![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
the end is extremely fucking nigh
Jun. 12th, 2007 02:01 pmor, why the zombie movie is the superior form of horror movie.
Caught somewhere between the stereotypically feminine ghost movie and the stereotypically masculine slasher movie, and yet often rejected as too extreme or too campy for both, the zombie movie is always a little off, a little gross, a little unpleasant, and a little amusing. For me, it's also the superior form of horror movie, and I'll tell you why.
Note: As comparative genres, I have ghost movies, slasher movies, and vampire movies. Monster movies, while once a valid genre, have fallen too far out of favor during my lifetime to be included as a contemporary genre, and alien movies, while sometimes also qualifying as horror, I consider science fiction (thus Alien and Godzilla don't belong in the discussion).
1) Equal Opportunity! Most horror movies are extremely homogenous in their casting. Ghost movies almost always feature female ghosts; slasher movies almost always feature male serial killers; vampire movies, while occasionally casting ultra powerful female vampires, usually err on the side of male vampires as well. Zombies, however, are of all genders, races, and sexual orientations, because the "infection", or whatever is bringing them back to the dead, affects everyone.
2) Extreme. Well, it's not a horror movie if it's not horrific. There's only a certain level of shock that most horror movies can use, and usually it comes in the form of blood spurting from creative places. Zombie movies fulfill the requisite shock aspect of all horror fairly easily - the little girl eating her family scene from Night of the Living Dead comes to mind. Vampire movies sometimes reach this level, if the vampires are scary, hungry, and have lost their human memories, such as in Salem's Lot. But not if they're stylish and brooding Anne Rice vampires, which is the norm.
3) Hope. Probably a trait that is completely exclusive to zombie movies, where survival is possible after much strife. Ghost movies have that horrible never-gonna-be-completely-free aftertaste, the survivors of slasher movies (usually one screaming teenaged virgin) are too traumatized by watching their friends and family slaughtered to be symbols of hope, and are probably going to re-enter society and go straight to a mental institution, and vampire movies usually end with extreme cheese (the trick ending - Interview with the Vampire, Queen of the Damned, Salem's Lot). Zombie movies' survivors don't re-enter a society that thinks they're crazy for having PTSD. There is no society. It's a chance for reinvention. That sometimes goes better than other times, but there is the glimmer of hope (most notably in 28 Days Later).
4) Politically Incorrect. What I mean by this is that zombie movies, partly because they are so out of the mainstream and are usually automatic cult hits instead of box-office hits, can criticize things that are usually held up as sacrosanct by our society. And rather than think of these things as really sacrosanct, maybe we should wonder if there is something wrong with them. Hey, part of the reason the UN doesn't work as well as it could is because those who work there refuse to criticize it. Partly because the apocalypse is in play, zombie movies tear down such establishments as the military, the church, and the nuclear family (those fundamental "pillars" of America). That's not to say that they necessarily point to these things as bad - they make them look vulnerable, and that, in my opinion, ought to be acceptable if we want positive change in the world. We shouldn't assume that clergymen are good people. We shouldn't assume the military is a safe haven. Other genres have tried this, but they usually just wind up with stereotypes like The Stupid Sheriff and The Gullible Priest and The Corrupt Politician. They also tend to say, when they do criticize "pillars", that "these are bad apples" - they never claim there's anything wrong with the "pillar" as a whole. But sometimes there is something wrong with the entire system, and zombie movies allow for that.
