Blog 5. Dawn of the Dead (cont).
We didn't just make this up: Dawn of the Dead is a critically regarded film. Here is a quick assessment by Dave Kehr. It'll take you a minute to read it. Here's a longer review by Roger Ebert; read it too... And from Slant Magazine.
So...
1. Go back to last night's blog and read Sofia's post (it's the ninth one). What do you say in response to what she wrote? Agree? Disagree? Why?
2. Clark said after class, "The fate of the characters in Dawn of the Dead is much worse than the fate of the characters in The Road." Now why would he say that? What makes living in a shopping mall worse than living on the road? And would you agree with him?
3. Who is the hero of Dawn of the Dead? And how so?
200 words: seriously.
Tomorrow we will talk for 50-60 minutes. Then in a change from the syllabus, we will begin Snowpiercer. Here is the trailer. See you all tomorrow.
So...
1. Go back to last night's blog and read Sofia's post (it's the ninth one). What do you say in response to what she wrote? Agree? Disagree? Why?
2. Clark said after class, "The fate of the characters in Dawn of the Dead is much worse than the fate of the characters in The Road." Now why would he say that? What makes living in a shopping mall worse than living on the road? And would you agree with him?
3. Who is the hero of Dawn of the Dead? And how so?
200 words: seriously.
Tomorrow we will talk for 50-60 minutes. Then in a change from the syllabus, we will begin Snowpiercer. Here is the trailer. See you all tomorrow.
1. After rereading my post, I thought a little more about how the characters faced death. As I said earlier, Peter hesitates when he has to kill the zombies. By the end of the movie, though, they are all murdering the zombies, even if the zombies aren't hurting them. Peter, Roger, Steven, and Fran are safe on the floor that they broke into, but they still want to force all of the zombies out of the mall so that it is easier for them to go around to the department stores. Their attitudes about murdering zombies really changed throughout the movie.
ReplyDelete2. I agree with Clark, because I think that the characters in The Road have less guilt and more hope for the future. The Boy stresses the importance that the family he is deciding to travel with hasn't and will not eat humans. Even though they will die eventually, he doesn't want to have to live by killing others. However, in Dawn of the Dead, the characters murder the zombies in the shopping mall, even if they aren't hurting them. A zombie might be 500 feet away and not attacking them, but the characters still killed them. Even though the characters from The Road have to face starvation and danger from cannibals, The Boy chooses to not hurt others. And even if he did, it would be because he was starving. The characters in Dawn of the Dead murder the zombies for no reason, as they are not dangerous or nutritious to them. Also, Peter has to shoot both Roger and Steven once they become zombies. He does this because he doesn't want them to have live with the purpose to eat people, even if they aren't aware that they are doing this. The characters in The Road do not face this. The only time that someone voluntarily dies was when The Woman committed suicide. She died because it was too hard for her to live, but Peter has to kill his friend because he doesn't want them to have to live as a zombie. The characters in Dawn of the Dead are fortunate that they are healthy and can survive very easily, so when they are wrongly murdering people, this really shows how much worse their actions are.
3. To me, I don't understand why every movie or text needs a hero. When you go into a movie with the idea that there is a hero, then unless there is a textbook version of the hero of every Disney movie, you may choose to enhance the slightly-heroic actions of someone and look past the other actions of that character. If I had to say there is a hero, then I'd say that both Fran and Peter would be the heroes. Peter protects Roger by calming him down so that he doesn't get too excited and think that he is more powerful than the zombies. Also, Peter is the only character who uses judgement before acting. When the motorcade attacks the mall, Peter waits to fight them. Fran is also the only character to really understand the zombies, and empathize with them. Fran protects and cares for her friends. But, Peter and Fran also murdered many of the zombies. Peter, Roger, and Steven physically kill the zombies, which is very sad and awful. Fran doesn't directly kill the zombies, but she doesn't stop the other characters from doing so. Because of this, I wouldn't say that Fran or Peter are the heroes. And I don't even believe that a story has to have a hero. In Mad Max, Nux dies because he wanted to help the wives and Furiosa get to safety. We are able to watch Nux in comparison to Immortan Joe, to see that there are still good people to contrast an army that subjugated the women who are trying to find safety. Nux did act heroically, as he was able to help others, but he didn't have a problem using Max as a blood bag in the beginning. I believe that directors have heroes in movies so that people can rest assured that there are good people. By doing this, you can pretend not to notice the fact that, for example, Fran and Peter did murder the zombies.
