Pajiba

Opening Thoughts:

Having never seen the movie before, I don't feel the need to review it, per se. That's been done before (on this site, even). Here's some perspectives though:

Because it's in the public conscience, these days, I couldn't help but see Ben as Barak Obama. I don't mean in a political sense. I just mean, he actually reminded me of the man, speech, mannerisms, etc. If there were to be a parallel drawn, politically, though, one could take the scene where Ben, Barbara, Cooper, and Tom. Ben as Obama; Cooper as John McCain, short and irrate; Barbara as a catatonic, beleagured Hillary Clinton, and Tom as a chatty, nervous Joe Biden. That last one was a stretch but you get my drift.

I think my favorite line in the whole movie was from Ben who told Cooper: "You can be the boss down there. I'm the boss up here!" I was like: my god...he's a young Sam L. Jackson!

Overall, I loved the movie and I can imagine that audiences in '68 were quaking in their boots.

If there's a tragedy, here, it's that I don't have a great reference point for movies prior. It's like playing the Beatles for teenagers; they may think it's catchy but they have no idea how groundbreaking they were.

As a first time viewer, I liked it. It was a little slow for me at first, but I trucked on through and ended up really enjoying it.
I think it held up well . . . maybe not the effects and possibly not the pacing (everything today is more frantic) but it's still effective. I was creeped out and that was the point.

I don't think that the feminist criticism about Barbara holds up. Mr. Cooper was just as helpless (and not catatonic), the other women were fine . . . Barbara is that way because she saw her brother get killed. It's too easy to say that "oh women are being portrayed as helpless" without looking at the backstory of the character. She just chooses to check out, it's understandable. She rallies at the end, even though her brother eats her.

I was never really one to look at a film with any other eye other then entertainment until I started taking those damn film studies classes. So I guess I will attempt to answer your questions.

1) You have to love Night of the Living Dead for what it is. It did "create" the zombie genre. While it wasn't the first zombie film it made it more public. Even when they did the remake in 1990 there really wasn't any need. In fact, the only thing that made the remake even slightly cool was Tony Todd. As for the gore? Its hard for gore from a 1968 movie being unsettling. What with the films we have now.
2) Yeah...not my first time. Not by a long shot.
3,4,5) The only social commentary I really remember taking from the film was that whole underlying current of racism. It was one of the themes he seemed to present in all of his zombie movies (I'm ending his reign at Day of the Dead those others don't exist). His whole take on racism is apparent in many scenes. Thus, why the casting of the black lead was so against the norm but perfect for what Romero was trying to do. Feminism...*yawn*. You can take a feminist perspective on almost every single film. Hell, even when you have a movie with a strong female lead where the lady is all badass and dominates the fuck out of everyone, men can say it is feminist. Like I said, up until film courses I never really wanted to look at the "message" a film was trying to send. I don't really like to watch this movie to pick out the religious, racist, and political undertones.
6) Of course you can see the similarities. One of the things that bothered me about the Will Smith I Am Legend is that the bad guys are supposed to be more like vampires and yet they make them more like zombies. Its the whole last man standing/terrifying monsters. Romero wanted to give that sense of isolation and fear that is present in both of these films.
7)I don't find any film "terrifying." But Night of the Living Dead has never really been campy. Evil Dead...campy. Blair Witch Project...campy. This film was meant to frighten, it was meant to be taken seriously, and as such it still works.

note: I wrote my initial comments, this morning, before Pajiba posted and copy/pasted when 3pmEST hit. So...I realize I didn't answer the questions posed.

Re: #2, I like how the zombie genre has maintained the movement of the actors--that kind of halting, stiff-legged gait, staggering forward. If there's one way in which we've IMPROVED on this movie, it was the special effects of make-up. Certainly, modern zombies LOOK more terrifying to me. I do like how many movies have retained that sunken/darkened-eye effect that Romero created.

One thing that puzzled me about the "movie reality" of NOTLD was that, at the beginning of the film, Johnny struggled badly with the "man in the graveyard." That zombie seemed exceptionally strong. Later, Ben tells everyone that the zombies are weak and you could just push them over. What gives, there? Did I miss something?

So far I have read a couple of comments that state how plain they think the racism is. I disagree.

