The question was asked of me on Facebook this morning. "In relation to film, what defines a zombie?" I immediately opened my mouth to answer, but then realized that would be stupid; she lives on the other side of the state & would never hear me. So I put my fingers to work on typing. Before I knew it, her Facebook comment section was much too large and looked like a wall of text. So, here we are at my blog. And here is my answer.
In relation to film, zombies have been presented in various ways. The most common, at least as it pertains to the modern zombie genre, is an out-of-control virus. Sometimes on film it's due to mysticism (voodoo, inspired by Haitian folklore) or something of a Biblical nature. Although the origin of the film zombie may vary, the one absolute that they all share is their need for cannibalism. The taste of human flesh (and sometimes brains; more on this later).
So the first thing that defines a zombie is a hunger for manflesh, and I suppose certain parts of woman-flesh, (what, you haven't heard of a zombie romance before?).
The rest of the zombie qualities vary, often from filmmaker to filmmaker, much like vampires do. Thankfully, to my knowledge, there have been no sightings of sparkly zombies yet. Let's examine a few films and see what we get.
"Rule #2: Double Tap"
.jpg)
Frankenstein's Monster (who many foolishly refer to as "Frankenstein") is perhaps one of the earliest examples of a zombie in fiction. Based on Mary Schelley's book of the same name, Frankenstein is, in essence, a re-animated corpse. Built from the pieces of buried people, the monster is reanimated by a bolt of lightning. In most versions, the Frankenstein Monster is not a flesh-eater, and therefore may not be considered by many to be a "zombie" in the sense that we know them now. I would argue that perhaps the concept of eating human flesh had not yet been introduced into fiction, and I thus would give him a pass. To me, Frankenstein's Monster is a zombie. But can we use him as a baseline for all others to be compared to? Your milage may vary here. While we ponder that (you're thinking of Herman Munster as a zombie now, aren't you?), let's take a look at another cinematic entry.
1932's "White Zombie" (not to be confused with the band, who's lead singer still sings about Living Dead Girl(s) ) is often cited as the first full-length zombie film. Critics hated it in 1932, but it has found a cult following here in 2012. I have not watched it, but wikipedia tells me that it tells the story of a married woman who dies and is then turned into a zombie by an evil voodoo master (is there any other kind?). This obviously follows the Haitian folklore of zombification as it relates to mysticism. According to wikipedia, the eating of flesh does not appear in this film; rather, the voodoo master uses his zombies as slaves for his bidding (I'll leave that up to your imagination).
I'm starting to contradict myself here. "But James, didn't you say they were all cannibals?" Read on, dear reader.
"Rule # 7: Travel Light"
In 1968, filmmaker George A. Romero changed the landscape of modern zombie horror forever. 1968's "Night of the Living Dead", in glorious black & white, gave audiences a new kind of horror: re-animated corpses that literally dug out of their own fucking graves. A few fleshy civilians become trapped in a farmhouse while a legion of the undead try frantically to get inside. "Night of the Living Dead", inspired in part by the novel "I Am Legend" (more on the film version of "Legend coming up), introduced audiences to a new brand of terror. There was no ratings system in those days, so children bought tickets right alongside adults. And people were scared out of their minds.
While trapped in the farmhouse, a radio can be heard giving us a typical 1960's reason for these events--radioactive contamination occurred when a space probe returning from Venus exploded in Earth's atmosphere--but audiences were hooked. The modern zombie genre was just beginning, and these zombies were hungry for your fleshy bits. And in a turn that was controversial at the time, none of the humans made it out alive (although some were turned to zombies). Interestingly, Romero would later craft a sequel, "Return of the Living Dead", which introduced audiences to the brain-eating zombie. This is a trait that has remained in popular takes on the genre.
So, we've established 3 common zombie takes: Re-animated Corpse, Cannibalism, and brain devouring. We've discovered that zombies sometimes come back due to science (Frankenstein), mysticism (White Zombie), and even Venus juice (Night of the Living Dead). But is that all that defines a zombie?
"Rule #31: Check The Back Seat"
Romero would go on to make many sequels to his iconic. "Night of", including helming a remake. The market grew tired of zombies through the 80's, with at least one zombie film going into camp territory with the zombies actually chanting "Brains!!!". The age of the vampire began in the 90's, and zombies were a bit forgotten.
