What do you think?
Rate this book
BFI Film Classics
Night of the Living Dead
George A. Romero’s Night of the Living Dead (1968) is widely acknowledged as one of the most influential horror films of all time. Shot on a low budget on black and white film, Night depicts an America under siege from reanimated corpses. The action centres around a motley group of survivors holed up in a suburb of Pittsburgh, besieged by flesh-eating ghouls. Romero’s focus on tensions between members of this makeshift community resonates with contemporary racial and gender conflicts and, in addition to its shockingly visceral content, the film’s impact lay in its engagement with contemporary social upheaval – Vietnam and the peace movement, the civil rights struggle, assassinations and escalating urban tensions.
Benjamin Hervey’s study of the film is the first to provide a close analysis of the film and an in-depth account of its reception. Drawing on original archival research, Hervey traces how the film quickly gained cult status, while at the same time it was hailed as a piece of art cinema and as a deep political allegory. Hervey analyses the film scene-by-scene, detailing how the scoring, editing, photography and lighting came together to overall powerful effect. He provides a richly detailed historical context for his reading of the film, showing, for example, how scenes in Night directly relate to contemporary news coverage of Vietnam.
Benjamin Hervey’s study of the film is the first to provide a close analysis of the film and an in-depth account of its reception. Drawing on original archival research, Hervey traces how the film quickly gained cult status, while at the same time it was hailed as a piece of art cinema and as a deep political allegory. Hervey analyses the film scene-by-scene, detailing how the scoring, editing, photography and lighting came together to overall powerful effect. He provides a richly detailed historical context for his reading of the film, showing, for example, how scenes in Night directly relate to contemporary news coverage of Vietnam.
128 pages, Paperback
First published July 15, 2008
2 people are currently reading
91 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
November 5, 2024
یکی از جریانسازترین فیلمها، نه فقط در ژانر وحشت، بلکه در کل تاریخ سینما و ادبیات.
عبارت زامبی در اصل از فرهنگ عامهی هاییتی گرفته شده. مردگانی که با آیینهای جادویی وودو دوباره زنده میشوند و مثل بردگانی مطیع برای ارباب خود کار میکنند. این زامبی نه وحشی است و گوشت/خونخوار، و نه تهدیدی برای انسانهای عادی به حساب میآید. اما از جایی به بعد، زامبی تبدیل شد به موجودی خطرناک که به خاطر تشعشع یا ویروس بهوجود آمده، جمعیتش به طور تصاعدی زیاد میشود که برای کشتنش باید به سرش شلیک کرد. و نقطهی عطف داستان همینجاست: شب مردگان زنده. از اینجا به بعد بود که زامبیها نمادهایی متناقض شدند. گروهی زامبیها را استعارهای از جامعهی محافظهکار سفیدپوست طبقهی متوسط آمریکایی میدید که اندیشهای از خودشان نداشتند و تنها به مصرف فکر میکردند، همان اکثریت خاموشی که در اوج اعتراضات سیاسی و ضدجنگ، نیکسون را به عنوان رئیس جمهور انتخاب کرد. دیگران اما زامبی را برونریزی تابو میدانستند، ترس جوانان متولد سالهای ابتدایی جنگ سرد از آخرالزمان اتمی و خشمشان از نسلهای قبل، که به تنانهترین شکل ممکن بروز میکرد و تمام ساختارهای اجتماعی سنتی را بههم میریخت.