1) I both agree and disagree with Sofia on the topic of child zombies. Yes, they were originally naive little children, but they are also zombies. In the situation of being attacked by zombies, you must do what you need to do to survive. Some may say that child zombies are innocent and don't deserve to die because they don't know any better, but they will still attack the first human they come across. Although they may be young, they are no longer human children. In my opinion, the fact that child zombies can't help the single desire to eat humans does not make them more innocent. It just makes them even more scary and dangerous. The hesitation to kill them could be your last action. I guess now that I've laid out my argument, I disagree with Sofia.
ReplyDelete2) The fate of those in “Dawn of the Dead” is MUCH worse than that of those in “The Road.” In “Dawn,” there is no death. Once you are eaten by a zombie, which is bound to happen at some point in time, you come back “undead.” In a sense, you still have to live, but in a much more horrific life. You are no longer human. Those eaten by zombies become monsters who will hopefully have the fate of actually being killed to end their suffering. In “The Road,” at least people know that if they do die by suicide, cannibals, or natural causes, they won't be reborn. They will have escaped the sufferings of the world for good.
3) I would say the hero of “Dawn of the Dead” is Peter. He, despite the constant threat of zombies, still remains somewhat ethical. He does not kill for sport; he kills to survive. He also looks out for his three (soon to be one) companions. He serves dinner to Stephen and Fran, buries Roger after he became a zombie, and is the most skilled out of the group. He even kills Roger, his best friend, for the benefit of the group. He stays focused and is one of the few human remainders who don't treat the apocalypse as a trigger-happy shooting game.
1 Sofia made a lot of good points. She is particularly perceptive when considering the topic of death. I think she is absolutely right about how watching and experiencing death from the comfort of reality softens the fear and anxiety that we have of it. Some major themes in Dawn of the Dead include death and aspects of human nature such as greed, materialism, and morality/immorality. One of the scariest parts about watching this movie is that we are forced to face the fact that even though zombies were once people just like us, we actually laugh when they are brutally murdered and tortured, and we are disturbed more by human deaths than zombie deaths. We see the zombies as the enemy even though they were once just like us, because we don't want to admit that the real wrongdoers throughout the movie were the healthy humans, like us.
ReplyDelete2 I would not agree with that statement; however, I can understand why one would feel that way. Living in a shopping mall made Fran, Peter, Stephen, and Roger face their own greed, This greed consumed them, blurring their logic as they stole money, jewelry, and other useless luxuries. This is because while living in a shopping mall is filled with frivolities and necessities alike, providing a surprisingly comfortable quality of life, it also allows hope to find its way in, which can be dangerous. The characters were even dining in a restaurant, because even though the outside world was nightmarish, they could not escape the pleasures of the pre-apocalyptic world, which (wether wanted or not) gave the characters tangible hope of the world reversing back to the way it was.
3 Fran is the real hero of Dawn of the Dead. She underwent the most dramatic character development, because she started out weak and incompetent, but ended up saving both herself and Peter. She was persistent in begging Roger to teach her to fly the helicopter, which was the only reason they survived. She was also determined to use a gun and help devise plans, which saved lives, and it turned out she was more useful and accurate with a gun than Roger! She stayed sane and reasonable throughout the whole movie, and even though Peter is clearly the strongest character physically, mentally, and strategically, he would not have survived without Fran, and the others (who sadly didn't make it) would not have lasted nearly as long without her either.
Sofia posed an idea that hadn't occurred to me before: Is it hard for the humans to kill the zombies? It is evident in the movie that the humans don't have a problem with emotionally detaching from killing zombies because they shoot them like they are characters in a video game. However, like Sofia mentioned, there are two instances in which either Peter or Fran seem to think twice when looking in the faces of the zombies. I strongly agree with her point that it's easy to detach from dark subjects like death (or the end of the world) when we watch an overly dramatic movie. It might have been Romero's intention to dramaticize death so that the audience isn't so distracted by mourning over the death of characters that they miss the real message of the movie-- our human nature is to still obsess over material goods in the wake of a life or death situation. Finally, I agree with her final point that this movie shows how humans are never content with what they already have. We always want more, and we will do anything to get more.
