Diary of the Dead

Title: Diary of the Dead
Director: George A. Romero
Cast: Michelle Morgan, Scott Wentworth, Joshua Close
Year: 2007
MPAA: Rated R for strong horror violence and gore, and pervasive language.
Date of Review: March 14, 2007

First it was racism. Then consumerism. A few years later it was the military. Twenty years after that it was the greedy businessmen who run the world. Now the “living dead” return, and the new target in their socially conscious sights is us – that is to say, those of us who thrive on the new direction the media has taken with the advent of the internet. Some have called us “Generation Y”, and it’s becoming more apparent every time a new viral video makes waves the world over that the “Y” stands for “YouTube”. George Romero has focused his ever-critical eye on this new trend of recording everything we see, sharing even the most personal experiences with complete strangers on the web, often in an effort to achieve as high a number of “hits” as possible.

It’s obvious from seeing Diary of the Dead that Romero is at least a little bit disturbed by what these recent trends could be leading to. It’s not just the creepy voyeurism that this is both bringing out and nurturing in people, but it’s also the fact that people frequently put themselves in harm’s way just to get some good footage. Look at Jackass, and all the countless copy-cats it has spawned. Watching people get hurt has become a genre of film unto itself, so why not take that to the next level? Why not have people being brutally killed and eaten by armies of reanimated corpses?

In typical Romero fashion, this latest entry into the popular zombie series shows a small group of people as they try to survive amidst the beginning of a zombie outbreak. This is the third entry in Romero’s five-film series which shows the beginning of this cataclysmic event, and Diary of the Dead attempts to make it more personal than ever, as it is filmed using hand-held cameras, from the first-person perspective of some college-age filmmakers who become obsessed with chronicling the decline of society during this horrifying time. Romero tries to add realism to a situation which is decidedly unreal, and at points he succeeds – the film has some downright scary moments. In fact, it’s the first time I’ve been scared by zombies in quite a while, since they’ve become so commonplace in popular film and culture.

Knowing Romero’s track record, maybe it’s a little much to expect “good” dialogue – he has never written anything which was less than heavy-handed, and given the fact that he’s been making films that way for over 40 years now, that must be exactly what he wants. But it’s hard to forgive Diary of the Dead’s stilted, unnatural writing when it’s supposed to be like a reality-TV version of a zombie movie. If these are supposed to be real people, why do they talk to each other so awkwardly? Why are there still such clichéd characters, like the old, jaded intellectual who spouts out obscure literary references at the drop of a hat, and the nerd who knows all there is to know about technology and computers but couldn’t socialize to save his life? These generalized characters may work in the context of Romero’s other - more cinematic - films, but here it only serves to remove the viewer from the events of the film. There is some really terrible dialogue here, which often borders on unintentional comedy. At one point in the film, one of the young filmmakers relates the zombie attacks to humanity’s constant state of war, by saying “it used to be us versus us. Now it’s us versus them…only they, are us.” It sounds like something one would read in a high school philosophy paper, and is a reflection of how the film never reaches past a superficial depth.

The comparisons to Cloverfield are inevitable, since both films take fantastic situations and put the viewers in the shoes of those directly affected by the events. But for all its flaws, Cloverfield used this documentary style much more effectively, since (as I reflect on it more) it had no pretenses about giving the audience a “message” - a giant monster attacks New York City, and a group of people struggle to survive the chaos. By writing dialogue with relevance and commentary, Romero shot himself in the foot and betrayed his original concept of giving that “ground level” look at events.

However, these problems do not totally destroy Diary of the Dead. It’s greatly superior to Land of the Dead, which just got too big with its scope and character roster. Romero obviously works more effectively with a smaller cast and overall size of film, and by the end of Diary of the Dead we can see that he’s still the master of close-quarters combat with the living dead; there are two sequences involving the characters trying to barricade themselves indoors and away from the zombie hordes, and these are the closest Romero has come so far to recreating the tension which was so prevalent in Night of the Living Dead.

Diary of the Dead is better than most of the zombie fare to come out lately, especially since 99% of it is straight-to-video. It’s not a horror masterpiece (and I’m still eagerly awaiting Romero’s one last shining moment before retirement) but it briefly re-instilled my fear of zombies taking over the world, so that must count for something.

