Night of the Living Dead created the template for the modern zombie-horror film.
Innovative filmmakers continue to reinterpret George Romero's "monster," a creation which reflects a self-destructive and violent predilection indigenous to humanity. Thanks to Romero, horror continues to serve as satire, a means to pose questions about society, government, and other serious issues. The best horror is both frightening and thought-provoking.
Director Danny Boyle and screenwriter Alex Garland's attempt at horror revisionism yielded a classic film. 28 Days Later is stylish, violent, satirical, inventive, nostalgic, and ultimately romantic. The film poses trenchant questions about human nature and addresses a uniquely modern fear: viral outbreak.
What are your thoughts about 28 Days Later? Leave a comment on this post summarizing your feelings regarding the film.
Your post must be submitted by Friday, Nov. 1st.
Here are some ideas to consider:
- Boyle's decision to shoot the film using handheld, digital cameras
- The atmospheric music
- The film's satire of military power
- Rage as a virus
- Interracial romance
- Racism: the chained up "infected" soldier
- Normalcy = "people killing people"
- Normalcy = an end to humanity
28 Days Later is an awesome movie, with a thrilling, yet fear-inducing plot, with many interesting moments throughout.
ReplyDeleteThe moment the scientist said that the monkeys were infected with “Rage”, I was immediately intrigued. Why is the infection seemingly named after the word “rage”, of all things? There are a few different ways to think about this, I think. It seems like they were trying to make a point about violence; to send a message about how rage perpetuates it. Maybe it’s a form of irony towards the rage that humans can have, and the possible destruction that can come after. The animal rights activists were violent towards the scientist, and angry that they had kept animals locked in a cage. And as a result, they ended up unleashing a worldwide disaster.
Though I liked 28 Days Later a lot, I feel like it is marred by its ending. The ending is pretty positive, and I totally get that the director wanted to make the ending happy due to the intense darkness the rest of the film carries. The only issue I really had with the ending is that it was a bit too bright for me, and that kind of ruins it. Things end a bit too positively. The contrast between the ending and the rest of the film is too glaring for me to suspend my disbelief; throughout the majority of the movie, there are consequences for every action in the film. There are disasters and tragedies that occur to our beloved main characters, and that helps to paint a bleak picture in an apocalyptic world – a picture that is also realistic and makes sense in context, because in such a situation, someone or something is bound to get hurt, as we saw so many times in the movie (the deaths of Mark and Frank, for example). I loved that there were hints of hope throughout (the horses riding majestically through the field in a rather peaceful environment, or the appearance of an airplane flying through the sky) – that there was a chance that things could go back to normal eventually. But there is still a sort of uncertainty that things won’t ever go back to normal, and everything works well in the context of the setting and story that’s told.
These little bits of hope and the uncertainty, though, are ruined by the ending, because that hope is basically confirmed. Nothing bad happens to our main characters in the end; they all survive. Not that that is a bad thing, but it made the movie lose its sense of danger, of the threat of the living, infectious dead, which were also basically killed off in the end too (though it makes sense that they would starve, like I said, it killed the danger). Things ended up feeling too cheery for me, and the movie lost its edge. I’m all for happy endings, honestly, but it just felt too out of context for me for such a dark movie.
After reading about the other alternate endings, though, it still would’ve felt weird, I think (besides maybe the one where Jim dies at the hospital and it’s real -not a dream-, but maybe the execution of the other endings would’ve sold it for me, too), so I don’t really know the right way to end it. Maybe if Jim, Selena, and Hannah had survived, though scarred, and continued to travel through this terrible world in search of more hope?
Otherwise, 28 Days Later is an awesome film that I’d love to watch again sometime.
Kenny: watch the film's vastly inferior sequel, 28 Weeks Later. The sequel indicates that despite the appearance of the rescue plane, Jim, Selena, and Hannah most likely faced continued dangers (Note: No characters from the first film appear in the sequel). The sequel is a more overt satire of government, and in particular, military force as represented by martial law. The sequel is markedly darker, but it fails to create characters as endearing as Jim, Selena, Frank, and Hannah. Without sympathetic characters, the increased danger provides few if any scares: it's emotionally vacuous violence (Yawn), but it is consistently dark in its tone.