In the entire film, there is not one mention of race. Not once. The antagonist doesn't refer to the lead as "boy." He doesn't demean him. He doesn't LIKE him obviously, but thats because they have different ideas on how to survive.

Look at the way the other characters treat the lead. The young couple defers to him almost immediately, defending his plans and taking an active part in carrying them out. Even the wife sides with him frequently, despite angry protestations from her husband. The only character that doesn't like the black lead is the husband, whose dislike seems to stem from feelings of inadequecy and a dominating sense of needing to be the alpha male -- not from race.

And who is right at the end? It's not the black lead. It's the husband. The obnoxious, angry, violent husband was right all along -- they should have stayed in the basement. If the movie were a criticism on racism, wouldn't the black character have been somehow vindicated?

superasente;

Do you think, then, that Romero was making a statement about racism and equality simply by letting this character be a character?
Or was Romero just making a movie and all the sociological overtones are what people choose to see?

The only character that doesn't like the black lead is the husband, whose dislike seems to stem from feelings of inadequacy and a dominating sense of needing to be the alpha male -- not from race.

Seriously? You can't see the racial implications in that?

It was scary as shit for its time. Think about horror movies of the past. You had the early black and white classics, and those typically tried to be either Great Literature or Saturday-matinee cheap thrills aimed at mostly kids. Then the Atomic Era. Giant bunnies, evil aliens, enormous slime-balls. Not all -- there are a few in my mind that stand out as being exceptional -- but the majority. Then you move on to Hammer Horrors or Godzilla-esque movies. That's the type of history you have before you get to Night of The Living Dead.

It was a message movie, but not a heavy-handed message movie. It didn't try to dazzle you with special effects, or distract you with heaving bosoms. It tried to be (and I'd say succeeded as) a psychological thriller. You can feel the fear in those claustrophobic spaces, and even the opening scene in a wide-open graveyard is extremely confining and limiting from a mental perspective. The enemy can't be stopped. It can't be reasoned with, or outwitted, because it is relentless and pervasive. But even worse is the fact that you can trust no one. The people who should be your allies will sacrifice *you* in a heartbeat. Right from the start you get the sense that everyone was doomed, that resistance really was futile, there would be no question mark at the "The End" title card.

For me, Night of the Living Dead ranks right up there with seeing Hendrix for the first time (one week after Monterey Pop) and seeing a pre-opening screening of Alien.
Had no real preconceptions and as was typical for me at the time, was completely blitzed for the occasion.

Like the other two events, NOTLD was a game changer.
Never before had a movie been so unrelentingly bleak and grim- the cheesy production values and no-name cast only add to the effect- and most of all...everybody fookin DIES!
No happy endings here, no glimmer of hope, just death and finality.

I resisted rewatching it for this movie club, afraid of tarnishing the memory of the original experience.
I did obtain it but still haven't decided if I will see it again or not.
On the one hand, I'm afraid it will be crap and force me to reconsider my taste as a stripling and on the other, if it's as powerful as I remember, I'm not sure I need the dread at my advanced age.

Decisions, decisions.

Superasente, had they all stayed in the basement, they still would have been killed eventually. The obnoxious husband was no more or less right than Ben.

In addition, this was after a number of advances in the civil rights movement... and there are different kinds of racism. So, societally speaking, you would've had your progressive hippie types that listened to the black man and took him seriously as a fellow human being, eager to "do the right thing", as it were; and you would've had your bitter white folk who were angry that the "colored folk" no longer knew their place, but as far as society and the law were concerned, they (the bitter whites) had to accept it. (Obviously, this is generalized and oversimplified a great deal.) it's not always as obvious as the white guy calling the black guy "boy".

It's been quite some time since I saw this film, and I don't know that I'll have time to see it tonight (and tomorrow I have a class). However, it is one of my all time favorites, and I think it does hold up terror-wise, because in the end, you're left with that sense of utter despair; that is, everyone is going to die. Period. And there ain't a gatdamned thing anybody can do about it, black, white, or otherwise. Personally, that was one of the things I always took away from it, was that Romero was kind of saying, "Hey, guess what? Zombies don't give a crap about your race, color, gender, or creed. They gone eat yer brains anyhow. So why bother with all these distinctions?"