5) Terrifically Un-Misogynistic. That's right. Probably the least misogynistic genre of them all. Ghost movies feature really scary female ghosts, all the time, because women are abused in life and then take their vengeance out - not on men, but on anyone. Their children, the neighbors, random people. And yet they're still the enemy. The main characters of these movies are also frequently women, who are never allowed to resolve the problem entirely (see #3). That's not entirely misogynistic, but it's certainly depressing and quite unfair, since the dead girls are not sympathetic and the living girls are incompetent. Slasher movies have this crazy morality about whores being killed first and virgins killed last, but all of them appearing in scantily clad clothes that usually get further ripped, and screaming at the top of their lungs. Blech. I tolerate The Hills Have Eyes because it's like the only slasher movie that admits what all of them are peddling but refuse to put on screen for maximum profit - violent sex with an underaged girl, and it's very bloody and is not soft or hard core. It's not going to turn anybody into rapists - the people who get turned on by that scene are already messed up to the point of no return. However, watching some older teenage girl run around in her underwear and cry, but ultimately either survive or just get her head smashed up does not deter people from fantasizing about her rape, later. That's the way most of America works, you know - hint hint, tease tease, but the real thing must be hush hush. Vampire movies - do I really need to say anything? Blood and bodices? I mean, vampires were invented as a way to advertise rape (not discuss, as some have claimed - there's no discussion here) without actually ever featuring it - oh yeah, and the "rape" victims turn into vampires. What? Thanks, Dracula. But the zombie movie? The zombie movie usually features women at their strongest, even stronger than the way they're shown in the best science fiction. Yes, some of them get killed (though not in sultry ways - you just can't make cannibalism sexy), but others survive, by picking up guns or using their wits, and by generally not being the female stereotype. Modern zombie movies all have them, though they are all vastly different - compare the heroines of the 28 Days/Weeks Later franchise, they all seem like real people, amazingly enough. And if some of them are sexualized (Resident Evil), oh well. It's better for men to get off on women using axes and machine guns effectively than being chased by chainsaws.
6) Social Criticism. This is the one I feel most strongly about. Zombie movies always provide some kind of social commentary on the modern world and the state of humanity - always, always - for some of the reasons above. They feature average people of all types faced with the same problem. A basic question social scientists deal with is: what is the purpose of government? Is it to protect people from their own "savage state"? What would happen in a lawless world? Zombie movies, because they are apocalyptic, are always forced to deal with these issues, even when they don't mean to - that's the beauty of the apocalypse movie. Serial killer movies sometimes reach this depth, if the victims are running around in some middle-of-nowhere world full of crazy serial killers (The Hills Have Eyes), but not usually (Halloween), unless there is honest discussion of why an ordinary man becomes a killer, in which case the slasher movie retains its brains (Silence of the Lambs, Red Dragon). Ghost movies usually tackle only fear, and usually don't really tackle so much as subtly hint at but then don't explore (The Others). The ghost movie with the strongest social criticism I've seen is The Devil's Backbone, and that one far defies the norm. I have not seen a vampire movie I would classify as deep, and yes, I have seen Interview with the Vampire. Generally, the more personal the horror becomes, the less social commentary can be found. If it's all about dumb teenagers running over Farmer Joe who then returns in a black cape and armed with a scythe, what social commentary do we draw from that? Teenagers are dumb? Don't run over people, or if you do, take responsibility? That is weak. But this rule applies to other genres as well. That's why I'm not exactly fond of "character studies" for social commentary - they don't teach me anything, because they're so specific to one eccentric person. That's personal preference, of course, and I don't dislike all personal movies or personal horror movies. But for my own social science purposes, the apersonal movie, especially the apocalyptic movie, is rife with insight into humanity, or at least, people's vision of humanity.
Hey, in other news, I found an awesome movie reviewer today. MaryAnn Johanson. Here's what she says about Knocked Up.
Caught somewhere between the stereotypically feminine ghost movie and the stereotypically masculine slasher movie, and yet often rejected as too extreme or too campy for both, the zombie movie is always a little off, a little gross, a little unpleasant, and a little amusing. For me, it's also the superior form of horror movie, and I'll tell you why.
Note: As comparative genres, I have ghost movies, slasher movies, and vampire movies. Monster movies, while once a valid genre, have fallen too far out of favor during my lifetime to be included as a contemporary genre, and alien movies, while sometimes also qualifying as horror, I consider science fiction (thus Alien and Godzilla don't belong in the discussion).
1) Equal Opportunity! Most horror movies are extremely homogenous in their casting. Ghost movies almost always feature female ghosts; slasher movies almost always feature male serial killers; vampire movies, while occasionally casting ultra powerful female vampires, usually err on the side of male vampires as well. Zombies, however, are of all genders, races, and sexual orientations, because the "infection", or whatever is bringing them back to the dead, affects everyone.