DeleteThat being said, let it go on record: I support this new Kenny who yearns for a dark yet consistent tone in 28 Days Later.
28 Weeks Later sounds like it wouldn't be so good, in that case, Mr. Clark. Like you mentioned, if we don't have any characters to care about in a movie (or if a movie doesn't care about its characters), then why should we care in general?
DeleteWhile the ending of 28 Days Later was disappointing to me because the tone of the ending was inconsistent with the rest of the film, it was only a part of the movie that made such an awesome whole. The characters and the subtlety are what helped make this film so enthralling and gripping. 28 Days Later had heart. That's what made it so endearing.
In retrospect, I'd like to add that if they had made some sort of build-up towards this positive tone in the ending, it would've felt more natural to me. I think the problem was that the movie shifted from the incredibly dark, bleak tone to a more uplifting, happy one way too suddenly. We jump from Jim almost dying to him in recovery. We jump from the dangerous world of zombies to one where the zombies start dying out (did they really have no other food source other than living, pure-blooded humans, though?). We jump from a feeling of some hope to one that is incredibly hopeful. There is no in-between. If there were scenes in-between the jump to another 28 days later to help explain what happened, it would have helped to make such a sudden change much more reasonable. Maybe that's the main reason as to why I can't buy the ending.
I'd also like to add points towards the different kinds of "normalcy" mentioned in the film. Major West's idea of normalcy, "people killing people", is debatable, to say the least (though he's clearly not all there, is he?). Perhaps due to being in combat in the military, or seeing and becoming a part of the destruction and disaster that the Rage virus wrought upon society, he seems to have a twisted view of humans. He believes that all they do is kill, and that killing is a normal, natural thing. It goes to show how warped the man truly is. While people do kill, they often have reasons for doing so, whether justifiable or no - out of anger (or "rage"), out of greed, to show dominance, to protect others, to survive, etc. In this case, humans are doing it to survive. It is them or the infected. There are people who have never killed before that are being forced to kill in order to protect themselves/others and live another day. For those people, this is not normal. This is not "business as usual", as the saying goes.
Part 2 (Sorry, I didn't plan on writing this much; it just sort of happened):
DeleteRegardless of the validity of Major West's statement, what he says does bring up an interesting point, one that is also brought up in Night of the Living Dead - when the militia kills Ben, thinking that he is a zombie. "People killing people" - the phrase puts the infected and the uninfected humans on the same ground, and it makes us wonder, just who is the monster here, and who is the victim? It's a reoccurring point in some other works, too, I believe; even in Frankenstein (I think, though I hope you'll forgive me if I'm wrong in saying so). Who is the real monster - the monster itself, or Victor, the man who created the monster in the first place?
Oh, and that makes just as much sense in the context of 28 Days Later, since it's humans who both create and release the monstrous infection.
And regarding normalcy meaning an end to humanity? That's just as debatable, I think. The word "normal" itself depends on your own personal definition. Something that's normal to a person can be unusual to another, such as lifestyle choices or interests. Someone who only eats vegetables (a vegetarian) could be considered odd or irregular by someone who eats meat, and vice versa. So, based on different perspectives, I think this is normal for the world. The earth keeps changing as time goes on, and it is a far cry from what it was millions, billions of years back, and so too do its inhabitants change; change is normal for the globe. It'll keep spinning, even if humanity ended. But for humanity, the end thereof would not be normal. One thing I think humanity is definitely used to is having people around the world, and so a world without people just wouldn’t be normal for us.
Also, thanks for the feedback, Mr. Clark.
DeleteWho is the real monster - the monster itself, or Victor, the man who created the monster in the first place?
DeleteNo apologies: this is the most interesting question posed by the novel. Victor attempts to create life, a prideful endeavor, succeeds and then promply rejects his creation. He then later denies the monster's request to create a mate for him (the monster promises to disappear peacefully with his bride). Victor's actions cause the monster to behave as a demon.