I'm fairly sure that superasente is right about the race issue. I seem to remember reading somewhere that Romero didn't cast based on race. He just used the people he had.

Having seen NOTLD probably over 50 times, I've drawn some conclusions.

First, on the racism commentary: I've come to the belief that it's not so much a commentary about racism as it is a depiction of the hope many people held for the aftermath of the civil rights movement. Ben was a future standard, a representation of what should be and what was hoped for by many, a truly equal, no, superior, black man, even in his unjust and tragic death. Consider the age old horror movie trope...he/she who lives the longest is the strongest. If that holds true here, even Ben's death by "redneck posse", as Elliot Stein so eloquently put it, doesn't detract from the fact that he of every person in that house managed to survive the ghouls.

As far as the Vietnam comparison, I've always found that argument to be a bit specious, but it's difficult to deny that the imagery provokes comparison, whether by intent or simple overexposure.

I saw this movie for the first time back in 1976 and it definitely stayed with me, uncomfortably, for quite a while. I saw it again recently on cable and found that it's held up surprisingly well.

I wonder if the disagreement regarding a racial relations message is based in a generation gap. It seems to me to be a perfect race commentary for the time in which it was made. I grew up during the 60's and Romero didn't have to make his point obvious (with a "boy" or other denigration) because the prejudice was all around us and the film reflected it. The white man's dismissal of the black man was entrenched in far too much of society.

I'm also interested in myysharona's comment about the pacing. It *is* slower, but it's a real-life pace, even in the somewhat stilted 'acting.' I'm going to reveal my age again in this comment, but why does horror has to be presented in fast-cuts and rapid camera moves? When paced as in real life, the horror seems more possible, doesn't it?

Don't you see that it doesn't play out?

If the young couple is supposed to represent the hippie movement and progressive attitudes about black equality -- when that theme plays out, Romero must be criticising that movement. By trusting Ben, they die. They were wrong to trust him.

Also, if the white suburban is supposed to represent old ideas and bigotry, by the end of the movie he is shown to be in the right. One opinion in the comments is that "Oh, if it had been a white person emerging from the house at the end, they wouldn't have been shot." Another opinion is that "Oh, if they had all stayed in the basement, they still would've died." Either Ben was right, or the other guy was right. It was either safer in the basement or it wasn't.

Since Ben survives the invading Zombies, I am inclined to think the white old guy was in the right -- not a theme that criticises racism very well.

But does it matter who "won" or who was "right?" Because they all die in the end, it doesn't matter who was right or where they should have been.
To me, that seems like a big leap to go from location chosen to race of the character who chose it to racial commentary.

Also, regarding the last question in the article, I don't think it's campy at all. I can see why it might have been terrifying in 1968, but I wasn't terrified. Intrigued, a little grossed out, and surprised at times, yes.

By trusting Ben, they die. They were wrong to trust him.

I don't think they were *wrong* to trust him, I think that they placed their trust where they felt it belonged, and it didn't work out. Sometimes that happens. Sometimes, you put your trust in someone, and the zombies get you anyway. That doesn't make it *wrong* that you put your trust in that person.

Since Ben survives the invading Zombies, I am inclined to think the white old guy was in the right -- not a theme that criticises racism very well.

I think you're contradicting yourself here... if Ben hadn't been shot by the cops, how far would he have gotten before he was eaten by zombies? In other words, he would likely have fallen to the zombies eventually, he just happened to get killed in the meantime. And, how long did those cops last? How long before they all got their brains eaten, and the zombies got into the house, and into the basement, because everyone was busy hiding down there instead of at least trying to protect themselves?

Ack! Stupid work...

I'm going to agree with Sharona and take it a step further.

To say that one or the other interpretation is THE interpretation is messy thinking. Opinion is opinion. But for the sake of argument, I'm going to disagree with both the opinions you mention Superasente. I would bet for damn sure that posse would have shot anyone they saw, and why not? At that point, race has ceased to become an issue, what with the whole zombie apocalypse thing. White zombie, black zombie...still a motherfucking zombie.

Second, and I think more importantly, you cite 2 events as fodder for your point on Ben being wrong...the death of Tom and Judy and Ben's decision that barricading themselves in the basement was more dangerous than leaving themselves exposed in the upper portion of the house.

