Romero's Dead Trilogy (+ a few more Romero films)

On Romero's Dead Trilogy

Night of the Living Dead (1968)

Night of the Living Dead has one of my favourite things about horror movies which is when they, unexpectedly, become terrifying. Which is kind of a weird thing to say, but I think Night of the Living Dead is just one of those movies where it's just kind of like that. The opening bits of this movie just feel kind of fun and silly and then it just weaves in more of these devastating circumstances, more horrifying details, until suddenly the end of the movie becomes actually quite terrifying. You just don't expect the movie to be like that, even when it's heralded as being this "terrifying horror classic" because in some way the opening scenes of the movie just makes you see that with more of a sardonic sensibility, like "Yeah, sure, come on. Show me something horrifying." and you're like "Holy shit." by the end of it. It's quite bewildering like that, just how it eases itself into this tone where you're like "Oh my god, am I even watching the same movie anymore?"

Some of the reviews that came out at the time just seemed to sum up the movie like that, where it's just inexplicably horrifying and often where a lot of what does happen just is quite surreal. I think this movie is just a really good example of playing with a horror atmosphere and just seeing what could be done with that, and there's just something about this movie that is quite unsettling. Black and white photography with all of these shadows, hiding mangled corpses, hordes of the lurching undead, unsuspecting details and so forth, really does seem to add a lot to the movie's atmosphere, but I also think the soundtrack to this is just so creepy and foreboding. Feels both deceptively old-fashioned but by the end of the movie it does become genuinely shocking.

But, I think the whole premise of this movie is very simple. Bunch of people are gathered in this farmhouse next to a cemetery and have to defend themselves against the undead, before the whole social order of the place winds up imploding, bad mistakes are made that result in fatal circumstances and what not. Yet like it's also a movie where it makes use of a tension where people just kind of sit about and are stressed out, arguing, bickering, propose solutions to the problems, and just where human ego badly gets put into the mix. That, and also radios and TVs that imperatively broadcasting information that's either incomplete, speculative or reduces the complexity of the situation down into these vey simple components and what not. Some of the survivors wind up hearing "rescue stations" on the radio, attempting to follow-through on that despite the hordes of zombies that would probably prevent them from doing so. But the whole movie I think can best be summarised as a "lax safety" and of these underlying tensions that just wind up building and building as soon as the situation goes to shit.

There also definitely is racial subtext in this movie which is often commented on. Romero's casting of Duane Jones, in of itself, was done largely just because he was the best actor for the role, although interestingly Ben was re-written to fit Jones' needs, going from this simple truck-driver into this very self-assured academic character, yet nothing was really changed to reflect Ben being an African American. What's also interesting was that the Jones' life was largely affected due to racial tensions that became very pervasive during the late 1960s, and also where the film was finally completed on April 4th 1968 - the exact same date that Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. Whether or not this movie was intended to reflect racist attitudes or not, it doesn't really matter, considering that's what audiences wound up resonating with, and it definitely does come through with this movie.

But yeah, horror is something that's largely metaphorical in nature, to be honest. David Cronenberg has stated that his 2022 film Crimes of the Future was "written in the early 2000s, covering themes of someone imposing over what you can do to your body and not and who controls the bodies of the citizens." but also wasn't really thinking about transgender people nor abortion and women's bodies, even though those are the sort of themes we was implicitly covering. Anyhow, I think it does work a whole lot better when it's implied and understated rather than being so explicit, but yeah, it's really about speculative tensions and paranoia, and all you really do need is for Harry to be especially condescending to Ben, for some reason, and redneck posses who just don't think twice about anything, how it's often very obfuscated, which I think hits way closer to home.

Regardless, I think what really works about Night is its deceptive simplicity and just the way that everything unfolds in this movie, and even with regards to the violence which is awfully suggestive and often feels way more gory in terms of the aftermath than seeing the violence playing out. The violence in this movie is shocking, and I think there is something about it where it's not as explicit but you do get brief glimpses of bloodshed (e.g. aftermaths of evisceration, flesh-eating, stabbings and so forth), and something about it still sticks out as quite stark. The editing of this film does really work and I think there's something that's fundamentally a bit surreal about the violence.