2) Extreme. Well, it's not a horror movie if it's not horrific. There's only a certain level of shock that most horror movies can use, and usually it comes in the form of blood spurting from creative places. Zombie movies fulfill the requisite shock aspect of all horror fairly easily - the little girl eating her family scene from Night of the Living Dead comes to mind. Vampire movies sometimes reach this level, if the vampires are scary, hungry, and have lost their human memories, such as in Salem's Lot. But not if they're stylish and brooding Anne Rice vampires, which is the norm.
3) Hope. Probably a trait that is completely exclusive to zombie movies, where survival is possible after much strife. Ghost movies have that horrible never-gonna-be-completely-free aftertaste, the survivors of slasher movies (usually one screaming teenaged virgin) are too traumatized by watching their friends and family slaughtered to be symbols of hope, and are probably going to re-enter society and go straight to a mental institution, and vampire movies usually end with extreme cheese (the trick ending - Interview with the Vampire, Queen of the Damned, Salem's Lot). Zombie movies' survivors don't re-enter a society that thinks they're crazy for having PTSD. There is no society. It's a chance for reinvention. That sometimes goes better than other times, but there is the glimmer of hope (most notably in 28 Days Later).
4) Politically Incorrect. What I mean by this is that zombie movies, partly because they are so out of the mainstream and are usually automatic cult hits instead of box-office hits, can criticize things that are usually held up as sacrosanct by our society. And rather than think of these things as really sacrosanct, maybe we should wonder if there is something wrong with them. Hey, part of the reason the UN doesn't work as well as it could is because those who work there refuse to criticize it. Partly because the apocalypse is in play, zombie movies tear down such establishments as the military, the church, and the nuclear family (those fundamental "pillars" of America). That's not to say that they necessarily point to these things as bad - they make them look vulnerable, and that, in my opinion, ought to be acceptable if we want positive change in the world. We shouldn't assume that clergymen are good people. We shouldn't assume the military is a safe haven. Other genres have tried this, but they usually just wind up with stereotypes like The Stupid Sheriff and The Gullible Priest and The Corrupt Politician. They also tend to say, when they do criticize "pillars", that "these are bad apples" - they never claim there's anything wrong with the "pillar" as a whole. But sometimes there is something wrong with the entire system, and zombie movies allow for that.
5) Terrifically Un-Misogynistic. That's right. Probably the least misogynistic genre of them all. Ghost movies feature really scary female ghosts, all the time, because women are abused in life and then take their vengeance out - not on men, but on anyone. Their children, the neighbors, random people. And yet they're still the enemy. The main characters of these movies are also frequently women, who are never allowed to resolve the problem entirely (see #3). That's not entirely misogynistic, but it's certainly depressing and quite unfair, since the dead girls are not sympathetic and the living girls are incompetent. Slasher movies have this crazy morality about whores being killed first and virgins killed last, but all of them appearing in scantily clad clothes that usually get further ripped, and screaming at the top of their lungs. Blech. I tolerate The Hills Have Eyes because it's like the only slasher movie that admits what all of them are peddling but refuse to put on screen for maximum profit - violent sex with an underaged girl, and it's very bloody and is not soft or hard core. It's not going to turn anybody into rapists - the people who get turned on by that scene are already messed up to the point of no return. However, watching some older teenage girl run around in her underwear and cry, but ultimately either survive or just get her head smashed up does not deter people from fantasizing about her rape, later. That's the way most of America works, you know - hint hint, tease tease, but the real thing must be hush hush. Vampire movies - do I really need to say anything? Blood and bodices? I mean, vampires were invented as a way to advertise rape (not discuss, as some have claimed - there's no discussion here) without actually ever featuring it - oh yeah, and the "rape" victims turn into vampires. What? Thanks, Dracula. But the zombie movie? The zombie movie usually features women at their strongest, even stronger than the way they're shown in the best science fiction. Yes, some of them get killed (though not in sultry ways - you just can't make cannibalism sexy), but others survive, by picking up guns or using their wits, and by generally not being the female stereotype. Modern zombie movies all have them, though they are all vastly different - compare the heroines of the 28 Days/Weeks Later franchise, they all seem like real people, amazingly enough. And if some of them are sexualized (Resident Evil), oh well. It's better for men to get off on women using axes and machine guns effectively than being chased by chainsaws.