Tom and Judy are easy...they died because they were morons, not because Ben's plan was a bad one. Tom was the idiot who splashed gasoline near an open flame, and Judy shouldn't have been there in the first place, she followed them like a brain sick toddler.

As far as Ben being wrong about staying in the main part of the house vs. Harry's plan to barricade themselves in the basement, well, that's a touch more complex, but it comes down to this...it's impossible to say with any certainty that either was right. It's definitely not so cut and dry, and it's a fallacy to say that because Ben went down to the basement after everyone was dead, Harry was right. But thinking tactically, Ben had no choice at that point. He had to control access points as one man can't defend an area with multiple access points. Secondly, Ben's initial plan allowed for escape routes should one entrance to the main house be overrun.

Simply put, to not take into account the fact that Ben is surrounded by idiots who can't seem to make a sound decision doesn't speak well for the theory that Romero was indicting those who believed in racial tolerance.

Smokin, my point is not that Romero is criticizing racial tolerance. My point is that racial tolerance is not a theme of the movie.

What I'm saying is this; if it had been a theme of the movie, things wouldn't have played out the way they did. Things end badly for everyone, regardless of race. It's like you said -- it didn't matter who came out of the house -- white, black...it's a motherfucking zombie.

I'm not saying the racial theme is one of intolerence, I'm saying that there is no racial theme.

On the I am Legend Connection, what's always struck me is that in both Matheson's novel and NOTLD, the precariousness of the protagonist's safety is highlighted and used to further the tension.

Later zombie films and especially the Omega Man rely on the now cliche set-up of vast numbers of luddite monsters vs. a small band with lots of firepower and technology. We view this initial scenario as inherently "fair", as it gives the main characters a fighting chance.

But NOTLD and I am Legend offered no such fairness...there are no stockpiles of automatic rifles or armored vehicles, no exotic large-scale-effect weapons...just whatever might be lying around the house. In I am Legend, if memory serves, Neville has just a couple of pistols, but they were as effective on the vampires as shotguns are on terminators...momentarily stops the onslaught, but that's it.

I think this heightens the sense of dread we feel, and makes the main character's survival seem all the more random or arbitrary, or in Ben's mastery of improvised weapons, impressive.

I don't know Romero's intent. Even if he had no conscious intent for a message concerning racism (and don't throw out the possibility of a subconscious one), that does not mean that the art - once out of the artist's hands - can not become an entity of its own and thereby create interpretations beyond the artist's intent. When it comes to art, I don't see unintended interpretations as any less "valid" than intended ones. That's one of the reasons some directors are reluctant to do commentary tracks: they don't want to bias the lens of the viewer. A film can have its own relationship with the viewer, and given the climate of the time around this film's release, a discussion about racism seems relevant to me.

Anyway, I have not watched this terribly recently - and I apologize for failing to do so for the Movie Club - but I just wanted to throw in my two cents. I actually saw the remake before I saw the original, and I remember it creeped me out. It takes quite a bit for a film to truly creep me out. (That image of the hanging zombies being shot by the soldiers was especially unsettling to me.) When I finally saw it, the original played a little bit dated for me, but it's still a great movie. I need to rewatch them both.

Supes-

Not the point I was making, though that is one way of looking at it. The casting was indeed bold, but the casting means nothing without the attendant positive characterization

I think that, textually, he reaffirms the casting by portraying Ben as the only competent person in the bunch. What Romero said by doing this, and I think it was completely intentional, was that Ben, a black man, was just as capable of fulfilling the hero archetype, even to it's ultimately tragic end.

When you strike a nerve with horror, it should hurt forever. Films based in shock value tend to lose their value over the years because there will always be a more shocking film just around the corner. Romero works so well in the original Dead trilogy because he justified the existence of gore with intelligent screenplays and solid filmmaking.

I get a lot flack from a lot of different groups for loving horror films. The fact is, the type of horror films people associate with a young man like me liking are rarely the films I enjoy. If I provided a five film defense of my preferred genre, Night of the Living Dead would be exhibit C, behind Rosemary's Baby and Cat People (original) and ahead of Carnival of Souls and The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane. I like my horror films swarming with imagery, grand performances, and social/political commentary.

