.

Something about “Cloverfield” both annoyed and inspired me. Its cast
of characters are in their late teens or early 20s. They are the
children of yuppies of the late 80s and early 90s. They are privilege
born of privilege; they register as zeroes. They are realistic enough,
which is the very problem; our society has a lot of well-educated and
overly privileged drones. They talk a lot but have nothing to say.
They are post-everything. Post-conservative, post-liberal, post-
ideological, post-post-modern, etc, etc. We know that many kids of
yuppies go to fancy schools, learn from privileged radical professors,
and even put on radical airs themselves, but they are, foremost,
children of privilege satiated and bored with privilege–and even bored
with being bored with privilege.. The kids in “Cloverfield” are the
shallowest and most rootless bunch of people; they’re too hip to be
snobby but they’re also too hip to be hip. They are ‘nice’ and
‘tolerant’ and into ‘diversity’. They’re mildly ‘correct’ in a
privileged world where certain disaffected attitudes are the price of
admission. They are also the most self-absorbed bunch of insipid fools
I’d ever seen. The guys are mostly like clones of Ethan Hawke, who
mastered this type of post-everything personality on film. The girls
are mostly insipid twits who chit-chat airhead crap.
The first 1/4 of the film takes place at a yuppie-junior party, and
it’s convincing enough as social document. Indeed, had the monster
never materialized, the entire film might have made a decent enough
flick about the lives of today’s privileged youths–an annoying but
truthful enough film.
But, when the monster comes and terrorizes the city, the kids are
forced to muster their courage and stamina, and the transformation is
convincing enough to win some of our respect. It goes to show that
inside every dork and twit, there is something nobler than the habit
of checking the cell phone every 10 minutes. (Nobility, like
monstrosity, lies dormant within us, and depressingly, only tragedy
can awaken and bring it to life. We have to look at the devil in the
eye to realize the angel within us.)
As the city crumbles all around them, they are forced to put aside
their boutique-zen disaffectedness and awaken as feeling/thinking
adults.
When the film began, the kids acted like they were too cool even to be
cool, too beat even to be beat, etc--as though they were beyond both
passion and dispassion. They didn’t even have the hippie’s dedication
to being laid-back or the snob’s delight in greater wealth or higher
status. The core of their privilege is being oh-so-nonchalant about
their privileged status. The 60s youth had idealism, even if stupid.
The 70s were about enjoying the new freedoms and lifestyles won in the
60s. The 80s were thrilled with lower taxes, booming economy, and the
new patriotism. Everything began to get tiresome in the 90s. Hip-hop
was lively but mindless and polarizing. Grunge and other forms of rock
music were world-weary deadends. Clinton’s consensus style of politics
was satisfactory but not satisfying. The nation was at peace and good
times were at hand, but there was no longer any central theme. The
theme of the 60s was liberation and rebellion. The theme of the 70s
was finishing what began in the 60s and/or working toward a national
renewal. The theme of the 80s was saving the economy and defeating the
Evil Empire. The 90s were a good decade but a theme-less decade.
Sure, Clinton reduced crime by throwing many more negroes in jail than
any previous president and enacted welfare reform, but those things
failed to engage the ‘spiritual’ passions of the people. As for Bush,
no one could really take him seriously, and his comparison of himself
with Churchill and Truman seemed funny as hell.

And now, even as the world faces great new challenges, many of our
privileged lived in the Francis-Fukuyama-ist -End of History–not the
apocalyptic kind but the anti-climactic triumphal kind where liberal
democracy is supposed to have won the battle of history and ideas. So,
there is utter dispassion among the privileged kids we see in
“Cloverfield”. Even though or precisely because the world is more
connected than ever, today’s urban young are cocooned in their cool
fanciful world with all sorts of gadgets and goodies. Even as the
working class and lower-middle class Americans have faced stagnant
wages, the urban professional class has seen tremendous rise in their
wealth and privileges. “Cloverfield” is about the children of the
professional liberal yuppie class. These are the people who voted for
Obama because he fit their ideal of the privileged-mandarin-celebrity-
narcissistic-yuppie-professional-who’s-supposed-to-be-post-
everything. It’s post-radical chic.

