BIGLENS PLUS KEATON BATMAN DE NIRO AND FALL IN LOVE AT THE CINEMA
THE KENT FILM MAGAZINE | VOLUME 5, ISSUE 1 | WINTER 2008
ZOMBIES!
2
COVER: DAWN OF THE DEAD | UNIVERSAL STUDIOS
Hey Everyone and welcome to the first super amazing BigLens Issue of the year. This is my third year working with the mag and my second as Co-editor, and it has somewhat been a part of my little life here at uni. It’s growing bigger and better and so terrifyingly good I’m starting to wonder if it may take over the world… and I wouldn’t mind that much if it did. This issue is jam-packed with juicy film goodness as usual, we have some sparkling new faces as well as our movie veterans. With even more to come this year from both the magazine and the Film Society, I can only pray you don’t pee your pants with excitement. So if you love films more than you love people ( I know I do) then read on for your next fix…
EDITORIAL
Some months ago, when I merrily agreed to help edit this wonderful magazine, I didn’t really consider the work and the effort that I’d have to put into it. As the articles accumulated in my inbox, waiting to be examined, I felt a mild but polite sense of dread at the surmounting number of spelling mistakes to be corrected. But then I started reading them and I realised that this wasn’t a job, it was a privilege. Okay, so I’m aggrandising it somewhat, but who wouldn’t enjoy reading about film in all its splendour? Admittedly, I may not agree with everything that’s been written within these pages, but that’s one of the magical qualities of film: the importance of opinion. No one can really be right or wrong, and everyone’s got a different corner to battle, be it Burton’s or Nolan’s; Chaplin’s or Keaton’s. What I am certain of, however, is that over the coming months I’m looking forward to being involved in every argument, every misplaced comma, and every piece of cinematic glory. And oh yeah, Chaplin’s better. Tom Brown
Nia Childs
SMALLPRINT Edited by Nia Childs and Tom Brown Designed by Drew O’Neill
If you have a passion for film and would like to contribute to BIGLENS, please email nc68 or tb211 and come along to one of our weekly meetings which are held in the Shirley Barlow room in Eliot every other Tuesday at six. BIGLENS is produced with the support of Kent Film, a society of the University of Kent Students Union. | All information is provided in good faith. | Articles are not necessarily the opinions of the editors of BIGLENS, of the Kent Film Society or of Kent Union. | Everything that is already copyrighted, is theirs. | Everything not, is the intellectual property of the individual writer, so no thieving.
Check out the Kent Film society hub at www.kentfilm.net for society news, BIGLENS movie reviews and all that good stuff.
3
Fortunately (or maybe unfortunately), the human race doesn’t have a specific designated time of year for mating. This we have observed. This we have enjoyed. However, if ever there was a time, it would surely be now. All around us life begins to fade away into winter, and so what better excuse for procreation; to maintain the balance of life, if only through boredom. Where does film fit into all this? This is the question I find myself asking, already into the second paragraph of an article that I’m still not sure where it’s going. And here’s the answer: film provides us characters with which to harmlessly fall in love with, occupy our time, and to make unjust comparisons to people in real life. Perhaps this is the reason my previous relationships have failed (though I’m sure people would beg to differ), but sometimes it’s almost irresistible to harbour a crush for someone fictional, and thus much less likely to end up breaking your heart. My first example is Amélie, the eponymous heroine who delighted audiences all over the globe with her rose tinted perspective of life. Admittedly, I only got around to watching Amélie a few months ago, and I regret resisting for so long! Okay, so it helps that Audrey Tautou is gorgeous, but her character is sweeter than a warm skittles milkshake from the Shake Shed [hint: free milkshakes please]. Anyone who has difficulty appreciating her fantastical version of reality and her nostalgic innocence needs to have their head examined and amended accordingly. She’s perfect marriage material and you know that there’d rarely be a dull moment. Sure, there might be an issue in terms of the language barrier, but who doesn’t speak English nowadays?