اما چقدر از این همه جریانسازی و تفسیرهای متنوع سیاسی به شکلی عامدانه از سمت سازندگان بود؟ خیلی کم، تقریبن هیچ. کارگردان فیلم — جورج رومرو — جوانی ۲۷ ساله بود که با چند شریک و دوست، شرکتی کمابیش ورشکسته برای ساخت فیلمهای تبلیغاتی داشتند. جایی تصمیم گرفتند که نفری ششصد دلار از پسانداز شخصیشان روی هم بگذارند (مجموعن شش هزار) و فیلمبرداریِ اولین فیلم داستانیشان را با کمترین هزینه و امکانات شروع کنند و بعد دنبال سرمایهگذار بروند. نتیجهاش شد نابازیگرها، نگاتیوهای کهنهی سیاه و سفید، واقعگرایی بیشازحد و تصاویری به سبک گزارشهای جنگی از ویتنام و شاید مهمتر از همه یک بازیگر نقش اول سیاهپوست میان لشکری از انسانها و زامبیهای سفید (که انتخابی کاملن تصادفی بود). محدودیتهای فیلم به برگ برندهاش تبدیل شد. شب مردگان زنده از فیلم سادهی مدنظر سازندگانش تبدیل شد به بمب خبری، محبوب (بیشتر) منتقدان آمریکایی و اروپایی، هیپیها، ضدجنگها و فعالان سیاسی و نژادی و البته همه جور آدم دیگر. فیلمی عمیقن سیاسی و انتقادی که مصرفگرایی، خانوادهی سنتی، تبعیض نژادی و جنایتهای آمریکا در ویتتام را عمیقن به چالش میکشید. فیلمی که بدون کپیرایت و با بودجهی صد و چند هزار دلاری، سی میلیون فروخت (معادل امروزی ۲۵۰ میلیون) و تبدیل شد به نمونهی کمنظیری از مرگ مولف، اینکه در زمانهی سیاسی، چه بخواهی و چه نخواهی هر قدمت معنایی جدید و مستقل از تو خواهد داشت.
(کتاب نه داستان یا فیلمنامه، بلکه روایتی جامع از ساخت و نقد و تفسیرهای فیلم است که البته ۱۲۰ صفحهاش کمی طولانی است و نهچندان نظاممند، اما کماکان مثل باقی کتابهای BFI خواندنی.)
عبارت زامبی در اصل از فرهنگ عامهی هاییتی گرفته شده. مردگانی که با آیینهای جادویی وودو دوباره زنده میشوند و مثل بردگانی مطیع برای ارباب خود کار میکنند. این زامبی نه وحشی است و گوشت/خونخوار، و نه تهدیدی برای انسانهای عادی به حساب میآید. اما از جایی به بعد، زامبی تبدیل شد به موجودی خطرناک که به خاطر تشعشع یا ویروس بهوجود آمده، جمعیتش به طور تصاعدی زیاد میشود که برای کشتنش باید به سرش شلیک کرد. و نقطهی عطف داستان همینجاست: شب مردگان زنده. از اینجا به بعد بود که زامبیها نمادهایی متناقض شدند. گروهی زامبیها را استعارهای از جامعهی محافظهکار سفیدپوست طبقهی متوسط آمریکایی میدید که اندیشهای از خودشان نداشتند و تنها به مصرف فکر میکردند، همان اکثریت خاموشی که در اوج اعتراضات سیاسی و ضدجنگ، نیکسون را به عنوان رئیس جمهور انتخاب کرد. دیگران اما زامبی را برونریزی تابو میدانستند، ترس جوانان متولد سالهای ابتدایی جنگ سرد از آخرالزمان اتمی و خشمشان از نسلهای قبل، که به تنانهترین شکل ممکن بروز میکرد و تمام ساختارهای اجتماعی سنتی را بههم میریخت.