Carnival of Souls!!!! Damn that was awesome. I first saw it in college, because an acting teacher of mine was in it (Sidney Berger, who also had a cameo in the god-awful remake). So good, and definitely worthy of inclusion on a top five (thought I have to say, Cat People surprises me. Maybe I'll have to give it another chance).

Mysharona -- Some recurring themes in zombie movies:

1. Zombies aren't the threat. Your common man is the threat. Mistrust. Pride. Lust. These are the monsters that will get you in the end.
2. Zombies usually represent some mindless group of ordinary citizens. Sometimes they're just the catelyst for chaos, but very often they are analogous of some TYPE of person.
3. No happy endings. Rarely is there a zombie movie made where the people get away scott free -- a theme begun in Night of the Living Dead. Certainly you have your Sean of the Living Deads and your Zombilands -- but those are comedies. If it's zombie and it's horror, it's bleak.

Robert, totally agree on what makes for good horror movies. The best horror films always seem to have a strong sociological bent, just as the best sci-fi films usually address philosophical issues.

One of the things that's always struck me about this film, and I haven't seen it mentioned here yet, is that in many cases it's the character's own actions rather than the zombies that lead to their deaths. The movie sets up the idea that other zombie films ran with, that the survivors undermine each other and allow their tension and stress to make the situation worse. Look at the actual causes of death in the film:
Barbara's brother: zombie
Tom and Judy: fire they caused themselves
Mr. Cooper: shot by Ben
Barbara: zombie, but she threw herself at them
Mrs Cooper and daughter: zombie
Ben: shot by militia
that's 4 killed by zombie and 4 dead basically because of human failings. I find that pretty striking about this film - the zombies are deadly, but the humans are just as much so.

I had a question about Mr. Cooper, he betrays Ben by running when he should have let him back into the house. Also, Ben sees him in the basement doorway when he's able to break through and knows that Cooper is a cowardly shithead. It's a great moment in the film.

Mr. Cooper, after hesitating AGAIN, goes to help Ben block the door. Is this a moment of redemption or not? If it is, does he pretty much erase that when he later takes the gun from Ben?

Well, there are times where people win against the zombies, but they always seem to come back. Just look at the Borg, they're essentially zombies, and while they never seem to bring down the Enterprise outside of parallel universes, or for a permanent period, they always come back.

Zombies symbolize hopelessness, death, and/or old age, you can fight them, you can maybe even last a long time, but you can't ever win, and if you think you have, it's an illusion, they'll always be back.

@Robert: When you strike a nerve with horror, it should hurt forever.

Very well said.

@George: Zombies symbolize hopelessness, death, and/or old age, you can fight them, you can maybe even last a long time, but you can't ever win, and if you think you have, it's an illusion, they'll always be back.

Also very well said. Such wisdom from one so young.

I'm really enjoying this thread.

On a more serious note, I think George is dead on as well (pun intended).

Additionally, zombies represent in many ways the danger of the herd mentality. A group of people with the same mindset and goals can be very dangerous. Zombies, in some cases, are a commentary on the perils of a homogeneous society.

Smokin...indeed. Which is more frightening, the zombies or the militia at the end? As someone earlier said, the scene with the hanged zombies was unnerving.

Question: Most horrific moment in Romero's films?

My vote goes to the scene at the end of Dawn of the Dead when the elevator opens to reveal Steven as a zombie.

Runner up goes to the teens' inards being devoured after the gas pump blows up in Night of the Living Dead -- the first moment you know that they are HUNGRY, and not just murderous.

As an offshoot of the social commentary discussion, things don't need to play out as an exact allegory to be social commentary. I prefer a more subtle approach that offers subtext and enriches a film and its characters. Night of the Living Dead has that in it, whether it's intentional or not.

I think it should also be noted that historical context also enriches a film/text/whatever. A piece of art is ultimately a product of the time it was created. It may not change the way you view it, but it can. Mostly, it just makes for fun analysis.

Now that I know the context (I'd heard the line forever and ever) "They're coming to get you, Barbara" is some mighty good foreshadowing.