6) Social Criticism. This is the one I feel most strongly about. Zombie movies always provide some kind of social commentary on the modern world and the state of humanity - always, always - for some of the reasons above. They feature average people of all types faced with the same problem. A basic question social scientists deal with is: what is the purpose of government? Is it to protect people from their own "savage state"? What would happen in a lawless world? Zombie movies, because they are apocalyptic, are always forced to deal with these issues, even when they don't mean to - that's the beauty of the apocalypse movie. Serial killer movies sometimes reach this depth, if the victims are running around in some middle-of-nowhere world full of crazy serial killers (The Hills Have Eyes), but not usually (Halloween), unless there is honest discussion of why an ordinary man becomes a killer, in which case the slasher movie retains its brains (Silence of the Lambs, Red Dragon). Ghost movies usually tackle only fear, and usually don't really tackle so much as subtly hint at but then don't explore (The Others). The ghost movie with the strongest social criticism I've seen is The Devil's Backbone, and that one far defies the norm. I have not seen a vampire movie I would classify as deep, and yes, I have seen Interview with the Vampire. Generally, the more personal the horror becomes, the less social commentary can be found. If it's all about dumb teenagers running over Farmer Joe who then returns in a black cape and armed with a scythe, what social commentary do we draw from that? Teenagers are dumb? Don't run over people, or if you do, take responsibility? That is weak. But this rule applies to other genres as well. That's why I'm not exactly fond of "character studies" for social commentary - they don't teach me anything, because they're so specific to one eccentric person. That's personal preference, of course, and I don't dislike all personal movies or personal horror movies. But for my own social science purposes, the apersonal movie, especially the apocalyptic movie, is rife with insight into humanity, or at least, people's vision of humanity.
Hey, in other news, I found an awesome movie reviewer today. MaryAnn Johanson. Here's what she says about Knocked Up.
The problem is not that Knocked Up is “liberal” because it’s about casual sex and having a baby out of wedlock. The problem is that it is horribly conservative about embracing and enjoying an adult version of sexuality that has moved beyond dorm-room-esque groping. One night with some guy you don’t even know does not mean you must tie yourself to him for the rest of your life... unless you think that women must be punished for sex. Oh, but it’s not punishment: you get an adorable baby out of the deal! And you get to “train” a man! When Ben says something crude during their “second date,” after Alison’s decided against all reason and logic that she’s going to have the baby, she grimaces and says, “For the sake of getting to know one another, can you not talk like that?” But that’s who he is. Hearing him say this crude and juvenile thing is getting to know him. But Alison doesn’t really mean what she says. What she means is, Would he please pretend to be something he isn’t? Would he please conform to her unrealistic expectations about what he is supposed to be, instead of what he really is? (I hate this: Knocked Up is so fucked up that it’s got me defending an overgrown frat boy who should have grown the hell up years earlier.) And he will conform, because however obnoxious and insulting he can be at dinner, she’ll still be in bed with him later that evening, because she’s trying to force romance into a situation in which it doesn’t exist.
What. The. Fuck. This may be “honest” and “real,” but so is cancer and the IRS and the moldy stuff that grows in the vegetable bin of the fridge when you don’t clean it for two years. That doesn’t make it “charming” or “sweet.”
I hate that everyone is going to love this depressing stamp of approval on an absurd, juvenile status quo. I hope Alison and Ben and Debbie and Pete -- and everyone who sees themselves in this movie -- are all saving for their kids’ therapy, cuz they’re gonna be so seriously fucked up they’ll marry the first loser who comes along and has drunken sex with them.
I like this woman!