They have this ‘been there, done that attitude’. And, this sensibility
is partly, I believe, the product of our increasingly connected and
electronic age. With cell phones, global internet access, a zillion
images and sounds downloadable from all over the world, with endless
sources of news, there is a sense that everything has been seen,
heard, shared, experienced, and felt. Nothing is fresh or exciting to
these kids hooked via their ipods to the global village all day and
night. Every corner of the world has been explored and mapped out;
Google Earth allows any dork or twit to fly all around the world.
With advances in psychology and tell-all/share-all talk shows, there
is also a sense that we’ve heard of every hang-up, every break-up,
every possible social or emotional neurosis. And, having avoided a
truly grave economic downturn for so many decades, there’s a sense
that everything will turn out alright in the end. Also, with the
rise of shamelessness–Jerry Springer, declaring bankruptcy,
mainstreaming of porn, etc,–there’s nothing to culturally shock us
anymore. And, with things like myspace and what have you, everyone
has his 15 gigabytes of celebrity. Even celebrity culture has become a
parody in the age of Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole Smith–and when just
about anyone can effectively ape those idiots via youtube or the
internet. But, even parody has become tiresome and lame.
And, in a world where kids of all background get along–at least within
certain socio-economic circles–, there is little urgency about social
progress. So, that’s the kind of reality we see in the first part of
“Cloverfield”. A bunch of nice kids who are annoying as hell because
they are not committed to anything. Not that it’s their fault; it’s
just the nature of the age they’ve grown up in.

Anyway, the kids are shaken out of their doldrums by this monster that
wreaks havoc on NY. The monster is less important that what it forces
out of the characters–reach deep within to find unknown reservoirs of
strength. Of course, the whole movie can be seen as just another
exercise in youth narcissism. As if being privileged weren’t enough,
young people today have to be flattered as closet-heroes who would
stand up to any challenge! So, the film begins with a bunch of
comfortably privileged and numb kids, but we come to see them act with
toughness, resilience, determination, and camaraderie.

When the monster first attacks, it reminds us of 9/11. But, the
prolonged assault on the city and the mounting difficulties remind us
of the Iraq War. And, as the kids huddle under a collapsing bridge in
the final scene, they might as well be Iraqi civilians hiding from US
bombing. Perhaps, the film is saying that US was struck by
monstrousness on 9/11, but we then morphed into a monster of our own
making. In our anger, we unleashed ‘shock and awe’ assault on Iraq; we
too released a monster on another city.

Anyway, for all its conceit and bogus nature, “Cloverfield” is a
gripping film. And, its amateur home video style restrained the visual
and audio gratuitousness so routine across the blockbuster movie
landscape. Big movies are saturation-bombed with an excess of visual
trickery and auditory madness. Every sound roars like thunder or
rumbles like an avalanche. A pin drop sounds like an hammer hitting
the anvill. A whistle sounds like a supersonic jet. And, digitally
tweaked slo-mo, the fancy acrobatic editing, CGI trickery, ludicrous
action choreography, and so on, while technically dazzling and
impressive, are more often than not mind-numbing sensory overloads.
“Cloverfield” is pretty mindless as material but interesting as
execution. It has the immediacy of real events and is reasonably
compelling as a human story. Of course, if this becomes the new
staple in Hollywood, it’ll be just as dreary as what we generally have
now.
Inherently, there’s nothing wrong with any filmic approach.
Personally, I think Peter Jackson’s “King Kong” is magnificent for
what it is. But, who can deny that most movies use technology to serve
a formula than a vision? If I’m not mistaken, “Cloverfield” was, at
the very least, made by someone with fresh ideas. And, it’s not
disgraceful.

For some viewers, George Romero’s “Diary of the Dead” may be the most
interesting film. Romero has a reputation as an intellectual in some
circles, and critics have regarded his zombie films as satire on one
thing or the other. Personally, I think Romero has made one great
film–“Night of the Living Dead”–, one highly interesting
film–“Martin”–, and then mostly garbage. “Diary of the Dead” is a
return to form of sorts though Romero is treading much the same
ground. Like Stallone with Rocky and Lucas with Star Wars, Romero
seems incapable of box office success outside his original formula.
Many horror flick fans will, of course, defend “Dawn of the Dead” as a
great movie, and it has a special place in my memory–I first saw it as
an highly impressionable kid. But, I’ve revisited that film, and every
re-viewing has diminished its worth. With zombies pretty much ruling
the world, the story has nowhere to go. “Dawn” is somewhat
interesting as a survival game of logistics and strategy, but it’s
essentially “Night” expanded into a franchise; fittingly, it’s set in
a shopping mall . As for “Day of the Dead” and “Land of the Dead”,
they were not even fun as trash. .