Along came "28 Days Later" in 2002 (America would not see this until 2003). Although it had been touched on in literature & film before, "28 Days" introduced the world at large to "zombie by infection." The film introduces us to the "Rage Virus", which, once exposed, takes over your body in approximately 30 seconds. This concept was terrifying to many because it's a plausible scenario. We can contract rabies & lose our minds already, but the thought of a virus that turns you into a zombie? Kinda scary.
Now, I am not what you would call a zombie afficionado; there's LOTS I haven't read or watched. But this was, for me, the first instance of seeing zombies that can run, zombies that will chase you down. '68's "Night of the Living Dead" was scary because the zombies were so many; in "28 Days Later", a single zombie could take a room full of people. There is much debate on whether a virus-induced condition can define one as a zombie. And it's an excellent question. My answer is: maybe. A virus-induced zombification could lead one to take on zombie-like qualities, but is this much different than an extreme case of rabies? Of someone driven so mad that they attack on instinct and eat human flesh? It could go either way, really. Whether through folklore or cinematic exposure, I'm inclined to think that people imagine corpses digging out from their graves when the word "zombie" appears in their mind; but then, current zombie trends always begin with a virus.
We'll call this one a wash, with a slight slant towards zombie.
This brings us to the following: zombies share a taste for Kentucky Fried Human, they are re-animated corpses, they sometimes share a love for brains, and they are typically brought about through mystical or scientific means. At this point, we've seen all the variations, right?
Wrong.
"Rule #34: Clean Socks"
2007 brought us another variation: the thinking man's zombie.The Will Smith vehicle, "I Am Legend", is a film adaptation of the novel of the same name, with some slight variations. The novel, set in Los Angeles, describes a man named Robert Neville who is the last man alive in the city. The novel describes the antagonists as "vampires", not zombies, and Neville even takes to guarding himself with garlic and crucifixes. During the day he hunts them, driving stakes through their heart.
The film version is much more ambiguous, although the "darkseekers", as Smith's Neville come to call them, are said to be predatory & "vampiric in nature." The film is about a scientist, the last man alive in New York City instead of the novel's Los Angeles setting, who is trying to cure the disease that has transformed the population into these vampiric zombies. Unfortunately, the film misses the point of the novel completely; in the end, he sacrifices his life to stop the creatures so that a woman & her daughter can deliver his cure to a survival camp, thus making Neville a legend in human history. The alternate ending, which is much closer to the novel, is better; while searching for the cure, Neville ensnares a female "vampire / zombie" in a trap to conduct his experiment. Later, wesee the "darkseekers" set a similar trap for Neville. In the alternate ending, during the attack on his home, one of the vampiric zombies comes forth, showing actual concern for the female. Neville has now realized that these creatures have their own "society", so to speak, and that he is the true monster of the story. While they were like bogeymen to Neville, he was the one attempting to snuff them out. He was the monster they would warn their young about; Neville had become a monster of legend, in their eyes. This is in line with the ending of the book; he's not OUR legend for finding a cure (he doesn't); he's their legend for waging war against them.
Thus bringing me to my point; zombies, until now, had largely operated in a bee-like mentality in cinema. They operated in large numbers, often assisting each other but rarely appearing to communicate or form plans of attack. In "I Am Legend", the vampzombies set traps, have relationships with each other, and form attack patterns. This is largely unique to the genre, as far as I'm aware, although I could be wrong. So do the monsters depicted in "I Am Legend" qualify as zombies?
I'm going to have to go with "no". For one thing, the novel clearly calls them "vampires" (see the pic above). For another, these "darkseekers" hunt when hungry & don't seem to follow the typical zombie formula. Sorry to any "I Am Legend" fans (of which I'm one).
"Rule #8: Get A Kickass Partner"
2009's "Zombieland" was a return to form for the zombie genre. Brought about by a mutated strain of mad cow disease, these were (almost) classic zombies: undead, flesh / brain eating, quick moving, and a bee-like swarm mentality. The basic communication skills from "I Am Legend" were gone (Bill Murray disguises himself as a zombie so he can still go out & play golf; the zombies suspect nothing), and the zombies were unpredictable & more scary for it. This film also went for a unique blend: it combined comedy with the horror, wherein films in the past had swayed all the way towards one or the other.
