Blog 4. Dawn of the Dead (US, 1978. Director: George Romero)
Here is all the information you need to know about Dawn of the Dead.
Dawn of the Dead is a sequel to Night of The Living Dead (1968) (check out the trailer), and the second of what became a series of six films about the takeover of America by zombies. George Romero made Night of the Living Dead for about $114,000, shooting it around Pittsburgh and using friends as the cast; it went on to make $18 million worldwide and has become the template for zombie apocalypse movies ever since. Without Romero, there would be no Walking Dead. The sequel was filmed again in Pennsylvania, for around $1.5 million. It made $55 million worldwide and is considered by many to be the one of the best horror movies ever made. It was remade in 2004 (written by James Gunn, writer/director of The Guardians of The Galaxy). Since Dawn of the Dead, Romero has made Day of the Dead (1985), Land of the Dead (2005), Diary of the Dead (2007), and Survival of the Dead (2010). Check out the trailers for each.
1. So...your reaction to the first 45 minutes of this movie? What scene or moment stuck out to you—and why?
2. There was a lot of laughter during the beginning of this movie—do you think this was a deliberate reaction that Romero wanted? Or is it that the movie has become camp and silly in the forty years since it was made? Explain your answer.
3. Is there something serious going on among the blood and gore and laughter? Explain your answer.
200 words as usual.
Not surprisingly, Romero's movies have been subject for much imitation and even parody. Here is the trailer for Shaun of the Dead (2004), directed by Edgar Wright and starring Simon Pegg. George Romero even appears in it.
Dawn of the Dead is a sequel to Night of The Living Dead (1968) (check out the trailer), and the second of what became a series of six films about the takeover of America by zombies. George Romero made Night of the Living Dead for about $114,000, shooting it around Pittsburgh and using friends as the cast; it went on to make $18 million worldwide and has become the template for zombie apocalypse movies ever since. Without Romero, there would be no Walking Dead. The sequel was filmed again in Pennsylvania, for around $1.5 million. It made $55 million worldwide and is considered by many to be the one of the best horror movies ever made. It was remade in 2004 (written by James Gunn, writer/director of The Guardians of The Galaxy). Since Dawn of the Dead, Romero has made Day of the Dead (1985), Land of the Dead (2005), Diary of the Dead (2007), and Survival of the Dead (2010). Check out the trailers for each.
1. So...your reaction to the first 45 minutes of this movie? What scene or moment stuck out to you—and why?
2. There was a lot of laughter during the beginning of this movie—do you think this was a deliberate reaction that Romero wanted? Or is it that the movie has become camp and silly in the forty years since it was made? Explain your answer.
3. Is there something serious going on among the blood and gore and laughter? Explain your answer.
200 words as usual.
Not surprisingly, Romero's movies have been subject for much imitation and even parody. Here is the trailer for Shaun of the Dead (2004), directed by Edgar Wright and starring Simon Pegg. George Romero even appears in it.
Despite the occasional jump scares and tense moments between the officers and zombies, I actually find this movie quite boring so far. The plot has not changed enough yet for me to get a vague idea of what the character's destinations or goals are (besides avoiding the zombies). It seems like, so far, the movie is just showcasing the makeup and special effect artists' ability to create the illusion of spewing blood and tearing flesh. Speaking of flesh, the most memorable scene that will forever be ingrained in my conscious memory was when the zombie bit into a woman's shoulder and exposed her muscle and bone. That was impressive.
ReplyDeleteI definitely don't think Romero had a comedy in mind when he was directing this movie. Special effects have advanced in leaps and bounds since this movie premiered, so I bet this seemed extremely realistic for people watching it in 1968. It's the same thing as when you rewatch an animated movie from your childhood and realize how awful and unrealistic the graphics are. It's impossible to be aware of how bad something is until you experience something better. Also, I feel like the audience of today takes pride in making fun of movies from the past. We can say "Wow, the human race is just better in general these days" by simply watching a movie.