Another thing is that I think it's also a good example of how acting in horror movies can be kind of "bad" (I guess) but I don't know about that. I think a lot of low-budget horror movies have a sort of feeling to them where a lot of what gets highlighted is bewilderment and feelings of the inexplicable, which definitely does work with this movie. For some reason I think more professional acting would be kind of a hinderance and most of the people involved in this movie just seemed like friends of the director, and either they have sparse film credits or haven't really acted in anything else. Which does work, and I think that does stand out with other horror classics such as, say, The Evil Dead (1981) which fundamentally is also kind of about how bewildering that situation would be.

But yeah, I think even when characters do show ingenuity, to an extent, but I think you do definitely buy into when characters make stupid mistakes or how they're shown to operate on incomplete information and of "what ought to be done" mentalities over how to deal with the situation. Even though it's kind of simple in terms of its structure (has been copied a whole bunch of times), Night is kind of one of those films that captures that feeling of one long night that just becomes more gruelling and worse and worse as it goes along, and I think that's really what works with it, and it goes badly in ways that you're just never prepared for. That's what's so particularly shocking about the ending, in my view.

Dawn of the Dead (1978)

IN BLEEDING COLOUR aka. The Cabaret (1972) of zombie films

Dawn of the Dead honestly feels like what happens if you took Night, made it way, way more violent and bloodier, had way more action, satirical elements to it and also where it's just so-in-your-face in terms of everything that it does. Night starts off with this incidental graveyard visit while Dawn immediately starts off with pandemonium - flustered newscasters, on top of a raid of an apartment complex where a bunch of people and zombies get gunned down by SWAT members. One of the members, Wooley, loves this because it means that he can "blow away Puerto Ricans and blacks" and just goes completely insane, before later being shot to death by Peter. Things immediately just kind of go to shit, but then that also provides people with this intense motivation to just go off the grid. News station collapses as does any semblance of law & order, and the zombie outbreak just seems to exacerbate more of these underlying systemic problems.

Lot of the early segments of this movie just kind of show various ways in which people deal with the zombie apocalypse, and I think what really stands out about this movie is how it does really tap into this idea of the apocalypse as basically being this massive "ah, fuck it." moment, and seems to tap both into a lot of the apparent fun and depravity of a situation like this. Rednecks go from hunting animals to then teaming up with the National Guard to hunt down zombies instead, just putting aside a lot of the safety concerns and ethical concerns of, basically just killing creatures that were once human and what could underlie that. The survivors comment on this but at the same time it's also juxtaposed with this fun, almost partying sequence - definitely where there's a lot of humour in this movie for sure. But even then the opposite mindset, of keeping your undead relatives with you, also proves to be quite disastrous as well, and everything just becomes worse.

Dawn is Romero's answer to the first one which is basically just his approach of "fuck subtext" and it just kind of shows in this movie. Shopping malls contain, get this, zombie shoppers, and also a bunch of mannequins that if you just catch a brief glimpse of them you might confuse them for being a zombie. Also they're zombies, they're referred to as zombies in this movie rather than "ghouls" which I guess makes sense. They are no longer a speculative threat in this one but are much rather just a day-to-day situation that people have to deal with, but I guess what does really work about this movie is how it is just so disinhibited and you can kind of tell that there's a lot of fun with what this movie does.

Yeah, every single person who does talk about this movie talks about the whole social commentary of comparing mall shoppers to zombies, and I guess it makes sense. Zombies seem to love riding escalators, chasing people into a JCPenny, playing around with various tools in this listless sort of way. Later in the movie, the survivors get so, so bored of just being in the mall but are so enamoured by the luxuries and the safety that the mall provides that they become listless themselves, despite also being warned by the female survivor Francine that this is exactly what is going to happen. It's simultaneously like such a fun experience, like you're in Wonka's Chocolate Factory or something, but also like Wonka's Chocolate Factory, there definitely is an underlying darkness to it all.

But something that I also do really like about this film is just this sort of plot element with characters who plan ahead to, say, gather supplies from around the mall, fortify the mall so that the zombies can't get in, exterminating any of the ghouls around the mall and what not. What's more is that, unlike Night of the Living Dead (1968), there is definitely a payoff in terms of what characters manage to achieve in this film. It's kind of strange like that. Also definitely do think this movie works so well in terms of its editing and juxtaposition, namely with how it can seemingly bounce a lot between black comedy and satirical detail to outright being horrifying at points - but there's definitely a self-consciousness to it all.

