The American Nightmare

The movie The American Nightmare interviews famous writers of horror films in the 1960’s and 70’s to get an inside look of their thoughts on their own movies. George Romero, the creator of the Night of the Living Dead horror films, is one of the film makers interviewed. He arguably made the modern zombie film what is today with these works. The film focuses on his own thoughts of the movie and the figure of the zombie. George Romero says that the zombie is the blue collar kind of monster because it is essentially us. The zombie is basically us undead with no emotion or thought process. His film Night of the Living Dead brought the modern zombie into popular media. He was the first to make the zombie into what we think of it today. Romero talks about how this movie was torn to shreds by critics when it was first seen, but now it is considered a classic American film. The critics also talk about how the movie was real to people back then due to its medium of black and white. Romero talks about his idea of a new society taking over the old society in a revolution that changes everything. This thought made the zombie the perfect monster in his film. The fear of our society getting taken over is a fear many had especially during those times. His film perfectly used zombies in replacement of Vietnam or white bigots of the era.
Critics also talk about how the struggles of the time are really captured in the movie. The images of the movie showed truth of the struggles that many films were not able to do. George Romero was really ahead of his time in a creating a powerful film that made a horror genre so popular even today. The American Nightmare discusses the assassinations of the time along with all of the other hardships and relates it into the horror film. The sense of fragility of the time was shown in horror films created in the 60’s and 70’s. Also the war in Vietnam was a very big part of the makers of the film. The inhuman things that happened in the war were portrayed in the horror films. These gruesome things seen in the war were recreated in their own films. In a way these movies were made to forget or transfer these horrible images of the time into a film that could be related to. Everything that was being seen in these horror films was actually going on in the world in a sense. The inhumane acts in the war were seen in the films that came out of this period. The zombie was an important figure in films because it put the blame on a non human being. This instead of what was going on in real life with people killing other people. The American Nightmare gives a good parallel between the time period and the films that come out of it.

Shaun of the Dead

'Shaun of the Dead' is a movie that really does a good job of commenting on our society as a whole, as many zombie movies do. The main recurring point brought up is how so many of us go through life simply living a 'mere life'. From the very beginning you see what is teased to be a zombie is actually just Shaun waking up in the morning. When the zombie outbreak comes to pass, Shaun and his idiotic friend Ed don't even notice anything different at first. While the way this is done is for comedic effect, it definitely is a comment on how we all walk around like zombies.

What really makes 'Shaun' such a great movie though, is how well it balances the hilarity with the drama. Shaun is in a huge personal crisis; his girlfriend, Liz, dumped him, he doesn't have any sort of career, his best friend is a free-loading imbecile, and his other roommate is the total opposite in that he is now very successful, though a total jerk. But then the zombies come, and though they kill the majority of the group Shaun and Liz are with at the end of the movie, including Shaun's mother, it is the zombies themselves that bring so much humor to the movies. From the dark humor of running someone over and not sure if it's a zombie or not, to pretending to be zombies to get to the pub, (which is among the most idiotic plans they could have come up with, I mean seriously, how can anyone think they are safe in a pub with no exits?!) to beating up a zombie to the tune of Queen, there are so many clever little moments of comedic gold.

Which makes the final stand all the more sad, as one by one, the survivors are picked off by the zombies, beginning with the heartbreaking moment with Shaun's mother. She is bitten and knows she will eventually die, as does everyone else. Shaun obviously has difficulty coming to grips with it and eventually has to shoot his zombiefied mother in the head. Tell me with a straight face that isn't straight out of your worst nightmare.

But in the end of it all, Shaun and Liz are back together, and not a huge much has changed in their lives, with the exception of how great their relationship is. It took a zombie massacre for them to realize it, but they finally figure out what's important in life.

Land of the Dead

After watching Land of the Dead I had mixed feelings. I thought there were some interesting aspects to the movie, but the zombie figure portrayed in this movie really bothered me. I thought portraying the zombie as a learning species was extremely interesting, and had a lot of potential, but it got ruined for me with the head zombie (the mechanic). He just sort of became knowledgeable for no reason and all the others just sort of mindlessly followed. The scene where they realize they can walk under water was really well done. What was more interesting, to me, was the civilization that was formed. There were a lot more survivors than the average zombie flicks lead the viewer to believe, and the class systems seemed to still be a major focus in the movie.

The zombie figure aside I thought the way Romero set up the movie was well done. By using radio broadcasts to explain what was going on is what I always prefer over a newscast over the television or word of mouth in passing somewhere in the movie. Stating that all the zombies are attacking major areas the audience then knows that the uninfected are aware of the fact that the infected are starting to learn makes you question if it is still moral to simply exterminate the infected. The antagonists in this film seem to change from the zombies in the beginning to the big wigs as the film progresses. The viewer is almost cheering for the zombies at the end of the film. Overall, I enjoyed the flick I just didn’t much like how there was a zombie leader.

Last Night On Earth

This past week in class, we have been discussing the zombie figure in media we don’t normally talk about. Basically any zombie that isn’t a book or a movie. Recently I discovered a role playing board game called Last Night On Earth. It’s a board game all about a small town being taken over by zombies. You can play with 2-6 people, and you can either take the role of survivors, the heroes trying to make it through the night, or you can assume the role of the zombies, with basically only one goal in mind: destroying the survivors. I tried the game out and it was a lot of fun. From my point of view it was simultaneously recreating a zombie movie while making fun of it. It obviously puts a lot of effort into making sure it’s like a movie. The characters, for example, are all recreations of the cliché characters that appear in not just zombie movies but all horror films. There’s the high school jock, the drifter who’s always in the wrong place at the wrong time, a sheriff who is haunted by his past, and many others. It even comes with a soundtrack to put on while you play the game, which sounded kind of ridiculous to me, so I didn't bother putting it on. I enjoyed the aspect of the game embracing the campy B movie feel a lot, but what I really enjoyed was actually playing the game. You can choose between several different scenarios that give the heroes different objectives for winning the game. For instance, one scenario makes you kill 20 zombies before the game ends. Another makes you get keys and gas to a truck so you can leave town. On a little side note, all games are over after "the sun rises" or in other words after a certain amount of turns pass. I also did a little research online and found people that made their own scenarios and characters, which makes the possibilities for this game nearly limitless. When you are the heroes, there is a great deal of tension being built as you try to gather resources (such as a crowbar or a chainsaw) for your goal while the zombie army slowly builds and creeps up on you. This one of the reasons this game works so well. Another one that goes along with that is that both sides are fun to play. While you are a human, you can live out your fantasy of trying to survive the zombie apocalypse, which means (at least for me) getting to take out as many zombies as you want. Zombies are just as fun if not more because you get to control a small army that slowly kills the enemy. There are even special circumstances for killing a hero and turning them into part of your zombie army. I also liked the aspect of not having an objective besides screwing the other player up. Strategy fans should also enjoy this game because all of your moves are based on what the other player will do, especially if you are the zombie player. There are also a good variety of different weapons, items, and events that make the combat fun and interesting on the second, third, or even tenth run through. If a role playing board sounds like a good time, then I would definitely recommend picking this one up.

