#CinemaRevival
NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD
by George A. Romero
One of the most successful independent films ever made: George A. Romero’s grim horror classic brought Zombies (though the word is never used) to the mainstream, and changed the horror genre for years to come.
Synopsis: There is panic throughout the nation as the dead suddenly come back to life. The film follows a group of characters who barricade themselves in an old farmhouse in an attempt to remain safe from these flesh eating monsters.
REASONS TO WATCH
– One of the first films to graphically depict violent murders on screen. It is also one of the first films to have an African-American main character.
– This was one of the first films added to the National Film Registry of the Library of Congress.
– It was completed on a $114,000 budget and premiered October 1, 1968. The film became a financial success, grossing $12 million domestically and $18 million internationally. It has been a cult classic ever since.
– George A. Romero saw very little profit from the film when thanks to his lack of knowledge regarding distribution deals, the distributors walked away with practically all of the profits.
– The moment they finished editing the film in Pittsburgh, they put the reels into the cans, threw it into the trunk of the car and drove straight to New York City that night in hopes of having it screen at any willing cinema (true independent spirit, and an inspiration for countless low-budget filmmakers to come!)
NOTES
***Includes spoliers*** The social commentary on racism some have seen in this film was never intended (an African-American man holing up in a house with a white woman, a posse of whites shooting a black man in the head without first checking to see if he was a zombie). According to the filmmakers, Duane Jones was simply the best actor for the part of Ben.
Since the release, some critics and film historians have seen ‘Night of the Living Dead’ as a subversive film that critiques 1960s American society, international Cold War politics and domestic racism. Elliot Stein of ‘The Village Voice’ saw the film as an ardent critique of American involvement in the Vietnam War, arguing that it “was not set in Transylvania, but Pennsylvania – this was Middle America at war, and the zombie carnage seemed a grotesque echo of the conflict then raging in Vietnam”. Film historian Sumiko Higashi concurs, arguing that ‘Night of the Living Dead’ was a film about the horrors of the Vietnam era. While she admits that “there are no Vietnamese in ‘Night of the Living Dead’. They constitute an absent presence whose significance can be understood if narrative is construed”. She points to aspects of the Vietnam War paralleled in the film: grainy black-and-white newsreels, search and destroy operations, helicopters, and graphic carnage. In the 2009 documentary ‘Nightmares in Red, White and Blue’, the zombies in the film are compared to the “silent majority” of the U.S. in the late 1960s.
While George Romero denies he hired Duane Jones simply because he was black, reviewer Mark Deming notes that “the grim fate of Duane Jones, the sole heroic figure and only African-American, had added resonance with the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X fresh in the minds of most Americans”. Stein adds, “In this first-ever subversive horror movie, the resourceful black hero survives the zombies only to be killed by a redneck posse”. The deaths of Ben, Barbra and the supporting cast offered audiences an uncomfortable, nihilistic glimpse unusual for the genre.
Other prevalent themes included “disillusionment with government and patriarchal nuclear family” and “the flaws inherent in the media, local and federal government agencies, and the entire mechanism of civil defence”. Film historian Linda Badley explains that the film was so horrifying because the monsters were not creatures from outer space or some exotic environment, “They’re us”.Romero confessed that the film was designed to reflect the tensions of the time: “It was 1968, man. Everybody had a ‘message’. The anger and attitude and all that’s there is just because it was the Sixties. We lived at the farmhouse, so we were always into raps about the implication and the meaning, so some of that crept in”.
Respected commentators Locke, Sutter, Giddins, and Daniel continue their claim that this film is worth praise as it is both ground-breaking and thought-provoking. Their assertion is framed to suggest that the film demystifies the discourse pertaining to humanity’s disregard, aversion, and perhaps, loathing, directed towards others outside their social realm from the halls of academia and into the homes of the viewer for reflective analysis.
If you wish to discuss the film, leave us a comment on Facebook or Twitter using #CinemaRevival
Enjoy the film!