both. As stunning as Audrey Hepburn is (and there’s absolutely no doubting that), you’d be hard-pressed to fall in love with her character in Breakfast at Tiffany’s: she’s simply just a bit too annoying. This isn’t a slight against the person who wrote Breakfast at Tiffany’s (imdb reveals it’s Truman Capote and George Axelrod respectively), as this was no doubt their intention. However, I would request that scriptwriters would create more generally lovely
“HER CHARACTER IS SWEETER THAN A WARM SKITTLES MILKSHAKE”
LOVE AT THE CINEMA - TOM BROWN It’s important, when going to the cinema to find a fictional love, to be open-minded. If any of you had seen Ellen Page playing a psycho-teen in the tables-turned-on-the-paedophile film Hard Candy, then you might have been put off falling for her latest character. But for me, there’s no doubt that Juno would make a perfect girlfriend. It’s maybe kind of important to emphasise straight away that although the character is only 16 years old, we are safe in the knowledge that Ms. Page is in fact 21. Phew! Anyways, Juno is not only cute as a button, but has a headstrong, sharp irony about her that would provide plenty of amusement if you were, for example, attending a boring work party together. So far, then, it seems that a paradigm is developing: loveable characters take the title of the film. This trend is certainly not bucked if we look at films such as Malena, with the beautiful Monica Belluci evoking huge amounts of empathy (and most likely desire – I’ve had to listen to my housemate obsess about her for unnatural lengths of time) from the audience. Sadly, though, this rule is not always true: the less said about Gigli, the better. The two key roles in creating an empathetic character are the actor and the screenwriter. The two must work in combination and harmony to fashion someone to love; it is not a question of having looks and not personality, the ideal creation will have 4
people, as the world often seems to be in shortage of them. I watched David Cronenberg’s Eastern Promises recently, and writer Steven Knight is taking steps in the right direction. A welcome distraction from the not infrequent graphic violence, I found myself falling for Anna played by Naomi Watts. In fact, pretty much anyone that Naomi Watts plays is worthy of falling in love with, with the possible exception of Grace Rhodes, her character in Children of the Corn IV: the Gathering. Yeah. After Eastern Promises finished, I promptly began internet stalking, only to find that she was born in none other than the good county of Kent! Rejoice! On another note, I discovered that Ellen Page’s birthday is only two days
AMELIE | MOMENTUM PICTURES
before mine and she’s only two years older than me: I am quietly confident. Okay, what am I trying to say? Since the beginning of cinema, characters have been created to fall in love with, to act as a fantastical escape from the more monotone colours of life. This has always been the way of things, and hopefully always will. When I told my friend the very vague outline for this article, I made the point to him that relationships with fictional characters are much less likely to leave you
hurt, miserable and rejected. He nodded thoughtfully, before responding: “But surely the relationships are less rewarding?” Well, yes, there’s not really any arguing against that. It’s our real life relationships that inspire what is manifested on screen. Given the choice, most of us would prefer to have a relationship with someone real (there are probably some really hard-core film students who think otherwise), but sometimes we all need a little bit of escapism. So as long there are characters like that bloke in The Notebook (one for the ladies) and Jessica Rabbit (don’t deny it), there’ll always be the possibility of love at the cinema.