Popular Zombies

Zombies unlike many other monsters have become increasingly popular throughout the years. From zombie pub crawls, books, movies, and video games zombies can be found in almost everyone’s day-to-day lives. So the question is why? I believe there isn’t one set answer but a multiplicity of reasons why they are so admired.

For some they are an escape from reality and a fulfillment of our greatest inner desires. Some desires include the idea of a post apocalyptic society in which there is little to no consequence and everything can be attained with little effort. Everyone at some point in their lives has had the fantasy of a disaster and splurging by stealing everything they’ve ever wanted. To fulfill these fantasies we watch movies, read books and play games and imagine we are in that situation.

For some the zombie however is used as a Political tool. Underlying political or social implications can be found in many of the zombie narratives that are specific to the time period in which the narrative was created. Issues such as immigration, capitalism, infection, and religion can be found in many zombie books and movies. Zombies are used as a blank slate to explain or satirize certain hot button issues.

Zombies increased popularity can’t be explained by one explanation alone. However there are many in which explain this phenomenon. The zombie is used as an ambiguous figure, or blank slate to explain or describe many different topics, subjects, or issues.

Shaun of the Dead

Oh Shaun.

Shaun of the Dead is a parody and satire of all previous zombie films, particularly the Dead series by George A. Romero. Rather than commenting on society and the government, Shaun's main conern is everyday life and the monotony of going to work, coming home, going to the bar and repeating the same story the next day. The opening scene in which the credits are shown is the most evident of this. The people are walking through the streets as zombies. The same goes for the scene in which Shaun walks to work for the first time. The scene that mirrors this exact shot is after the zombie breakout and Shaun walks to the corner store to get a soda. He takes the same route and doesn't react to anything, same as before. This films comment on society and the zombie genre are very similar. It suggests the lack of originality in our Western culture. Although this comment has been made by every person who despises the postmodern ideas surrounding us and being visualized on screens of films and television.

However, Shaun of the Dead solidifies patriarchal norms at the end of the film. The obstacles against Liz and Shaun are eliminated. Ed is a zombie, Shaun's mother dies and allows Shaun to be in a normal, heterosexual relationship with another woman, and his stepfather and romantic enemy are eliminated and allow for both people to unite with out any deviance and interference from society.

World War Z Max Brooks 105-187

The book World War Z by Max Brooks gives the scenario of a viral zombie apocalypse that takes over the entire world. The book gives an oral narration of the war against the undead and interviews survivors of the ordeal. I really enjoyed the way Max Brooks told the story through people’s personal recollections of the war. This gives the reader a great insight to what it would be like to be in this nightmarish situation. The government’s decision to bomb bridges with civilians on them to stop the zombie movement shows the fight between morals and survival. This fight between what is right and wrong is thrown out the window under the circumstances of a zombie apocalypse. Your main strategy is to do what you have to survive and keep the infected zombies from reaching here the masses of uninfected are. This raises the question of how far does the government go to save its civilians? Do they try to save everyone or just a portion? In the book it gives the example of Paul Redeker’s idea of using civilians as bait for the government and military to retreat to a safe zone to save their selves. Once in this safe zone a small portion of civilians with “desirable qualities” would be ushered in to help with labor. This idea is very scary seeing how in times of chaos ones government can turn on their own people. But in this situation it seems logical to save your highest officials and military. Without these people your whole country is even more in shambles. Saving the people with the best qualities gives hope of trying to rebuild your country once the war is over. These moral decisions are tough to make in times like that. Would these actions be justified in a zombie take over? I think saving as many people you can without giving up all of your own resources would be best. The book makes you wonder what kind of decisions you would have to make if put into this situation. You question if your morals would be diminished to enhance your own chances of survival.

Pontypool

Pontypool is a Canadian horror film directed by Bruce McDonald, adapted from a screenplay written by Tony Burgess, who also wrote Pontypool Changes Everything, the book this movie is based off of. This zombie movie takes place in a radio station in a small town in Ontario, Pontypool, where shock-jock talk radio host Grant Mazzy (played by Stephen McHattie) is shunned to because no one else will hire him anymore. Mazzy is accompanied throughout the film by his morning radio team that consists of Sydney Brair, the producer and Laurel-Ann Drummond, the technician who recently returned from Afghanistan. Sometime during the morning show, during the normal boring announcements like school cancellations, they start to get strange reports of people committing acts of the extreme violence like cannibalism and rioting around a doctor’s office. While when the radio crew first gets this news the don’t know whether to believe it and speculate that it’s an elaborate prank. The threat becomes all to real when the church that the radio station is in gets attacked by the zombies and one of the crew, Laural-Ann even gets infected. Mazzy and Sydney eventually discover that the infection is being spread through language, English in particular. From this point on the characters had to choose whether they should talk to use the radio to try and warn people or even whether they should talk to each other because of the risk of infection. They run into an infected and even stumble upon a cure. After they discover the cure (which I’m still not exactly sure what it is) the Canadian military comes and broadcasts a countdown and the films ends with Sydney kissing Mazzy at 1. This film surprised me in a couple of ways. First of all, I liked how the majority of the story takes place in the radio station. I think director McDonald does a great job of using the confined space with the talk radio atmosphere to keep the story fast paced and suspenseful. It almost seemed like a stage play to me in this way because of the small set. It also forces the audience to come up with the terrifying imagery on their own. An idea that I would have never have thought of from this movie that I think is really interesting is the idea of an infection spreading through language. It can be interpreted in a lot of different ways. For instance, I’ve read that some people think it is commenting on the English-French divide in Canada. In a broader sense I think it’s a commentary on language in general, but especially how it‘s used in Western culture. I think it’s saying language can infect our daily lives and screw things up and lead us away from our true lives, or that words have no real meaning. With an excellent lead character, a good plot, and some interesting ideas, Pontypool is a fun watch with a lot to talk about well after the credits stop rolling.

Sorry for the late post.

May is Zombie Awareness Month

http://www.zombieresearch.org/home.html

Be Aware of the Upcoming Threat

I Am Legend

Omega man and I Am Legend share common similarities that are faithful to Richard Matheson’s original novel I Am Legend. However they have distinct undertones and messages, which make them uniquely distinctive. Some of these differences include the portrayal of Robert Neville, the portrayal of the adversary Matthias, and the symbols presented.

The portray of Robert Neville in the Matheson’s version was of a man that was lonely, had psychological issues with the loss of his family, and was sexually frustrated being the last human on earth. Neville in the Novel version had psychological distresses because of the loss of his family. He had flashbacks, and suppressed memories of events that led up to the Vampire apocalypse. He wanted to dig up her grave and burry her properly, however the convention methods of burial were permitted. In the movie version featuring Will Smith it was more similar than Omega Man featuring Charlton Hesston. The Will Smith version also referenced back to the time prior to the vampire apocalypse. Unlike the novel version it seemed as though Will Smith character had more hope because it leaves the possibility that his family was still alive unlike the novel where they are dead. Furthermore in Omega man they rarely if at al reference his family previously to the incident. Additionally another similarity between the novel version and the Will Smith version was they were the last people on earth and hadn’t a partner whereas in Omega Man Neville had a partner.