With this in mind, is it fair to say that mankind is responsible for the creation of the infected in 28 Days Later? The scientists were attempting to find a "cure" for rage, but was this a prideful endeavor?
Personally, I say yes. Rage and anger are innate emotions. They serve a necessary function. Also, if one was able to remove rage from the human lexicon of emotions, people would, in my opinion, cease to be human (This is the idea behind A Clockwork Orange).
Thus, the infected to me represent humans destroyed by humanity's hubris. Though violent rage has always afflicted society, it never spread like a virus prior to human intervention.
I am westerner raised in a household governed by Judeo-Christian morals, and as a result, I am bound to the doctrine of free will. We must choose to be "good" as we also choose to be angry or violent. Robbed of free will, man is an automaton, and who's to say whether this compromised form of humanity will not simply devour one another in a mindless horde of unthinking, unfeeling consumers.
Kenny we are getting metaphysical up in here. Amen, brother!
Though 28 Days Later is by all means a modern horror film, there are elements of classic, gothic horror in the film. The two most prominent examples are the church and the mansion.
ReplyDeleteThe mansion, the setting for the film's climax, is quite creepy. One image from the film that sticks in my head is the bedroom in which a doll's head is featured prominently.
You may have also noticed that many of the shots in the mansion show the large marble statue in the foyer. The statue is a depiction of Laocoon, the Trojan priest that attempted to warn the Trojans that the infamous horse contained hidden dangers. This adds an interesting layer of meaning to the film's climax. I see two possible interpretations.
(1) The soldiers, who at first represent protection and safety--"an answer to infection"--actually represent more sinister purposes.
(2) Jim, Selena, and Hannah, who at first appear to be a desperate family pieced together by tragedy, ultimately contribute to the destruction to the soldier's mansion stronghold.
Isaiah Johnson
ReplyDeleteThe film 28 Days Later is a awesome movie, with many suspenseful moments throughout. The moment the scientist said the monkeys were infected with rage I was a little confused. I thought to myself how is it possible for a monkey to be infected with rage. As I continued to watch the film I understand why the monkeys were infected with rage.
Normalcy to me doesn't mean "people killing people". Even though people do kill other people in the film 28 Days Later the people were clearly zombies. People wouldn't just be killing other people just to do it that's just my opinion. In my opinion "people killing people" doesn't mean normalcy.
I think normalcy means the end to humidity. In the film 28 Days Later zombies were taking over London and infecting everyone. Over time the zombies would have ended humidity. So I think normalcy means an end to humidity.
Dude, I wish the zombies would end humidity.
DeleteThe coolest aspect of "28 Days Later" was the way in which the film was shot. The use of digital cameras gave the illusion of a faster paced movie. When an infected person was running, the camera would be shaky and sort of choppy. This created a scarier effect and made it seem like the zombies were moving quicker than they actually were. Another reason this helped to make them creepier was that the camera angles made it difficult to follow their movements. So as the viewer, you really can't predict how close they are to the victim or in what way they are going to attack. It also gave the impression that the zombies had a sense of urgency. It was as if they knew their time was limited unless they did what they had to do.
ReplyDelete28 Days Later had a gery good plot to it and the fact a viewers perspective could change upon watching the film was remarkable. In the ending scene you could actually say rooting for the zombies was your choice rather then the soldiers now. The whole idea of survival in this movie is to stick together and collect supplies as you go and it seems so perfectly planned out to stay alive. 28 Days Later really gives you an in depth look into the violence of our world today showing that its really not a virus or bite, but simply PEOPLE KILLING PEOPLE.
ReplyDeleteThe film, "28 days later", was a great film, from what I saw in class. The idea of these people not actually being "zombies" but being alive and infected by a virus is interesting. But the best part is that they are infected with rage, that is what's causing them to kill people. The fact that the main charters were international was clever on the directors part. During the time this movie was being filmed racism was still around so Jim and Selena went against what was popular during the time. The film was scary and also pretty impressive considering they only used a cheap hand held camera.
