Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I finally saw this..... yes.... the old one......

Since I am so out of touch with the time period this was made, I have a hard time putting myself into the right mindset of being shocked by it. I can;t help but feel some of the "important subtext" of the film may have been retconned in once the film itself became a phenomenon. That Mr. Romero may have gone back and polished up what he was trying to say and do with this piece? The whole Black Man as main character, the subtext of what a Zombie is, the critigue of 50's culture? I don't know, I can;t help but feel people who came later spent a lot of time trying to make this movie into more that the sum of its parts?

In addition, I had not realized that the movie has a pretty indepth, 'This is why Zombies are attacking now" in it. I had always assumed there was no explanation in the film. Also, after the initial "shock" the authorities seemd to get thing sin order pretty quickly, and their was no "Apocalypse" that ended the world. In fact, it only impacted the Eastern 3rd of the United States! I hadn't realized that the original impact had been so Isolated.

I am sure I am wrong, so help me get back into the mindset of the viewers when this film came out..... what am I not understanding?

Well first, dawn of the dead is a direct sequel. You see some local hicks think they are getting control of this small town after the initial night. But you find out from dawn that especially in cities it gets way out of control and spreads horribly.

Night is simply that. The first night.

Second, there is no real explanation. Some scientists think the satellite bathing radiation caused it but its never conclusive.


The black guy as the main character and only "survivor" when film was black and white was very big for the time.

Ultimately its like watching nosferatu. A silent movie that laid a lot of the foundation for horror in film. Watching it now its slow and potentially boring. But if you take into account that nobody had ever done any of that before you will see how revolutionary it was.

Just avoid the ‘special edition’ with entirely pointless additional scenes, featuring a Vicar type with absurdly huge teeth, and no acting talent.

Adds precisely nothing to the film.

OP,

I think you cannot really remove a movie from its context. NofLD is still a masterfully put together independent movie.
Nonetheless, many scenes are still tremendously effective (like the little girl in the cellar) and as pointed out above, when it came out it was really progressive to have a character like Ben (ending, and the fact that he takes a lot of bad decisions for the right reasons, notwithstanding).

Barbara is more of a decoy, Raimi "fixed" her in the remake that, in my humble opinion, has been unjustly criticized in many aspects.
Also the way the beginning (cemetery scene) is played, music and framing, is very well executed.

There is just a lot of memorable stuff.

Think about how influential it has been. Obviously many of the elements now are well known, but back then it was completely new. People felt sick.
Concerning the "explanation" in-universe, , as said above that is only speculation, or an "official" version never confirmed to be true.

Also, EDIT: I think that Romero is making clear and (forgive me) visceral statement about human nature with the movie, and that transcends the time that passed.

The film was shot in 1968 and addresses social issues in a subtle way during that time period in the US.

https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/night-of-the-living-dead

Great movie by the way. I can recommend the trilogy because it also includes a lengthy documentation.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
OP,

I think you cannot really remove a movie from its context. NofLD is still a masterfully put together independent movie.
Nonetheless, many scenes are still tremendously effective (like the little girl in the cellar) and as pointed out above, when it came out it was really progressive to have a character like Ben (ending, and the fact that he takes a lot of bad decisions for the right reasons, notwithstanding).

Barbara is more of a decoy, Raimi "fixed" her in the remake that, in my humble opinion, has been unjustly criticized in many aspects.
Also the way the beginning (cemetery scene) is played, music and framing, is very well executed.

There is just a lot of memorable stuff.

Think about how influential it has been. Obviously many of the elements now are well known, but back then it was completely new. People felt sick.
Concerning the "explanation" in-universe, , as said above that is only speculation, or an "official" version never confirmed to be true.

Also, EDIT: I think that Romero is making clear and (forgive me) visceral statement about human nature with the movie, and that transcends the time that passed.

Have to agree with the 90's remake there. As a whole the entire thing is simply executed better. That, and it was my introduction to Patricia Tallman.

 Just Tony wrote:

Have to agree with the 90's remake there. As a whole the entire thing is simply executed better. That, and it was my introduction to Patricia Tallman.

You are not alone.

Without going off on a total tangent and derailing the thread I was lucky enough to have met Patricia Tallman and I have to say she was one of the loveliest celebs I ever got to spend time with.

It was at the height of Babylon 5 and I used to manage the signings for Forbidden Planet in London and she did a signing for us.

She was only booked for an hour but stayed for over 3 hours because there were still a lot of fans waiting and she chattted to everyone.

I think after about 3 hours of chatting about B5 and signing B5 merchandise she was a bit surprised when I pulled out my VHS copy of Night of the Living Dead (yes this was a long time ago, lol) and asked her to sign it, and then we spent about 20 minutes chatting about that and her music. She ended up hanging around for almost 4 hours but only got paid for 1 and was just a cool and amazing person.

Anyway back on track I love the Pat Tallman version as much, if not more than the original but the original was a seminal piece of work and can't be ignored as a bit of film history.

I can appreciate out of context and many years later its impact is difficult to imagine but it was a big deal back then and pretty much spawned the whole zombie genre.

The 90's. Tom Savini remake works for me.

It doesn't mess with the core of the film, instead just updating it. A spit here, polish there. Distinct feeling it's how Romero would've done it had he had to remake it himself.

Remake of Dawn of the Dead is likewise fun. A decent reimagining - though still not entirely convinced by fast zombies overall (they work in the context of this film, and were new at the time).

Other remakes of Romero? Avoid like the plague!

But do check out Land, Diary and Survival of the Dead, Romeros own ongoing sequels. Whilst not quite up to snuff of the original trilogy, they're decent enough watches in their own right.

I've always been a huge fan of George A. Romero and Tom Savini. Who better to direct the remake than Savini? Both films are excellent.

The original Night of the Living Dead is notable for introducing the modern concept of zombies alone, thus spawning an entire genre.