The portrayal of Matthias was also distinct every version. In the Novel he provoked the Neville to come out which was somewhat similar to the Omega Man Version. However in the Omega man version there was a hierarchal society of intelligent vampires with Mathias as the leader whereas the novel had a lot of drone Vampires and Matthias as the leader. In the Will Smith version there was a leader Vampire however they had no society, or language skills. A similarity between all of the versions however is that all of the vampires had a common interest in Neville and he was seen as the “Monster” thus the title I Am Legend.

Symbols were another shared theme, which can be examined in all of the versions. Religious themes are prevalent in both the novel, and Omega Man. In the novel Religious undertones can be found in the treatment of the dead in burial rituals and in the Omega Man Hesston’s portray of Christ. In the end of the Omega Man film Hesston is sacrificed to save the population and is strung out on a statue similar to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. In the movie with Will Smith it shows a similar symbol to the Omega Man when Neville sacrifices himself and blows himself up with a grenade. Furthermore in the ending credits they play the song redemption song.

The comparison between all of these versions helps illustrate the greater meaning of the story. With a blend of all of these versions we get a better understanding of Neville, and the situation in which he was placed. It also illustrates three different ways in which a person can survive mentally and physically in the event of disaster. While doing the comparisons I could pull out a commonality that pull the stories together. Neville in I Am Legend, and Omega Man shows the feet’s a person will go through to survive and further the survival of mankind.

WWZ Part III

The final chapters of ‘World War Z’ have a much different tone from the rest of the novel. While there is still horror (the island getting attacked while the sub was docked) there is a lighter outlook on the war. This is primarily because we’re at the point where there’s a ‘light at the end of the tunnel.’ The panic over zombies attacking everyone is subsiding and the shock has left the situation to a degree. Now tales are being told of successes against the zombies, rather than total human massacres. The first big example of there being a hope to end the war was Todd Wainio’s story of the battle at Hope, New Mexico. As is mentioned by Todd, the name of the battleground set the tone. And it was a total 180 from the previous battle at Yonkers. The troops acted as one unit and massacred all the zombies, scoring both a military and moral victory, showing what could be rid the world of the zombies. It was a huge juxtaposition from Yonkers, as it was told from the exact same perspective and showed how the tides had finally changed in the war.

However, at the end of this story, what has been established is what humankind is ultimately capable of in both positive and negative ways. After defeating the zombies, humankind is united for possibly the first time in history, the result of everyone having a common foe. It bears mentioning that it takes a worldwide epidemic and an extremely deadly war to bring humankind together, a comment on the violent nature of our species. It lets us revisit the issue of why zombies are so violent after reanimation. Is this the base nature of our species, to be nothing more than savages seeking meat?

World War Z 187-end

Seeing as the current topic of our class is Zombie Narrative as Dystopian Vision, the last section of World War Z by Max Brooks is a very fitting segment to discuss. The first definition of dystopia is;

1. An imaginary place or state in which the condition of life is extremely bad, as from deprivation, oppression, or terror.

Clearly one can draw individual conclusions of why this definition is interconnected with this segment of the novel. The current war that is taking place in the novel certainly fits the bill of less than favorable conditions with waves of zombified humans consuming millions of human lives across the globe. All of the world is literally in shambles, and by the end of the book the major superpower of China has become a sparsely populated country. In this definition mentioned above, the first statement is "an imaginary place". This can be tied to how the narrator himself feels throughout the novel, and he puts it in words at the end by saying "I thought it was a dream, sometimes it still feels like one". After the devastating toll on human life and the major upheaval of the worlds political system, this "dream" has had a more than tangible effect on human history and everyday life. The world was certainly full of terror and oppression and situations that usually did not have a positive outcome.

This novel most definitely shows us how the world can pull together when the entire race is under attack. It has a certain light of optimism that is reaching to tell us that in desperation, the human soul will show kindness over selfishness and hate.

WWZ 187-342

To start, lets address how much an addict Max Brooks is to the subject of zombies and writing. Brooks, who also wrote The Zombie Survival Guide, went to great lengths to incorporate an accurate portrayal of modern technology, politics, culture, military tactics, economics, and etc. when writing World War Z.

For a full summary of World War Z, check out the wiki entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_Z.

Moving on, the second half of the book focuses primarily on the response on a grand scale to the zombie threat. It also details how leading nations of the world crumble away, while third world nations thrive; how the zombies continue to prove a serious threat to the surviving populous; and how life (other than humanity) came to suffer at the hands of humanity more so than the zombies. Those poor, poor whales.

I enjoyed this reading assignment mostly because it addresses how humanity treated other species of life in its time of peril. It would seem humanity has the right to bring upon the extinction of life; while trying to fend off its own extinction.

Shaun of the Dead

Shaun of the Dead, on the surface, is a satire on the classic zombie movie. The violence and gore is set against a wacky comedic background, turning this into a very dark comedy. Even though it’s a completely different setting, it sometimes feels like some scenes in Dawn of the Dead. As we look into the movie a little bit, we can see that it has a lot of subjects and themes that many other non-comedic zombie movies have. The main character, Shaun, has a completely uninteresting life. He needs something to change very badly, and a zombie outbreak is just right.

Throughout the movie, Shaun is presented with situations that forward his character development. Like many zombie movies, the focus is on the characters, and the zombies and fighting is just a tool to move the story along, and keep us entertained between dialogues. The film has a very interesting style, with many jump cuts and repetition of scenes or themes. Lots of foreshadowing is used, and many karmic lessons are taught to the characters through this. One unique thing about this movie, that we don’t see in a lot of others, is the characters actually referring to the zombies as zombies. I believe this is partially because it has a modern setting where the characters have most likely seen zombie movies. In the end of the movie, we see that the outbreak is a good thing, and basically resets Shaun’s life. In the end, the zombies are able to be trained for manual labor, entertainment, and the service industry. Ed is still Shaun’s friend, but everything is sorted out. It’s interesting to think about the possibility of zombies being able to be trained, and seems to make them almost animal-like.