ReplyDeleteI would actually disagree with Clark on this one (sorry Clark!). Let me get one thing straight: I hate everything about malls and department stores. But these characters are in good health and they have a helicopter with a seemingly endless supply of weapons. They even have the ability to find a safe haven in which they could survive and reproduce to create a new society! Also, Fran and Peter were finally able to reject their materialistic tendencies and focus on saving their lives. The characters in the road looked like they were about to die any minute. Now, maybe Clark is talking about how if the characters were stuck in a mall for the rest of their lives, then their lives would be worse than living outside in the setting of The Road. That makes sense, because I feel like a connection to nature is integral for any sort of meaningful life.
I am always a supporter of the silent hero, and I feel as though Fran fits this role. Peter definitely saves the day and has many heroic qualities because he doesn't get as wrapped up in the fun of killing zombies as Roger does. However, Fran doesn't ever beg for attention-- she just asks for respect. She stands on the roof with a rifle and shoots the zombies that are going after Roger's leg without any of the men knowing. Saving the day without the acknowledgement or praise of other people is a sure sign of a hero.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. While Sofia made many arguments, one that was particularly striking to me was her analysis of the film's violence. She reveals that violence is not only simply depressing, but how violence lends itself to a sort of catharsis and even how it ultimately reveals the depravity of American society. I not only agree with Sofia, but I think the delicate interplay she highlights is critical to a discussion of the film.
ReplyDeleteA key scene that Sofia discusses is when Peter hesitates to kill the children; I believe, like her, that this a moment when Peter -- and the viewer -- is forced to recognize that even though the dead are mindless, they are still human. This scene finds a parallel as Fran looks through the glass door of the department store; she too recognizes the humanity in the characters. The dead, in a way, are portrayed as victims -- mindless "machines" of instinct that are condemned to roam the earth for eternity.
I think the comedic nature of Romero's portrayal of the dead is supposed to further reveal the dead's true status as the victim of the film; as they struggle to make it up the stairs or fall over without reason, it engenders a sense of absurdity onto the situation that helps reveal how the dead really are not a threat to the living. If the characters simply took what they needed, they never would have run into more of the dead than they could handle. Instead, because of their untold greed, they were constantly battling unnecessary treats.
Finally, I think that as the violence and gore ultimately provides a jolt of adrenaline and a sort of catharsis, it further highlights what Romero is attempting to say. We, humans, are the morally depraved. We are the ones that take pleasure in seeing death and destruction. The dead are the victims -- target practice for survivors mad with bloodlust.
Romero's vision of moral depravity finds strengthening evidence not only in the characters' embrace of consumerism; how they had nice dinners and took money and clothes even though the world was ending, but also finds evidence in how Fran and Peter take up the roles mandated for them given their race and sex -- Fran makes dinner while the men play poker and Peter serves Fran and Steven dinner.
I have to go to dinner now but I'm posting this so it doesn't disappear. I'll finish later
2. I don't agree, but just because I'm still a consumerist at heart -- I'd much rather have those goods around me and be morally depraved then not have them and be "freer," so to speak. Even though life in "Dawn of the Dead" is meaningless, so is life in "The Road" as characters all slowly slide into cannibalism and violence. The world is doomed in both films -- thus my choice to remain entrenched in things I once found value in rather then try and forge my way anew in an effort that is destined to fail.
ReplyDelete3. I take full responsibility in that this is a cop out answer, but I think Fran and Peter are the hero together. As a woman and a black man, they both liberate themselves from the micro-aggressions and ultimate oppression that they faced throughout their lives -- giving a slice of hope for the audience that the moral depravity of the world is somewhat solvable.