اما چقدر از این همه جریانسازی و تفسیرهای متنوع سیاسی به شکلی عامدانه از سمت سازندگان بود؟ خیلی کم، تقریبن هیچ. کارگردان فیلم — جورج رومرو — جوانی ۲۷ ساله بود که با چند شریک و دوست، شرکتی کمابیش ورشکسته برای ساخت فیلمهای تبلیغاتی داشتند. جایی تصمیم گرفتند که نفری ششصد دلار از پسانداز شخصیشان روی هم بگذارند (مجموعن شش هزار) و فیلمبرداریِ اولین فیلم داستانیشان را با کمترین هزینه و امکانات شروع کنند و بعد دنبال سرمایهگذار بروند. نتیجهاش شد نابازیگرها، نگاتیوهای کهنهی سیاه و سفید، واقعگرایی بیشازحد و تصاویری به سبک گزارشهای جنگی از ویتنام و شاید مهمتر از همه یک بازیگر نقش اول سیاهپوست میان لشکری از انسانها و زامبیهای سفید (که انتخابی کاملن تصادفی بود). محدودیتهای فیلم به برگ برندهاش تبدیل شد. شب مردگان زنده از فیلم سادهی مدنظر سازندگانش تبدیل شد به بمب خبری، محبوب (بیشتر) منتقدان آمریکایی و اروپایی، هیپیها، ضدجنگها و فعالان سیاسی و نژادی و البته همه جور آدم دیگر. فیلمی عمیقن سیاسی و انتقادی که مصرفگرایی، خانوادهی سنتی، تبعیض نژادی و جنایتهای آمریکا در ویتتام را عمیقن به چالش میکشید. فیلمی که بدون کپیرایت و با بودجهی صد و چند هزار دلاری، سی میلیون فروخت (معادل امروزی ۲۵۰ میلیون) و تبدیل شد به نمونهی کمنظیری از مرگ مولف، اینکه در زمانهی سیاسی، چه بخواهی و چه نخواهی هر قدمت معنایی جدید و مستقل از تو خواهد داشت.
(کتاب نه داستان یا فیلمنامه، بلکه روایتی جامع از ساخت و نقد و تفسیرهای فیلم است که البته ۱۲۰ صفحهاش کمی طولانی است و نهچندان نظاممند، اما کماکان مثل باقی کتابهای BFI خواندنی.)
February 5, 2010
This is a good overview of the production and impact of the movie that introduced our modern pop culture's view of zombies. If you've never seen the original 1968 Night of the Living Dead (not the remake, and never the butchered 30th Anniversary Edition), then you're missing out on a very, very good film.
In addition to giving a lot of information about the movie itself, this little book focuses on the events of the time that likely influenced both the filmmakers and the audiences who reacted to Night so strongly. It also addresses the film's themes and politically-charged ending.
One of the things I found most interesting was that the book sticks up a bit for Harry, the father who clashes with Ben over their potential retreat to the basement. The author makes the case that, while we're tempted to side wholly with Ben, some of his actions are suspect, and Harry has some redeeming traits. Of course even if the group had sided with Harry, the basement held dangers of a different kind...
In addition to giving a lot of information about the movie itself, this little book focuses on the events of the time that likely influenced both the filmmakers and the audiences who reacted to Night so strongly. It also addresses the film's themes and politically-charged ending.
One of the things I found most interesting was that the book sticks up a bit for Harry, the father who clashes with Ben over their potential retreat to the basement. The author makes the case that, while we're tempted to side wholly with Ben, some of his actions are suspect, and Harry has some redeeming traits. Of course even if the group had sided with Harry, the basement held dangers of a different kind...
August 19, 2017
The film Night of the Living Dead changed my life....literally. My mom took my sister and I to see it, along with a Christopher Lee Dracula movie, back when I was nine at a local community college. I'd never heard of it before at the time and was expecting a run-of-the-mill creature feature like they showed on late night television. When I saw it was in black and white, I was even more expecting a humdrum zombie movie like White Zombie or I Walked with a Zombie with voodoo rituals and shambling undead working in sugar cane fields. Boy, was I in for a shock! When it was established that these zombies were EATING PEOPLE, I immediately knew that all bets were off for this film and I was almost too scared to watch the rest of it. The realism, nihilism, and political undertones (not to mention the matricide!) made Night a movie like none I'd ever seen before....and it scarred me for weeks!
This book analyzes the "making of" aspects of the film in both the practical means and the political undercurrents of the time that influenced the film makers. I can't get enough of books like this, being the horror nut that I am! I found this read fascinating and intelligently written. If they're all this well written, I look forward to reading more books in the BFI movie series.
This book analyzes the "making of" aspects of the film in both the practical means and the political undercurrents of the time that influenced the film makers. I can't get enough of books like this, being the horror nut that I am! I found this read fascinating and intelligently written. If they're all this well written, I look forward to reading more books in the BFI movie series.
