Reviews / 10 July 2004

Dawn of the Dead

Dawn of the Dead
USA  /  1978

At the end of the roll call for horror monsters is the zombie: the most durable and, when grouped among its like, most threatening. What the zombie lacks in motor skills and intelligence is compensated in his frighteningly quick ability to spawn. A school of zombies is venerably hostile in growing numbers.

Like any monster, their chief end is to threaten the human race (blood and flesh, of course, are their only supposed nutrients). Zombies are defeated rather easily. Their brains must be absolved from the nervous system; a shot to the head is the most frequent offense. If this legion of zombies — the dead — is seen as pitted against living humans, only the living suffer, for in their death they become the enemy. Because of this fact, zombies collectively rival any singular monster regardless of inherent threat.

Though there are numerous zombie films, none in the past several decades exist without a formidable debt to George Romero’s Living Dead series. His debut was a low-budget independent feature, like most every horror debut, and in its lack of resources displayed a passion and philosophy associated with few others.

The Living Dead trilogy (Night of —, Dawn of —, and Day of —, ’68, ’78, and ’84) eschews sequential expectations, having resisted the ’80s horror sequel boom, and includes a rare sequel that exceeds its preamble in its ideas and philosophy. Night of the Living Dead is a typical — though effective — low budget effort with moments of poignancy and terror; Dawn of the Dead is an ambitious social commentary that may be deservingly compared to Taxi Driver.

Among the laudable aspects of Dawn is its lack of introduction and initial context. These elements are available in the prequel: Night of the Living Dead opens with the burial of a recently deceased corpse, a convicted killer. As Romero’s first zombie, he serves to suggest the nature of his type. Although his former behavior may be interpreted to lend to his reincarnated action as a zombie, theories stated in Dawn violate this. Zombies, regardless of their past behaviors, are all killers. (Note: these details are taken from the 30th Anniversary Edition of Night of the Living Dead, and are not included in the original theatrical cut.)

The single laughable moment of Romero’s zombie films occurs in the first half of Night. Exiled survivors, in a rural farmhouse, group in front of a television displaying scientists, morticians, and anyone with some idea behind the undead’s bloodlust. The word “radioactive waste” is spoken and it inspires cringes. Romero’s debut is heralded, among numerous reasons, for dodging the campy stride of ’50s science fiction, favoring ambiguity over reason in establishing the case of horror. Perhaps the suggestion of this as the impetus behind the actions of the antagonist is a needed convention in a horror film. Thankfully, it is ignored in Dawn.

Ultimately the actions of Romero’s many zombies are given neither definition nor reason. In narrative, Dawn of the Dead is an extension of the acts depicted in Night of the Living Dead. Although it is directly linked to its prequel (and, moreover, has no closure) the film is not narratively reliant upon its sequels, and emerges as the more ambitious of Romero’s first coupling of zombie films.

The story so far is summed up in the film’s panicked opening minutes as employees of a television studio scramble to fill airtime with guesses and explanations for the zombie plague. Two flee from the studio via helicopter. Their attempt is prohibited by a S.W.A.T. team, also desperate for an escape. Stephen and Francine, of the television studio, are joined by Roger and Peter. The four flee to a local mall. These characters are simple extensions of human impulse, with personalities overwhelmed by their paranoia. The sexes are represented, three males to one female, and the ratio is the same for race: three white, one black. Furthering the microcosmic function of the four, by the film’s end two of them die and the female becomes pregnant; in the duration of the film, the survivor’s fates mimic the transpiration of life, its beginning and end.

In its second act, the foursome’s lives become routine: they have successfully fortified the mall, and dozens of stores are made available exclusively to them. At this point, Romero’s satire, largely absent in Night, is evident as his survivors, instead of panicking, occupy their time by raiding the mall — the plague supplies them with a modest utopia. Symbolically the group is trapped by consumerism, which is the same trait that distinguishes their enemies, albeit on a more viscerally literal level.

In Romero’s words, the mall is “a temple of consumer society”: its sole function is to house goods in bulk, and the humans have the entire place at their disposal. A humorously satirical scene later in the film places the characters in their shelter amidst stolen matching furniture. Earlier, Roger expectedly mistakes a mannequin for a zombie. Equally reliant upon satire, violence, humor (this film contains a pie fight), and allegory, Dawn of the Dead is among the more thematically ambitious horror films in history.

In his direction Romero compensates in philosophy for what he lacks in technique. The film is shot simply; static shots abound and few setups are repeated. Dawn also benefits from the involvement of Dario Argento (ripe off the success of Suspiria) and Goblin, whose score is the most dated aspect of the film. Respect must also be allotted in part to effects guru Tom Savini (William Lustig’s bloody Maniac is his most accomplished showcase), who is responsible for much of the blood in the film. Though it may be tasteless to extol a film’s gore, in Dawn it is highly innovative. In addition to being blown to bits, zombies are downed with progressive creativity in the film’s duration (my favorite: a zombie who steps too close to the revolving blades of a helicopter). Its intent is to inspire cringes, and Savini’s work succeeds this without becoming camp.