World War Z

In Max Brooks’ World War Z, Brooks provides a zombie narrative that is truly unique in its combination of recent events and politics with the disaster of a zombie pandemic. Max Brooks, as an author, takes an extremely realistic approach towards the zombie narrative; just like his first book, Zombie Survival Guide, Brooks takes an almost journalistic approach towards the zombie subject. With a journalistic approach, Brooks is able to show us our own faults in today’s modern society concerning various political conflicts, religious conflicts, and certain behavioral traits that become ugly/problematic in a difficult situation that has dire consequences.
The reason why this zombie is narrative is so unique is Brooks’ decision to construct this book by using interviews between fictitious characters, who have survived the zombie apocalypse. By using interviews, Brooks is able to keep the interest of the reader by keeping him/her wondering where the story was going to go next. Also, this approach provides a reader to quickly read through the story. It also allows Brooks to introduce a multitude of characters that convey to a large variety of people. It also allows Brooks to use his writing ability to show a multitude of personality traits and characteristics that can define a person positively or negatively. For example, the interview on page 54-59 displays a common trait to exploit fear to make money. After the tragedy of 9-11, fear became a profitable commodity; Brooks addresses this with the concept of Phalanx and vaccines for the zombie virus. Fear has always sold; look at the numerous multitudes of “vitamins”, extravagant and unnecessary security systems, and any other extravagant commodity that makes one feel safe.
Another great insight that Brooks provides the reader occurs on page 36-44, where a Palestinian describes the turmoil of Palestinian-Israel relations in a Zombie pandemic. The speaker, a Palestinian man, describes how Israel invited any refugees to join their country and find shelter from the Zombie pandemic. The speaker describes his distrust of the Jewish infidels’ proposal and thought it was a trick to capture Palestinians. As the interview progresses, the speaker describes the constant distrust he felt and shame in his father’s decision to flee to Jewish protection; however, the speaker begins to tell about the violence that occurs. Not from Palestinians, but from Orthodox Jews that were frustrated with the decision to abandon the holy land. This interview describes the stubbornness and difficulty one has in changing their beliefs and attitudes that one has their entire life in a difficult situation.
Another aspect I found incredibly unique in this novel was that the hostility between Pakistan and India saved their lives in the zombie pandemic, but nuclear countries that were once allies found themselves fighting each other because they did not have the same extensive amount of communication that former enemies once had in a pre-zombie pandemic culture.
One of my favorite interviews in this story involves the mercenary who describes his protection of a group of celebrities. This interview shows the egotism of certain people that even in difficult situations, they want to flaunt their wealth and popularity. His employer builds a fortress and weapons cache that could allow them to survive the apocalypse, but they decide to allow television cameras to film and display them live on television. Their decision to film a reality show ultimately makes them the hope and sanctuary of the “common people” and that is where people flee to during the zombie pandemic; as a result, the celebrities’ fortress ultimately crumbles under the weight of their own vanity and egotism.

World War Z

Max Brooks' World War Z tells the story of the zombie apocalypse 10 years after the initial outbreak. The accounts come from survivors and they each explain a different aspect of the start of the plague. Brooks works a clever social commentary into the classic zombie story as he addresses many issues with various forms of government and world orders. Though it starts in China the virus is dubbed "African Rabies" because South Africa was the first place a major outbreak occurred. As the world reacts to the pandemic that is spreading each country takes it's own direction in their often ineffective attempts to save their country.
When the first cases are reported in China the government their tries its best to cover them up. While this works for the above-ground dealings the black market still thrives. As a result the virus is unknowingly spread to places such as the case in Brazil. Then when the world becomes more frightened the only place to shut down it's borders is Israel, one of the most controversial states in the world. As the American government tries to deal with the situation it's people continue to blame the people who are supposed to protect them. Brooks uses the zombie to show that know matter how dire the situation people still hope for the best and will often not look at or refuse to acknowledge the truth.
Despite the story being told by survivors they are still wary of their governments. Looking back on the past they now see the warning signs and continue to do the typical "blame the government" story to reassure themselves that they couldn't have done anything if the government itself didn't.

Left 4 Nicks 2

I haven't played LFD2 yet, but this makes it sound all the better... er, worse. No, better I think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p5nlXPFFhI

World War Z: An Optimistic Zombie Narrative

Given the amount of blood shed in the first 100 pages of Max Brooks' novel World War Z, it might be hard to think of the novel as an optimistic work. Though African Rabies spreads, the dead rise, and quite a few people lose their lives, World War Z comes across as a more hopeful tale than other works, like Romero's films (excepting Land of the Dead) primarily because of its form.

Romero's early films tend to end on down notes. Ben is killed by a posse of the living after being mistaken for a zombie in Night of the Living Dead. The original ending of Dawn of the Dead was not much better. The film originally ended with Fran and Peter committing suicide and the helicopter powering down as it ran out of fuel (At least according to Wikipedia), though this ending was changed to a somewhat ambiguous escape by the time the film was released. Even the update of Dawn of the Dead ends pessimistically. The survivors escape via boat only to arrive at a zombie infested island and an uncertain fate.

What differentiates World War Z from these works is that it is written from the perspective of survivors. Brooks' narrator as well as each of the people he “interviews” in the context of the stories are speaking from a time after the Zombie War, when some semblance of normalcy has returned to society. No matter how gruesome, each person telling a story is telling a story of their own triumph over the zombie menace. This lack of an inevitable doom for the story's survivors lends the film a different tone than Romero's work.

Where Romero seemed to be preaching about fundamental flaws in our culture through the gospel of the dead, predicted the fall of our consumer empire and the end of days, Brooks' message seems to be somewhat lighter. While there is no shortage of social commentary in the novel (governmental organisation, the military, and celebrity culture all receive their share of scrutiny) it seems to be pointing out faults that can be corrected rather than the crumbling foundation of a sinful society. While it may be quite dark, there is hope to be found in World War Z, and I think it is a stronger novel for it.

Camera Lucida

This reading proved to be quite difficult to read and had nothing to do with zombies in a literal sense. The reading explains that photographs are an interesting thing because it traps a person, time, pose, and circumstances of that time all in a still image. He talks about a photograph of a slave market and how that even though we know there is no slavery anymore, in that picture slavery is frozen in that moment forever. The picture is neither alive nor dead but it encompases what was happening in that time period. It shows us another side of ourselves and the victims of those circumstances. The reading also talks about photographing dead bodies, an interesting concept because when we take a picture of the living there is a split that occurs. We know the picture is just a recreation of a person and there is a living person that that picture is trying to mimic. The split is the living and the recreation. When you take a picture of a dead body though the split becomes difficult because it is recreating a lifeless object and there is no living person though we say that is the living part that the picture is trying to recreate. It is here that I think this reading relates to Zombies. Though zombies are lifeless dead bodies reanimated we still consider them living similarly to how we consider a picture of a dead body a recreation of the living. It is a very difficult subject to explain and I could be completely wrong but thats what I took from this reading. The line between living and dead is blurred in the subject of photography as it is with zombies

Shakespearean Sonnets and a little Flash fiction

I must admit writing Shakespearean sonnets is extremely difficult and trying for me; please do not judge my ability as a writer on these poems. I decided to abandon the use of iambic pentameter to allow a little more freedom for writing. These sonnets do not deal with human relationships, but rather other types of love. For example, one sonnet is based on a Christian speaker that deals with the hope and zombie. The other sonnet came from watching the relationship between Robert Neville and his dog. The last piece of fiction does not entirely deal with my project, but I did not want to waste, so I figure I might as well focus on it. I tried to acknowledge the need for violence in human beings in this piece of fiction.
http://https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/cjkaegi/public/Public/Zombie%20Poem%201.docx
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/cjkaegi/public/Public/Zombie%20Poem%202.docx
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/cjkaegi/public/Public/Zombie%20flash%20fiction.docx

Chicago Zombie Pub Crawl

http://www.chicagozombiepubcrawl.com/

In W.J.T. Mitchell's "Surplus Value of Images", Mitchell explores the many aspects of the image. Investigation of its influences on humans, how it defines people, and also this article could pertain to zombies are some of the main points of this excerpt.

