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?”