There are obvious problems with the zombie scenario. Just how can
zombies take over the world when they are slow-moving and easy to
spot? What with Americans owning 100s of millions of guns, you’d think
every zombie would be shot within seconds of coming into view. This is
why “Night of the Living Dead” is plausible within the logic of zombie
universe. Zombies may take over an isolated community. But, they are
bound to lose to lots of men with guns, and that’s how the movie
fitfully ends. But, we are asked to suspend more than disbelief when
zombies quickly take over the world in Dawn. With “Day” and “Land”, it
seems 99.9% of the planet is ruled by zombies. How?

It is for this reason that Romero has finally done it right with
“Diary of the Dead”. No, it was not worth doing, but if had to be done
again, this was the ONLY way. To be sure, zombies seem to gradually
gain the advantage, but the shock and uncertainty make for ‘spiritual’
malaise as well as physical horror. A movie where zombies rule over
everything just isn’t interesting–just like a bodysnatcher movie with
everyone as a pod person. The problem with Dawn, Dead, and Land is
the zombies have won already; with only a few humans left, all that’s
possible is internal bickering or a shooting gallery of horrors. (Of
course, one could argue that Romero’s larger point is humans defeat
themselves than are defeated by the zombies. If people all unite and
work together, zombies ought to be no problem. But, humans fall prey
to greed, desperation, cowardice, egocentrism, pride, envy, etc, and
as such are incapable of working together. So, it’s not so much
zombies beating humans so much as humans freaking out and defeating
themselves, whereupon zombies take over from humans’ self-destruction.
Recall that in “Dawn”, humans fought humans in the mall, and in the
end, the zombies unwittingly took the whole prize. Perhaps, one
could drawn an analogy with the Roman Empire where the more advanced
Romans couldn’t hold back the Germanic tide because of internal
divisions. And, perhaps the same could be said of Europe and US today.
Though richer and more powerful than the rest of the world, the
internal divisions–liberal vs conservative, men vs women, atheist vs
religious, etc–make it nearly impossible for the people of either
Europe or US to come together to confront the threats of illegal
immigration, cultural rot(such as zombie movies), and the like. Of
course, Romero is politically on the left, but one can understand why
his movies are so popular with right-wing nuts.)

In ‘Night of the Living Dead” and “Diary of the Dead”, the process of
the world becoming zombified is a novelty worthy of shock, horror,
debate, and anxiety. In “Day of the Dead”, in contrast, there is only
the prospect of physical horror. In “Night of the Living Dead” and
“Diary of the Dead”, we ask the question, ‘why is this happening?’ By
“Dawn” and “Day” came around, ‘it’ had happened already, and there
wasn’t anything else to do but shoot zombies by the bushel.
Still, zombie films shouldn’t raise too many questions, and “Diary”
suffers as a result. I said young people in “Cloverfield” talk a lot
but have almost nothing to say. It’s worse in “Diary” where every
word is nonsensical, ludicrous, precious, moronic, pretentious,
pregnant, and annoying. The worst offender is the leading female
character who’s supposed to be the model of ‘the strong intelligent
female.’ Ideals are always less interesting than Reals. Then,
there is the film professor, an Englishman, who seems have an inkling--
philosophical, spiritual, intellectual, social, and political–as to
why the dead are walking again but cannot be bothered to share his
wisdom; he talks in riddles as though he can’t be bothered with
anything resembling simple truth. The girl is supposed to represent
feminist/American toughness and individualism, the professor is
supposed to embody old world experience, patience, and irony. They
put on superior airs all throughout the movie, like they know or sense
something others–and we–don’t. And, Romero sympathizes with them
most. But, I wonder... what is the value of their supposed intellect
or insight when confronted with something monstrously raw and savage?
The only option is to survive, and ideas seem trivial. (Of course,
Romero fans can argue that the professor and the feminist girl have
superior qualities. The girl is both tough and adaptable, intelligent
and intuitive. And, the professor is smart enough to understand that a
lot of things are unknowable, and therefore, one’s intellect should
try to find ways around things than try to access their inner truth–
which is like opening pandora’s box. The professor’s attitude seems to
be that people, being what they are, will always open pandora’s boxes
everywhere–political, scientific, social, economic, religious, etc–,
and dire problems will ALWAYS plague our world. So, the thing to do is
to keep one’s cool, maintain’s one’s sanity amidst insanity--by
accepting insanity as the natural order among humans--, not be
surprised or shocked by anything, and try to find the best way
possible to maintain one’s small oasis of safety and peace.)