August 9, 2025
I’ve been enjoying the BFI Film Classics series, and this entry on Night of the Living Dead by Ben Hervey presents a critical perspective on the film’s production, which films and media influenced Romero and co-writer John Russo, and the film’s legacy and impact on later horror films. Night of the Living Dead was always the scariest movie I saw when I was younger. Strangely enough, I saw it on TV, and the film captivated me. It was like nothing I had seen before, and I think that was what made it so scary for me when I was younger. This is something that Hervey discusses in the book. It’s not only the barebones production values, but also the film stock and black and white footage that lends an air of newsreel reality to the film. As Hervey notes in his analysis, Night of the Living Dead was filmed around the time of the Tet Offensive in Vietnam, and was released in 1968, the year that Nixon was re-elected, but also when MLK and RFK were assassinated. The times were ripe with revolution and violence, and in particular, the news was beginning to air more and more graphic footage from the war, letting Americans know about the brutality and violence, the death and destruction that was being wrought in Vietnam. Much of the news and social violence that was all around the late 60s factored into the film’s production. I still remember how realistic the news reports on the television seemed, and without a kind of soundtrack or anything else that tends to create a kind of pretense of film, Night of the Living Dead always seemed so realistic, even if the premise about the dead returning to life to feast on the living is absurd.
However, in addition to the production of the film, I think it was the claustrophobia and the tension between the survivors holed up in the farmhouse that always frightened me the most. I also think that this is something about the kind of dystopian and survival films that always were scary to me—how horrible people could be when there resources or options are limited. Rather than seeing people come together and find ways to solve their problems, they often become selfish and self-interested, frightened more by the zero-sum possibilities than the external threats. This definitely the case in the arguments between Harry and Ben, the two males leads who disagree about whether to stay upstairs or in the basement. Although Romero usually disregards the question of race, Hervey’s analysis leans into the fact that Ben, as a Black male lead in the film, takes charge and beats down Harry, relegating him to the basement where he eventually meets his end. Furthermore, Hervey also focuses on the end of the film and how it speaks to the racial tension in America in the late 60s, even as Romero repeatedly denied that the film had a racial message. This was also one of the more upsetting and frightening elements of the film for me…. That the hero survives the ghouls, but is eventually done in by what seems like a posse of klansmen, or at least a group of extrajudicial lawmen, who seem to be indifferent to their targets. It was upsetting to me to see Ben die, and I always felt like this was one of the main takeaways from the film, that its not always the supernatural evil that wins out, but maybe it’s the banality of evil that still exists in society.
I really enjoyed learning more about the influences of film and comic books on Romero and Russo’s story and treatment for the film. Hervey identifies some interesting cinematic precursors, including non-science fiction films that may have influenced Romero. It was interesting to read about The Tales of Hoffman and the story of Olympia, a mechanical doll who eventually is torn apart by two men. Hervey describes the scene as waving body parts similar to what the ghouls do in the field. Hervey also mentions the influence of EC Comics and stories from Tales from the Crypt that feature a kind of dark, poetic justice that often results from these stories where the end is often violent and bloody.
