Response #5: Seriously, How Do You Get Bored In A Mall?

Night of the Living Dead (1968), George Romero's original zombie film, takes place, much as the title implies, in the space of a single night at a house, from dusk to dawn. Its successor, Dawn of the Dead (1978), works with the common sequel template of taking elements of the original and making everything bigger. Here, the budget is bigger, the setting is grander (mall vs house), the gore is more plentiful and visceral (and in color!), and the film is nearly an hour longer. These are all very fitting for the capitalist allegories found in the film. In addition, Dawn makes no promises for the time period of which the action of the film takes place; there is a point in the film where we lose track of just how many days the characters have been in the mall. By forgoing the classical Greek unity of time that the original film preserved, Dawn is capable of furthering its discussion on the human condition that is present throughout the film.

When our characters first arrive at the mall, they do so because they are searching for a place to obtain supplies. Once they have done this, they formulate plans to vacate the mall of its zombie inhabitants. It is these goals that grant our characters temporary purpose and meaning i.e. survival in a zombie apocalypse. Once they have accomplished these tasks and begin to become accustomed to their new commodity-filled habitat; however, the cracks of their complacency begin to shine. In the mall, they are free to live as kings and queens, doing anything they want and having everything they desire (provided that it's in stock). It is then that they attempt to replicate pre-apocalyptic life, having romantic dinners for two, ice skating, and getting haircuts. In a way, their imitation of the past is in a similar fashion of the mindless zombies. As Steven Shaviro says in his essay, “Contagious Allegories: George Romero”, both the living and the dead come to resemble the “...humanoid figures: department store mannequins.” (CP 141). Unlike Night of the Living Dead where the characters are only together for several hours, Dawn is able to show this period of relative safety as lasting for an indeterminate amount of time and therefore is more capable of being able to delve into the effects that this purposeless feeling of ennui has on the survivors. Without any direction or conflict, the characters indulge in an almost nihilistic state of being that places them nearly below the undead's own single minded cannibalistic purpose. In one scene, we see two of the main characters, Stephan and Francine, together in bed presumably after having sex. In this shot, it is more noticeable than anywhere else in the film of the mannequin-like form that the characters have taken on. Here, the two do literally nothing, no talking, just staring at us, immobile, as if they were made of inhuman material. I feel as though there is a kind of void present in their eyes which almost gives the impression that they are wasting away, even though they are still living.

Something that I think would be entertaining and possibly enlightening for the class in the future is to watch a failure of a horror movie. By that, I mean something that never had any sort of critical acclaim. Think of something like a b-movie or an Ed Wood film. I know it sounds kind of silly, and it is, but I think that a movie in this category could lead to some interesting discussions on what makes a horror film “good” per say. It'd be a fun aside from analyzing a film like we have for most of this course, although you still could do that, obviously. I feel that talking more about the film making process and how it can be disastrous in the case of a film like these would be neat and definitely still has a lot of relevance to this course and the way that films function. I also kind of have a soft spot for “bad” movies so there's that.