While the symbolism and "commentary on society" in Dawn of the Dead seems inexistent compared to Mad Max and The Road, I feel like the audience can use any apocalypse movie to analyze how people behave in the wake of a life threatening situation. In the urban television studio, men and women frantically throw paper in the air and boss each other around in an attempt to control their fear. However, in the rural countryside, the "rednecks" are listening to music, drinking beers, and shooting the zombies like they're playing a video game. The four main characters' behavior lies somewhere in the middle. They are scared of the zombies and run from them, but they still don't treat them like very serious threats. The two police officers, armed with multiple guns, scour the mall in search of lighter fluid, which is more important to them than staying safe with the food rations. I predict that this careless behavior will lead to death in the future of the film.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. The scene that jumped out at me was the second scene -- where the National Guard surrounds and empties the hotel. What struck me particularly was the man who kept shouting out racial epithets aimed at Puerto Ricans and blacks; while this was 1978 I still think it was an ingenious start to a movie about a threat against the human race to show humans not only shoot but degrade each other. As someone (Erin?) said in class today if humanity simply stuck together against a common enemy, victory would be within reach. Yet even as a literal army of the dead begins to take over America, people turn against each other. While I know the Guard were there to take the people to a "center," so there was a definite purpose to the mission, I still think its interesting -- particularly the use of racial slurs. I think Romero's vision of humans turning against each other finds a parallel in the first scene of the movie where everyone at the TV station is arguing with each other, or even as the two Guard members argue with Peter. Why can't we stick together?
ReplyDeleteUltimately, I think Isabel is right though: the conclusions I drew about human nature from this film I could from practically any apocalypse movie. The only thing remotely interesting about the film -- besides the utter fear I feel while watching it -- is the use of racial slurs at the beginning and how humanity still finds the need to degrade each other in front of an immeasurable threat. Even though, is that really intentional in 1978?
2. I think Romero wanted to scare us -- and that humor is a natural reaction to being scared. Yes, the movie is "campy" but even so I still think there's something just terrifying about the very concept of a zombie that makes us laugh.
3. Is there? I don't know. I already talked about what I thought was the most telling moment of the film -- the race talk. Besides that, I think its just setup so far. There might be something in the dynamic between the three men in the helicopter? I think more time will tell.
At first, when I heard we would be watching a zombie movie, I was a little scared. I did not expect this cheesy 70’s film with scenes in which I didn't know if I should laugh or be scared. The scene that stuck with me is where the zombie, pretending to be a mannequin in the mall, jumped out and attacked one of the main characters (I don't know his name). I remember this scene because this shows the complexity of the issue at hand. The zombies may be slow and stupid (literally brain-dead), but they are smart enough to attack incognito. I am not sure how Romero wanted the movie to be taken, but I think that due to its slightly primitive special effects, it is received more lightly than anticipated. When the movie first came out, although it may be meant to be perceived as a little humorous, it was probably more horrifying for the audience than it is now. Despite the movie’s first appearance, there is definitely a serious problem going on. America is being taken over by zombies! The problem with zombies is that although they may be relatively easy to kill, they will constantly multiply as long as there are still humans to eat and zombify left on earth; they have the numbers.
ReplyDeleteIt might be because this movie has been the template for many following films, because the movie didn't have as big of a focus on cinematography, or because of my current headache but none of the scenes or shots really stick in my head like they did in previous films. I get that it all seems cliché because by now it is, even though it wasn't when it was made.
ReplyDeleteI think the laughter came from the camp feel the movie. I believe that came from two major things; when I was previously talking about regarding how the themes and ideas seem overplayed now and the quality of the practical effects. Movie theaters now they are so used to seeing quality special effects that when we see OK practical effects we find it hard to not laugh or to even believe.
The original concept of the zombie was, I believe, a metaphor for the new concept of a teenager. Mindlessly being a consumer and following what your friends think is cool while rebelling against society. they were a little blunt with this when I talked about how the mall was a place they went because it was important in their real lives.