I both agree and disagree with Sophia. Her blog brought up the point of the death in this movie is reoccurring so often that it has no meaning anymore. I totally agree with that point, and I was questioning before why they made the death of the zombies just without purpose. Now I see that it is because they want you to worry about the bigger picture instead of getting caught up with one zombies death. The thing I don't agree with is the killing of the zombie children. To me, it's not fair to call these children because it isn't them. I agree that Peter is one of the better people in this movie but that scene didn't show me that. That scene showed me that he has morals but in the end they are zombies and it's a life or death situation.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure I can say I agree or disagree with this point. In "Dawn of the Dead" you know that you will inevitably get eaten and be put through an excruciating amount of pain to turn into this thing. Your lifeless body may wander around forever or you will get shot in the head. On the other hand, in "The Road" you are either the prey or the predator. You are spending you short life dying of starvation and running away from gangs. Once you die, you will probably get eaten by the first cannibal that finds you. Honestly neither of these sound like a party, and I think they are probably on the same level of unfortunate.
To me, Fran is the hero in this movie. Although Peter did some great things like looking after his friends and burying them after death, Fran went though a huge character change. Fran stands up for herself and really learns a lot, from flying a helicopter to teacher herself to shoot a gun. She started off weak and helpless but when Roger and Peter were moving the trucks, they were lucky to have her shooting from the roof
1. Wow. Sofia’s points about the apparent glorification of death and it’s commonness throughout the movie and the media opened my eyes to the subject that I had really never put much thought into before. Looking back on some of my favorite action and adventure movies, I now realize how much killing is present. And with those movies and tv shows, much of the killing does not advance the plot and often doesn’t add to the development of the characters. So yes I agree with Sofia. Also, I’m just realizing that with all the extra deaths in my favorite movies and tv shows, those characters that don’t have a major role and end up dying still have families, still have people that their death will affect.
ReplyDelete2. Clark, I don’t know what possessed you to utter this blasphemous remark, but you may need to see a doctor or an exorcist or something. I can’t see how living in a shopping mall would be worse than the man and the boy’s life in The Road. The characters in Dawn of the Dead clearly are living a much better life than the boy and the man. They aren’t starving, they are living in relative comfort (just look at that apartment), they don’t have many opponents and the zombies they have to kill are stupid and slow. If I had to choose one of the two settings, I would definitely go with the shopping mall because of the better prospects for life it offers.
3. To me, Peter is the hero of this movie, with Fran right behind, He’s the character the movie spends the most time developing and he is the smartest and most effective member of those who were on the helicopter. He doesn’t make stupid mistakes like Roger and Stephen, is the smartest in terms of pure survival, and has an underrated comedic aspect to his character. What’s not to like?
ReplyDeleteHmm...Peter is a very complex character which makes it hard for me to form a definitive answer. I don't agree with Sofia’s initial reaction that Peter is as good person. While I understand that Peter and Roger had to protect themselves in the mall scene by banging on the door to entice the zombies and therefore distract them from their exit, his lack of empathy for the zombies stuck with me. His unapologetic attitude he carries when he kills or teases the zombies made me hate him, but at the same time though, I liked him (I know i'm contradicting myself) To be honest, I loved his endearing nicknames and the compassion he displayed towards his companions. However, I do agree with her assessment of the death; so many consumerism traps make light of death. While death it a facet of life and is inevitable, it's not something that should be made light of. Death is tragic, painful and heartbreaking, not fun, exciting and exhilarating. In a way, by stating what I have above, I am condemning the movies we have watched, but in all honesty for the most part I have enjoyed them. And that's what's scary.
In my opinion, Clark’s statement attested to the ramifications of consumerism and the concept of death within that. As we've mentioned in class and in blog posts, Romero subtly questions what it means to live in a consumerist society and the effect it has on our lives. In American society, much emphasis is placed on the latest new iPhone or the brand of clothing one wears and when these items break, all one has to do is buy a new one. So in a way, by buying into this philosophy, we have inherently made items dispensable. In The Dawn of the Dead, the zombies are dispensable as with death. The characters view them as meaningless individuals who don't deserve a fair killing; to them (Fran, Peter, etc), the zombies don't warrant their attention and instead warrant a merciless death. When one zombie dies, it's easy to find another one. Here, death is a game and in many cases is undneeded, whereas in The Road, death (with the exception of the ‘bad people’) comes as a result of defeat constituted from nature. In The Road, death comes with compassion, love and sorrow. It's not initiated with arrogance and lack of empathy whereas in The Dawn of the Dead, death is a sadistic ploy. So yes, I agree with Clark’s statement.