The signature visual in Dawn is employed in the foursome’s helicopter flight to the mall. They peer below and see landscapes punctuated by occasional zombies. These images suggest that the group is trapped — that for this plague there is neither escape nor remedy. Death may not be inevitable, though life and its comforts will never again be found. Dawn of the Dead is an exemplary work of anarchic fiction.

Notes on alternate versions

Before shooting began on Romero’s much-anticipated sequel to Night of the Living Dead (which would follow his lesser-received The Crazies, Hungry Wives, and Martin), Dario Argento invited the director to Rome to pen the screenplay. This is a hugely erroneous scenario for many reasons, not the least of which that the classic foreign setting was used to cultivate the actions that take place in a rural, mundane Pennsylvania setting. In addition, Romero granted Argento the right to edit the international print of the film. To date, and in result of this deal as well as the film’s generous use of hyper-real pastel blood, Dawn of the Dead has been seen in roughly a dozen of cuts of varying lengths, content, and legality. The recently released Ultimate Edition of the film contains three.

The curious feature of Romero and Argento’s collaboration is that their works are stylistically and thematically differentiated. At the time Argento was promoting Suspiria, arguably his most fantastical, manically staged and edited film. The brevity of Argento’s stylistic innovations (including a suspended camera setup in Opera made to emulate the point of view of a flying crow) is contrary to Romero’s admitted guerilla filmmaking; he films his actions from various setups, allows all his actors to improvise at whim, and assembles a mass of footage without a clear idea of the final cut until editing commences. (Given the variety of behaviors in his zombies, it is doubtful he gave much direction to them, either.)

Romero’s cuts occupy discs one and two. The theatrical version is the most “official” of the three, neither the longest (the extended version) nor the shortest (the European version). The extended version (which to my knowledge was only seen at the film’s 1978 Cannes debut) differs most noticeably in its scoring, the theatrical cut bearing a completed score by Goblin (the gothic prog-rockers who specialize in scoring Argento’s films). I noticed little variation between the footages, despite the twelve-minute difference in running times.

Argento’s cut (disc three; the European version) is — at moments — more violent. Informed by his tendencies in plotting (Suspiria’s regular criticism, for measure, is its marginal plotting), the zombie attacks are generally more favored than the talk that separates them, which is the transcendent feature of this film. Erroneously absent from this cut is the popular helicopter zombie.

In addition to the cuts included on this set, Dawn of the Dead has been available on bootlegs of varying length, the most notable of which is a “complete” cut which includes all available footage from existent cuts, which are, again, numerous, due to the results censors have imposed on the film in different countries.

The final disc includes an image gallery of what appears to be every video box cover (including beta tapes and LaserDisc) for every legitimate release of Dawn of the Dead. This gallery seems to function to elevate the value of this set, as the most inclusive package available for the film — a title I’m willing to grant it, somewhat reluctantly given Anchor Bay’s exclusive tendency to release cult horror films in numerous editions (a similar feature is available on their “Book of the Dead” edition of The Evil Dead).

The Ultimate Edition of Dawn of the Dead is a significant case for the parties involved in its varying distributions — Romero and Argento, who could not speak the other’s language at the time they worked together. The result is an exercise of preference over the same material, but, finally and obviously, the idea is best left in the hands of its maker.


Comments / 10 total / Submit Comment

  1. The Third M?n
    9 October 2004
    5:06 AM

    I loved it as well, Rumsey, and was surprised by just how effective it all was. A big improvement on its much overrated predecessor, NOTL, and one of my favorites. I can’t wait to see it again.


  2. Rumsey
    9 October 2004
    10:51 AM
    Website

    Yeah, Dawn I think is an unnaturally ambitious film from the era. But I must say your evaluation of Night is distressing, since I consider the film to be a nearly identical execution of Dawn’s concept (we’ll call it Romero’s Survivalist Horror Aesthetic), only minus the color, minus the shopping mall, and minus Tom Savini. I think Dawn’s the better film, but Night’s no less recommended, even though this comparison may eclipse it.


  3. Thomas
    26 October 2004
    10:24 AM
    Website

    Having finally watched this classic, I can agree with your thoughtful and detailed review. It is certainly one of the most ambitious horror films I’ve ever seen, so much so that, if not for the zombies and gore, I would place it in the category of apocalyptic drama. And I also agree on the quality of Night, which I consider to be much more horrific, if less satirical, than Dawn.


  4. Dallas
    12 February 2005
    10:10 PM

    Movie was okay but overrated.

    The pacing was a bit off – could have been edited down to be tighter.

    The special effects were, lets be honest, god awful. I mean grey faces and regular skinned hands on the same zombie?

    The writing should have been a bit better as well – for zombies who are supposed to move slow, the swat team fellows seemed to be grabbed and mauled by one or two of them pretty easily.