Romero always put on pompous airs. So, he had a one-legged black guy
in the beginning of ‘Dawn of the Dead’ say, ‘when the dead walk, we
must stop the killing’. What does that mean within the context of
zombies coming back to life to eat people?
Preachy spiritual or philosophical meaning is impossible in such
context. If a tiger wants to eat you and your friends, what sense
does it make for you guys to debate the meaning of life or the cosmic
injustices of the world? Just get away. This is why “Night of the
Living Dead” made moral sense. The characters don’t debate about some
larger meaning; they register shock and horror at what’s happening and
then get down to the messy art of survival.
But, already by “Dawn of the Dead”, Romero was acting all pompous, as
if his gore fest was onto some deeper meaning. So, he had the black
guy say stuff like, “my grandfather told me... when there’s no more
room in hell, the dead will walk the earth.” Oh really? Actually,
Romero’s bullshit began even with “Night of the Living Dead”. The lone
surviving black guy is ACCIDENTALLY shot dead by white townsmen, yet
the grim final still images invoke the Jewish holocaust and lynching.
But, the killing was accidental. The white gunman thought the black
dude was a zombie. Romero unconvincingly tried to add a layer of
social meaning to his movie, as though “Night” had something to teach
us about racial oppression, genocide, and perhaps Vietnam. This was
utterly unnecessary.

All the commentary about the nature of man was there in the story
itself. The irony of “Night” is that zombies, though ravenous and
mindless, get along fine with one another whereas humans fight and
kill one another for power and egomania. At the very least, there is a
kind of zen-like unity among zombies. They may attack the living but
merely out of a need to eat, not to commit acts of evil. Humans, on
the other hand, kill for reasons other than food. And, in both “Night
of the Living Dead” and “Diary of the Dead”, conflicting egos try to
mask their power hunger with moral or philosophical justification.
Worst by far, according to Romero, are the people who take a special
pleasure in killing or using violence. Both “Night” and “Diary” end
with grim images of rednecks who enjoy the killing of zombies. For
such folks, killing zombies is not a necessity but a sport. Zombies,
for all their grisly habits, don’t enjoy what they do; they are rather
like alligators who eat cuz they have to eat. Humans, on the other
hand, can take special delight in using violence to maim and kill. (I
hope Romero is being somewhat self-critical because his zombie films
are exercises in gory excess as pleasure.)
But, there’s something simple-minded and bigoted about Romero’s view
of people. Notice that almost all the repulsive characters in his
movies are white rednecks or biker types(or white militarist goons).
In contrast, blacks and females are generally positive forces. For a
white guy to be decent, he must be passive or nearly ascetic–and
abandon all ‘imperialist’ or ‘patriarchal’ claims upon the world.
(There are almost no hispanics in Romero’s films by the way). You’d
think blacks are incapable of acting insane, brutal, or sadistic.
Romero still sees racial reality through the sixties of radical
revolution. So, we have a sympathetic portrait of the black looter-
survivalists in “Diary of the Dead”. The black guy takes pride in the
mini-empire he’s built up since the social panic. He justifies his
empire of loot as won through opportunity that had been lacking under
normal circumstances. There are several problems with this. Why would
the zombie crisis affect blacks any less? Why wouldn’t they panic and
scatter too, instead of building up an impressive warehouse fortress?
Just compare New Orleans after Katrina and Iowa after the massive
floods. Looks likes white folks handled the crisis much better. And,
look at the fate of Africa. Blacks ended up with LESS after the whites
were forced to flee amidst the political crises. The idea that blacks
will only have an opportunity to own things for themselves upon the
demise of the ‘white order’ is a stupid myth. Blacks in America are
the richest in the world because they participate in the socio-
economic order created by white-and-Jewish folks. There are tons of
great athletes in Africa, but most of them are poor because Africa
doesn’t have whites and Jews to build up and manage sports
enterprises. Just look at the fate of inner city communities. They
always turned worse when non-blacks fled and left it all up to blacks.
Blacks can take and rob things, but they generally have been unable to
build, maintain, and produce things.
If “Diary” had been set in 19th century or even the first half of
the 20th century, there may some validity to the notion of ‘radical’
solutions for the advancement of blacks. But, this is 2008. Blacks
have taken over entire communities and have run them to the ground.
They riot and loot almost at will. Most big cities are at least 50%
controlled by blacks; some are even 80-90% black. And, we need only
to listen to rappers and black thugs to know there’s no shortage of
blacks who take pleasure in rape, murder, mayhem, cruelty, sadism, dog-
fighting, and insanity. So, why does Romero keep pretending that the
biggest louts in America today are small town rednecks? It shows that
Romero is a tiresome 60s radical still living in the past or a
politically correct coward who’s afraid to deal with today’s reality
as it is.