Something I find interesting is this idea this movie has that "This situation would be so easy to solve, if it wasn't just for how people reacted to it." and this also seems to come from survivors who are quite hypocritical and underestimate the threats that the zombies present. Roger becomes way too agitated about half-way through the movie, becomes way too overly confident that he can get out of these death-defying situations - then suddenly he gets munched on by a couple of zombies. The rest of the movie he starts deteriorating. Stephen is like this as well for the most part. He stupidly gets himself involved in situations where he barely makes it out alive, and has an apparently sure-fire confidence that gets undercut by the fact that he is just kind of bad at the things that he does. Roger uses these moments to show-off with how things should be done, but Peter uses these moments to give him a dead-serious talk about what not to do.

Also do find it interesting how this movie does play with gender roles a whole lot more than the first movie. Sure, Barb is basically catatonic throughout all of it - having seen his brother being murdered by one of the ghouls, but the character Francine is way more sure-fire but also definitely where she has way more of a degree of sensitivity than the rest of the survivors. Every single one of the male characters in this movie does kind of underestimate Francine and treats her as in being someway incapable. But then Peter listens in and often winds up agreeing with her, and Stephen is the one who is quite stubborn and patronising towards Fran, despite also being her fiancé. Very interesting bit where Fran asks Stephen for a rifle and how to fly a helicopter, and Stephen complies, giving her a rifle and some ammo, yet he also kind of slams the rifle and the ammo down and just gives her this look, before kind of just going about his day. Like yeah, I thought the character drama in this was quite interesting, to be honest. Does feel kind of complicated and intuiting.

But it also does interest me how Dawn of the Dead really does feel like the most defining zombie movie out of the bunch, and yeah, I guess it's mainly because this movie is way more fun than Night of the Living Dead, honestly. It's like a fantasy land like "This is what people would do in a situation like this." and I guess the comic approach to it does oddly work for what it does, but it really is just kind of a fantasy land. This horrible situation is still nevertheless there even if you try to ignore it or make light of it, even if it seems fun and comical. But I think that is how people would wind up reacting when they're neck-deep in a situation like that.

Day of the Dead (1985)

A very interesting thread with the Dead movies, that becomes very pervasive with Day of the Dead, is just the fact that they become way more optimistic at they go along, despite the fact that they depict increasingly dire situations. Night is just the beginning of the apocalypse and ends like one. Dawn is in the middle of it and ends with this uncertain ending that maybe things will pan out, but then Day is weirdly the most optimistic out of the bunch, suggesting a sort of total "ah fuck it." sort of vibe to totally dire circumstances, which is what really compels me about this movie.

Pretty much all of human civilisation has fallen, every single town is inhabited is just deserted or otherwise just inhabited by zombies, aside from just a handful of survivors who are relegated into these underground tunnels, in mines, just figuring out what to do with the outbreak, and also where just any semblance of social order winds up disintegrating. Something I find interesting is the juxtaposition between the scientists and the military, and particularly with the contrast between the characters of Dr. Logan and Captain Rhodes. Speaking of which, Rhodes is probably one of the worst people out there and right from the gate he's established as being an imposing bully who goes out of his way to intimidate people, particularly where he casually sexually harasses and threatens to kill Sarah just because he was a bit mildly ticked off by her.

But yeah, it's just kind of about leadership and how it can serve as this breeding ground for people who love to impose and control other people, yet at the same time it does also kind of fall apart towards the end. Rhodes seems like such an asshole at the beginning, but at least he seems to have these (kind of fucked up) sense of morals to him - which then also disintegrates towards the end of the movie. Dr. Logan, for instance, is probably a bit more likable than Rhodes but at the same time also does some very ethically questionable things, for instance, with how he keeps alive the zombified remains of Rhodes' fellow soldiers just to experiment on them. Logan is like really anti-social honestly, and so many of the other scientists around him seem to bounce between being fascinated by his work but at the same time taking objection to it, both on moral grounds and also just in terms of how Rhodes would like react to it.