ReplyDeleteEven though the film had good actors and very interesting plot but it had a few down falls. First, I didn't really like how they had a black "zombie" on a leash. That just completely contradicted Jim and Selena's whole thing and related to slavery. Although that may not have been the directors intentions, that's just how I perceived it. Next, the ending wasn't the greatest. The director could've came up with an alternate ending that was a little more creative. Like when they wrote "Hello" for the plane to see they could've said "help" or "SOS" or whatever. They probably would've been saved if they said basically anything besides hello.
Lastly, the movie was a little too sentimental, some of the characters were too dramatic and obnoxious.
In short, the film "28 Days Later" was a great film and really did enjoy watching it and was scared for some parts, but they could change a few things.
This has to be one of my favorite movies we have watched so far. The thing that fascinates me the most is that RAGE is a virus. It seems so surreal. It gets me a little scare that maybe someday this would happen. The virus turned into an epidemic very fast. It reminds me of the swine flu we had couple years ago. To have something so common (rage) portrayed as something else that is also common ( the virus) is a little creepy. It gave the movie a different feel. It was a great way to modernize “the zombie”. Those zombies were nothing like the old-black and white-George Romero zombies. The rage takes over them and turns people into maniacs.
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting point in the movie is normality. The military guys talk about people killing people. That is true most of the time. The military does just that , kill people. Innocent? Guilty? Its really only determined from a certain point of view. Since I have always been very critical about wars and mass killings, it emphasizes my point of view on them. It makes us humans look like animals. This virus was exactly that. It turn people into raging monkeys trying to kill and infect everyone. The virus parallels people. It shows the normality of war and acts of murder. Such things are usually done in big cities were more damage can be attained. The movie does a great of showing that the city is where it mostly affected people. It is a scary to think about what the military does and compare it to the flesh eating people infected with rage. Are they more similar then we thought?
However, I must also address the point of survival. At the end of the movie we see the infected people die of starvation. the infected were merely trying to survive. the modern view on wars with kill or be killed. Throughout the movie we see people having to kill in order for them to live. A few examples are of the guy who was with Selena at first, Hannah’s dad, and the little boy. Our animalistic instincts will always be part of our nature. Sometimes the use of it and the portrayal of it in the modern times is not the best.
"28 Days Later" is a very well put together film, from the cameras used, the music played and the overall plot that rage is shown as the virus, makes a very enjoyable film. When first watching the movie I would of never guessed the director used a handheld digital camera. The shots and footage shown throughout the film come across as more advanced than what a handheld camera is usually used for. The handheld gives it a unique aspect, it's something that most directors don't use that often nowadays. Directors today purchase the high tech cameras, with all the special effects, when on the other hand Danny Boyle makes an equally as good movie, in some cases an even better film, with a digital camera. To make such a great movie with a digital camera, gives a lot of props to Boyle . The shots of reflection while Jim, Mark, and Selena are in store and how they show the infected are amazing. The fact that director used a handheld camera truly amazes me. I probably never would of known if we haven't been told.
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting technique used is the music. In class when we first heard the music I thought it sounded really interesting, and thought that it could be something that I could actually listen to for enjoyment. I didn't necessarily think it was creepy until I saw it used in the film. It just gives the scene a deeper, eerier look. I think the music works perfectly throughout the film. One scene in particular is when Jim is alone in the beginning, the music gives off the vibe of silence, panic, and wonder that Jim probably felt while he wondering the streets and comes in contact with the infected for the first time.
The fact that the infected are carrying a virus of rage is very terrifying. To think that if this actually happened one day is really scary. Most people today already hold a lot of anger(cough, cough Erica, cough cough... Just kidding) and imagining them not being able to control their anger and just loosing it all and acting on rage is frightening. The world would come crashing down just like the film represented. There would be the few that survived and there would also be the people who would do what Jim's parents did and take the "easy", less painful way out. Imagining seeing the ones you love turn into monsters right before your eyes is something I hope we never have to encounter.