Images are powerful on the human mind. Mitchell claims that "we do not merely "see" picture, we "drink" them with our eyes" (80). Like a basic function of life, images may be necessary to the human life. Also, whenever we view images, we are easily persuaded, like in visually stimulating commercials. The second half of the prior quote says that "pictures in turn have a tendency to swallow us up" (80). Humans can become influenced by pictures and images. Maybe it is only a magazine add by the types of images we see can mold the type of person we become.

That idea ties into the next topic I found interesting and it is how Mitchell sort of hints at the fact that images can define people. As said before humans can become engulfed in images have that be the basis of their morals. In the "Surplus Value of Images", on statement says how "artworks [are] the anvil on which one's values [are] tested and hammered out" (82). Loosely, Mitchell may be saying that images are the reason as to why people behave the way they do. Humans see an image, picture, whatever it may be and base their actions off of the reactions to the images.

Now for the zombie aspect, as least how I viewed it after reading this excerpt. Most of the middle section pertains to the type of details that create this relationship. In one paragraph Mitchell talks about species and how they "appear in the world"; most likely in the form of an image (86). A few lines later when he specifically talks about different species he says that "a species is neither good nor bad: it simply is" (86). As soon as I read it, the idea of zombie popped into my head because sometimes, depending on the literature, we have a tough time deciding whether a zombie is a good or bad creature. Maybe we just have to take the zombie as it is, an image. Further along Mitchell explains his idea of iconology. Very briefly, it is just how images can represent something else. He shortens iconology up to be "about the fear of images" (96). Again, zombies can be paralleled to this idea. Of course, as far as we know, no known humans have risen from the dead to become zombies yet, in movies and literature they are still scary. That is where the "fear of images" comes into play. Zombies make humans scared because we view images of them and have reactions to those pictures or words on a page. We do not necessarily have to touch them or any other physical sense be stimulated to know that zombies can be scary, we can tell by looking at an image. In general, the use of images have really helped in aiding the popularity of the zombie as a different type of media than books and literature.

The Walking Dead

(hopefully vague spoilers ahead for vols 3+)

Volume 2 of Robert Kirkman's The Walking Dead does enough of what the previous volume did. It is establishing new characters while getting rid of others. Right off the bat we are introduced to Tyreese and his group and the viewer is given another strong male lead, one which no doubt comes to blows with the previously established one. The old group and new teammates venture forth into a small gated community to find refuge. But when the shit enevitably hits the fan Donna is lost to the zombies and the group escapes only to find a farming family hiding out from the horde. Shortly after that they go their separate ways and Rick leads his group to a prison stating "We're home".

The Walking Dead takes a few things to some extremes. First, it is highly detailed in its depiction of gore and death (and beware in future volumes it doesn't lighten up, specifically several brutal torturous scenes in vol 6) This is not uncommon for the zombie genre of course. But what is a little uncommon is for a major character to reunite with his loved ones after a near apocolypse. This is one extreme in a more heartwarming direction, while in Volume 2 there are some jumps towards the other side. Again, this happens often in The Walking Dead. As soon as something good happens, chances are something equally terrible is right around the corner.

In The Walking Dead the zombies serve a different role than most zombie films. In the first volume they are established as the enemy, as in most zombie related media. But in the second volume, and moreso in later ones, the zombie is mostly a tool to help establish other characters. The zombies brought all these people together, the situations make the characters act in certain ways, and make other people act in ways that they wouldn't have thought they could act before. The zombies also serve to give the reader even more tangible antagonists in future volumes. The zombies are more of a natural disaster or a force of nature that cannot be truly defeated.

Lastly, being in a graphic novel format, we are given a different experience from books or film. Some may have noticed that the art style changes between volume 1 and 2. The artist of the first volume used a more stylized design for the characters and events. Things that are drawn more cartoony offer a detachment for the reader from the events depicted. We are less likely to relate to a caricature of a human than a photo-realistic image (not to say that these two volumes were either extremes). With comics people can be depicted however the aritist intends, while films give us set people portraying them and books leave it up to the reader.

The Surplus Value of Images

This reading is primarily about how images affect the senses and human decision making processes. The first portion discusses how the soda "Sprite" uses the slogan "Obey your thirst". This slogan is stating that images do not mean anything, and that a person should obey his or her natural senses, as opposed to obeying false images and fake ideas.

The author, W.J.T. Mitchell consistently puts an emphasis on the fact that images are inferior and meaningless. When he says "Surplus images", Mitchell is talking about the profits created for business from images. Mitchell believes that from a business standpoint, images are valuable. Otherwise, they are pretty much worthless.

Mitchell briefly discusses how commercials use a process called value transfer, where the commercials link positive ideas and cultures to a product that may be absolutely disgusting. Therefore, commercials appear to be appealing to the general public because they relate to familiar things.

I think the main point that Mitchell makes within this reading is that pictures do mean something greater than what they are. A picture will often create controversey and provoke ideas into viewers' heads, even if the picture has nothing on it. This is what makes images so exciting and makes photography a unique artform itself.

Seeing With One's Own Eyes

The movie is credited to be one of the most direct confrontations with death ever filmed. It looks into three actual autopsies and documents the procedures preformed upon the bodies which enter into the morgue. The film is supposedly in direct juxtaposition to the fictional documentations of supernatural death which we have otherwise encountered in class.

Called the longest awkward silence ever filmed, Brakhage’s film has no sound. This could have been a choice made because sound typically tells a viewer how to feel about the images they are seeing. The reasoning behind making the film entirely silent may be to add an air of realism in that if the viewer were watching such processes take place in front of them, they would have to experience their own emotions in relation to the visuals rather than what a director decides they should feel when he alters the sound. However, in this removal of sound, Brakhage does seem to strip the autopsies of their realism.

The only faces seen in the film are those of the coroners, and even these are never seen as the autopsy practices are performed on each cadaver. The cadaver’s faces are not seen in full for legal reasons, however it is unclear as to why Brakhage felt it necessary to refrain from showing the faces of the coroners and morgue staff except when they are in situations which do not directly involve the cadavers. Perhaps this speaks to some desire to not connect conscious humans to the condition of death and the actions they are performing which would be horrifying if the bodies used were not already dead and it was in the name of science. That being said, the faces seen in the film are two instances of a coroner, once reporting on a cadaver’s clothes as a cadaver lies on the metal table behind him, half protected from the camera by his white lab coat, and another coroner in the end recording the autopsy process and findings vocally.

The other face which is seen is of a morgue staff member who wears orange gloves, as opposed to the white of the doctors. He is seen briefly before he begins to mop up the floor of the room in which the bodies were essentially emptied of anything which could be valuable. Interestingly, this individual is wearing headphones, implying that he, like the viewer, also does not have the full realism and sound of the situation. Perhaps this is a necessary thing for detachment in the situation.