    I prefer the remake in terms of watchability.


  5. martin
    31 July 2005
    11:03 AM

    i have the anchor bay, special edition, but not in the format you’ve just discussed. Where would it be available in Canada? HMV should have it, but i can never find it. Also, what edition of “NIght” does one have to buy in order to see that scene at the beginning? With the “recently deceased corpse”. I’m surprised they cut that, because one would think it heightens the moral ambiguities that romereo showcases in all his movies, let alone the Dead QUADRILOGY. { YES, despite it’s literal shortcoming {s}, barely 90 min. running time, i still liked the movie. 2nd rate romero is still better than some director’s First rate efforts, in any Genre}. I’m referring to “Land of the Dead”, thanks.


  6. rumsey
    31 July 2005
    12:28 PM
    Website

    I’m unsure of Dawn’s availability in Canada—perhaps our resident Canuck can comment on that. And the version of Night I reference, which I mention, is Anchor Bay’s 30th Anniversary Edition, which I should note seems generally less esteemed than the original cut. (The print quality of my VHS, however, is astonishing.)

    I’m not sure what you mean by the “moral ambiguities” showcased in Night, but the scene I reference is responsibly cut out—it’s one of the only instances in Romero’s zombie films that I can immediately cite in which a human’s actions interpretatively determine his actions as a zomibie. The zombie’s actions are much more ambiguous without this unnecessary preface.


  7. Jason
    31 July 2005
    1:22 PM
    Website

    Martin, I suggest trying a Canadian online DVD store, or even an American DVD store that ships to Canada. The 30th Anniversary DVD of Night can be purchased used at an inexpensive price (it’s out of print). As for Dawn, if you aren’t interested in the 4-Disc “Ultimate Edition” released last year (which gathers three different cuts of the film), I’m certain you can track down a used copy of any older, out-of-print versions of the film released by Anchor Bay. Ebay is another excellet alternative.


  8. ROB
    13 June 2006
    5:41 PM
    Website

    I love all three films dearly (Land of the Dead, while not bad, was disappointing in execution), but in the end Dawn is the least in my book. I’m a bit supported of the black horse Day of the Dead (I find it’s social commentary to run deeper than that of Dawn’s, and for pure watchability I find it more engaging), and NofLD’s no bullshit intensity never fails to grab me by the balls. Dawn is just as savory, though – this is like a parent choosing their favorite child. Most kids grew up on Star Wars – I was weaned on Romero. I clearly remember staying up past my bedtime in early grade school to watch a late showing of Night on the sci-fi channel—it was a religious experience.


  9. Josh
    27 June 2006
    2:03 PM

    The scene that shows the recently deceased killer returning as the “graveyard” zombie was not a Romero scene. It was shot (along with the end scene with the priest) specifically for the 30th Anniversary DVD with no input from Romero (to my knowledge) and was not part of his original story. This new footage (about 15 minutes) was produced and shot John A. Russo, Russ Streiner, and “graveyard zombie” actor Bill Hinzman (30 years older and noticeably heavier). These scenes should be ignored.


  10. Craig D.
    20 December 2008
    2:20 PM

    The comments about the radiation in Night don’t bother me much because it’s never confirmed; it’s just speculation on the part of the characters. It seems like a throwaway line included simply because audiences of the 60s expected some kind of explanation for the existence of zombies/vampires/ghouls/Godzilla that usually involved a throwaway reference to radioactivity. Keep in mind that the scientists, military guys, and reporters are just as in the dark as the characters in the house, clueless about why the dead are coming back to life and arguing about it every time they’re shown on TV.

    I love the tone of Dawn; it seems like they made a serious movie with Night but couldn’t quite figure out how to make a serious sequel so they just said “fuck it” and didn’t concern themselves with the tone. They threw in the serious parts but weren’t afraid to include humor. In other words, they made the movie they wanted to make with no concern for what the critical and fan reaction would be. I could write a book about why Dawn is so good, but so many others have done that already.

    Shame about the 2004 remake. So many people seem to give it a pass simply because it’s not as bad as Resident Evil, but it’s really nothing more than 28 Days Later without the interesting and likable characters, memorable scenes, unique visual style, and genuine sense of dread. Nobody who praises it today will even remember it 10 years from now.

    P.S. The 30th Anniversary Edition of Night pretty much ruins the movie. Explaining that the cemetery zombie was a child murderer reminds me of Rob Zombie’s awful Halloween remake that explained how Michael Myers had a mean father and killed animals when he was a kid, as if that kind of BS is even remotely necessary or wanted by anyone.


Submit Comment / Some HTML is OK / Preview your remarks below


Preview Comment

Credits

Directed by
George Romero

Review by
Rumsey Taylor

Source
Anchor Bay Entertainment VHS


Statistics

Posted on
10 July 2004

Read
2864 times

Comments
10

Jump to comments
Submit comment

Recent Updates