5
KEATON AND THE TRANSFORMATION GAG LIZ VOIGT When did Buster Keaton, the great stone-face of American silent cinema, become more known for his death defying onscreen stunts than for his visionary films? True, his stunts remain awe-inspiring to this day, from running from car to car on a speeding train to standing carelessly stock-still as a building front crashes over him, saved only by the carefully placed open window, leaving him, improbably, unharmed. But more than that, his works remain enjoyably modern and relatable, unlike those of many of his contemporaries. In retrospect, Chaplin flounders in sentiment, relying on his unique screen presence to drive his films, while Keaton remains cool and modest. His narratives coast along naturally and inevitably. There are few wasted moments — if there wasn’t a joke, it would usually be cut. Keaton’s childhood was far from typical. He was raised in the rough-and-tumble world of vaudeville, traveling across the US with his parents’ act. Before long, the Two Keatons became the Three Keatons, as Buster proved a consummate performer at the age of three. His particular brand of physical comedy began taking form in these early shows, which drew their humor from the sight of Keaton Sr. inflicting pain upon his tiny child, flinging him into the painted backdrops on stage to simply tossing him to the floor. One hopes Buster was being honest when, in his memoirs, he commented, “I wasn’t hurt…all little boys like to be rough-housed by their fathers.” Transformation gags would have been performed on stage, but on film they can become larger, more elaborate, whilst at the same time seeming effortless, far removed from the traditional magicians’ tricks they were birthed from. The transformation gag, so beloved by Keaton, is a love letter to cinema’s power to control image. This gag involves upending audience expectations with the apparent shift of an object into something entirely different; we are forced to quickly adjust our understanding of what we are seeing on screen. Sometimes, these gags are performed on film, while sometimes the gag, or shift, exists in a physical onscreen world, and the transformation occurs only in our mind. Sherlock Jr, one of his greatest films, tells an entertaining, surreal story, whilst creating a commentary upon the nature of cinema at the same time. In fact, the same could be said for most of his films, which often display a willingness to extend the screen’s boundaries past the prosaic and into the speculative. In a wonderful moment in the film, Keaton admires himself in a mirror, dapper and debonair. He adjusts his hat, twirls his cane, dusts off his tuxedo. Then, apparently satisfied with his appearance, he steps forward and walks briskly through the mirror. In fact, what we took to be a mirror was actually a doorframe, with the neighboring room decorated so as to be an identical image of the other. In another moment from Sherlock, the transformation is reworked — instead of a reversal of audience expectations, Keaton creates a tangible transformation of materials at hand. The car he is driving swerves into a lake, but instead of panicking, he coolly pulls out the webbed convertible top, bends it into a sail, and glides easily across the water. Mirror into door, car into boat—these casual metamorphoses fit naturally into the 6
world of the film. Keaton’s films explore the unique lack of physical boundaries in filmic worlds. In a time where “trick films”, with their endearingly clumsy visual magic tricks, were the extent of special effects, he took the time to create real effects. His humour and wonder came from the impression of transformation — the magic occurs inside the head of the audience not through stopping the camera, switching out props, and rolling the camera again. This is not to say the Keaton didn’t indulge in these cheap, amusing gags at times — in Sherlock Jr, he uses a quick stop-cut to show himself diving through his assistant’s stomach — but they weren’t where his genius lay. His occasional use of these jokes proves only his pragmatic approach to filmmaking — the main goal was always to make the audience laugh.
“In retrospect, Chaplin flounders in sentiment, while Keaton remains cool and modest.” It was not out of academic intellectualism that Keaton made these films. If we can study his transformation gags now, decades later, and assign to them lofty theoretical notions, it is only because Keaton wanted to make the most of the possibilities of cinema, not because he was interested in film theory. He was a practical filmmaker, raised in the “anything for a laugh” ethos of vaudeville. It just so happened that his films, often
BUSTER KEATON | COLUMBIA
only loosely scripted, unintentionally created a fascinating dialogue on the nature of cinema. Although these gags would seem to call attention to themselves, and by extension the unreality of the projected images on screen, audiences accepted them. This may be due to the way in which Keaton often placed the visual jokes — in Sherlock Jr, most of the film takes place within the dream-world of the main character, so improbabilities are easily accepted. This transformation is not only present in sporadic gags: it is one of the main themes running through his oeuvre. For me, beyond their humour or iconic moments, the most timeless elements of his enduring films are their liquidity of form — their grace in the face of boundaries. There is a certain denial of the limitations of the everyday world; he dissolves these limitations. When his contemporaries were content with churning out popular moving pictures in the spirit of all films and plays that came before them, Keaton created something new: a world of cinema, not reality, where all transformations are possible.
