Another chick in the mall

The mall setting was probably my favorite thing about this movie. I love the conversation where someone asks why the zombies go to the mall, and the answer is "instinct." The mall where the movie was filmed was one of the first of its kind, according to the Wikipedia article, and it's interesting to see how early in the game it became an object of satire — a symbol of surburban boredom, materialism, time-wasting. The mall in American culture became not just a place to shop, but a place to hang out, to roam through zombie-like, staring at all the products that hold out so much promise of making us happy.

What were your thoughts on the mall's role in the movie?

survival

If Romero skewers anyone in this film, it's the hunting, fishing, Iron City-drinking types who respond so indifferently to what has become of humanity. (Though he does this scene with some humor.)

What struck me is how much safer they seemed, sticking together out in the countryside. What do you think of the foursome's decision to go it alone? Granted, I think they had to protect a precious commodity -- the helicopter -- but otherwise, survival instinct would be safety in numbers.

On the other hand, look what happens when law deteriorates to a point where Wally can butcher people according to his personal, bigoted agenda. Or what if they settled into a mini-theocracy or some other form of rule? That's one of the reasons I like films or books ("The Stand," "Lord of the Flies") with a survival setting. Maybe the undead aren't the scariest threat a character deals with.

In media res

What did you think of the film beginning in the middle of things, with no prelude whatsoever? Havoc and zombies and crisis from the first minute.

Alternate ending

The Wikipedia link I mentioned earlier delves into making of an alternate ending for "Dawn." In the original plan, Romero had Peter shoot himself at the end after all, and Fran was to thrust her head into the moving helicopter blades. (The special effects crew was probably pretty psyched for that).

Like most movie viewers, I preferred the ending Romero chose in which Fran and Peter get away, but because I saw "Dawn" before "Night," I didn't understand one of the basic concepts about the zombies. I thought that you didn't become a zombie unless they infected you. But as "Night" tells it, if you die of any cause in this new era, you become a zombie, unless it's a fatal head wound. By that logic, Fran, Peter and the other survivors will eventually have to choose suicide or become one of the undead. (Barring a "fortuitous," fatal head injury.)

That made me rethink Romero's ending -- maybe he shouldn't have chosen the "happy" version.

racial issues

Note: This is a spoiler for "Night of the Living Dead" (which came before "Dawn").

"Night" was an unconventional horror film for many reasons, but among them, the hero of movie was black, and the year was 1968. While he survives the zombies up to the last minute of the film, he dies because a civil patrol posse of good old boys mistakes him for a zombie and shoots him in the head. The film ends with newsreel-type images of the hero being dragged out of the house, to a pile of bodies and then set afire -- a disturbing image in a time of civil rights turmoil.

I think that's relevant background to why the introduction to the SWAT team in "Dawn" was set in the projects, with a racist unit leader controlling a bloody charge into a building where families wouldn't give up their undead. I squirmed when Wally called the people the n-word and called their building "a fancy hotel -- they've got it better than I do."

Who's your daddy?

Was there a misunderstanding about the conversation to abort Fran's baby? Peter asks Steven, "Do you want to get rid of it?" in Fran's absence -- and she took it to mean that Steven and the others would be making the call. I thought Peter meant "you" in the sense of "you and Fran" when he asked it.

In any case, it was an interesting moment in the movie for Fran, one in which she realizes she is a minority in the mini-society they've created, and that her rights could be revoked.

Macho, macho men ...

Were you stranded in a big city full of zombies, it would be handy to have at least one SWAT team sniper in your gang. And once you've got two, the testosterone is practically contagious! Was the group machisimo responsible for any of the character deaths? And what happened to Steven -- was his carelessness driven by a desire to protect Fran? A need to be one of the boys?

The plot not taken

The smart script for this film didn't develop into some of the obvious lines directors would take. Chief among them was the storyline of Fran's pregnancy, which is 1) not revealed until about a half-hour into the movie (and her smoking might throw viewers off the scent, even if the habit was less verboten in the late '70s), 2) does not turn her into a archtypal expectant mother who will suffer health problems and need protection and 3) is not seen to full-term, which is what I expected. (Another director might have succumbed to having Fran be mid-labor when the bikers/zombies get in, for example, like there wasn't enough suspense to go around.)

Also off the path was how some of George Romero's characters developed -- who would be heroic, who would survive, who would elicit sympathy. Did you experience any surprises in that respect?

I'll post about the ending tomorrow, but the earlier Wikipedia link had details about the alternate scenes filmed to conclude the movie, which also would have defied conventional audience expectations.

splatter chatter

I can't decide whether this is a good early question, but it might surface later, so here goes.

I like horror movies. I like the cathartic feeling at the end, if the film's good, and I like believing in supernatural elements against my better judgment (like in "The Shining") during the movie's run. But most horror movies feature a body count to heighten the suspense/gore factor/move the plot along, etc. -- and that's not something others may want to see.

As I rewatched "Dawn" last night, even I thought the initial killing spree and gore was intense, and I'm desensitized from all the other horror films I've watched. Did the violence turn you off initially or throughout the film? Did it detract from the pleasure of watching the movie?

The lowdown on "Dawn"

I don't believe everything my parents told me -- and I feel the same way about Wikipedia -- but it has an extensive, interesting entry on "Dawn of the Dead". It delves into a lot of the shooting challenges of the movie -- trying to film at a mall after close, managing all the extras (some of whom would show up drunk) and handling special effects.

Don't read it until you've seen the film, but it's fun.

It also made me aware that a fourth film came out in 2005, "Land of the Dead," which I plan to watch. Also, a "Diary of the Dead" was shot in late 2006. It reads like a "Blair Witch" retelling of the original lore. There are links to those films from the Wikipedia entry above.

The dead shall walk the earth ...

But not on my watch today.

Went to a dubious-looking video store on the east side of the city to pick up "Dawn of the Dead" (and was pleasantly surprised by the Criterion collection and other choices -- all about a buck less than Blockbuster and LH) and found "Dawn" right away. Get to the counter and realize I picked up the 2004 remake! I congratulate myself for catching this amateurish mistake and go back and pick up "Dawn" and go home.

I put the DVD in the player and realize I checked out "Day of the Dead" instead.

And my co-worker is right -- it's the dud in the series. I felt like I was watching an excerpt from "T.J. Hooker" or "Hunter," except with undead.

So if you want to talk about "Dawn" today, you can start without me -- or I've seen it before, so I can discuss. I'll be in full moderating mode tomorrow.

Christy's pick: "Dawn of the Dead"

OK. It's time for a horror movie.

My film critic co-worker hounded me, a horror film fan, for almost a year to watch this film, and it was well-worth my time. "Dawn of the Dead" is the second in George Romero's "Dead" trilogy but can be watched on its own. Though the same premise -- the dead are walking the earth and hungry for a taste of the living -- carries throughout the trilogy, the characters and storylines stand alone in each film.

There are a lot of interesting subtexts about gender, race and suburbia in this 1978 original. (I hear the 2004 remake is good, but that's not the one to watch.)

Enjoy!