As Sofia says, “Why does there have to be a hero in a movie? Isn't that just putting people into boxes?” When you make someone a hero, you put them on a pedestal and that is dangerous. Byreferring to them in a positive light, it makes it easy to ignore the bad decisions that they make and instead makes them “pure”. So, in my eyes, there is no apparent hero in this film. Each character has faults that initiates their demise whether it be Roger’s love of “fun killing” or Steven’s oblivion and lack of competent thought in times of crisis. Even Fran and Peter make decisions that costs lives. Fran didn't question the routine killings of the zombies and Peter was part of the death machine. To standby and not question the horrific nature of the zombies' deaths discounts anyone's ability to be a hero.
Overall I would say I agree with the premise that Sophia sets forward. We are so far apart from the characters in the situations in this movie that it's hard to really feel scared in our own mind for a zombie apocalypse. It's not that were forgetting that these zombies once had families and once lived normal lives and we're the filing their bodies by blowing their heads off. The movie doesn't tell us to think about those things and uses them as a stand-in to let out our pent up anger as a society. In fact the movie tells us not to think about those things when the scientist on the TV repeatedly emphasizes the fact that they have no emotions and are not human and when the cop at the beginning discounted the priest for thinking there was still dignity and death. I don't think Ramiro intended all incidences to be horrifying but where he might've wanted us to think we were laughing just because of the generational gap in practical effects.
ReplyDeleteIt's going to take quite a bit of convincing for me to side with Clark on this one. I think the possible qualities of life for both parties in the different movies are vastly different. Like I'm sure Clark has an argument but is it surrounding some moral quality of life or chance for a better life I really don't know because I don't really agree.
first off I think we're putting too big of a focus on who the hero is. It's not that important and many stories are written without a hero in mind. But I would say throughout the entire movie we are rooting for both of the surviving characters and I think they are people we like because they survive. If they do dumb things we wouldn't like them and they would die.
Sofia brought up some great points that I didn't even think about during the movie, some of which I agree on and disagree on. The first point had to do with the hesitation in Peter's actions when he had to shoot the child zombies. I think that Sofia's comment: "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." is exactly right, and you can compare it to the other times that he hesitates. Two other times that Peter hesitates to kill zombies are when he has to kill Roger and Stephen. Peter hesitates to kill the children zombies because children are perceived as being innocent, and it is also hard to tell if they are still children or just zombies. Similarly, Peter hesitates to kill Roger and Stephen because they are two people that Peter cared for, and it is hard to tell if they have any of their past self left in them. I disagree with Sofia on the topic of the zombies' mental abilities. The way that Sofia described these zombies were as if they were actually people, and I disagree on that. As described in the movie, these zombies have very low mental capacity and cannot really think, and they are described as being non-humans during the news broadcast when talking about canabalism. Peter is not a better person for not killing the zombies, and he is actually a better person for killing zombies since it removes a threat to the other survivors.
ReplyDeleteI think that the situations in Dawn of the Dead and The Road are so different that it is extremely hard to compare. Survivors in The Road have almost no food, live in very cold weather, and have gangs of cannibals roaming around hunting people. Survivors in Dawn of the Dead will always have to be on the run or barricade themselves into a certain spot, they have millions of zombies roaming the country trying to eat them, but they have more access to food and shelter. The situation in The Road is more "free". There are not that many survivors, so you can pretty much roam wherever you want to. You cannot do this in Dawn of the Dead because the zombies are everywhere, so you are forced to find a spot and stay there. Both of these movies have attempted suicides, but for different reasons. People in The Road want to kill themselves because they are in so much physical pain from starvation and wounds. Dawn of the Dead is different because it seems that people are suffering a mental torture instead of a physical one, since they are so incredibly isolated and they are forced to kill zombies that were once humans. I don't think that these worlds are really comparable, but I would much rather be in the world of Dawn of the Dead rather than be in the world of The Road.