However, some of the other influences and themes from the film were also interesting to read an analysis of and helped me better understand what was so terrifying about the film. In particular, Hervey analyzes the introductory scene of Johnny and Barbara, brother and sister visiting their father’s grave. While Barabara is the vigilant child seeking to honor her father, Johnny seems to be dismissive of tradition, mocking the idea of the visit and playing in the cemetery. Eventually Johnny is attacked by a ghoul and becomes one, but Barbara, shocked at the loss of her brother, escapes to the farmhouse, where she encounters the other survivors. Hervey suggests that part of the film was about the death of traditions and generational differences. It definitely seems like Night of the Living Dead could herald these generational shifts since it was such a transgressive film for the time, implying that the ghouls were eating human flesh and that really the dead were meaningless and harmful, pursuing us until we violently seek their destruction. This idea also seems apparent in one of the most shocking scenes when Karen, Harry and Helen’s daughter who was bitten by a ghoul, eventually kills and eats them. I remember being shocked at watching a child violently stab and eat her parents. Although Karen is a ghoul, her actions towards her parents suggest the kind of violence needed to destroy the previous generations and traditions. While Johnny seems to mock the idea of honoring the past, he eventually succumbs to the ghouls, encountering his sister and seeking to make her one of them. With all of the issues in society at the time, with all of the violence and turbulence, it seems like an idea that each generation tries to consume its own. Hervey mentioned that idea from mythology and artwork like Goya’s famous painting of Saturn devouring his children. It’s driven by fear and a lack of understanding, but also a kind of wish to maintain things as they are—to seek out a placid state where nothing really happens and the status quo is maintained. This lack of development, a kind of stasis, will eventually lead to another kind of death as well through a lack of progress and growth. Hervey’s book definitely had me consider other subtexts of the film that I hadn’t thought of previously, while also helping me to identify some of the moments that terrified me as a child when I first encountered this film. Furthermore, I’ve read a few other books about some of Romero’s other films, especially Dawn of the Dead, his masterpiece. I’ve also recently revisited some of these films, along with The Crazies, which was another film I watched when I was younger and found it to be completely terrifying. Throughout these films, Romero also emphasizes the idea of control and the media, and how we seek out the news and media to inform us, but maybe they don’t always give us the true story or maybe they end up inducing more hysteria and fear. This happens throughout Night, Dawn, and The Crazies, where the government seems to be hiding or not revealing all of the details about these events that are turning people abnormal. This notion of distrust and a lack of transparency in information is relevant today, and maybe that is another reason why Romero’s films remain so powerful and shocking even after nearly 60 years. I really enjoyed Hervey’s detailed research and analysis of Night of the Living Dead, reminding me of how important and terrifying this film is.
However, in addition to the production of the film, I think it was the claustrophobia and the tension between the survivors holed up in the farmhouse that always frightened me the most. I also think that this is something about the kind of dystopian and survival films that always were scary to me—how horrible people could be when there resources or options are limited. Rather than seeing people come together and find ways to solve their problems, they often become selfish and self-interested, frightened more by the zero-sum possibilities than the external threats. This definitely the case in the arguments between Harry and Ben, the two males leads who disagree about whether to stay upstairs or in the basement. Although Romero usually disregards the question of race, Hervey’s analysis leans into the fact that Ben, as a Black male lead in the film, takes charge and beats down Harry, relegating him to the basement where he eventually meets his end. Furthermore, Hervey also focuses on the end of the film and how it speaks to the racial tension in America in the late 60s, even as Romero repeatedly denied that the film had a racial message. This was also one of the more upsetting and frightening elements of the film for me…. That the hero survives the ghouls, but is eventually done in by what seems like a posse of klansmen, or at least a group of extrajudicial lawmen, who seem to be indifferent to their targets. It was upsetting to me to see Ben die, and I always felt like this was one of the main takeaways from the film, that its not always the supernatural evil that wins out, but maybe it’s the banality of evil that still exists in society.
I really enjoyed learning more about the influences of film and comic books on Romero and Russo’s story and treatment for the film. Hervey identifies some interesting cinematic precursors, including non-science fiction films that may have influenced Romero. It was interesting to read about The Tales of Hoffman and the story of Olympia, a mechanical doll who eventually is torn apart by two men. Hervey describes the scene as waving body parts similar to what the ghouls do in the field. Hervey also mentions the influence of EC Comics and stories from Tales from the Crypt that feature a kind of dark, poetic justice that often results from these stories where the end is often violent and bloody.