At the time this film was made, it was revolutionary, hailed as perhaps the first true horror film. While it was an interesting look at death, I feel that the realism was stripped with the sound and it was no different from any of the other images this desensitized generation I hail from encounter. This stripping of realism, I feel, could have been prevented had Brakhage not insisted on using a variety of filters which tinted organs unbelievable colors, experimental angles which makes a freshly rinsed cadaver look like the Hostel edition of Barbie, and unnecessary close up shots that made a hollowed out human chest cavity look more like an artsy meat sculpture of the Grand Canyon.

The Walking Dead vol. 1

In the Beginning of "The Walking Dead," Robert Kirkman provides and introduction, where he describes why he wrote "The Walking Dead" and what his intentions were. He puts a lot of emphasis on how "good" zombie movies were the ones that made you think instead of the flashy gore filled movies. He also emphasized change and how people react to extreme situations, such as a zombie attack. In "The Walking Dead" series Kirkman will be exploring how the characters change and adapt to their new lives after the zombie attack.

In the very beginning of the story the main character Rick Grimes gets shot. Later he wakes up alone in a hospital, very much like in the movie "28 Days Later." As the story progresses he is slowly introduced to what has been gong on around him while he was unconscious. He stumbles across a few people who help him along and he gradually realizes how drastically the world has changed.

In hopes of finding his family, Rick ventures into the city but is quickly overtaken by a zombie horde. Luckily he is saved by a mysterious man who takes him to a camp of survivors. There he is reunited with his wife and son.

This is rather unusual for a zombie story. To me one of the main themes in Zombie movies and stories is strangers coming together to cope with the distinct pain of lost loved ones. They bond over this mutual pain and share stories of their past as they try to create a new future together.

I'm sure Kirkman must have a reason to bring Rick and his family back together but it was rather unusual for this to happen. I'm sure it will have a great effect on how the rest of the story plays out and i look forward to reading the rest of "The Walking Dead" series.

"The Walking Dead Vol. 1" and What it Means to be Living

“The Walking Dead Vol. 1” was my first experience with a graphic novel and to be honest, I wasn’t crazy about it. I think it lacks elements from both cinema and literature. Personally, I find other media to be more effective but none the less it seemed to have many of the necessary elements of a zombie tale. For one, the zombies themselves seemed pretty typical; slow moving, death by head wound and have the capacity to infect with a mere bite. Then we have our protagonist, Rick, whom we of course recognize as the do-gooder who isn’t afraid to push the boundaries, he tells it like it is and assumes a position of leadership fairly soon after he reaches the camp. Lastly, we are forced to deal with the fact that characters whom we come to identify with become zombified, reminding us that we ourselves face that same risk.

The importance of human relations seems to crop up throughout the story, in that of Dale and his deceased wife, the bonding of the women and of course the Rick-Lori-Shane love triangle. Dales finds comfort in the two girls, Amy and Andrea because they are a reminder of the live he knew and loved. Donna, although she may be a bit a gossiper, tries to strike up chat with the other women just to give her something to hold onto. Then there is Shane, who is grasping at a relationship with Lori despite the return of Rick because it’s the only chance at a meaningful relationship that he has left. Ultimately this leads young Carl to fire a shot at Shane, killing him. And the last page of the novel resonates this theme most of all as we a small child trying to figure out what he has done. It forces both Rick and the reader to remind ourselves that we cannot take any relationship or moment of life for granted and that as long as we retain emotion and purpose, we will never be one of them.

I feel the question being posed by “The Walking Dead” is what does it really mean to be living and how do we prevent ourselves from slowly slipping into zombification in today’s world?

The Walking Dead Volume One "Days Gone Bye"

A fresh change of scenery. That's exactly how I felt with The Walking Dead Volume One. Books are great. And movies are awesome, but graphic novels combine both those elements and this one did so very well. Although, the story in volume one was a little boring it was still interesting. I didn't know what to expect after turning some pages and the end was a complete surprise. One thing that I enjoyed about the graphic novel was the change in location for hiding out from the zombies. They didn't hide in the mall, underground, or move around house to house. They stayed where they were. They camped out in the wilderness. A location so often deemed as unsafe in prior zombie fiction.

In the introduction Richard Kirkman states that he's not trying to scare anyone and "Good zombie movies show us how messed up we are, they make us question our station in society... and our society's station in the world." I believe the first volume of The Walking Dead graphic novels do so very often. It is clear very early on that the story is not about zombies themselves but how people react to them and how they react when people are hurt by them or by the chaos they caused. The love triangle between Rick, Lori, and Shane is evident enough. Shane takes his partners wife and kid in order to keep them safe yet falls in love with her and her child. When Rick is reintroduced into their lives it makes sense that Shane would feel hurt and abandoned by the woman he loves. Time kills. Time hurts. Time gives hope but shatters dreams at the same time. That is what ultimatley leads to Shane's death. He can't wait any longer for the army to rescue the group and he can't wait any longer for Rick to get out of the picture so he can be with Lori. It makes sense, but Rick can't be blamed for not getting what he wants. And niether can the zombies. It's a matter of circumstance and coicidence that killed Shane. Not Carl attacking him, although, in a literal sense it is. But the main thing that kills Shane's spirit is the time wasted and time it takes to survive. It got to his head and was his fatal flaw.

Friedrich Nietzsche on the zombie

Nietzsche focuses on the term ressentiment which is the opposition to ones misfortune or illness. He talks about the views of this from both nobility and slaves. Each ones justification of ressentiment is warranted by the class system that is set up, good and evil. The justification from the nobles stand point is because they have the land and wealth this must mean they are good. “We the noble, the good, the beautiful and the happy”. This shows the nobles perspective of themselves being “good” just from their good fortunes and power. On the other hand the slave’s reasoning to be poverty stricken causes them to be “bad” or “evil” which explains their misfortunes. Each uses this concept of their own luck or existing power as a statement of their own morality. The weak take the sense of winning everlasting life as a win against the strong. Their belief in focusing on the evil in the world and the after life inhibits them from enjoying life in general. The strong’s own power and wealth make them already good and they don’t need to focus on the evil or afterlife.

This sense of ressentiment ties in very well with the zombie. People tend to think they are the “good” and the minority or the others are the “evil”. Finding “evil” in the zombie is shown in many zombie narratives. For example in I am Legend Robert Neville believes he is the good of man kind and justifies his killing of the vampires/zombies as “good”. The act of him being human makes his take on ressentiment as him being “good” and the misfortune of the other humans turning into vampires as “evil”. Characters in zombie movies or books need justification of ressentiment to be able to give good reason for the acts they commit towards zombies. The blaming of the zombie is perfect for one to get over the gruesome and inhuman acts they commit. If you consider the zombie “evil”, your actions towards them can be then considered “good”.

On the Genealogy of Morality

In our selected readings from Friedrich Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morality, Nietzsche begins by formulating a background for morality using a slave-master analogy. Nietzsche goes in depth on how these two drastically different social classes develop their morality. Those with a higher or more noble social status, the masters, tend to define terms of 'good and bad' and 'good and evil' in terms that since they are since they are noble they are good.