It is hard to decide who the hero of the movie is. My first though was Peter. He was one of the only two competent people in the film (the other being Roger), and he was also the most beneficial to the group. But then I thought about Roger and how beneficial he was to the group, and the fact that he sacrificed his life by securing the mall with the trucks. i can see an argument for Fran being the hero, but there is not way that Stephen is the hero. I would say that Peter is the hero, but I would understand if someone chose somebody else (except for Stephen).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with the idea that apocalypse movies are popular because they allow people to face gruesome things without having the real-life fear, disgust or guilt. After all, tons of people love apocalypse movies, but I doubt anyone watches stories about recent violent crime on the news as an amusing pass time. These movies make death and suffering performative - they make death fun. Death and pain are safe and understandable, and that's appealing in a world where they aren't either of those things. I do think the characters' progressively worse treatment of zombies is important - at the beginning, Peter could nearly shoot them, and at the end he reveled in it. That is, until his own friend became a zombie - then he hesitated. In that moment he switched back to seeing zombies as people, and it made killing more difficult. He then escalates to shooting still living people, and finally, he nearly shoots himself, but he decides that surviving is worth it. I've seen so many films about zombies that emphasize their inhuman nature, so oddly enough, whether or not there was something inherently wrong in shooting a zombie never occurred to me. It's a monster - why would you hesitate? If the zombies are still human, do they have as much a right to kill for food as other people have to kill them in order to avoid being food? How can you survive if you stop to consider the morality of death every time a zombie tries to take a chunk out of you? Is violence the only way to keep existing in this world?
I definitely wouldn't agree that Dawn of the Dead is worse than The Road. I think that Dawn of the Dead had greater potential for loss because there was still food and life and the hope of a future, even as the news agencies declared that survival was impossible, while in The Road there really wasn't much to lose, but I found The Road consistently more horrific because of that lack of possible future. We have characters here eating dinner and dressing up - compared to the father and son looking at their prominent ribs in the mirror? I'd take the former. At least there's potential for survival there.
I'd say that Fran and Peter are both equally heroes of this film. They are willing to let go of their frivolous (Peter) and weak (Fran) mindsets in order to survive. They mourn the dead, and don't pick fights with other survivors and in the end they band together and fly off to find somewhere else to survive, rather than giving up or losing their lives in a firefight with other humans. They choose to learn and to live, and I think that equally qualifies both of them.
I 100% agree with Sofia. Romero definitely intended the laughs and I love her insight into how the audience sort of subconsciously digests the movie by laughing and enjoying the apocalypse within the safety of a theater. I think we are supposed to laugh at how stupid the character can be, but also realize that we are already that stupid! We already fail to consider people around us and fluff our egos with adrenaline by doing dangerous activities that could even lead to our deaths. We already flock to shopping malls and act completely out of greed and selfishness, turning against people who could help us. This movie says so much about our nature already and Romero intended it. Living on the road implies a hope for change and a future while living in a mall would Rene force our societal structure and force the characters to watch the past slowly deteriorate around them while they basically live to die. In the road there was a real will to keep going; it's why the dad and child leave the bunker where everything is comfortable. In this film the characters don't want to leave a place familiar and comfortable to them, the zombies just show it on more of a clear level. Honestly, the more comfortable they got with their situation the more depressing all of it seemed for some reason. They had nothing to live for anymore and no challenges at all. I would say that Peter is the hero of the movie. Thought both him and Francine both have the same insight to the idiocracy of their situation, Peter actively attempts to control the situation. He shoots roger when it is absolutely necessary and attempts to stop David from his reckless retaliation to the humans breaking into the mall. He is willing to shed his comfort to help control the situation around him and finds a will to live. Francine seemed to always be intelligent about their situation but never actively tried to change it with her actions. She always knew that she would have to leave the mall,but Peter took an emotional journey to learn he had to.