This movie was tough to get used to. I think that zombie movies need to have great special effects in order to be good, since fake-looking zombies can ruin the feel of the movie for the viewer. Because of this, there weren't any notable scenes for me. I think that watching modern films has ruined the viewing of this film, since the zombie make-up and the gun fights look extremely fake. I do think that the quality significantly improved when the group got to the mall, and I was actually interested in the movie at this point. I remember getting frustrated at some of the characters, such as Steven and the the woman, because they were so incredibly incompetent. Zombies would be slowly approaching them and they would just stand completely still and not do anything. They do serve a valuable purpose, which is to create a feel of tension.
ReplyDeleteThis movie was definitely not intended to be funny. What makes the beginning of the movie funny is the special effects. Most of the techniques used in the movie are so outdated that instead of being scared, the audience laughs at how ridiculous it is. I think that this takes a little bit away from the viewing experience, but I think that there is a lot more to this movie than special effects.
Honestly, I'm not sure. I think that I will have an answer at the end of the movie, but as of now I can't say anything definitive. Any guess at this point would seem like a stretch because I have not seen enough to form a conclusion.
1)Honestly I don't find the movie very interesting. I personally feel like there isn't much of a plot and it is a movie all about the gore and jump scares. One thing I really didn't like is the main woman in this movie seems a little helpless. I'm not quite sure why she is there because she seems like she needs help, and can't deal with a zombie until her boyfriend shoots it for her.
ReplyDelete2)I think that some of it was intentionally funny like the fact that the police officer couldn't shoot the zombie, and the line about the zombies coming back to the mall because it was a place of importance to them. But I also think that a lot of the laughs were just because the special effects were so outdated and unrealistic.
3)I'm not seeing a deeper meaning or a revelation of any sorts, but maybe that is because I haven't watched enough of it. Maybe the fact that the officers went to the mall to get more than just the survival kits shows that they are greedy and want more than they need. For now I think this movie is just about a group of people trying to go around killing zombies.
So far, I'm not a big fan of the movie. It hasn't captured my attention aside from the comedic scenes where the best one can do is laugh. The movie doesn't seem to have much substance to it and I'm quite surprised it has been dubbed as “one of the best horror movies ever made”. I was really struck by the lack of seriousness displayed by the two national guard members in the mall scene. They seemed to approach the zombie situation with humor and had the mindset that shooting the zombies was meant to be aa game. In aa way, this disgusted me; I almost feel bad for the zombies as their sole purpose is hunting and eating others. For the national guard members to view them as expendable dummies without reason to live makes them appear as insensitive jerks who don't mind playing with death.
ReplyDeleteIn all honestly, I don't think that Romero expected his movie to appear comedic to the viewer. I think he really was trying to produce aaa film that questioned what it means to be human and the emphasis humans put on survival. His addition of zombies with bad special effects though took away from the movie and instead elicited, in my opinion, a lackluster response.
Definitely. Behind the blood and bad special effects, Romero is commenting on the role of death in society and the way it manifests itself amongst different societal groups. As I mentioned above, Romero's choice to make the national guard members arrogant presents a common theme amongst many individuals in times of disarray. Their lack of empathy towards the zombies attests to the concept that when someone appears “less” than those with power (in this case the main characters) whether it be intelligence, form, etc, those individuals feel that it is then okay to inflict unnecessary pain on those below them. In the movie, this manifests itself in the unsystematic killings of the zombies. Instead of dread when “human” life is loss, the characters instead display enthusiasm and anticipation for their next killing.