7
For some fifty years, the world has been witness to the evolution of an extraordinary relationship. From nowhere, they have evolved to be the best of friends, helping each other out, standing side by side; sure, they have their arguments, but name me a relationship that doesn’t. They are uniquely able to deal with criticism, and support each other through the darkest hours, knowing that they are doing the right thing, that in the end, everything will be okay. I’m talking of course, of the relationship between television and movies. So then, what’s this relationship all about? In our world of home espresso makers, email and mobile phones, you might tend not to think about the rather humble beginnings of the device which gives the dog a serious challenge for the title of ‘mans best friend’. It all started out when the world was plunging into the Cold War, and when many people considered jet engines to work via some form of voodoo magic. When it came into the average home, the television revolutionised entertainment; no longer did the family have to gather round to listen to the 50s equivalent of The Archers on their wireless, or play a board game to be in the same room, the television changed the family forever. Quite understandably, the movie industry was worried, people now didn’t have to leave their own homes to see moving pictures; but they needn’t have been concerned, because the stuff being screened over ‘the box’ was rubbish – good enough to mean the family didn’t have to talk over the dinner table, but about as entertaining and well acted as a pre-school nativity
8
play. People continued to flock to the cinema in their droves. Fast forward fifty years, and well, just look at it. In the last decade alone, we have been witness to an evolution in the television. Gone are the days where you have to watch a screen with a curvature greater then that of the earth; we have flat screens, big screens, hundreds of channels, and best of all, HDTV. Technological advances aside, look at what’s actually on TV, the quality of the entertainment is, quite simply, phenomenal! Multiple networks operating dozens of channels each, has led to greater competition than you find in the Middle East, as each desperately tries to out do the other in the battle for viewers. The biggest, best dramas pull tens of millions of viewers every week, and in the last season of American Idol, more people voted then in the last Presidential Election! From the way I’m talking, you
TV AND MOVIE RELATIONSHIPS DAMIAN WRIGLEY
might think that movie industry has something to be worried about, but, you’d be wrong. If anything, they benefit from the increasing dominance of the television. For the best experience, you really can’t beat a good cinema, but nowadays, you can have one in your living room. It’s a fair assumption that you know someone with a TV that has screen wider then the average American waist line, and has a ‘home theatre system’; these have made the movie experience far more enjoyable, giving sound so clear you think you’re actually there, and bass so powerful it can be detected on seismographs. Ask people if they’re going to see the latest blockbuster, and you will now be used to the response “I’ll wait for the DVD”, in years gone by, this was as ludicrous as saying “I’ll let the French defend me”, but now it just makes good sense. This might have the effect of pulling audiences from the cinema, but the big-wigs aren’t stupid, they’ve fully embraced the fact that we might want to watch things in the comfort of our own home, so, they’ve adapted; one film is now used to cover two markets – take your run of the mill summer blockbuster, that’d be a Christmas DVD release.
The best bit of this relationship though, is when they work together. You might have noticed the recent upsurge in the number of TV shows being made into movies; Firefly to Serenity (recently voted the best sci-fi movie ever), is probably the best example; but equally Hollywood has recently developed a bit of a penchant for making cartoons into big screen hits, see Spiderman for details. On the back of this you’ve films which have franchises made after them – Stargate to Stargate SG1 (the longest running American sci-fi ever) springs to mind, but there are many more, I simply haven’t enough words to name them all. Sure, you get the odd blip – Thunderbirds for instance, but other then that, they do a pretty good job. As long as the writers work hard to maintain the essence of the show as it branches into the brave new world of movies, or vice versa, and you’ve really nothing to worry about – because after all, it’s written for your entertainment, if they stuff up, it’s their job on the line; whereas you can just change the channel. So we’ve had fifty years of these guys working together, where are they going next? Who knows – but I say, bring it on.
9
BATMAN DE NIRO - TOM GOLDSMITH
10
Is Robert De Niro the greatest method actor ever? It’s a convincing argument, and looking back at his early catalogue of classic films you would be hard pushed to say no. Whether he’s towering as a young Vito Corleone, quietly menacing as Travis Bickle, or astoundingly emphatic as deranged boxer Jake Le Motta in Raging Bull, De Niro always delivers. Taking the film Raging Bull as perhaps the pinnacle of De Niro’s performances, it is easy to see why he has picked up the mantle of greatest method actor ever. His complete dedication to film – he put on sixty pounds and learnt how to box – had been previously unmatched. Until now.