6 / 10

Funny Games (1997)

Title: Funny Games
Director: Michael Haneke
Cast: Ulrich Mühe, Susanne Lothar, Arno Frisch
Year: 1997
MPAA: Not Rated
Date of Review: March 8, 2007

Famous around the world (or perhaps infamous) for its brutality and disturbing content, Funny Games has received an American remake treatment to be released on March 14th. So it was high time to see what’s arguably director Michael Haneke’s most famous work, about an innocent Austrian family who are tortured both mentally and physically by a pair of deranged young men. It’s a difficult watch - at times even downright unpleasant - but it is all played out so well by all the actors involved (and is gorgeously shot, to boot) that it makes an interesting yet painful film experience.

The film begins with an aerial shot of the family’s vehicle driving through the countryside, while we listen to them playing a game of “guess that classical composer”. The music abruptly changes to some fork-in-the-ear scream metal, but it’s only us - the viewers - who experience this sudden change. The family continues to smile and laugh and hum along to the now absent classical music. Not only are we getting teased as to the film’s abrupt tonal change with the arrival of the young men, but we are also catching a glimpse of what is to come with the film’s all-but-missing fourth wall. Frequently throughout the film (and with growing intensity) one of the young men turns to the camera - looking us, the viewers, straight in the eye - and he addresses the audience directly. This all culminates in the ultimate “wink” at the audience, which both reinforces the film’s message (whatever that may be) and not just breaks the fourth wall, but completely blows it away.

When I say that the message of the film is unclear, this confusion stems (mainly) from the 18 minute interview with Michael Haneke which is featured on the DVD. During this interview, Haneke talks about the film’s strong commentary on violence, and the voyeuristic nature of violence in cinema and in the media. However, where things get muddled is with Haneke’s stance that people who watch the film to the end are somehow morally confused, and are exactly the types of “violence voyeurs” which the film is commenting on. So, he is somehow trying to comment on peoples’ sick tendency to “accept” violence by showing us some truly horrifying images and situations, then condemning us for having watched it. It’s a bit of cinematic entrapment, which could be seen as quite condescending on Haneke’s part...but let’s just forget that interview for now, shall we?

Funny Games presents some of the same themes found in the recent “torture porn” trend in American horror films (most specifically, Hostel). But it’s done with a much classier touch, with many of the technical aspects reminiscent of the films of Alfred Hitchcock. Haneke has a great eye for camera placement, as well as a strong sense of how to create tension. There is one scene which is particularly impressive, in which Georg (the little boy in the family) is hiding behind an armoire which is situated between two open doorways. The camera is placed in such a way as to closely capture the boy’s panicky jitters, as well as keep both of the doorways in the shot. It’s a very tense scene, and the simplicity of the shot benefits it greatly. This is something Hitchcock understood, and which many filmmakers today seem to be oblivious to - complicated, swooping camera movements do not automatically make a more interesting scene. Often it’s the simplest of shots which create striking - even iconic - images. A scene should be interesting enough as it is, and not need extensive movement on the camera’s part in order to enhance it. There are, of course, exceptions, and I admit that this is all coming from the point of view of a writer - a cinematographer would surely disagree.

With such strong acting in the film, it’s also apparent that Haneke didn’t want to interrupt or take away from the power of the performances with quick cuts and the like. All of the characters are played richly, particularly the father, whom Ulrich Mühe brings to startling life. The role reversal of the parents is well executed, as the father is delivered a crippling blow early on in the film, leaving the mother to take centre stage as the heroine - the character involved in most of the “action”. It’s also interesting to note that Haneke used a unique method for directing his actors - he instructed all three members of the family to act as if they were in a tragedy, while simultaneously telling their captors to play it as a comedy. In hindsight, one can see the way the young men tried to inject this comedic tone into their roles, but while watching the film, this just makes them seem all the more psychotic and frightening.

My initial impression of the film was not of disappointment, but of surprise. “This is the ‘deeply disturbing’ movie everyone’s been talking about?” I thought to myself. But sometime several hours later, I found myself still thinking about those two sick young men, that traumatized family, and how horrible all of those physical and mental tortures would be. It’s a powerful film, and whether it hits you as you’re watching it, or a few hours later, it’s sure to leave a lasting impression.

7 / 10