Does anyone remember Stick Figure Theatre from Liquid Television? They did this movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUyYhh2jbSU

Night of the Living Dead will always scare the absolute piss out of me. I don't consider any of his other films to really exist (okay, maybe the one where they're in the mall -- Dawn of the Dead?), because there are none that can top NotLD. The casting of a black lead was ballsy and absolutely worth it, because Romero knew what social commentary was back then. The newer ones were shaved down to formulaic "oh no there's zombies and they're going to eat us and I'm making weird faces oh no."

NOTLD is rightfully iconic, because it does what great countercultural artifacts do: it uses a low brow context to highlight truths that mainstream art is pressured to ignore.

Your questions:
1. Went in expecting the effects to suffer but be otherwise interesting, wasn’t disappointed. I could appreciate it with it’s historical context
2. It was archetypal and the love Romero earned for his revolting creations was clearly well earned
3. Zombies are a symbol of relentless, self-defeating hunger, stripped of intellectual justification (probably more evident in Dawn, but still relevant here). Once the food source is gone, all that is left is to rot. Human survivors on the other hand may have the wherewithal to address the greater questions, but through their other intellectual constructs- ego, race, sex- they tear themselves apart.
4. I can imagine a black man being cast as a resourceful hero and leader of a group of scared white people was a radical statement for an era of race riots and assassinations. The fact that race wasn’t directly addressed in the script added to the realism. Overt racism is only the tip of the social iceberg, most of it lurks beneath the surface in the assumptions people like Cooper make about the people around them. A soapbox “nigger vs whitey” drama could only have looked staged and would probably have dramatically reduced the cultural lifespan of the film.
5. Her depiction was weak. While it didn’t overshadow the film, it was stood out as a helpless screaming female role in a movie that was otherwise making positive statements on behalf of the forgotten segments of society. Felt similarly about Dawn: according to the doco on the extras disc of Dawn, it wasn’t until Gaylen Ross virtually shook Romero that Francine got something positive to do. Fortunately Romero, being the “do what you think is best” kind of director he is gave her latitude to beef up her character.
6. ***BOOK SPOILERS***Don’t even mention that Will Smith abomination in relation to either Mathieson’s book or Romero’s film. Both stories focus on the norm becoming the other without realising it and IAL the film threw it out the window in favour of a bullshit Hollywood feel good ending. IAL the book approaches that “norm->other” transition differently to the film. In NOTLD’s, the transition was a horror device- communications go down, radio fails, tv fails, survivor numbers dwindle, society slowly collapses. The film is about the transition as it happens. In the book the transition is complete, the twist is that the protagonist doesn’t realise it. He becomes the monster that stalks the sleeping, the dark legend of a new human society that forms around him while he sleeps, returning only when it is ready to take over. The realisation that he is the exception and not the rule is poignant rather than horrifying. The film: none of the above.
7. I read I Am Legend first, so it was more of an academic exercise, but it was still enjoyable. Not really terrifying, but unnerving once I learned to stop looking at the seams and appreciate the concepts.

Dude. GP.

Make out with my comments first.

Hee. You kids are teh hotness. You're both my #1! We should just make it a threesome. Yeah. That's an excellent idea. Plus, new tagline: Pajiba: Bringing weird relationships together since 2003.

Also, this: i want to print out this thread, pin it to a body pillow, snuggle with it, dream of it, and sully its holiness with a nocturnal bath of my hunchy efforts. also, make out with it. = yes, I'll take one of those body pillows too. Pajiba movie club rox!

And thanks for reminding me about Stick Figure Theater, because I had forgotten it, myysharona!! I can't believe I had, because it was awesome. And now I know where to find it, whee!!

Ok, you whippersnappers. Saw this in 1968. On a hot summer night. At the drive-in. Which was next to a GRAVEYARD. Add to that, that the news anchor, Bill Cardill, was within my tv reception radius and I watched him on Chiller Theater every Saturday. To cap all this off, the news crawl at the bottom of the screen with the emergency locations included the police station which was 1 mile from the drive-in. We were 10 years old and we were through.