However, some of the other influences and themes from the film were also interesting to read an analysis of and helped me better understand what was so terrifying about the film. In particular, Hervey analyzes the introductory scene of Johnny and Barbara, brother and sister visiting their father’s grave. While Barabara is the vigilant child seeking to honor her father, Johnny seems to be dismissive of tradition, mocking the idea of the visit and playing in the cemetery. Eventually Johnny is attacked by a ghoul and becomes one, but Barbara, shocked at the loss of her brother, escapes to the farmhouse, where she encounters the other survivors. Hervey suggests that part of the film was about the death of traditions and generational differences. It definitely seems like Night of the Living Dead could herald these generational shifts since it was such a transgressive film for the time, implying that the ghouls were eating human flesh and that really the dead were meaningless and harmful, pursuing us until we violently seek their destruction. This idea also seems apparent in one of the most shocking scenes when Karen, Harry and Helen’s daughter who was bitten by a ghoul, eventually kills and eats them. I remember being shocked at watching a child violently stab and eat her parents. Although Karen is a ghoul, her actions towards her parents suggest the kind of violence needed to destroy the previous generations and traditions. While Johnny seems to mock the idea of honoring the past, he eventually succumbs to the ghouls, encountering his sister and seeking to make her one of them. With all of the issues in society at the time, with all of the violence and turbulence, it seems like an idea that each generation tries to consume its own. Hervey mentioned that idea from mythology and artwork like Goya’s famous painting of Saturn devouring his children. It’s driven by fear and a lack of understanding, but also a kind of wish to maintain things as they are—to seek out a placid state where nothing really happens and the status quo is maintained. This lack of development, a kind of stasis, will eventually lead to another kind of death as well through a lack of progress and growth. Hervey’s book definitely had me consider other subtexts of the film that I hadn’t thought of previously, while also helping me to identify some of the moments that terrified me as a child when I first encountered this film. Furthermore, I’ve read a few other books about some of Romero’s other films, especially Dawn of the Dead, his masterpiece. I’ve also recently revisited some of these films, along with The Crazies, which was another film I watched when I was younger and found it to be completely terrifying. Throughout these films, Romero also emphasizes the idea of control and the media, and how we seek out the news and media to inform us, but maybe they don’t always give us the true story or maybe they end up inducing more hysteria and fear. This happens throughout Night, Dawn, and The Crazies, where the government seems to be hiding or not revealing all of the details about these events that are turning people abnormal. This notion of distrust and a lack of transparency in information is relevant today, and maybe that is another reason why Romero’s films remain so powerful and shocking even after nearly 60 years. I really enjoyed Hervey’s detailed research and analysis of Night of the Living Dead, reminding me of how important and terrifying this film is.
July 19, 2012
A very nice criticism of George Romero's monumental horror classic. Hervey draws parallels to 1950s McCarthyism and 1960s anti-war/Vietnam and Civil Rights eras. A great read for horror fans and historians.
August 10, 2018
One of th best analysis of Night of the Living Dead I've ever read.I really enjoyed it, a good, short read.
August 23, 2023
If you want a deep dive into Night of the Living Dead, read this book. It’s a scholarly look at the film and its impact.
May 14, 2024
Really poignant contextualization and analysis of Night of the Living Dead. It’s only fault is beating the reader over the head with it.
April 28, 2025
In 1968, a low-budget black-and-white horror film premiered in American theaters. Unbeknownst to audiences—-as well as everyone associated with the film’s production—-the film would go on to create an enormous cult following and completely change the genre. It also managed to create its own subgenre, one that is still outrageously popular today.
The film was “Night of the Living Dead”, and it is still one of the most influential and significant horror movies of all time.
The British Film Institute (BFI) publishes a series of books about films that have made some kind of socio-political impact. They offer in-depth analyses of nearly every aspect of the film: narrative, technical, sociological, and philosophical.
Ben Hervey wrote the analysis of “Night of the Living Dead”, and it is as thorough and in-depth as one can be in film analysis. It is also immensely readable and not as academic as it sounds. This is intellectual pop-culture studies at its finest.
According to Cass Sunstein, a Harvard economics professor, there are three factors that determine a film’s success. The first is the film’s quality: is it actually any good? Does it showcase the particular filmmaking talents of the writers, directors, editors, and actors within the film?
“NOTLD” is a good film. I know it’s debatable. I have friends who think it’s one of the most amazing horror films ever made, and I have friends who find it boring and stupid. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. That said, I doubt the film would have had the impact it had if it wasn’t, in some ways, good at what it was trying to do, which was: scaring the shit out of audiences.