The slave morality, Nietzsche argues is more based in ressentment, that what the slave views as good is the oppisite of what the master views. This difference of moral basis, i feel, erodes the basis for an inate human morality. That each group of people, and ultimately each individual, dfines their morality differently from another in no way strenghtens the idea that there is one right and wrong.

I find this idea of different clases defining their own morality very interesteing. We have seen that there are many interperations of the zombie, and I think this idea can be most easily applied to the social zombie we have seen in a few works. Even if the social zombie is not concieoulsy aware of it, they must have some basis for morality, some underlying unification that govers how or if they work together. With this idea of morality exisiting outside the human, as zombies are definitely not human, we cannot with complete certianty say that morality is strictly a human concept.

Ressentiment: Let's play the blame game

Ressentiment, as Nietzche explains, is the need for humans to place blame on something for their sickness, illness, and bad luck. With blame there can be aggression and aggression leads to violence, war, and ultimately superiority for the victor. The large part of this essay focuses on the fact that good and evil is defined by the dominate culture. The “good” people define themselves as good and then believe it is their duty to oppress the “evil” people. Because both sides feel this way, the “good” people always win. The dominate culture will win and they will instill their idea of good into the inferior culture. The “good” will always have the Ressentiment to find a new “evil.” He believes that if man does not have Ressentiment then another group of men will and they will likely become the next culture to fall. He goes on to give an example of the fall of the Roman Empire. Rome was a strong empire but today what was Rome is inhabited by Christians. I know little about that history, but I don’t think Nietzche is right about Christians taking over the Roman Empire.

My most direct relationship between Ressentiment and Zombies is very simple. All Zombie media is based around the fact that humans must blame the Zombies for their turmoil, while it is obvious the society wasn’t functioning properly in the first place. Armageddon rarely occurs without reason, and there is always that underlying message. For example, Romero attempts to make it very clear that the materialistic and consumer culture we live in will lead to our demise. However, for that story to take hold an antagonist, something we can place our Ressentiment on, must exist. The Zombie is the perfect character for that purpose. The audience can see the Zombie and blame the protagonists’ turmoil on that figure. However, it is the zombie that merely moves the plot along, as we have said in the past. The movie or novel is a vehicle for the message, whether that’s consumerism, overzealous science, immorality, or any other reason. But as Nietzche said, the human is always looking for saving and the ascetic priest he mentions has the answer. The humans must blame themselves for troubles, because there is always Ressentiment. Often in Zombie media, a character will realize the issues they face are self inflicted, and the Ressentiment is placed on themselves or society in general.

Day of the Dead

George Romero's Day of the Dead shows the continuing transitions of humans to something less than human and zombies to something closely resembling humanity. It is probably the least accessible of the Romero zombie films, since the human characters are not all that likable, and much of the film is spent without zombies lightening the mood (or scaring the audience, as the case may be).

Sarah, the female doctor/scientist, is ostensibly the heroine of this film (with a little help from John and Bill). She is trying to find a way to reverse the zombie epidemic, while at the same time trying to hold the human community together.

Dr. Logan, on the other hand, believes that the only solution is to domesticate the zombies. Humans are drastically outnumbered (400,000 to 1 by Logan's calculations), so would not be able to simply eradicate the zombies. Logan works out a teach and reward system, so that zombies have an incentive to behave properly. "Reward is the key," he says over and over throughout the film.

These characters, and their actions, lead to several thematic questions:

1. What would be the result of reversing a zombie epidemic? Would people be cured and return to normal, or would they simply die on the spot? And which result would be preferable to the survivors?
2. Does Dr. Logan's approach to the problem reflect a Marxist perspective? Is the film suggesting that the only way to prevent a revolution is to reward the uneducated majority for its menial work?
3. Does the ending of the film imply that the rules of the "old society" must be forgotten in order to start fresh?
4. Thinking of Romero's other films, where African Americans are the heroes, why is Sarah the hero in this film? What is John's role in this film, and is it important that he is African American?

I may have to watch this one more time before I feel like I can discuss it fully.

Day of the Dead

George Romero's Day of the Dead movie explores, once again, the post apocalyptic world that would be created if zombies began to overtake the human life and all of its existence. We follow a small group and despite their few numbers, they have a divide that is separating them from accomplishing something. Research and science versus violence and destruction, the two are in constant opposition.

The remaining military personnel just want to get rid of every zombie in sight. Yes, it is a plan but given their resources it is also very impractical. The other people, mostly the research scientist, he just wants to "train" the zombies to behave in a more human manner. Again, we can all see how this too is quite the task in itself and nearly possible to achieve. In the middle are Sarah, John, Bill, and a few others are stuck trying to please both groups of people. As many of the zombie movies we have watched, the humans' biggest downfall is the lack of a similar goal. Most definitely, only a few will survive if anything.

In some of the books and literature we talked about how the zombies begin to evolve and becoming smarter as time progresses. In this movie, a different approach is taken. A few characters in the movie do say that the zombies are becoming more intelligent but the scientist has a different way of using their instinct behaviors. His goal was to domesticate the zombie, something we have seen or read about previously. We first see this occur when Bub, the zombie under experimentation, acts like he's shaving his face, reading a book, and even talking on the telephone.

Near the end of the movie is when we really see the effects of teaching the zombies. It is obvious that through time, Bub learned and developed feelings. When the scientist died, Bub became upset, saddened, and angered. He took his revenge out on Rhodes and ended up shooting him. This type of behavior we have not seen before because we were under the assumption that zombie had no way of possessing such thoughts. Prior to Day of the Dead, zombie have been completely mindless.

Briefly, there were some important symbolism to be pointed out. One that tied the story together was the calendar that Sarah crossed the days off on. The last scene of the movie shows her crossing off November 4th, which is Day of the Dead in Latin American cultures. Maybe is it just to show that the three survivors may be the only real humans left and every other "human" is a zombie, dead.

Zombie Bite Calculator

Hey everyone,
This is the link to the calculator I used in my presentation which figures out how much time you have left after being bitten by a zombie. This will help you plan out and know how long you have to say your goodbyes and put your affairs in order.

http://theoatmeal.com/quiz/zombie_bite

"The Open" and "Homo Sacer"

In my opinion this text was challenging. There were a few things that I think I understood. According to I believe it was Aristotle there are two ways of looking at the question of what is life. There is zoe and bios. Zoe is life that an animal has. An animal is alive but does not quite have higher brain function. Bios is the pursuit of "the good life". Then the text goes into a connection between bios and politics. A part of this text that was interesting to me was when it was talking about politics as life. If you're out of politics then that means that you have no rights and if you have no rights then you really have no life(bios). You are essentially only living(Zoe). The text talks about Nazi science experiments and how they related to this idea of having no life(bios). This is what seems relevant to zombies. The prisoners that were at the camps had horrible experiments run on them. They had no say in what happened to them because their rights had been revoked. They were in between real life(bios) and just existing(zoe). I think it is really interesting to think of zombies this way. I'm glad to see that there are other ways of looking at what a zombie is other than half rotten living dead who eat brains.

