Rules of the Living Dead (or should zombies run?) by Bill Hussey
November 12th, 2008
A fascinating and entertaining article has appeared on the Guardian website. Penned by comedy actor and writer Simon Pegg - of Shaun of the Dead fame - it is, in part, a review of last week’s E4 zom-com Dead Set.
As evidenced by his and Jessica Stevenson’s superlative sitcom Spaced, Pegg is a geek of many colours; a lover of comic books and Playstation games, horror and sci-fi movies (just don’t mention those Star Wars prequels! Even though long-time collaborator Peter Serafinowicz provided the voice for Darth Maul, Pegg is not exactly a fan of ‘Vader: the early years’). Pegg’s passion for zombie films is obvious from his work on the lovingly-crafted homage that is Shaun. I’ll never forget laughing like a nitrous oxide doped hyena during the scene in which Nick Frost’s Ed shouts down the phone ‘We’re coming to get you, Barbara!’ - a wicked little Romero in-joke. Pegg has also written a cover quote for Max Brooks’ excellent zombie holocaust novel World War Z . I was interested, then, to read his take on Dead Set.
I won’t reprint Pegg’s views here but let’s just say he liked Charlie Brooker’s series. Liked it to the point of loving it. What stuck in Pegg’s craw was the fact that, as with many recent takes on the zombie mythos, these shambling cadavers did not… well… shamble. They ran. Not just ran, but belted about like Paula Radcliffe in search of the nearest kerb-side drain. My own view of Dead Set is that it was good - very good - but somehow lacking. I couldn’t quite place my finger on exactly what was wrong with it - Brooker is a brilliant and witty writer - until I read Pegg’s article. The problem was with the running. For a zombie movie, a running corpse destroys so much of what is special about the entire concept . Put simply, shambling = pathos and heart. Read Pegg’s article for a more eloquent explanation of what I mean.
Dead Set didn’t quite work because a primary rule had been broken. That got me thinking. Are there any other monster rules that should never be overthrown? In the article, Pegg states that werewolves shouldn’t fly. I think we can all agree on that, but should our hairy, toothsome friends always be vulnerable to silver bullets? Should they be slaves to the cycles of the moon or be free to transform at will? Can we have werewolves that don’t transform at all, but become hairy only on the inside? Are these facets of the myth so central that to write a story or produce a film without them somehow detracts from the entire exercise? (As a side note, I for one am really looking forward to Benicio Del Toro’s forthcoming Wolf Man, in which all the old rules will surely be obeyed).
The vampire has a been a prime candidate for rule revision. That’s possibly because there is such an abundance of mythos that has been attached to the creature over the years: the stake through the heart, the trouble with mirrors, the necessity to sleep upon a layer of its native soil, the ability to turn into a bat, a wolf, mist etc, aversion to sunlight, garlic, holy water, the crucifix and, like its hirsute cousin the werewolf, silver. In some legends we have the vampire unable to cross running water or to enter a house uninvited. Sometimes he’s obsessive-compulsive when it comes to counting pebbles or grains of rice. Occasionally he doesn’t even have fangs and seems to have forgotten his lust for blood. Lots of these bits and pieces have been discarded, adapted and even added to by writers. But again I ask, are there some elements of the vampire myth that should never be tampered with? I remember watching some Eddie Izzard stand-up a few years back in which the comic was appalled by the fact that, in Francis Ford Coppola’s take on Dracula, the Count was allowed to roam around in daylight. Actually Bram Stoker does allow Dracula to walk about during the day, but in the public consciousness, as well as in most pre-Stoker myths, the vampire is vulnerable to sunlight. Although I’m an atheist through-and-through, I’m also a little dismayed by this modern trend of having vampires sneering at the cross and idly tossing crucifixes into corners. It’s always struck me that a creature so encompassed by death should be a little afraid of the possibility of judgment and damnation. As I say, I’m an atheist, and that possibility still scares the be-jesus out of me!