On some level, Romero must know that his zombie concept is pretty
stupid and limited. But, he’s never been content to be just another
horror movie maker. He has delusions of being a thinker, a
philosopher, a satirist, and intellectual. Worse, there are enough
dupes and idiots in the film community–and elsewhere–who agree. “Night
of the Living Dead” is worth thinking about because Romero dwells on
the action and lets the view to think on his own. But since “Night”,
Romero has been thinking for us. Since zombies pretty much won the
battle starting with “Dawn of the Dead”, only two options were left
for Romero: mounting gore or idle philosophizing.
The setting of “Dawn” have led many people to see it as a satire on
consumerism. But how? Do zombies represent the mad consumer in us?
So, do the surviving humans represent resistance against consumerism?
But, they seem rather content in the shopping mall. And, the mall
comes under attack by a goon of bikers who seem to care only about
consuming too. The more you think about it, the less sense it makes.
If humans and zombies are both into consuming, what’s the point?
The problem with zombie-as-metaphor is it can be applied to just about
anything. So, zombies can stand for herd-like consumers, herd-like
religious fanatics, herd-like revolutionaries(as in “Land of the
Dead”), and so on. A metaphor so alleable is worthless. I suspect
Romero is saying the world is filled with two kinds of people–the
mindless mob who just follow the instinct of the herd(zombies) and the
cunning predators with cruel appetite for power and cruelty(people who
cling to or seek power in the new chaos). In between these two types
are the chosen few who are capable of being free. In this sense,
Romero’s philosophy has shades of libertarianism. In “Dawn”, “Day”,
and “Land”, both the zombies with their mindless appetite for human
flesh and the humans with cunning lust for power are presented as
pretty negative. The only good people are a few individuals who seek
their little sanctuary of peace and freedom. They aren’t saints but
they don’t want nor need anything beyond what they need to survive;
they are not after power or control. Also, they only kill zombies in
order to survive, not to take cruel or sadistic pleasure in the
massacre–as the biker gang in “Dawn” and rednecks in “Night” and
“Diary” do. So, I suppose the black guy in “Dawn” is supposed to be
the superior sort of guy because he does whatever is necessary to
survive, but he doesn’t get worked up in egomania–like the white guy
who takes risks and gets bitten–and the copter pilot who becomes so
attached to the mall as his precious property that he starts a war
with the bikers. Perhaps, it is this libertarian streak which has
attracted both members of the right and left to Romero’s zombie films.
Though Romero is clearly on the leftist side of the political
spectrum, his films can be appreciated as a survivalist tract for
rightists and a guerilla tract for leftists. Both Che/Mao worshipping
guerilla romantics and gun-loving militia movement types can identify
with the band of freedom-seekers in the zombie films.

The zombie metaphor is comprehensive enough to be applied to the rise
of the internet. In “Diary of the Dead”, it’s implied that the
development of digital technology and the internet has led to a kind
of zombie-ization of information. Prior to the internet age,
information was controlled by the major networks and newspapers. But,
digital technology and online information sites have expanded like
crazy–like the population of zombies. And, internet zombies have been
devouring the old institutions of information and truth; just look at
the decline and fall of newspapers, publishing companies, music
industry, and even the film industry. Romero sees both healthy
democratization and mindless lobotomization(in a zombie-like
fashion). Notice that zombies defeat death and come back to life–a
miracle of miracles–only to be animal-like in their appetite.
Similarly, it could be said that we’ve finally arrived at a ‘utopian’
democratic community of information gathering and creative access...
only to indulge in our worst appetites; consider the prevalence of
porn, idiot blogs, nutty posts, false rumors, subcultural trash,
celebrity wanna-be narcissism, etc on the web. More ‘people power’
hasn’t necessarily translated to greater truth or higher beauty. In
many ways, it has led to more vulgarity, mindlessness, and lunacy. We
blame politicians for social problems, but if we came to rule society
ourselves, would we be better off? Not if society ends up like the
online world.

