Saturday, December 5, 2009

Zombieland


The walking dead should walk slowly. They should not run. Think of these corpses, raised from slumber by some unknown and incomprehensible force. They are new to this form of locomotion, and their muscles do not respond as expected. Wanton disregard for their own well-being has, in many if not most cases, caused them to sustain multiple injuries. Even if they feel no pain (and “zombies” do not feel pain in the way we do, although they may feel something), they cannot run on a broken ankle, or a torn achilles. Poor zombies.

But it seems zombies have been working out. More and more, the undead are portrayed as faster and stronger than the living humans they subsist on. These fast-moving flesh eaters can be scary in their own way, but they are more like the old monsters: werewolves, or yetis, or lions and tigers and bears. They are predators, and we can escape them through our superior wits and technology, but we cannot outrun them, because they are essentially the same beasts we have feared since we first stood up on two legs. Zombieland’s undead are decidedly in this latter category, the athletic undead.

What makes the living dead of the classic Night of the Living Dead scary is not simply the fact that have been reanimated. Nor is it their modified cannibalism (Question: is it technically cannibalism when they eat only the flesh of living humans and never each other?), although the images of vacant-eyed undead masticating arm muscle certainly produce some visceral reaction. The truly frightening—and new—thing about Romero’s undead comes from their weakness, the fact that individual zombies are so easily eluded or defeated. It does not matter that you can outrun the shambling corpse in the graveyard—and you certainly can—because there will be another near the car, or behind a tree, or looming up out of the darkness in your front yard. There will always be another.

That Zombieland features zombies who run is a failure not of Zombieland itself, but of the entire zombie genre to which it is a response. Zombieland is a movie about zombie movies, and in the cultural contest between high-speed, Danny-Boyle—style undead flesh-eaters and the lumbering living dead of Night etc, it is pretty clear that the scarier and more interesting slow zombies have already lost. Zombieland is the proof, because Zombieland exists in a cultural setting where an explanation of the plague—what caused it, how it spread, where it started—is almost irrelevant, and certainly unnecessary. Everyone knows what a zombie is.

Zombieland is not a bad movie. Every aspect of the film does what it means to do; it is funny, romantic, gory, smart. The performances are strong, especially one awesome (and often spoiled, but far be it from me…) cameo. Here is Jesse Eisenberg, still playing the same thoughtful, neurotic descendant of some hybrid of Woody Allen and Holden Caulfield that he has been playing since he was tiny (and here I am again, sort of liking him in spite of the fact that I was sure I had heard enough stories about how hard it is to be a smart, introspective, adolescent white boy growing up in middle America). And here is Abigail Breslin, who no longer looks like a little girl, trading one-liners with Woody Harrelson.

Like in the superior Shaun of the Dead, the zombies in Zombieland are mere background, in this case for a family road-trip action comedy (sort of like a National Lampoon’s Summer Vacation, with automatic weapons). Unlike Shaun of the Dead, Zombieland has no rough edges. It is slick and fast and full of self-confidence. Maybe that is the difference between the zombie movies Zombieland is responding to and the Romero family of zombie movies (which SotD is about); Romero gleefully explores a crazy idea, while the fast-zombie movies are sardonic and a little smug, and their underlying idea is ultimately safe.

For lovers of Night of the Living Dead, there is something sad about Zombieland. It feels like a nail in the coffin of the thing Romero invented, which was maybe the first new thing in horror in a century. The shambling, slack-jawed, vacant-eyed animated corpse that feeds on the flesh of the living, that can be killed with a shotgun blast or a good solid blow to the head, that can be outrun by any child, but can never be defeated because the one thing this threat requires to keep coming is the one thing we will never stop providing: more corpses.

3 comments:

Kirsten said...

In case there's anyone left who doesn't know Simon Pegg agrees with you for about sprinting zombies:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/nov/04/television-simon-pegg-dead-set

Yours is the best possible Zombieland review. I'm sad to leave lumbering zombies behind as it's another area of my film-going life that has been infected with extreme athleticism. Enough already.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/99461

Lydia said...

I love it when I write out some lengthy rant, only to discover that Simon Pegg wrote it better a year ago.

Actually, I think there's a tiny difference between his point and mine (and his point is probably more interesting, but whatever). Because for me the scariness of Romero's undead is not really metaphorical. It's not that they look like the inevitable future of us, that we will eventually be them. It's more analagous to a biological threat, a virus or something, that seems very small and weak on its own but is destructive because of the way it propagates.

Also, Erica reminded me that Romero addressed the pressing fast-zombie issue on Wait Wait Don't Tell me recently.

Thad said...

Let me first say I agree with Kristin, Lydia and Simon Pegg (it puts me in good company), but let me get a touch academic.

We know that monsters reflect their social moment. Stoker was afraid of the "new woman" and Eastern Europeans, but the peasants before him were afraid of rolling bags of blood that sucked the water from the clouds and the milk from cows. I'm a little leery about using this notion of the monster with the concrete features. Vampires and werewolves aren't just about the bestial side of human nature; this is their recent reincarnation. So yes, zombies are going to change with time. Just as Stoker made fangs iconic (they weren't present in the original folk tales), sure enough in the age of biotechnology vampires lose their fangs and become leeches. But enough about vampires.

It's too simple to say that the big metaphor about the undead is they represent our fear of death. It's nothing new to bring up that zombies also represent our fear of mob mentality and mindless consumption (does the age of quick access via the internet and cell phones enter in to this discussion?). Or maybe as we become more aware of people dying young of heart disease and cancer, the metaphor has picked up the pace.

With that said, I prefer the days of lumbering zombies, but I'm used to change. After all, we still have Zombie Reagan

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/zombie_reagan_raised_from_grave