So, over to you: any vampire/werewolf/zombie rules you think ought to be sacrosanct? What other monsters have inviolable rules? Most importantly, should zombies run?
Entry Filed under: The Function of Fear
10 Comments Add your own
1. Bo | November 12th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
I put this article up at my own site, and I am relieved to see someone else bring up the glory that is Spaced in relation to the gags first tested there. Excellent article!
2. nabs | November 12th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
I like to see zombies as a metaphor for the general populous. Back in the 60s-70s Romero was attributing the walking zombie to the population of the time who were led by the base instincts to consume without thought or intelligence for what they wanted and just mindlessly consumed….But today the population of … western countries have sped up in their demands for consumption at an exponential rate and the chav in the street now knows what they want (be it ipods, 360s etc) and are actively encouraged to be discerning about their consumption, hence the reflection of zombies this millennium as fast creatures searching out their prey.
3. thebonebreaker | November 12th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
First I just have to say that I have not yet seen Spaced [it has been at the top of my Netflix Queue for months now, with a Very Long Wait - which I suppose is a good thing, as more people are becoming aware of it] Also, I too am looking forward to next year’s Wolf Man!!
As for changes to the rules - I think that if you establish your own rules, up front, it is okay. If however you start off with traditional rules and then start to stray, that doesn’t work!
As for zombies - Fast ones worked in 28 Days Later, however, I personally prefer the slow, shambling kind.
4. The Hill | November 12th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
An intriguing debate. To be honest i’m not sure where I fall with it so I shall play devils advocate for a moment. For the film-maker I suppose it boils down to the over-simplified concept; do I stick to tradition and hence the overall zombie metaphor, or do I look to break convention and attempt to move the audience out of their comfort zone?
I will personally admit to liking the zombie representation in 28 Days Later. I remember thinking that the running added a greater sense of menace and helped re-introduce the life-challenged as the acceptable face of horror. By breaking convention, the zombie became scary again. Which, in essence, is the prime purpose in making such a film.
Simon Pegg (The Messiah) states that 28 Days wasn’t actually a zombie film, but I would commit heresy and debate this due to the fact it spawned a re-birth in the genre, which had, forgive the pun, died out.
Saying that, I am aware of the secondary meaning to the Romero series and how the film stood as a metaphor for consumerism - especially the original Dawn of the Dead which was set in a mall. This message does not seem to hit home as eloquently in the spring-heeled zombie flicks of the modern era. While I greatly enjoyed Zack Snyder’s remake on a stylistic level, it seemed to lack the overall motif displayed by the shambling zombie of the classical interpretation.
So, I guess I am on the side of whatever works, without sticking so religiously to the rules and boundaries imposed by the past. I want to be made to think in a film, but I also want to go to a zombie film to be scared. So, I am in favour of whatever makes that happen.
5. josephdlacey | November 12th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
The whole point of monsters is that they break the rules. Rules of society, rules of morality, rules of fair play.
I love zombies as much as the next deadophile and I have to admit the ones that can run give me the fear. Bigtime.
When it comes to horror, I’m not a traditionalist. I’m happy to see horror fit the times. And sometimes I just want it to be horrible. As a semi-professional bullshit-artist, I like to bend horror to my mood or whim, too. Vampirism can be a virus or a sexually transmitted disease. Lycanthropy might be a psychological tic – nothing more. Maybe the 28DL and Dead Set Zombies have a touch of necrotising encephalitis. Maybe they’re on speed. Maybe their death-fever is preventing rigor mortis from setting in. Once you’ve soiled your underwear, who cares?
Fine, keep your traditional monsters in their traditional roles with their traditional behaviour. But don’t let’s stop being creative for the sake of staying the same. Sprinting zombies are a sub-genre of a sub-genre. I can live with that.
At least until they tear my fucking throat out.