ReplyDeleteSofia was absolutely correct on the topic of death in movies. We derive joy in seeing things that we feel could not possibly happen to us, hence why people enjoy watching horror and (post) apocalyptic films. However I do not agree with her opinions on Romero's intent with the move Dawn of the Dead. I feel as though the majority of the movie and the way it was conducted was not meant to be comical. I feel he was trying to make this as horrifying a movie as possible. The only comical part of the movie was when they were having a shopping spree the group went on after securing the mall. I also agree with her views on Peter and how he feels about killing up until a certain point. What's interesting is Peter views on killing changes through the course of the movie. He holds his morals in the beginning of the movie, as we see when he hesitates to kill the zombies. However after coming to the mall, he starts to kill the zombies more and more easily, without batting an eye. He even kills other living human beings. Albeit they threatened his life which would technically justify the killing but to say that he consistently kept his morals about killing would be incorrect. Sofia makes very good arguments nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteClark's argument, on the other hand (sorry big guy), completely threw me off. I don't understand his claim at all. I would say the group in Dawn of the Dead had significantly less suffering than that of The Road. In Dawn of the Dead they have a surplus of materials. Plenty of food, clothing, ammunition for protection, the whole ordeal. The circumstances of their apocalypse is almost on the complete opposite side of the spectrum. I'd love to hear his argument for his statement but until then I'd have to speculate. It's possible that the people of Dawn of the Dead have lost all sense of their humanity and morals. They go on killing sprees to stay alive instead of trying to work together to beat the bigger enemy: the apocalypse. In The Road, the boy never lets go of his morals and wants his father to help people rather than try and eliminate the competition.
The question of "who is the hero" is never an easy one to answer. However I think for this movie, the answer is rather simple. There IS no hero. In my opinion, no one in this movie deserves the title of "hero." Technically some of their actions could be considered heroic however they all pretty much had selfish intent behind it. They all do their fair amount of "life-saving." They all defeat the bad guys (though that brings up another question about who the bad guys actually are, but that's not the question at hand here). Therefore they should all be labeled heroes. Woopdedoo yay for mainstream movies. Unfortunately this is not a mainstream movie in my opinion. They all seem to abandon their morals after living in the mall for so long. And for this reason, they have been stripped of their hero titles and are nothing but physical and mental victims of the apocalypse.
1) I agree mostly with what Sofia posted, but slightly disagree with her point on why apocalypse movies are so appealing. She's definitely right in saying that they're appealing because we can escape a possible reality and enjoy the entertainment aspects of it, but I don't think that's the only, or even the most important, reason why we can enjoy horrible apocalypse movies. I think the main reason is our lack of emotion sympathy for and connection to the people in the movie. I laughed for most of The Road, which is technically a tragic story, but I felt no emotional connection to any of the characters (for a multitude of reasons), so I had no problem laughing at the horrible things that were happening. You feel much more upset when you learn the death of the death of a family member than when you learn about the millions of Russians who died in WWII. You have an emotional connection to your family member, but you know none of the Russians. The Vietnam memorial is notoriously more upsetting than every other war memorial because the names of every dead soldier is listed, which forms a deeper connection than some random statue. The same thing applies to crime shows and apocalypse movies. I don't who the hell any of the zombies are, so I don't feel as upset when they're all killed. There's no connection. Also, there's definitely a sense of outlandish-ness in every apocalypse movie. The thought “That would never happen” always comes across your mind. So it's harder to form a connection to anything in the movie at all.
ReplyDelete2) I'm not sure how to answer this because there are so many different fates for so many different characters. But I'll just establish what I think Clark meant so that I can answer the question. For the characters in The Road, imminent and painful death (not just death, everyone dies) seemed unavoidable – inevitable. There's no food, a bunch of cannibals are running around, and everyone’s socks are disgusting. For the characters in Dawn of the Dead, staying alive and living relatively healthy is a very real possibility. The zombies aren't that hard to handle, and they lived pretty lavishly (at least for a post-apocalyptic world) for a while. I think that makes their story even more depressing in a way. They have so much more hope and their lives are so much better that it sucks even more when shitty things happen to them. I knew the dad in The Road would die eventually, so it didn't affect me as much. But it sucked a lot when Roger died because he had so much more going for him in the movie.
3) This is probably the hardest movie to choose a hero for. If Peter had killed himself and Fran flew away by herself, then I would have chose Fran. But seeing Peter decide not to kill himself and heroically jump onto the plane is leaning me towards him. He was portrayed the entire movie as the strongest of the group and a pseudo-leader, so I was already leaning towards him. It's definitely between Fran and Peter, considering the other two people died.