“TO REDUCE HIS WEIGHT SO
DRASTICALLY
AMERICAN PSYCHO | LION’S GATE FILMS
BALE ONLY ATE APPLES AND TUNA”
It isn’t difficult see why Christian Bale has become a very popular actor: the latest Batman films directed by Christopher Nolan have catapulted him to the A list of the Hollywood elite. His next project sees him starring as John Connor in the new Terminator – the emphatically titled Terminator Salvation –and is the only reason currently to even consider this a film and not the biggest travesty since Disaster Movie. This high profile role demonstrates how he is one of the most sought out actors in the film industry. But look past the action films and you will see the most dedicated actor working on screen at
the moment. [What about Daniel Day-Lewis?! – Ed] Before the famous Batman Begins, Bale made a film called The Machinist in which he played Reznik, a chronic insomniac. To achieve the gaunt skeletal look of the character, Bale lost 62 pounds (28 kg) reducing his body weight to 120 pounds. To reduce his weight so drastically Bale only ate apples and tuna. It was this role that many critics first compared Bale to De Niro, who, as mentioned above, did the opposite and put on about 60 pounds. Another example of absolute commitment to a role was during the making of American Psycho. Bale kept himself in the character of psychotic Patrick Bateman throughout the whole of the shoot, rarely talking to the other crew members in order to help establish the dark nature of the character. Even more intriguing is that he lost the part, after being cast, in favour of the more commercial Leonardo DiCaprio. Despite this setback, Bale continued to train for the role that required him to be in perfect physical shape. After DiCaprio left the role to star in The Beach, Bale was rehired. In an interview he even stated that he phoned other actors to tell them not to bother auditioning for the part. Watching Bale give an interview is almost as entertaining as watching him in a film. If being interviewed in America he will generally put on an American accent. For example while being interviewed for The Dark Knight he put on a Boston accent because the film he was making at the time, Public Enemies, was set in Boston. So does this make Bale a better method actor than De Niro? The answer is yes and no. I know you’re wondering where this article is going and has the writer bottled it right at the end. However, who’s better is not the point of this article. The real question is not whether Bale is better, but if he has taken the mantle over from De Niro. Does every generation of film have an actor that is head and shoulders above the rest? The answer is yes: before De Niro there was Marlon Brando, who spent a month in bed at a veterans’ hospital to prepare for his role in the film The Men (although I’m not sure Francis Ford Coppola would call Brando a dedicated actor after Apocalypse Now). So whether Bale is better overall than De Niro, that’s not for me to decide. Is he as good as De Niro? Yes. Is he, like De Niro, the best method actor of his generation? Definitely. 11
CHINESE FILM CENSORSHIP
In March 2008, the Chinese State Administration of Radio, Film and Television (SARFT) released a list of tabooed subjects for different Medias, including film. The list was published in the wake of the blacklisting of the unedited Lust, Caution – Ang Lee 2007and its star Tang Wei for the films explicit sex scenes. This is actually very similar to the actions taken by the British Board of Film Censorship (BBFC) in 1916, when the newly appointed president T. P. O’Connor summarised the board’s moral policy with 43 grounds for the deletion of unsuitable material. If we look at the BBFC during its first 10 years, we will be able to make many comparisons with the SARFT of today. In 1909, the government created the Cinematograph Act, which brought cinemas under the control of local authorities. The authorities were required to licence and regulate films mainly due to the dangers of the hazardous nitrous film stock, termed “inflammable films” in the act, which was capable of 12
setting alight when used. The act was designed to make sure cinemas were safe enough to screen but many authorities took this one step further and began to censor controversial films. They widened the definition of the term “Inflammable films” from the physical stock to include the Images printed upon them. They also took the vague phrase from the act, “such persons as they think fit,” as a way of censoring controversial films by threatening cinema owners with the loss of their licenses, even if they had otherwise fully complied with the Act’s requirements. Due to the lack