The first 45 minutes of Dawn of the Dead is both comical and frightening--in others words, the special effects are hilariously horrible, even though the concept is scary. The scene that sticks with me is from the beginning of the movie, when the recently-zombified man bit into his wife's shoulder and arm, and the skin just gave way and ripped off. It was as if she was made of Play-Doh, which further emphasized the bad quality of the effects (as if it was not evident enough throughout rah movie). However, I must applaud George Romero on his revolutionary idea, which transformed the movie industry. We are forced to think about ourselves, or what becomes of us after we have died, which is a controversial topic, because it is both a difficult topic to face and a hard one to answer. There are so many possibilities, and this one is particularly frightening. As humans, we try to be optimistic and sugar-coat reality as well as the unknown, but zombies prevent us from doing that; we are forced to confront our fears. I do not think this movie was intended to be funny; the special effects forty years ago experienced dramatic improvement to become the thrilling and surprisingly realistic wonder they are today.
ReplyDeletePost 1:
ReplyDelete1. So far, this movie is very interesting. I'm a little confused about what the storyline is about, but I'm hoping that when we see the rest of the film tomorrow, it'll be a little easier to understand. However, one scene that really stood out to me was when they landed at the air field to get fuel for the helicopter. Peter goes into the office and has to fight the zombies. He has to shoot the children zombies, but you can see his hesitation. He does not want to have to kill the children, but they will eat him, so he has to. This scene really represents the innocence of children. Children should be protected and cared for, but when they are turned into zombies, it is hard to tell if they are still the sweet child or are no longer able to act as a child and must act like a zombie. Even though the children were zombies, and therefore dangerous, they were very young, which is why Peter did not want to shoot them. I understand Peter's decision, because they were going to eat him, but I also understand why he was upset to do so. The zombies were so young, and they must have had little childhood before they became zombies. Children should have carefree and exciting years growing up, but these zombie children are only thinking about eating humans. They aren't able to understand what they are doing, which adds to their innocence, because people wouldn't want to eat others. Peter also did not want to have to hurt the zombies in the building, so we can see that he is a good person. He only fights them because he believes that this will help people stay alive and not be hurt by the zombies. Peter has a conscience that causes him to think twice about hurting the zombies. It seems that Peter wants people to be safe, but he doesn't want the zombies to have to die so that people aren't eaten. These scenes were important to me because I feel the same way as Peter. I wouldn't want to have to hurt the zombies, because they didn't do anything wrong to become this. Even though zombies eat people, they aren't aware of this, so they have no way to stop themselves from it.
2. By watching a zombie movie, we are able to see what the apocalypse would be similar to. We can watch a movie and be scared by the zombies, but we don't have to actually live in the apocalypse. I believe that people laugh because Romero intended it. We can laugh and forget the truth about how scary the apocalypse could be. To me, movies can be similar to a difficult topic such as death. It is awful when someone you are close with dies, but movies are produced and books are written that take advantage of the idea of death. For example, in almost every popular crime or law and order show, people are murdered every episode. But this is entertaining to watch for people. When you look death in the eye through your tv or book, you are able to ignore the fact that someone died and only focus on the greater plot of the episode or text. I think that being able to control topics like death through movies and text brings people to feel that they will not be impacted by death. This is why apocalyptic movies are so popular. People want to see the gore without having to focus on the fact that people have died. In Dawn of the Dead, people laugh when the zombies are eating people, but they don't really see that someone has died, or even that zombies have to live by eating other people. The lives of a victim of a zombie and the life of a zombie are not enjoyable to either. But, when we watch this movie, people laugh because this couldn't happen to them. However, I feel that the movie is also a little old for our generation. The cinematography we are familiar with is very different than the effects used in 1978, so it is harder for us to imagine the special effects that the directors want us to see.
Post 2:
Delete3. As I said in Question 2, people like to play with death. When they land at the shopping mall, Peter and Roger go down to the lower levels. They have plenty of food on the floor they broke into, but they wanted to get down to the department stores on the lower levels, where the zombies were. They could have just taken the food and left, but they wanted more, even if it means that they must fight the zombies. Roger is almost eaten by a zombie, but Peter helps him fight the zombie and they go away without paying attention to what had just happened. This relates to people wanting more than they already have. Peter and Roger wanted more supplies, even though they had food. Movies are able to show people how materialistic they are, in the form of a fictional story.