On Homo Sacer and Agamben

For class we are given the introduction to Giorgio Agamben's Homo Sacer and selections from The Open. There are many ideas in these dense texts that revolve around the concept of life. Agamben brings up "homo sacer", "bare life", "good life", and in the other reading "umwelt" which I think can link back to the idea of the zombie well enough, with specifically George Romero's Day of the Dead in mind. However, I had to travel to the internets to help myself even begin to unpack what is being said.

In Homo Sacer Agamben talks about old Roman laws and quotes Aristotle frequently. A big idea he borrows from Michael Foucault is the idea of "biopolitics" in which politics are ingrained entirely into human lives. I don't think this is to say that politics have a complete controll over lives, but more that one cannot really have life without the other. It seems to me that politics exist for the lives of people and the people exist within the politics. It's almost symbiotic. This ties into what Agamben refers to as a "bare life" where a person's rights as a citizen are removed yet he still lives, able to be killed by anyone yet still sacred, i.e. "Homo sacer". Even with bare life where your rights are all removed, you are included in society by that very exclusion, as Agamben puts it. This is opposed to a "good life", which isn't used as often, but is implied that it is a life with politics and the use of those rights.

From this it seems clear to me the parallels between a bare life and the existance of a zombie. Zombies are exempt from any sort of political laws or restrictions but are still able to be killed by the humans on the other side. In Day of the Dead, even when the society at large has apparently broken down there is still a functioning group work within the military research bunker, much how biopolitics posits that politics are so ingrained in human life. Even with some ten people together, the zombies are still treated as Homo sacer by the people and the scientists. The only way to keep the zombies within the percieved laws of this new organization is by force. In the case of "Bub" the zombie test subject, the idea of biopolitic surfaces again a little as he does an instinctive salute motion to the Captain Rhodes' uniform, showing that even though zombies are removed from society and politics there is still a memory of it that keeps them included yet excluded.

Lastly, in Agamben's excerpts from "The Open" I found an interesting idea in his reporting on the "umwelt". This is the sense that what is the world view to us is different than the world view of say a rat or a spider or a plant. There is no way for us to understand how another animal might see the world. An interesting anecdote I remember is of the bee that was ingesting honey. Even if its abdomen was severed, it would continue to drink the honey because it saw that it had to, that gathering the honey was its purpose. In "Day" we are shown that zombies consume, yet have no physical requirement to do so. This is their "umwelt", which we as living humans cannot fathom. If we're full, we stop eating. Zombies will keep eating and keep existing.

Thoughts on Land of the Dead

While watching Land of the Dead, I was reminded of the “Phone Crazies” from Stephen King’s Cell. This was brought about almost right away with the zombies attempting to play music in the gazebo, they seemed to be smarter than the average zombie right off the bat. Especially at the way they seemed to be able to communicate with one another. They way that they distracted the zombies at night with the fireworks was actually really cool and again reminded me of the way that the “Phone Crazies” were vulnerable at night. That point was where Big Daddy showed just how much he had still up in his head, or how much he had regained. Of course I’m not just going to ramble on about how the two items, Cell and the movie, were alike one another because that would just get boring.

However, another reference that popped into my head while watching this video was that Fiddler’s Green somewhat reminded me of Rapture from the video game series Bioshock. It was just the way that the videos were shown and the voice being used to advertise it. That and the way that the paradise like place that had been established went right down the crapper eventually leading to zombies getting into the main building. That and the main zombie had the name “Big Daddy” making him seem like the things you have to fight in the games that had the same given name.

There were several nameless zombies that stood out to me and quickly won me over with how they acted against others who were trying to re-kill them. “Tambourine” was one such zombie. He played that instrument that I have based his name off of and really put his all into it, even though that wasn’t much. “Butcher-guy” showed that he was more than just a rotting face, helping Big Daddy get through the plywood boards to get closer to the city, as well as showed that even if someone has a grenade, if you cut off their hand and make them fall onto it, you can keep on going. “Spring-head” because he was just that funny. He showed that looks aren’t everything because a zombie that doesn’t look like it has a head, can still have one, and can surprise you with it when you think “oh good, it doesn’t have a head, that means it cant bite me.” Last but not least “Clown Zombie” because clowns are freaking scary enough on their own, but a clown that is a zombie is just over the top, I personally was glad that he wasn’t in the movie very long, just long enough to get a piece of “Mouse”.

All in all, this movie was quite enjoyable, the rich guy was thinking of himself with a snobbish attitude, the “good guys” had guns, the head zombie tried his best to look out for his kind, and everyone learned a lesson from the zombies, and that lesson is “don’t mess with zombies, they will eat you.” or “working together is a good thing, see how much the zombies did?”

In the second half of Cell, Clay's ragtag group continue to bury and gain followers. First, the phone-crazies demonstrate their growing prowess b making Head commit a rather gruesome suicide. While traveling on the road they meet two sprinters, and recognizing them as the Gaiten bunch from their dreams refuse aid when offered. The sprinters catch up to them again, killing Alice. With Alice's death the phone-crazies let Clay and his followers that the sprinters would be dealt with. Thus, reinforcing the message that the Gaiten bunch are not to be touched.

Alice's death is one of the moments in Cell that I felt it departing from a zombie narrivite. The phone-crazies communicating with the Gaiten bunch, that the Gaiten bunch is not to be touched, and that the phone-crazies push the them to their goals seems to much outside the scope of a zombie narrative to go unnoticed.

While traveling towards Kashwak, the phone-crazies continue do demonstrate the power of their telepathy. Pushing more followers to join Clay's group, and again influence the group to catch up with Clay when he decides to go his own way. The phone-crazies take to following the group to ensure that the telepathic persuasion remains consistent, and eventually levitate along side the bus as it drives towards Kashwak. The group is then lead to the Expo center where they wait for the phone-crazies to continue their plans with them. The Gaiten bunch decide that they have to do something, go out on their terms. They concoct their plan, and have Jordan drive the bus, conveniently filled with dynamite by one of their previous followers out to the middle of the phone-crazies. Jordan runs to saftey and Clay detonates the explosives.

After their immediate threat is dealt with, the group informs Clay that they intend to continue on to TR-90. Clay stays behind to look for his son, eventually finding he has been exposed to a mutated version of the Pulse. The last scene is Clay holding up the Cell phone he used to detotane the explosives to his sons ear, hoping that the Pulse will cancell out what his son was already exposed to.

After finishing Stephen King's Cell, I felt that the novel had moved away from a strictly zombie narrative to a more survival/horror oriented focus. While many of the scenes in the book seem classic of a zombie narrative, using propane tanks to kill the phone-crazies, a lone group struggling for survival, the interaction between the crazies and the normalizes robbed it of that classic zombie feel.

The book shifted from the group encountering immediate unrestricted chaos, to battling a specific threat, somewhat personalized threat. The phone crazies were certainly less than human, but certainly more than a mindless undead zombie. The phone crazies had their own identity that distinguished apart from zombies.