As someone who is not usually impressed with zombies I would have to say "28 Days Later" surprised me. I was unexpectedly impressed with the film and especially the underlying aspects of the movie such as the camera angles and the estranged views of normalcy. In the beginning of the movie when Jim is aimlessly wandering the city and stumbles upon the "infected" I was vigorously intrigued for some unknown reason. There was no dialogue, no human interaction, only Jim and the abandoned city. However the camera angles following Jim around the city kept me interested in his path down across the town and the music created a portal into Jim's world almost as if everything around me disappeared and I was also all alone in the middle of a large city. And the view that the world had never changed because people were just killing people which was a normal thing before the infection took place was an interestingly accurate thought. You can't dispute that people killing people is an abnormality in society. Obviously the infection would have to be considered abnormal to most people but from the soldier's particular viewpoint he didn't want to accept the fact that anything in his world had changed for the worst.
ReplyDeleteTo me, the normalcy of people killing people seems like morality. If society knows that killing is immoral, that is normal. The conflict between Hammurabi's philosophy "an eye for an eye" and Gandhi's philosophy "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" is also vital. People going against the general population's morals are part of society being normal. Sex before marriage and abortion are also controversial topics that have a multitude of stances involving morals. Society's dichotomy when it comes to morals is expected and accepted.
ReplyDeleteThe way the film was shot was definitely one of the most appealing aspects about it. The handheld cameras made the movie organic and realistic. It was kind of documentary style, a special that would show on Discovery, History, or PBS channels. Even though I have never been to England, I felt like I was there. I thought I was standing right next to the actors. This was helpful because I felt like I was involved in the storyline instead of being an omniscient spectator. I'm not a fan of horror or suspense but I enjoyed this movie.
28 Days Later is by far one of my favorite movies that we have watched thus far. Early on in the film, the eerie music perfectly set the tone for what was to come. When it played, you could feel the loneliness and fear that Jim must have felt when he first woke up, to the frustration and panic of when he realized he was stuck in a post-apocalyptic wasteland. The film was visually impressive as well. The use of handheld digital cameras to enhance the movement of the infected was ingenious and innovative. For a movie that didn't use a lot of expensive equipment to make, it is put together very well. The idea of normalcy being an end to humanity intrigued me. I'd like to believe that everything revolves around us humans, but that isn't the case. In fact, in the expansive history of the Earth, we humans are barely present. So in a way, humanity dying off would really just be bringing the planet back to "normal".
ReplyDeleteMovies like 28 days later are meant to scare people and put a thought in people's mind that wow this could actually happen. 28 days later did this by using rage as a virus instead of the usual zombie apocalypse. Also, the movie was filmed with hand held cameras which added a realistic and more something that I don't know but you get my point. In the end the movie was pretty good!
ReplyDeletethe way the film 28 Days Later was shot was what intrigued me. The use of a shaky camera shot when filming the "infected" depicted not only that they were running in an in-human way, but that there was truly something wrong with them. i particularly like the twist at the end when the director starts to use this shaky camera shot on the main character himself. this hints that now the infection has started to make its way into his body and making him one of the beings that he was running from previously in the film. Also, the idea of having an interracial couple as the main characters in the film is something that directors and story writers try to shy away from when making a movie, but the fact that this director actually executed it was very well done. He even goes as far to make the African American woman, someone who has been put down her whole life, one of, if not the strongest people in the film. not only does she survive the "infection," but she has to kill her loved one in the beginning of the film because he could not avoid being infected
ReplyDeleteThis movie wasn't really a scary movie but it was definitely more obvious in the fact that it mimics and questions society. The fact that the virus that turned everyone was rage is really interesting. Rage is what destroyed and turned everyone into these monsters. The use of handheld cameras gives it that realistic effect that makes you think twice so it doesn't look like your watching a movie but are viewing this with your own eyes. The music was a nice touch especially in the beginning. If you listened to the song alone, you already got that feel of disaster and being alone like how those sophomores guessed in class. The movie itself does touch base with a lot of society's issues.
ReplyDelete