6. Benjamin Bussey | November 13th, 2008 at 12:25 am
To a degree, monsters are always metaphors. Their meaning may change with time, so it’s only fitting that the so-called ‘rules’ change with them. That’s necessary to keep them from getting stale. If I’m thinking of the same Eddie Izzard sketch, he pondered whether making a cross with your fingers worked, in which case vampires were completely buggered! In these times of religous uncertainty, and with Christianity no longer accepted as the only path, I think it’s only fitting that the cross lose its power. I like Fright Night’s take on the subject - “You have to have faith for that to work on me, Mr Vincent!”
As regards running zombies - I don’t see why not. I think 28 Days Later was very overrated; didn’t dislike Zach Snyder’s Dawn remake but wasn’t blown away by it either. For Dead Set, I think it worked. The surprising brutality was one of the show’s greatest strengths. I for one was hoping Charlie Brooker would have gone a bit further with satirising Big Brother, but I guess that wasn’t the main aim.
Like Joseph said, monsters are there to break the rules. A lot of people hate Nightmare On Elm Street Part 2 because Freddy breaks his own rules from the original - but that’s what makes it a different story! If horror rigidly retreads the same path over and over, things get predictable pretty damn fast. Monsters should break their own rules from time to time to keep us on our toes. Otherwise, we’ll be getting out of it without breaking a sweat by making the sign of the cross with our fingers.
7. Zombie Boy | November 13th, 2008 at 4:55 am
Return of the Living Dead.
That is all.
8. billhussey | November 13th, 2008 at 11:38 am
All really interesting points. I’ve only two things to add: of course it is refreshing when a writer or filmmaker comes up with a new take on a monster that bends or breaks the old rules. However, one thing that I know from experience a reader loathes is when a writer establishes a world with its rules within a book (or a film, presumably) and then breaks those rules in the same book. That undermines the reader’s willing suspension of disbelief, which is crucial for a writer of horror/fantasy. It is, in fact, one of the most fatal mistakes a writer of the fantastical can make.
Secondly, I won’t deny that running zombies were a refreshing change a few years ago. But I don’t go with the argument that just because a zombie runs it is scarier than the old shambling version. In fact, I think there’s something even more terrifying about those sad-faced but remorseless creatures that, clever as you are, quick as you are, will get you in the end, through sheer weight of numbers if nothing else. They’re not pissed off, they may not even be that hungry, but they’ll tear you apart with inevitable and deliberate industry! That scares the crap-ola out of me! What I would say is hopefully we can get back to the old format from time to time. Sticking to the rules can sometimes be even more radical than breaking them!
9. Liz | November 13th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
I love Spaced (both series) and am a big Simon Pegg fan. Shaun is an excellent movie with so many tiny homages it is required viewing.
I am in two minds on zombies: by having them run/be fast, lends that much more terror to the movie as you know you have to run / drive that much faster to get away, so there is an immediacy to the terror. With the shuffling stumbling zombies, their inexorable slow progress is creepy beyond compare - so both types bring home the terror - it just depends what pace you wish to convey.
Werewolves and vamps have been done to death in the urban fantasy/paranormal romance genres, with each writer trying to create their own mythos. As a Stoker fan-girl (or is that fangirl?) I appreciate the Victoriana of the monsters created - the mystery and the romance and the implied sexual deviancy. I guess I like my monsters old-school, in other words.
Really good article this, Bill!
10. Zeke_the_Meek | November 25th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
“is when a writer establishes a world with its rules within a book (or a film, presumably) and then breaks those rules in the same book” - Bill
That’s precisely it, in my mind - I never like Anne Rice because it always felt that she was flying by the seat of her pants. If the plot called for Lestat to sunbathe all afternoon on a beach in Majorca wearing only factor 4 lotion, for some reason, he’d be able to do it.
I think if you’re going to deal with a mythos but add a spin to it, you need to have that spin consistant within itself, but also not to step on the toes of the greats before you. If you’re going to be brass enough to tackle a zombie/werewolf/Alien/Lecter etc, you’ve got to be aware that you’re representing an entire world. If you do the job badly, it reflects on everyone.
Don’t dick around with convention just for the sakes of dicking around. You need a very good reason for it, and the ability to execute it.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed