I was really saddened to hear about this story featuring an Anti-Zombie professor from my undergrad school, Indiana University:

There is something keeping Stephen Watt up at night, and it’s not vampires, demons or malignant pudding, but rather a simple question: why is it that Americans love killing zombies?

Watt, an English professor from Indiana University, spoke Friday night before a screening of the movie Zombieland in Stanford’s Cubberly Auditorium. He analyzed the phenomenon that is America’s obsession with the undead in his lecture, “The History of Zombieland: Or Why It’s So Much Fun to Kill the Undead.”

…

Zombie movies that take place in a post-apocalyptic United States have become more popular since 9/11. This genre of movies, increasingly popular after an era of anthrax and terrorist attacks, hurricane Katrina and the swine flu epidemic, may be a reflection of the unstablity of the 21st century, said Watt.

“After 9/11, the world had completely changed in one day, similarly to what happens in these movies.” Watt said. “We live in a society where we are not really sure what may occur from one day to the next.”

Despite his comments, Watt believes that zombie movies should not be over-analyzed, especially the comedic Zombieland.

…

“Zombies are just speechless aggressors of flesh,” Watt said. “Without the ability to formulate words, they resemble predatory animals. The capacity for language is one of the main [things that] distinguishes humans from animals. Words, rational arguments and expressions of desire don’t emanate from the zombies’ mouths in Zombieland–only blood and gunk.”

This absence of desire and non-human species affiliation may be one origin of our approval with the mass-murder of zombies, according to Watt. Just as hunters and fisherman obtain a certain satisfaction from killing animals, we may get pleasure from killing Zombies—which can be reguarded as less than human, less that machines, even less than flies.

I think a lot of the blame for the piece can be laid with the reporter – I mean, the less than flies thing? I really don’t know that that’s supported by the canon. Romero holds that his Zombies are considerably smarter and more human than flies; Boyle’s Zombies are motivated by rage, a human emotion; Russo’s are highly intelligent, if motivated by horrible hunger.

I also want to *strongly* caution film analysts about lumping 28 Days Later in with this ‘post 9/11 Zombie film’ theory, though Watt doesn’t do that here explicitly. 28 Days Later was released in 2002, yes; but movies take a long time to make, and much of it was shot before the WTC attacks in 2001.

From the Wikipedias:

Much of the filming took place prior to the September 11 attacks, and in the audio commentary Boyle notes the parallel between the “missing persons” flyers seen at the beginning of the film and similar flyers posted in New York City in the wake of the attacks. Boyle adds that his crew probably would not have been granted permission to close off Whitehall for filming after the terrorist attacks in New York.

I’ve always thought that the massive critical success of 28 Days Later, followed by the healthy commercial success of the Dawn of the Dead remake by Zack Snyder, had as much to do with the resurgence in Anti-Zombie film as any early 2000s sociological tension. Success breeds success, and Hollywood is terribly unoriginal, so they like to milk concepts dry. Such is life. Ascribing a ton of the newfound popularity to Terrorism ignores that the wave began before 9/11. Danny Boyle wasn’t inspired to do 28 Days Later by the attacks, whereas a lot of copycats (and one very lousy sequel) were obviously inspired by him.

Now, on to Prof. Watt’s assertions: basically, he posits an Anti-Zombie prejudice, without proof or evidence outside of the Anti-Zombie film canon, then uses these highly prejudicial statements as evidence that ‘we’ are justified in hating Zombies and slaughtering them.

Nevermind that there is no consensus in Anti-Zombie movies about much of anything, including Zombies. Zombieland ‘Zombies’ are nothing like John Russo ‘Zombies’, or Romero ‘Zombies’, or Boyle’s Rage ‘Zombies’, or old Hollywood Voodoo Zombies, ala White Zombie, whose Zombies weren’t much like the Zombies in King of the Zombies, and so on. In particular his statement about Zombies in the movies being nonverbal is just bunk. Zombies on film have talked, to varying degrees, for literally decades. Both Day of the Dead and Return of the Living Dead feature talking film Zombies, and they came out in 1985. I mean, come on.

I find his hunter/fisherman parallel more interesting, because it strikes closer to the truth – people have an inherent, and sick, compulsion to cause pain and suffering. Perhaps it’s a moral failing, perhaps an evolutionary throwback, but here it is. So given the least vaguely plausible signal to release pent-up aggression, an *unenlightened* individual (like Professor Watt, apparently) will fly into incoherent rage or bloodlust and hurt, well, Zombies.

That’s a theory I can get behind for its explanatory power, though clearly I see the moral dimensions rather differently.

All those tears the Anti-Zombie protagonists cry in the movies might just stem from guilty consciences instead of fear. Food for thought.

Tags: Academia, Euro-zom, Journamalism, Romero

This entry was posted by John Sears on Saturday, February 5th, 2011 at 12:06 am and is filed under Zombie Media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.