Also think it's interesting in terms of what it reveals about zombies. For instance, they literally just eat for the sake of it - revealing that they are physically uncapable of benefitting from any of the apparent nutritional value of eating human beings, and also with the character Bub, who is this well-behaved zombie who can do all of these human tasks and exists to Logan as this example of "how we can trick zombies into being good little boys, the same as we were tricked." and so forth. But Logan is a really fascinating character because he is emblematic of the types of people who is quite anti-social but at the same time also kind of understands and predicts negative reactions to his work and behaviour and goes along with it, and also kind of does become obsessed with his line of work as well. Like he's really determined and methodological with what he does, and is purely dismissive of any of Rhodes's concerns - resulting in inevitable aggravation.  Sarah amputates Miguel's arm after it gets bitten by a zombie to 'stop the infection from spreading' but we never see if it works, yet it also kind of makes sense as a thing that's meant to in some way inhibit Rhodes from murdering him. Sarah freezes for a bit afterwards.

(Also yeah, I think it's also interesting how the knowledge of what zombie bites do evolves over the course of the series is quite interesting. In Night of the Living Dead it's just "there's a girl who is inexplicably sick" then it's revealed that "she was bitten by one of those ghouls" Ben remarks "Well, who knows what diseases those things may carry." In Dawn of the Dead, people are a bit more aware that zombie bites are quite serious and things to be avoided, only that it isn't entirely revealed until later in the film that they simply just can not be treated - that they're uniformly lethal. In Day of the Dead, no such mistakes are made. Every character knows what a zombie bite entails.)

Although something that also sticks out about this movie is just that whole paradox with understanding the inherent futility of the apocalypse basically. The zombies can't all be killed, so alternative measures with trying to research a cure and researching ways to somehow control the zombies are tried instead, yet we get this impression that so much of what's actually being done is just kind of a waste of time honestly. In one scene the character John, shows Sarah this entire dossier of records which were buried underground, that he says that have never really been read by anyone except people who just kind of read them for curiosity - suggesting that this is kind of what Sarah's research might just culminate towards. All this time and effort and it's just left behind never to be looked at again.

(Hey shit, I spend all this time trying to immortalise myself with writing only to just die anyway, all those transient moments just go away, and this is what's left behind. But hey, uh, I guess if it fulfils me in the moment [March 2023] then it's all good. )

Also is just a bit better in terms of its film-making. Shot composition is a bit more inventive and the zombie special effects are a whole lot better than Dawn, but I also do definitely like the meditative moments that come in-between it. Bits with Bub are shot with this calm, soothing music in the background, as are the bits where Sarah is focusing on research, or John describing this fantasy of just flying away on a desert island and starting anew. Weirdly, this movie can be very calming which forms such an interesting juxtaposition with just how tense this movie can be at points. Rhodes, in particular, is such an imposing asshole that even if you object to his rules, you do run the risk of something genuinely bad happening to you. In one scene Sarah just outright says to Rhodes commands "Yes, sir. FUCK YOU, SIR!" but yeah, she just doesn't take shit from people.

Something I really think does work is how the character of Sarah really does anchor the film so much, and what I think really does stand out about her is how she is ultra-resilient, no-nonsense, very capable, but at the same time also does have an underlying degree of sensitivity to the way she acts, and yeah. Her lover Miguel admires her but then his mental instability often winds up seeing her help as being in some way patronising, that in some way her resilience is something he can not live up to, or that nevertheless the situation is still so desperate. One of the things that people really did seem to hate about this film (including Siskel & Ebert) was how so much of this movie was just bickering and aggravation, but like I felt that was kind of the point of the film - nevertheless, there definitely are still more underlying emotions that this movie does get at which makes it compelling.

For some reason I think that really taps into such an interesting paradox which is the fact that Day of the Dead is ultimately the most optimistic movie out of the bunch, just existing on this "Ah, fuck it. What can you do?" sort of philosophy at the end of the day, and is weirdly about human ingenuity, finding innovative ways to deal with problems, and how hope can seemingly come from very desperate and despairing circumstances, really. I thought the ending of this movie was a joke initially, but I actually do think it is congruent with the movie's themes which is the "Day" and the weird, paradoxical hope that results from living through stuff. It's a movie about resilience and perseverance which I find is probably what's most compelling about it.

Weirdly it's like that. The trilogy just becomes more optimistic as it goes along, even when the circumstances become worse and worse. That resonates with me a lot honestly, but it is just kind of like what happens when you abandon all hope with something. Suddenly you find yourself not reliant upon it anymore and it's weirdly freeing.

P.S. Also, for what might be obvious reasons, I got so fixated on these movies as a way of figuring out feelings I had related to the COVID pandemic and how it was dealt with. I mean yeah, lots of overlap between that and a zombie apocalypse and what not. Not sure whether COVID was fun or some of the most draining shit I've ever experienced, but I guess it's somewhere in the middle. Summary of my feelings should come from above.

Appendix - Other Romero films of note

The Crazies (1973)

This one is probably not as good as his other films, but I do really like the whole juxtaposition this movie creates with this combat virus that drives people insane, except also we have these stressful and precarious and inexplicable circumstances that also causes people to act in these erratic ways. Thought the whole visuals with the people in the hazmat suits was kind of creepy because they are explicitly people who are rendered inhuman and often do these indefensible things as a way to contain the outbreak. Note that they are also called into basically prevent this catastrophe, and also scenes where people self-consciously become convinced that they've been infected with the virus.

It's uh yeah, definitely is quite interesting. What works is the way Romero plays with juxtaposition and often where it's done quite satirically but at the same time where it can often be quite devastating and surprisingly sad at points. Also a 2010 remake of this movie which I guess would be more similar to the 2004 remake of Dawn of the Dead. Have not seen this one though.

Martin (1977)

Is my favourite Romero movie outside of any of his 'Dead' films and it's his uh, vampire film. This one is a bit more grounded and way more of a study into superstition and presents Martin's vampirism in these kind of ambiguous terms, but I think whether or not he is one is besides the point, because functionally he is a vampire in this film. Also a weird example of a movie with a villainous main character who bounces a lot between being despicable and sympathetic at points. Martin is objectively a serial killer and a rapist, but he also is someone who faces relentless abuse from his elderly cousin, constantly stigmatised, basically has any sort of emotional connection to people imposed out of him, and, personally, I think Martin is a very autistic character in terms of the way he interacts with people (probably is what resonates to me about this movie honestly.) but at the same time that's what's so compelling about it. Simultaneously sympathetic but also deeply infuriated by this character, which is such a tricky, discomforting combination to pull off.

[An aside but I love vampire films like this because they do kind of contain this metaphor of being totally discombobulated from society, having something underlying you that you're not quite sure how to make sense of, and I guess movies like that just kind of speak to me honestly. Martin, especially, freaked me out when I first saw it, I think, during 2015. Couldn't really explain why at the time, but I guess it's just seeing a character that you relate to doing these totally perverse and often evil things to people.]

It's also yeah, very inventive in terms of its editing and just showing this juxtaposition between Martin's apparent past and him adapting to the everyday, but he also seems to talk a lot like a teenager just awkwardly bearing his soul to people, who either are transient, not receptive or who just outright mock him. None of the underlying problems in his life are properly addressed in any capacity but the movie does really make it clear just how pervasive they are, and also, I think, where the supernatural is treated like a scapegoat for these more underlying and confrontational problems. Also yeah, weird how I can really identify with a character who is objectively presented as kind of a horrible person, but nevertheless is extremely misunderstood and abused. What really works about this movie is how it does show Martin in these sympathetic terms, but it does draw a clear line, showing that he often isn't particularly likable and can actually just be downright evil. Romero does really know what he's doing with this character, also what he considers to be his favourite movie out of the bunch.

Knightriders (1981)

Sort of a black-sheep of Romero's films about these Renaissance-type jousting tournaments that involve motorcycles, and the people who are involved in them that are really, really invested into them - especially Ed Harris's character Billy, and who also wind up contesting with cops and people who want to bring them down. Obviously does boast a ludicrous premise but I like how there's definitely a satirical element to this movie, but at the same time it is a very serious and in-depth, non-smarmy exploration into how a situation like this would play out - genuinely quite investing, even with preposterous plot developments, and you just sit by the edge of your seat wondering what's going to happen next. But god, that's what's so fun about this movie is just how it does intersect with Romero's sense of humour and digs at these underlying details.

Think also it's a very good exploration into masculinity and myths as they relate to the contemporary world, which is something that Romero films do feel quite interested in exploring. Voodoo pops up in Dawn of the Dead (1978), and vampire myths are explored in Martin (1977), so it does kind of make sense. Also features Stephen King in a cameo appearance as "The Hoagie Man" and features Romero alums Ken Foree, Scott Reiniger and John Amplas in the cast as well. Definitely is worth checking out, to be honest. One of Romero's few non-horror films but it is very distinctly his work. Well worth checking out. Someone once called this movie "the manliest movie to have ever existed" and watching it, I can certainly see why.

Creepshow (1982)

Horror anthology that Romero directed with a screenplay written by Stephen King, consisting of a total of 5 different stories told in a very darkly comic, often very satirical fashion. This one really does go all out in terms of its visuals and feels very bright and vibrant, also bookends each of its segments with rotoscoped comic book frames. Also a wrap-around story about an abusive father and a kid who gets lost in comics and fixated on a voodoo doll ad. Stephen King stars in one segment as an absolute idiot buffoon who works at a farm, channelling Jerry Lewis, that winds up culminating in him, nevertheless, going through a very horrifying experience where his body is slowly taken over by an alien vegetation. Leslie Nielsen plays a cold-blooded killer in one segment who buries a couple at the beach and waits for the tide to come in, and has this extremely menacing sardonicism to how he speaks. Opening segment involves a zombie demanding reparations for a father's day cake. The fourth and longest segment revolves around a University which receives a crate containing a killer ape-like creature and a husband who tries to use it to kill his emotionally abusive wife, and a final segment about a guy who lives in this totally sterile room where suddenly there's a cockroach infestation that escalates (and also seems to serve as a metaphor for racism and how it basically just consumes a guy whole even with his attempts at imposition.)

Pretty interesting, I think. Does attain a really nice balance between horror and comedy and I guess it all really works in terms of its tone and how playful it can be, but also really in terms of how it escalates its story to these devastating and rather bewildering conclusions. Inexplicableness of it can be both scary but also very funny, sort of like Tales From the Crypt, and the sort of "karmic" lessons contained within the stories. Good times.

Land of the Dead (2005)

An aside but I kind of liked Land of the Dead. I think people give it shit just kind of because of its commentary and this whole idea of like "Fiddler's Green, this entire complex where people stay and it's really nice, allows them to segregate themselves from the rest of the world." and literally where dialogue is just reiterations of stuff that was said during the War on Terror. Dawn of the Dead still largely works if you take away the pervasive consumerist element from it, but Land is just pretty singular in terms of what it does honestly. Not that it's bad, it's just kind of shallower than any of the original Dead trilogy films, but I do think it is quite entertaining, especially in terms of how it expands the scope of it.

(RedLetterMedia's video on this movie is quite good, even though I am a bit more receptive of this film:

But I actually do like this film quite a bit and yeah, it's just kind of a fun movie honestly. I loved John Leguizamo's and Dennis Hopper's performances in this for instance, but yeah, it does feel kind of separate from the original trilogy in a way. Kind of is just about people who attain status and wealth and also juxtaposing that with a situation where, very clearly, that can all go to shit and people are just reduced down to being totally vulnerable again. Was made 20 years after Land of the Dead and I guess the trilogy did form such a solid arc that continuing from Day of the Dead is a bit strange. However, I did think this movie was overall fun for the most part, and also kind of interesting how it clearly was expanding on ideas that Romero had where he just didn't have the budget or resources for it. 

Oh, that, and also 'Knives' (Tom Savini's character) from Dawn of the Dead pops up in this movie again. Only returning character throughout all the Dead movies - only continuum does seem to just be vague references and this progression of the apocalypse.

Have not seen Diary of the Dead (2007) or Survival of the Dead (2009), sorry. Can't comment

COMING SOON - MORE WRITE-UPS ABOUT MORE ZOMBIE FILMS (and games too!) THERE WILL BE MORE ZOMBIES THAN YOU CAN POSSIBLY IMAGINE!