Text (c) Richard Gary, 2012 / Indie Horror Films Blog
Images from the Internet
As with many others, I am a fan of the whole zombie
genre, which seems to have picked up steam again over the past few years. But I
am having terminology issues.
Growing up, pre-Night of the Living
Dead (1968) [NOTLD], zombies were a whole
different breed. They were slow and lumbering, undead, and usually Haitian. While
there were horror films based on the characters, such as Bela Lugosi’s White Zombie (1932), mostly they were used as comedic
fodder, as was with Bob Hope’s The Ghost Breakers (1940,
infamous for the Willie Best line, “Feets, don’t fail me now!”). Of course, as
most zombies were black, since they originated in the voodoo culture of
Hispaniola, they were seen as derogatory and existed to be
made fun of in a white colonialist stereotyping Hollywood
way. Just the double-entendre title of the Bowery Boys’ Spooks Run
Wild (1941) alone is an indication of that.
Early zombie |
Even as late as the mid-1960s, zombies kept their
kitsch appeal and were mainly used in comedies, such as in Ray Steckler’s
ridiculously bad (in a good way) cult classic musical, The Incredibly
Strange Creatures That Stopped Living and Became Mixed Up Zombies
(1964), or, as they called a re-release when it played a midnight show at a Brooklyn
theater where I worked during the mid-‘70s,
Teenage Psycho Meets Bloody Mary.
Of course, NOTLD was a paradigm
shifter, changing the image of clumsy voodoo servants and mindless murderers who
followed the orders of their masters into clumsy flesh eaters free roaming the
countryside (and malls, natch). This became the standard for
years, through the likes of Children Shouldn’t
Play with Dead Things (1973) and Return of the Living
Dead (1985; including sequels). While just a bit
more limber in these later films, a sheriff from NOTLD
said it best with “Yeah, they're dead. They're all messed up.”
However, once again things took an evolutionary leap
with the Brit flick, 28 Days Later... (2002; not to be
confused with Sandra Bullock’s 2000 mind-numbing-zombie-like-inducing 28 Days). In this flick, a virus turns people into violent
and swift flesh eaters… but they’re still alive! This story is almost copied in
another, more recent British release, The Devil’s
Playground (2010), which actually inspired this column.
Slow zombies |
Films like 28 Days Later... ignited
a familiar question asked of horror fans recently, “Do you favour slow zombies
or fast zombies?” An example of this is the documentary, The Walking
Dead Girls! In fact, if you search the Web with this
question, you will get many links on the topic. But I have an issue with this.
First, let me admit that I like the viral running around fast eating people
films; in some ways they are more exciting, though sometimes the editing and
shaky camera used by seemingly everyone who does a story like this can be
annoying, even if it doesn’t produce motion sickness. At least with a slow
creature (or horde, as sometimes happens), you get to see the people get ripped
to pieces (a nod to Tom Savini here), rather than a quick shot in edits, often
in shadows or the corner of the frame for shock value. Give me a full-on,
non-CGI appliance so we can to see some action, rather than shake it (apologies
to the Flamin’ Groovies).
Essentially, the definition of a zombie, as is stated
in part by Wikipedia, is “an animated corpse brought back to life…” In other words, from the voodoo to
the flesh eating kind, a zombie is basically the dead arisen. However, in the
later, faster versions, the attackers are not dead, merely infected, making
them – er – hungry. We need a different word for this situation.
Fast zombies |
My idea is to call them ghouls. Yeah, it’s an
antiquated term that brings up memories of the likes of Eerie and Creepy comic magazines from
the ‘60s and ‘70s mostly (where they seemed to be always in conflict with
vampires, but I digress…). Again, Wikipedia describes ghouls, in part, as “…consuming human
flesh, often classified as but not necessarily undead…Ghouls are
perceived to be unintelligent and are primarily driven by their instinct to
feed.” Where my idea
of using this definition falls short, is that in literature ghouls usually
feast on dead flesh, while our infected humans (and zombies, apparently) prefer
their tidbits still squirming.
Surely we can come up with a term that can
differentiate between the classic risen dead chompers and those living foodies
fond of animated flesh, or at least yet uninfected.
Certainly, I
don’t have all the answers. “Cannibals” seem to fall short as well, because in
culture, with many of them it’s a matter of choice. Living people infected by a
disease that makes them need to feed (there’s a tee-shirt slogan for ya) is not
a option. “Biters” seems too mild, and “Flesheaters,” while a great band, also
doesn’t give enough information.
The term zombies will always bring ‘em in to the
theaters, or the television screen in the case of The Walking
Dead series, so the odds that the appellation of zombie (or its alternative of zombi) is here to stay.
Follow the fan base and surely the wallet will follow.
And look, no mention of
braaaaains. Oh…never mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment