I had to change around the order of my list for this one, as an unforseen scheduling issue prevented me from seeing it when I originally intended. When I chose to include George A. Romero's Night of the Living Dead in my 2015 Blindspot List, I meant to watch it for Halloween. I had a DVD copy sitting in my drawer for a few years that I had not yet gotten around to watching, along with all the other films on my list. Everything was all worked out, and I'd even developed a few rough ideas of which movies I was going to watch during specific months. Unfortunately, one thing happened I had no way of anticipating: it turned out it was being shown in one of my classes during the last of week of January, and by the time I found out I'd already done my blindspot entry for that month. The simplest solution was to move Night of the Living Dead into February, since I was not sure if I would have time to watch any of the other movies on my list anyway.
Now that I've gotten that out of the way, we can get on with the movie itself. The story is pretty simple, and summed up more or less by the title. Night of the Living Dead takes place over the course of a night, and there are malevolent reanimated human cadavers staggering around. This particular movie does have a certain historical significance from a cultural perspective in that it was responsible for popularizing the modern image of zombies as monstrous flesh-eating corpses. A lot of the groundwork can be seen here, with elements that would get picked up by many later films, particularly in the generally bleak tone as well as the fact that the zombies consume human flesh and can only be killed by destroying their brain. It is also implied that being bit by one turns the victim into a zombie themselves.
There is also one element here that is not as popular in zombie films, though it will no doubt be familiar to viewers of The Walking Dead: everyone is infected. Night of the Living Dead runs with the idea that not only do the protagonists have to worry about the zombies outside, but also each other. The tension that develops among the small group of survivors is what ultimately ends up being their downfall, a theme that would recur prominently in The Walking Dead; a series in which the tension between survivors mounts to a point where the zombies themselves begin to feel more like an annoyance than a serious threat.
There are some sociological issues that should also be addressed regarding Night of the Living Dead. The story is in many ways about twisting social norms of the period, something particularly evident in the decision to focus primarily on a black man, Ben, and a woman, Barbara (who for a large portion of the film are the only two characters). Later on a middle-aged white man tries to take control of the situation for no other reason because that is what he is used to. Ultimately, Ben (Duane Jones) is the person who has to take control of the situation and the one man who knows how to survive. The fact that he is the only one to make it through the night (only to get mistaken for a zombie and shot when help finally arrives) serves to emphasize the point.
However, there is a question of how Romero treats women. While many of his later films make an effort to include stronger female roles (including the remake of Night of the Living Dead, for which he served as executive producer), it is debatable whether that applies here. There are four female characters among the main cast, but the only one who really gets any focus is Barbara, played by Judith O'Dea. While she begins by showing a degree of self-reliance (she manages to work her way to the farmhouse independently, evading a few zombies in the process), she spends the majority of the film in a traumatized state. She is largely unable to think for herself and requires protection from Ben. This aspect is also not helped by the fact that she gets killed just when she starts to get her act together and actually tries to help barricade the house once its down to her and Ben.
As for the rest of the film, I honestly found it to be a bit campy. The ending works to great effect, but I found everything up to it to be very predictable. It was obvious from the moment that little girl was first introduced that she was going to turn out to have been bitten and then turn into a zombie. The zombies themselves were okay, but a lot of the situations seemed contrived; particularly in the ways that certain characters die (what happened to Judy being a perfect example). The acting is okay, though the only two characters that really stand out are Ben and Barbara, with Ben's presence being a nice touch but Barbara could have worked a lot better if she had not spent most of the movie sitting on a couch in a half-delirious state of mind only to get killed off as soon as she actually started to do something useful. The editing is also a bit choppy at times, and there are some jarring inconsistencies (the way that scenes on the television showed things happening in the same area during the day even though this is supposed to be night).
Ultimately, while Night of the Living Dead does have a cultural significance, it really has not aged well. While I can respect the things it does do well, such as Ben's characterization, it ultimately feels extremely contrived with a largely underdeveloped cast. The effects are alright, but sociologically its treatment of women makes it difficult to sit through. It is not a bad movie, though, on account of the things it does get right; it just does not have the same impact it did in 1968. I would be open to seeing the 1990 remake, which I have been told improves on many of the problems of the original (particularly in how Barbara is treated). Perhaps I will respond to that one better.
Yeah, this movie definitely didn't age well at all. I actually think it's pretty terrible, but it does feel important.
ReplyDeleteI can certainly see why you'd feel that way. It's one of those movies where its worth seeing for its historical significance but really doesn't live up to the hype.
DeleteI never had any desire to see this film because of the zombie motif and I knew women would be portrayed as weaklings because it is still the 1960's and that thought was still prevalent...hell it often is now
ReplyDeleteIn that case, I would strongly recommend checking out the remake. It actually does manage to make some significant improvements in the treatment of its female characters (particularly Barbara) while still preserving the stuff that made the original as progressive as it was (namely Ben).
DeleteI haven't seen this one, or the remake, but I've always intended to. It's a shame that these films don't hold up as strongly as they should, but they were trail blazers. That's kind of how I feel about my Blind Spot this month as well.
ReplyDeleteWell, in that sense it's still worth watching. Night of the Living Dead might not be as scary today as it was in 1968, but watching it you can see how it influenced many later (and in some cases far better) projects. The remake is actually much better, especially in its treatment of women.
DeleteI actually think the film holds up well for what it is, plus the social commentary about race and gender is still relevant today. However, I can see why you would be let down by the film.
ReplyDeleteI don't know about gender, but I can see why the film's surprisingly progressive treatment of Ben can seem relevant in today's world. While we may have made some good progress since Birth of a Nation there are still inequalities with how people of color are treated on film.
DeleteThis is my favorite zombie movie and one of the first horror movies I saw. You bring up solid points about the role of women in the movie that were in the back of my head while watching it.
ReplyDeleteI still have a fond love for the movie because of nostalgia and just the vibe it gives off.