As to the racial commentary, NOTLD was made one year after "In the Heat of the Night" with Sidney Portier. Heat of the Night was the first film where a black man slaps the snot out of a white man and doesn't die for it. As a black child in the 60's to see a horror film where the black character wasn't a gibbering fool, was inspirational. A strong resourceful black man on screen who wasn't taking crap from anyone? Hell, that was a revelation. Duane Jones was every black man in my neighborhood. We knew him. We knew that man existed cause he was our fathers, our brothers, our friends. That he had to die at the end at the hands of rednecks was tragic, but was absolutely no surprise to us. That was the world we knew.

I do not believe for one minute that Romero didn't know what he was doing when he cast Duane Jones. He may have been the best actor who auditioned, but when has that ever stood in the way of a director not choosing a white guy? He knew. What he couldn't know was how young black folks would take it.

Some of the commenters are talking about what zombies might "symbolize", I think it's an interesting subject for us zombie-lovers...you can come up with a lot of interpretations that all make sense in their own way, so I don't think there's any one right answer. But I like to think of them as representing forces of nature which are part of all of us, but which human civilization (and the individual ego) fears or tries to suppress awareness of--death, physical decay, mindless animal hunger and violence (like velociraptors!), the loss of individuality in a swarm, etc. And if zombies are seen as representing violent mindless natural forces unbound, then you could see them as sort of drawing on the same sort of archetype as old legends as followers of Dionysus (Greek god of drunkenness, ecstasy, madness)...this bit of a page on Dionysus has a rather zombie-like feel:

Followers of Dionysus often took part in the Bacchanalia, a frenzied festival that incorporated wine with dancing and sexual activity. The animalistic instinct associated with the Bacchanalia empowered his women followers, known as Maenads, who in their release from sanity and inhibitions allegedly would tear apart animals or children and devour the raw flesh.

Such is the case in the fifth-century B.C.E. play The Bacchae by Euripides. Pentheus has the stranger Dionysus arrested for impropriety, but when the god manages to tempt the king to don women's clothes and spy on the Maenads, they attack him and tear his body apart.

Nothing at all was scary. I repeat NOTHING at all was scary! I was bored out of my mind 80% of the film. 19% I was angered at the idiot boyfriend or the retarded GF. Seriously, Someone here said that they reacted realistically to the situations. What is wrong with you! The woman acted as if she just wanted to ignore everything and hoped it went away... yet claimed it had been happening since she was 8. They guy on the other hand pretended he had the slightest clue as to what he was doing. "I GOT A PLAN" as he sprinkles baby powder on the floor... WTH did he think that was going to do... show him something/someone was there.. Hadnt that already been established by that point of the "film"? Where was the plan? He threatens the "ghost/demon" what ever the heck it was as if hes going to fight it... Really!? The only time the acting was good is... well never mind because it wasn't ever good. OK at best during the many arguments that took place in the film.

equation 1 is what plants do, they use photosynthesis and convert it to sugar and oxygen. they are autotrophic and make their own food. equation 2 is what humans do, we break down glucose (C6H12O6) and use oxygen to make waste products (carbon dioxide and water). This demonstrates matter is recycled because our waste products are what plants use to make their energy and their waste products are what we use.

Vuoi liberarti di qualche oggetto? Magari il tuo vecchio cellulare, un monitor che ti ingombra la casa, un vecchio televisore, la tua prima macchina digitale, degli accessori come cuffie o microfoni, hai altre cose che non ti servono ma che potrebbero andar bene a qualcun'altro? www.bachecaweb.eu offre la possibilità di inserire e consultare gratuitamente svariate tipologie di annunci suddivise in categorie tematiche. Dall' abbigliamento al lavoro, dagli immobili ai viaggi e poi, elettronica, motori, giochi, telefonia, audio, video hobby e molto altro. Inserisci subito il tuo annuncio e carica le immagini, automaticamente si creerà il volantino che potrai appiccicare nei posti più affollati per vendere più velocemente. www.bachecaweb.eu

hi everyone, I was just checkin' out this site and I really love the basis of the article, and have nothing to do, so if anyone wants to have an interesting discussion about it, please contact me on yahoo, my name is sammy posali

Great article, will definatley return to see any additions to your blog. Thanks a lot and keep it up!

Hi! Your place is valueble for me. Thanks!…

amazing stuff thanx :)

great stuff, love everything about this site. keep on with the good work.