This film highlights another detail that defines zombies that I neglected to mention: if you want to (re)kill them, you have to shoot or remove the head. They can keep coming through the loss of limbs & other parts, but they cannot operate without their head. Although both were created by a virus, Zombieland qualifies more than "I Am Legend" in the genre of zombies.
Zombies now defined as: undead, flesh / brain craving, brought about by mysticism / Biblical / scientific means, and they cannot operate without their head.
Zombies will never truly go out of style. Future generationswill add to the legend, just as Romero did. As Danny Boyle did with "28 Days Later". With the (improbable) December 21st Apocalypse now looming large, I think a small part of all of us are hoping for zombies. Having a bad day at work? Pop a few zombies on your way home. It's not like they have feelings, right? Well...
In 2013 (assuming no zombie apocalypse), a film called "Warm Bodies" will be released. Based on a novel of the same name, it tells the story of a world in which the zombie apocalypse has already happened and humans treat them like dangerous animals...but otherwise, everyone lives somewhat in harmony. Through the process of eating a brain, the zombie gets to experience the life of their victim. And so it is that a zombie falls in love with a human, perhaps learning more about himself along the way. This sounds like a lot of fun, so I'm looking forward to it.
In closing, and this is too long already, after loosely examining a few zombie classics, here is (in my opinion) what defines a zombie as it relates to film:
• A corpse gets re-animated. This is a must. The body can die from virus exposure as long as it is considered dead and then undead. Mutated doesn't quite cut it for me (sorry "I Am Legend")
• A re-animated corpse can be decomposed, sometimes immensely so; but a zombie cannot be a skeleton, which means I don't have to worry about my grandfather coming back.
• Zombies are cannibals. No exception.
• Mysticism or science should be involved, although an exception can be made for space magic-- Romero 's "Night Of" is just too much fun.
• Only damage to the head, or complete removal of the head, can re-kill a zombie.
• In the case of science creating a zombie, it needs to be more like "28 Days Later" or it's sequel (flesh eating mindless killers) and less like "I Am Legend" (only come out at night, social structure, trap setting)
Everyone loves zombies, and 12/21 is coming up fast. The Book of Revelation spoke of oceans turning red & the dead rising from their graves. Well, the ocean off the Australian coast is currently red (sea plankton, they say); could zombies be next?
And if they do come, will they be as our movies have defined them? Or will they be something else entirely? Time will tell. Infection could certainly lead to zombie status, no doubt; but only if said infection leads one to become symptomatic of the classic traits. A virus that mutates isn't the same thing to me, at all.
I hope I answered the question.
UPDATE:
In my rush to complete this article, I completely forgot about the smash-hit television show, "The Walking Dead."
Normally, I would not include a television show in a discussion about film. The two mediums cannot often be compared. Although I have not yet had a chance to watch this show (I'll be picking up Seasons 1 & 2 after Christmas), it's hard to deny that the production values are through the roof. I mean, just look at that picture...awesome stuff. Those who have viewed this show will know more than I, so ask your local postman, druggist, or Zombie Hunter for more information.
So, what say you? What's YOUR favorite zombie film of all time? Which film best captures the look, style, and tone that you think of when you hear the word "Zombie"? And don't forget to look for the adaptation coming soon of "World War Z", starring Brad "I totally get to nail Angelina every night" Pitt.
Oh, and BRRRRRAAAAAAIIIIIIIINNNNSSSSS!!!!!!!!
UPDATE:
In my rush to complete this article, I completely forgot about the smash-hit television show, "The Walking Dead."
Normally, I would not include a television show in a discussion about film. The two mediums cannot often be compared. Although I have not yet had a chance to watch this show (I'll be picking up Seasons 1 & 2 after Christmas), it's hard to deny that the production values are through the roof. I mean, just look at that picture...awesome stuff. Those who have viewed this show will know more than I, so ask your local postman, druggist, or Zombie Hunter for more information.
So, what say you? What's YOUR favorite zombie film of all time? Which film best captures the look, style, and tone that you think of when you hear the word "Zombie"? And don't forget to look for the adaptation coming soon of "World War Z", starring Brad "I totally get to nail Angelina every night" Pitt.
Oh, and BRRRRRAAAAAAIIIIIIIINNNNSSSSS!!!!!!!!