YING XIONG (HERO) | 20TH CENTURY FOX
CHRISTOPHER WHITE
of any mention on suitable content, local authorities began to set up their own guidelines leading to films being banned in some regions. As a bridge between the film industry and local authorities, the British Board of Film Censors was formed in 1912 with the purpose of creating a national set of guidelines for films which could be shown in Britain. In the 1916 guidelines, the supposed strictness was said to be done to earn the respect of the people and the industry itself. Rather interestingly, the list comprising of rules to prevent the portrayal of Cruelty to animals, excessively passionate love scenes, references to controversial politics, scenes tending to disparage public characters and institutions and scenes holding up the King’s uniform to contempt or ridicule show both a moral concern for the well being of the British people, but also as a way of potentially raising the image of the country. I’m sure the aristocracy would not have wanted to be associated with this kind of material anymore than it does today. China’s current lack of a classification system was highlighted in the case of “Lust, Caution.” The lack of a system prevented the film, in its unedited state, to be shown. It was seen, and rightly so, to be unsuitable for children. I find that in an industry like the film industry, not to have any form of regulation is both an oversight and a shortcoming of the authorities. There should have safeguards to prevent children and youths viewing unsuitable material. However, as a state, China choose to censor films so they are suitable for everybody, rather than applying an age classification system like Britain’s which would protect the
youth from harmful and unsuitable material whilst allowing freedom of choice to both audiences and the artists. Currently, they are choosing to mostly censor sexual or political content, stating that the country needs laws to restrict “violent culture in films in order to protect young people,” - Clifford Coonan. The SARFT’s rules are said to have been created for “purifying screen entertainment” and “creating a more harmonious and green film environment for the public, especially children.” (Clifford Coonan). The comprehensive list excludes hardcore sexual activities, rape, prostitution or nudity. Any content involving conversations about or scenes involving explicit murder, violence, horror and evil spirits are banned, along with any background music and sound effects with connotations to the aforementioned. Films that tarnish the image of revolutionary leaders, heroes and important historic characters, members of the armed forces, police and judicial bodies are also banned, along with those which distort the civilization and history of China or other nations. Any scenes involving animal cruelty is banned. If we look at these rules, we can see many similarities with T.P O’Connor’s 1916 list of guidelines. Guidelines such as “Cruelty to animals,” “Nude figures,” and “References to controversial politics” all appear on China’s charter. Items such as “holding up King’s uniform to contempt or ridicule” are similar to SARFT regulations about “distorting the civilization and history of China,” basically forbidding the ridicule of the state authorities. China is a totalitarian state. I find the aim of the SARFT is to censor, as was the job of the British Board of Film Censors rather than apply an age classification. Their rules and regulations, as were ours, are designed to protect their society from material that could be seen as harmful not just to the people but also to the state. In some ways one could argue that if these bodies are shown to be corrupt or tyrannical , even in a fictitious manner, then the audience might believe it to be so, just like the BBFC’s worries about Strike –Sergei Eisenstein 1924 leading to revolution by the working classes. In terms of censorship, one cannot deny that China is in the same position as Britain was approximately 80 years ago, trying to protect and control the state by telling us what we can and cannot watch. Britain has now evolved and, whilst still censoring to a degree, are putting films into age categories, which I find allows a rather large degree of free choice whilst still protecting the innocent from material that could be harmful to them. After all, if you are one of the few that enjoyed Hostel –Eli Roth 2005, would you allow your children to watch it or would you rather it had not been seen in the first place? It is possible that the SARFT will, over time, evolve just the BBFC did to allow more freedom of choice, only time will tell.
