Night of the Living Dead (1968)

As I mentioned before, I enjoy watching horror films around Halloween. It can be one of my favorite genres when done right. That said, I’m very particular about the type of horror I like. Certain ones, especially the classics and certain foreign films, are based on quality stories that really challenge the imagination and our perception of the way things are. I like those. To me, all of this seemed to start changing in Hollywood around the 70s or so, when the story became more of an afterthought, and horror movies thinned into nothing more than gratuitous violence and disturbing plot points (think of the whole slasher movie phenomenon). While there were of course exceptions to the rule, this was unfortunately the trend I noticed until about the past decade or so, when these films once again started noticing the importance of having quality, mind-expanding stories as their basis. I’m saying all this to that it might help explain why it is I had mixed feelings about Night of the Living Dead.

Considered a classic of the genre, Night of the Living Dead was directed by George Romero. It follows a group of strangers who become trapped in a house surrounded by flesh-eating zombies. The story sounds cliche now, but that’s because this was pretty much the granddaddy story by which all other subsequent zombie films would be measured. The film has a lot going for it. First, it’s low-budget, which typically helps horror films (consider, on the other hand, modern horror flicks’ unfortunate overreliance on slick CGI graphics). Second, the basic story is pretty strong, even making some surprising social criticisms – most prominently on race but also on other issues such as the breakdown of the community. Finally, though the acting is fairly b-movie level, one tends to forget this while watching the complex dynamics of the various character relationships unfold.

If these aspects helped draw me in, however, there were several others that turned me off. One can easily see how Romero’s film helped usher in the modern era of horror movies. The film turns in the last third or so to some rather graphic imagery and shocking plot-twists. I believe Romero is trying to demonstrate a complete breakdown of community in the face of adversity, as even family member turns against family member. Though it’s likely a matter of personal preference, I find the shock value takes away from what could be a bit of eloquent social commentary rather than enhancing it. But what’s worse is one can see how this film helped introduce a new trend of horror movies. Unfortunately, many of the movies that followed, unlike Romero’s, were content to disturb for their own sake and without any sense of artistry or irony.

Night of the Living Dead is original, and it transformed the horror genre. I can even see why so many people like it. Viewed independently, I would say it’s a pretty decent film. However, for me, I can’t view it independently. It’s too much of a bridge between one era of filmmaking and another, and I simply can’t go into the new without missing the old.