Confession time: I am the BIGGEST wimp ever when it comes to any sort of scary movies. So obviously the most memorable moment for me was when the zombie jumped on the Peter (I think that’s his name) in the mall. Actually scratch that. The MOST memorable moment was when Moey and I both screamed for a solid ten seconds, sounding like little kids watching Saw, or just me watching Stranger Things (seriously though, that show is scary). Honestly, the reason why the scene stuck out to me was its sheer ridiculousness and cheesiness, but in an endearing way. It’s a jumpscare that’s aged like fine wine.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I think Romero meant to have a zombie movie with a comedic aspect. However, the cheesy special effects, questionable character decisions, and overall ridiculousness of the situation have added to the laughs present in the audience as it has aged. I don’t believe Romero wanted his movie to take itself too seriously. I seriously doubt he wanted to send a message or make a dark, depressing movie like The Road.
Plain and simple, Dawn of the Dead was created to be a fun, enjoyable, slightly scary, and occasionally funny movie. And it accomplishes that task quite well. I don’t feel it had any ulterior motives, that Romero wanted to send a message about the sad state of humanity and what not. He just wanted to rake in the dough, and he did that quite well.
Also “People who write blog posts are dumb” Lucas Barry
I found the first 45 minutes of this movie quite humorous rather than horrifying. I do realize that it seems comical because the special effects are quite old compared to thos we see today. The scene where one zombie bit of the skin on the shoulder of a woman might have scared many of those who watched it in a theater in the 70's but I just laughed because none of it seemed real. They just stumbled around unable to do anything. Also the only way they made the zombies look different from the humans is the purple paint on their faces and their odd gaits.
ReplyDeleteOh I definitely don't think the intent of the director was to make us laugh but we have been exposed to much worse so this fake blood doesn't faze us. We have these sick moves that we watch now that this directory probably couldn't dream of. I think he put his best effort in to making it as scary as he could. He is just not able to compete and I'm pretty sure we had filters on what could be shown unlike today.
I feel as if there might be something serious going on but I have not realized what it is yet. So far this seem like a light hearted just because of the time that we live in.
I love it so far, but mostly because it's the beginning of a genre that I deeply appreciate (and kind of hate, because it's one of the only ones that really get to me). Otherwise I'm having difficulty finding any real storyline that would distinguish it as a horror film, since most horror films are centered around "this group of people is trying to survive." Maybe we can excuse that, since it was the second zombie movie ever, but I'm more taken by the jump scares than I am by a (thus far difficult to distinguish) plot. I'm not very attached to the characters because we haven't seen much of them as people besides their hoarding of cigarettes and decision to explore the mall, neither of which I find appreciably endearing. The scene that stuck out the most to me was the man screaming slurs at the beginning - it was shocking and weird to hear. I immediately wondered if the man had no idea that zombies existed - how could even the most racist person be focused on ethnicity when the end is nigh? He uses the violence inherent in an apocalyptic scenario to vent his hatred, shooting not only zombies but innocent residents until he himself is killed. That topic isn't often visited by zombie films - usually humanity bands together to fight the menace, or at the very least group themselves according to useful skills and leave out anyone weak. Will racism be brought back up later, or was that its one violent mention? Is it especially relevant because it IS only at the beginning, and people move past prejudice in order to survive?
ReplyDeleteI think we are meant to laugh at it, to some degree. I was especially swayed by the comment about the zombies inhabiting the mall "because it was an important part of their lives," and the brief clip of the zombie stumbling into the pond and scooping up coins in his hands. (Unless those were actually supposed to be deep societal commentary about consumerism? But even slipping that into a survival story would feel humorous.) Did he specifically asked his cast members to fight with absolutely zero reflexes? They were oddly calm as zombies crawled towards their feet, and they didn't even bother to keep their eyes on them. That, at least, I hope was intended to be campy.