George Romero, the director, created a horror film that, at the very least, was good at one thing: overturning audience expectations at every turn. Film conventions and horror tropes of the time were simply ignored or purposely flipped on their heads: Teenagers and even a child in the film died violently. The camera didn’t turn away when the creatures feasted on victims’ flesh. The hero is killed in the end. Nobody saw any of this coming.
The second factor is social influences. Sunstein refers to “echo chambers”, or ways in which word-of-mouth recommendations can explode. Today, with social media, a film’s success or failure can happen almost instantly. This is, in fact, what RottenTomatoes.com capitalizes on. In 1968, long before Facebook and Twitter, people actually had to use mouths to spread the word. And word about “NOTLD” spread like wildfire. People were, at the very least, curious about this film that was terrifying audiences.
The third factor, according to Sunstein, is timing. It’s everything. The film came to theaters in the same year that the Vietnam War ratcheted up its most violent year with the Tet Offensive. It was the year Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy were assassinated. The “free love’ hippy movement was getting dark, and it would only be a year later that four hippies, brain-washed by Charles Manson, brutally murdered five people during a home invasion in the Hollywood hills.
Tensions were high. Fear ruled. A film like “NOTLD” was either the tip of the iceberg or a much-needed catharsis.
Whatever the reason, Romero’s little film about flesh-eating ghouls (the word “zombie”, by the way, is never uttered once in the entire movie, and Romero has gone on the record several times saying that he detests the term), for good or ill, started the whole zombie film genre, a genre that, like the creatures, simply will not die.
The film was “Night of the Living Dead”, and it is still one of the most influential and significant horror movies of all time.
The British Film Institute (BFI) publishes a series of books about films that have made some kind of socio-political impact. They offer in-depth analyses of nearly every aspect of the film: narrative, technical, sociological, and philosophical.
Ben Hervey wrote the analysis of “Night of the Living Dead”, and it is as thorough and in-depth as one can be in film analysis. It is also immensely readable and not as academic as it sounds. This is intellectual pop-culture studies at its finest.
According to Cass Sunstein, a Harvard economics professor, there are three factors that determine a film’s success. The first is the film’s quality: is it actually any good? Does it showcase the particular filmmaking talents of the writers, directors, editors, and actors within the film?
“NOTLD” is a good film. I know it’s debatable. I have friends who think it’s one of the most amazing horror films ever made, and I have friends who find it boring and stupid. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. That said, I doubt the film would have had the impact it had if it wasn’t, in some ways, good at what it was trying to do, which was: scaring the shit out of audiences.
George Romero, the director, created a horror film that, at the very least, was good at one thing: overturning audience expectations at every turn. Film conventions and horror tropes of the time were simply ignored or purposely flipped on their heads: Teenagers and even a child in the film died violently. The camera didn’t turn away when the creatures feasted on victims’ flesh. The hero is killed in the end. Nobody saw any of this coming.
The second factor is social influences. Sunstein refers to “echo chambers”, or ways in which word-of-mouth recommendations can explode. Today, with social media, a film’s success or failure can happen almost instantly. This is, in fact, what RottenTomatoes.com capitalizes on. In 1968, long before Facebook and Twitter, people actually had to use mouths to spread the word. And word about “NOTLD” spread like wildfire. People were, at the very least, curious about this film that was terrifying audiences.
The third factor, according to Sunstein, is timing. It’s everything. The film came to theaters in the same year that the Vietnam War ratcheted up its most violent year with the Tet Offensive. It was the year Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy were assassinated. The “free love’ hippy movement was getting dark, and it would only be a year later that four hippies, brain-washed by Charles Manson, brutally murdered five people during a home invasion in the Hollywood hills.
Tensions were high. Fear ruled. A film like “NOTLD” was either the tip of the iceberg or a much-needed catharsis.
Whatever the reason, Romero’s little film about flesh-eating ghouls (the word “zombie”, by the way, is never uttered once in the entire movie, and Romero has gone on the record several times saying that he detests the term), for good or ill, started the whole zombie film genre, a genre that, like the creatures, simply will not die.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews