In my final semester of college I found myself on a zombie kick. I searched out and bought many zombie movies and even starred in an independent film as the evil doctor that began transforming unsuspecting people into zombies (The 23rd Hour). Production on the 23rd hour was brought to a halt for reasons unknown (talk to the director and 2nd zombie Brian O'Neil). In fact I owe much of my new found enthusiasm for zombie media to Brian. I began to think about what makes these films and this whole genre appealing to me.
I think what stood out the most to me, what was most appealing in a zombie apocalypse is the total lawlessness. Due to the lack of a governing body, a surviving human can do pretty much whatever they want. There's no more commerce so you don't have to buy anything. It's all about survival. The best example of this lawlessness put to the test is in Dawn of the Dead (2004). A bunch of survivors hauled up in a shopping mall have access to all the merchandise located in the mall. The survivors find many leisurely uses for most of this merchandise as well as creative defensive and offensive uses.
Thomas Hobbs, a philosopher wrote much about the natural state of humanity. The basis of his arguments is that without a governing body, human beings revert back to their natural state, and it's utter chaos. While the absence of a governing body allows for humans to have access to unlimited liberty, you simply cannot trust human beings with unlimited liberty, because their natural state is a harsh, dog-eat-dog one (With a zombie twist it's human-eat-human, or zombie-eat-human, shut up).
What's interesting is that in a zombie apocalypse (in contrast to Hobbs) surviving human beings are depicted as compassionate and cooperative, perhaps believing that their chances for survival increase with the addition of new survivors. In that sense you could argue that humans are viewing other survivors perhaps as resources themselves. A means to an end, and the end result is hopefully survival. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and believe that they have a philanthropic interest to help other survivors.
When healthy persons are bitten, interesting dilemmas unfold. The remaining party knows infection is inevitable, yet may hesitate on killing the person while they offer no resistance. This matter is especially complicated if the infected is of significance to another member in the party (perhaps kin, a best friend, or lover). That person may have an extremely difficult time embracing the reality of the situation and could compromise the entire group.
Different films have differing views on infection. It's almost universal that zombies bite to transmit the virus that will eventually "turn" a healthy human into a zombie. One of the only exceptions coming to mind is 28 days later in which a drop of blood from a dead zombie corpse improbably drops from a lamp post into the semi-permeable membranes of an unlucky gentleman's eyeball, creating a systemic infection.
Also what differs from film to film is the amount of time from initial infection until symptoms begin, and full on zombie. Most films explain this with respect to the location and severity of the bite. Generally bites involving the thorax, face, neck, and head result in more rapid transformation (as these areas are more vascular i.e. have greater blood supply) versus bites on the limbs.
Dawn of the Dead (2004) was also one of the first films to include running zombies. This was a an interesting and intense development that catapulted zombie films as we know them. The prevailing logic is that walking, lethargic, groaning zombies were easier to elude, (and less terrifying) than screaming, sprinting, flailing zombies.
Zombies have infected their way into pop-culture and in true zombie form refuse to die or go away. They even have their place in the literary world with Max Brooks (2003) The Zombie Survival Guide providing the how-to for the everyman to survive the zombie apocalypse. For whatever reason this book found its way into the fiction section rather than the How-to section.
I think what stood out the most to me, what was most appealing in a zombie apocalypse is the total lawlessness. Due to the lack of a governing body, a surviving human can do pretty much whatever they want. There's no more commerce so you don't have to buy anything. It's all about survival. The best example of this lawlessness put to the test is in Dawn of the Dead (2004). A bunch of survivors hauled up in a shopping mall have access to all the merchandise located in the mall. The survivors find many leisurely uses for most of this merchandise as well as creative defensive and offensive uses.
Thomas Hobbs, a philosopher wrote much about the natural state of humanity. The basis of his arguments is that without a governing body, human beings revert back to their natural state, and it's utter chaos. While the absence of a governing body allows for humans to have access to unlimited liberty, you simply cannot trust human beings with unlimited liberty, because their natural state is a harsh, dog-eat-dog one (With a zombie twist it's human-eat-human, or zombie-eat-human, shut up).
What's interesting is that in a zombie apocalypse (in contrast to Hobbs) surviving human beings are depicted as compassionate and cooperative, perhaps believing that their chances for survival increase with the addition of new survivors. In that sense you could argue that humans are viewing other survivors perhaps as resources themselves. A means to an end, and the end result is hopefully survival. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and believe that they have a philanthropic interest to help other survivors.
When healthy persons are bitten, interesting dilemmas unfold. The remaining party knows infection is inevitable, yet may hesitate on killing the person while they offer no resistance. This matter is especially complicated if the infected is of significance to another member in the party (perhaps kin, a best friend, or lover). That person may have an extremely difficult time embracing the reality of the situation and could compromise the entire group.
Different films have differing views on infection. It's almost universal that zombies bite to transmit the virus that will eventually "turn" a healthy human into a zombie. One of the only exceptions coming to mind is 28 days later in which a drop of blood from a dead zombie corpse improbably drops from a lamp post into the semi-permeable membranes of an unlucky gentleman's eyeball, creating a systemic infection.
Also what differs from film to film is the amount of time from initial infection until symptoms begin, and full on zombie. Most films explain this with respect to the location and severity of the bite. Generally bites involving the thorax, face, neck, and head result in more rapid transformation (as these areas are more vascular i.e. have greater blood supply) versus bites on the limbs.
Dawn of the Dead (2004) was also one of the first films to include running zombies. This was a an interesting and intense development that catapulted zombie films as we know them. The prevailing logic is that walking, lethargic, groaning zombies were easier to elude, (and less terrifying) than screaming, sprinting, flailing zombies.
Zombies have infected their way into pop-culture and in true zombie form refuse to die or go away. They even have their place in the literary world with Max Brooks (2003) The Zombie Survival Guide providing the how-to for the everyman to survive the zombie apocalypse. For whatever reason this book found its way into the fiction section rather than the How-to section.
No comments:
Post a Comment