“Diary of the Dead” is not a necessary movie, but finally Romero re-
captured some of the old magic. I felt the same way about “Rocky
Balboa” which, though unnecessary, is the only Rocky sequel that made
any sense(except when Rocky gets in the ring with Tarver). The first
Rocky movie was special not for the fight but for the affecting life
story of a palooka in Philadelphia. And, “Rocky Balboa” restores that
intimacy and warm quality–so lacking in parts III, IV, and V.

Like “Rocky Balboa”, “Diary” is a return to roots, which is all the
more welcome since “Night” derived its power from its stark
simplicity. This material is best served by docu-horror or home-video
approach. The idea of flesh-eating zombies isn’t much in terms of
visual possibility; the zombie either eats you or you bash its head
in. The effectiveness of the idea relies on the incredible nature of
the fact itself–which is why the story is only compelling in its early
stages when the shock factor is still there–and the fear of zombies
appearing out of nowhere. (Once zombies take over the whole planet,
they are always popping out of somewhere than nowhere.) The home
video style is perfectly suited for this material. It’s too bad that
Romero went ‘epic’ with sequels such as “Dawn”, “Day”, and “Land”. A
Big Splashy movie about zombies roaming about and eating people or
getting their heads blown off is pointless. This material has to be on
the level of the B-movie or home-video. Also, the diary-aspect of the
movie keeps it on the personal level instead of getting lost in
logistics or overloaded on satirics. The unfortunate satirical and
philosophical aspects of “Diary” are thankfully sidestepped–mostly
anyway–by the mood of mounting horror. Also, the mostly rural setting
makes for powerful contrasts between peaceful lull and horrific
violence. Romero is most effective is when he situates us in an
idyllic setting where the air is crisp, trees are green, meadows are
pretty, and then... we see the living dead lumbering out of the woods
or from behind the barn. The contrast of heaven and hell which is
unnerving. In a movie like “Day” or “Land” where every inch of Earth
is hell, no amount of gore or ugliness disturbs us–though it certainly
upset us–or our stomachs. “Diary”, like “Night”, really gets under
our skin. It really looks like something that shouldn’t be happening
is actually happening.

The digital hand-held camera style of filmmaking has really caught
on. But why? Why didn’t the Arriflex camera have as great an
impact. Except for the early films of French New Wave, 60s
Cassavettes, cinema verite–which fell out of style in documentary
filmmaking–, and few others, the hand held Arriflex style was not
favored among filmmakers–and the shaky imagery was rejected by most
filmgoers who found it dizzying and headache-inducing.
The New Wave directors all settled for steady camera positions and
smooth camera movements as they matured, Cassavettes’s fimmaking grew
more static, and most indie films prior to the digi-cam era employed
traditional camera techniques and set-ups. But, things have changed
dramatically since the rise of digi-cam. One possible reason is that
digi-cam is so much cheaper than film. Due to the high cost of film
stock and development, handheld camera style was surely more prone to
produce bad, unusable shots. As such, all filmmakers–Hollywood and
independent–probably preferred the safer camera techniques placed on
tripods or dollies. But, with the cheap cost of shooting with digi-
cam, filmmakers have been able to experiment far more freely and
arrive at a shaky style that actually works.
Another reason for the acceptance of shaky style may be MTV and other
media forms which popularized the ‘alternative’ visuals for the new
generation.
Finally, its acceptance may have something to do with the fact that so
many people now own digicams. Everybody has made home movies with
shaky styles, and it has become part of how we see reality. In a way,
Romero has come full circle. He had once been the odd-man-out, the
student filmmaker who made a legendary film with the barest of means.
But, he soon turned his idea into the Burger King–if not MacDonalds–of
horror. He not only made “Dawn”, “Day”, and “Land”,but franchised
both “Night” and “Dawn” to be remade by others. Finally, he’s come
back down to ground. Using the simplest of cinematic means, he has re-
imagined the story from scratch. And, in its silly but crazy way, it
is pretty effective for what it is.