13
ZOMBIE NATION BEN HOLDEN
14
28 DAYS LATER | 20TH CENTURY FOX
Let’s face it, this is what happens when you watch a zombie film: you laugh, get scared and then think about what you would do if you were caught up in a zombie apocalypse. We all love the undead, spoofed in many great TV shows from Father Ted to The Simpsons, because, ultimately, they are just awesome. And that is why I want to pay homage to our favourite walking corpses through my history and evolution of the zombie movie. The term ‘zombie’ comes from voodoo Afro-Caribbean folklore, the belief that witch-doctors could raise the dead. This mythology was the influence on the 1932 feature White Zombie, considered to be the first zombie film. It stars Bela Lugosi as a mad witchdoctor in Haiti who uses his voodoo magic to raise the dead and uses them as slaves. These zombies were basic dead people who stumbled around with minimal awareness and only performed actions granted by their master. White Zombie was a good film, but unfortunately it did not create the same impact as other classic Hollywood horror films, such as Dracula or Frankenstein, to make it a staple archetype. For the next 20 or so years, the appearance of zombies were few and far between, yet still associated the walking dead with its Afro-Caribbean origins. Any chance of a large popularity with zombies almost vanished in 1959 with the infamously atrocious Plan 9 from Outer Space, a film that was so bad that it almost kept the dead buried forever. However, in 1954, I Am Legend by Richard Matheson was released in all good bookstores. This little novel introduced the globe to the idea of a worldwide horror epidemic, but even though it’s about vampires, it made a big impression on a little known filmmaker. In 1968, George A. Romero made his first feature length film, crossing I Am Legend with the walking dead from White Zombie to create Night of the Living Dead. This ultra low budg-
et film first introduced the more cannibalistic nature of the zombie and established the genre’s general rules: 1) Zombies want to eat the living 2) You become a zombie if they bite you 3) The only way to kill a zombie is by decapitation 4) Zombies are slow 5) Zombies are idiots In Night of the Living Dead, Romero set the story in an American country house, taking away the voodoo myths by keeping their origins mysterious, although toying between toxic waste and some sought of unholy Armageddon. For the next few years, zombie films came and went but with little impact. Fortunately for horror fans everywhere, Romero came back to re-animate his corpses with what is considered by many as the greatest zombie film of all time, The Dawn of the Dead. Made ten years after Night of the Living Dead, this sequel was bigger, gorier and showed the true breadth of the zombie epidemic. Months later came the underrated Zombie Flesh Eaters. Embedded in the grindhouse genre, this low budget zombie thriller had lots of gore, pointless nudity, and an ending that is pure scary. Plus, it contains my personal all time favourite undead moment - a zombie fighting a shark! The combination of Dawn and Flesh Eaters resulted in what I like to call ‘The Golden Age of the Zombie’. So many great zombie films came out in the subsequent years: The Evil Dead Trilogy, Re-Animator, Zombie Holocaust, Night of the Creeps, Samurai Zombie and many more. Even John A. Russo, Romero’s co-writer for Living Dead, came back to the undead to write the story for Return of the Living Dead, a zombie-spoof classic. In 1992, Peter Jackson turned the gore level to eleven with Braindead, which attained the record for the largest quantity of blood ever used in one film scene. Sadly, this masterpiece marked the end to the Golden Age of the Zombie as for the next ten years, few zombie films were made with any deserved recognition. Up to this point, Britain contributed very little. However, it only took a small film made and set in England to resurrect the genre. 28 Days Later was very different to the usual Romero zombies; they were fast, manic, and took less than a bite to spread their disease. With the success of 28 Days Later came more zombie films; even George A. Romero is back completing his epic. What’s interesting is that the zombies of this millennium are either faster, more intelligent, or both. Perhaps these days it takes a lot more for the undead to scare audiences. But I can’t end this history without a mention for Shaun of the Dead, which has probably become the most famous zombie film of all time. Great acting, great comedy, but in some ways I believe that it is generally the most realistic zombie film out there. If I was caught in a zombie epidemic, I too would probably go to the pub. So I hope this gives a basic outline of our undead friends and hope you found it interesting. If you haven’t seen that many zombie movies then get out and rent some, because, quite frankly, they rock! But that doesn’t mean watch the Resident Evil films, they don’t rock. 15
WANT TO DESIGN BIGLENS? WE’RE LOOKING FOR SOMEONE TO JOIN OUR DESIGN TEAM
SOFTWARE KNOWLEDGE ISN’T REQUIRED BUT ENTHUSIASM IS EMAIL ds229@kent.ac.uk FOR MORE INFO