It's hard for me to see because of the way the film is made - a lot of modern films have some predictable tropes (even in music and camera focus) that make them more predictable and easier to read, but this film doesn't follow many of those rules. But there's definitely some commentary about what people find important - racism, cigarettes, barbecues and the mall, apparently. Society is falling apart and corpses are eating everyone, and they turn on all the music and attractions and run through the shopping center, "Look, a mink coat!" Even at the end of the world, people are still hanging on to frivolous things, only now it's much easier to see how truly superficial they are.
1) I like this movie; it's very entertaining. It's definitely frustrating having two completely incompetent characters. I also don't like the way they portray the woman as this pretty but completely useless mass of meat. At least the pretty boy knows how to fly a plane and doesn't literally stand still as a zombie attacks from both sides. But it's the 70s, so how much can you expect? The scene that stuck out to me the most was probably the moment when the black guy (not sure what his name is) had to shoot the kids-turned-zombies. It just shows how detached you have to become to face the reality of the situation.
ReplyDelete2) I think of some of it was an intended reaction, but some of it was definitely due to the absurdity of a 40 year old movie. I personally laughed the first few times we saw the “gore” of the movie, which I'm fairly conceived was watered down ketchup. I also laughed at some of the unnatural 70s acting. Some other moments I think were intended tough. The incompetence of the two news characters I think was intended. I think we’re supposed to laugh at the pathetic zombies as well, which makes the girl and pretty boy’s inability to deal with them even funnier. Someone even points out at some point how slow and harmless the zombies really are.
3) I can't really say for sure right now. Outside of the few hiccups, it's been pretty smooth sailing for the crew. The couple of serious issues we see come up in the opening scene in the news room and the way people treat zombies. Questions like “Are zombies still people” and “Should we kill them all” are pretty interesting to think about. The chaos of the news room scene shows how completely unprepared humans are for a sudden apocalyptic level disaster, even with all the apocalypse movies showing us what could happen. It's also interesting to see that the two soldiers and the two news crew characters think it's better to go out on their own rather than stay with some larger group. It forms a nice dynamic with The Road, where we've already asked questions on the feasibility of groups vs. staying alone in terms of surviving.
Well this movie is certainly...outdated. Compared to the movies of the present this movie's visual effects seem more like a joke than as if it were intended. To know this movie is the Zombie Apocalypse movie that started it all is quite interesting. My initial reaction to this movie is that is is poorly made and comical to watch due to its quality. However this movie was likely horrifying at its time because that was the visual effects that gave people nightmares and such back then. When taking that into account this movie isn't as bad as one would initially think. The story seems kind of straightforward and I feel as though I've been thrown into the middle of an event and it it unclear to me how it got to this point or what is exactly happening. However this is a sequel which would explain the confusing of not knowing the origin of the apocalypse. The scene where Peter finds a room full of zombies eating human remains was the one that stuck with me the most. Peter looked very pained to be shooting the zombies. It shows how he made the connection that these were once real people.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe the original purpose of this movie was to draw laughter from the audience. The scene with Peter described above is prime evidence of this. This scene has such a serious atmosphere to it that I doubt was meant to be comical. Another scene where the military is in the hotel and the black women is thrown into the hall and into the arms of a zombie who then begins to eat her is another example. Though the visual effects are very out of date, I believe the director intended for this scene to be absolutely horrifying. The laughter that comes alone with this move is the result of it being so out of date. We have seen much more CGI enhanced horror movies that anything less than what we have scene, particularly this movie, comes off as comical.
Once again the scene with Peter comes into play. This movie has raised an interesting questions: do they morals of killing another human being apply to the undead? Peter feels as though they do, which is why he is so pained to kill the zombies he finds, even though they would kill him without remorse. However we later see the rednecks treating the zombies as target practice and a fun game. We also see the military soldiers taking pictures and seemingly having a great time during the midst of the apocalypse. I do believe something serious is going on (besides the fact that the world is ending) however not everyone in the movie realizes or even cares about the moral issue behind the killing of the undead.