Do you think there's too much empathsis on "social commentary"

[SymphonicX]

I mean from fans, of course...like, the "social commentary" in Dawn of the Dead really amounted to a few lines about zeds being similar to us, and them falling over some bins and stuff in the mall...I mean it wasn't rampant with social commentary like Diary was - and look how most of us feel about that? It's like the social commentary element has been egging George on but really it's mainly been created by fans. I know Romero always puts a sort of similarity to the social situation in there (like Reagan era in Day) but somehow it feels as though it's become such a justification by fans and fanboys alike to enjoy his movies that now the plots, characters, and action is taking a backseat to what Romero seems to think we expect? What do you think? Sometimes I feel it's a way of fans justifying the value of these movies to critics and token film-school dickheads who try to see subtle and subconcious meaning within the plots.... Sometimes I just want it to be an enjoyable, dark and slightly funny gorefest with a cynical edge...not JFK with zombies....

[Skippy911sc]

If you watch the film to enjoy it for its entertainment value...great. Most directors place some part of themselves or what is happening in the world within the films they make. Dawn is no exception. Consumerism... we buy things we don't need and feel as if the sum of ourselves are those things. This is why so many people get shot defending their car from the carjacker. This is why we buy guns to defend our things. I am no different. It was a little about the Z's and a little more about the living. I think most can make it through the films without seeing the message and just enjoying...its when it is spoon fed to me that I dislike it.

[bassman]

While I can agree that Diary was a bit over the top in some places, I still think the older films have commentary that's really in your face, as well. I remember when I saw my first dead film(day) at a pretty early age I was thinking to myself "this is all the humans' fault!". Of course this runs through all of the films and then each film has it's own little commentary going on, but I've always said that the social commentaries are what attracted me to these films. I'm not really that big of a horror or zombie fan. I just like Romero's take on things.

[Mutineer]

Sometimes I feel it's a way of fans justifying the value of these movies to critics and token film-school dickheads who try to see subtle and subconcious meaning within the plots.... Always have felt this. I have long felt that Romero has lived in this mystique that he created some social conscience film when he reality he made a zombie horror film. I believe the critics and commentary are responsible for this legend and hype. Most directors place some part of themselves or what is happening in the world within the films they make. Dawn is no exception. Consumerism... Taking place in a mall is hardly commentary on consumerism, is it not ? I love NIGHT DAWN AND DAY but take them for what they are; horror films. There isn't any depth to them other than what people take from it.

[J_A_Martell]

I agree with skippy. Perhaps I fall under the category of the "token film school dickheads," but here's my take on it... I got into the dead films when I was about 12 years old and didn't actually pick up on the social commentary until I was about 15 or 16 (I'm 21 now). I read about the social commentary, particularly in Dawn, when I first viewed them, but I didn't pay much mind to it because, to me, they were just really f***in' cool movies! As I became interested in film production myself, and since I had viewed the living dead series hundreds of times (this is when the series was still just Night, Dawn, Day, and Night 1990) I began to look at the other things the movies had to offer. So I took note of the civil rights/cold war references in Night, the consumer society messages in Dawn, and the Reagan era feel of Day, and those elements added even more reasons why I loved the series. When Land came out, I liked the fact that Hopper was supposed to be George W. Bush, but like everything else in the movie, it felt forced and very trite. As for Diary, having studied persuasion in the media, I really enjoyed the commentary in the movie. When it comes down to it, you don't need to be hip to the commentary or even like the commentary to enjoy the series. If people want to enjoy them for action, gore, and other brilliant elements, then that is just fine in my book.

[MoonSylver]

When I was younger I didn't "get" the message, or wasn't even aware their WAS one per se. As I got older I "got" it, so to me, the "message" is a good thing...I think it adds layers & dimensions to the movies. Gives you something to think about. Gives them depth. However, I think these elements work best as subtext, not trotted out front and center. I like it that the older GAR movies have some thing to say. But they don't have to scream it! Subtlety, subtlety...just slip that message in there if you want their to be one. I'll find it on my own thank you....

[clanglee]

I like the comentary in as much as it is a statement on mankind's relationship with himself. How we deal with adversity, etc etc. Howeven, when you work your social commentary into the actual storyline as an obvious statement about current events, in a movie that is supposed to be a Horror, Comedy, Whatever. . . you had better be damn good at hiding it. The first job of the director should be to entertain you, anything after that is superfluous. I go to see a zombie movie if I want to be entertained, not educated. Now If I get both. . great. But if the "educating" supercedes the entertaining, the movie begins to, for lack of a better word, suck. Romero's last 2 films suffer from this folly. He used to make zombie films with a little social commentary for those who wish to find it. He now makes Social Comentary films with a little zombie stuff for those who wish to . . .well. . you get the point. I just hope this next movie is a REAL return to a Dawn type movie, which is an action/horror film at its heart and soul, with some great things to say about people and how they work. (without beating you over the head about politics or media)

[krakenslayer]

As someone who works in the retail sector, I think I picked up on a lot of social commentary in Dawn of the Dead that a lot of people might have missed. I work in a mall, and you'd be surprised how much all the advertising, lighting, brands, muzak, etc. distracts people to the point of aimlessly wandering zombies. Every day I'm at work, dozens of mindlessly consuming drones wander into my workplace, eyes-glazed, minds blank, hypnotized by the retail machine - half of them don't even remember what they came for - and end up buying mountains of crap they don't need and wouldn't really want if they were at all in control of their faculties. Romero was trying to flag up the mindlessness of modern consumerism and the fact that we are hypnotised by all the high-tech tricks of the retail gods just as the "human" survivors are lured into the mall and eventually "zombified" in his film - compelled to "consume" (i.e. eat) even though they don't know why.

[blind2d]

Yeap, but also, Diary did go a little too much into the "here's the commentary" area for me. The others were better about it, but Land was silly in places.

[Philly_SWAT]

I mean from fans, of course...like, the "social commentary" in Dawn of the Dead really amounted to a few lines about zeds being similar to us, and them falling over some bins and stuff in the mall...I mean it wasn't rampant with social commentary like Diary was - and look how most of us feel about that? It's like the social commentary element has been egging George on but really it's mainly been created by fans. I know Romero always puts a sort of similarity to the social situation in there (like Reagan era in Day) but somehow it feels as though it's become such a justification by fans and fanboys alike to enjoy his movies that now the plots, characters, and action is taking a backseat to what Romero seems to think we expect? What do you think? Sometimes I feel it's a way of fans justifying the value of these movies to critics and token film-school dickheads who try to see subtle and subconcious meaning within the plots.... Sometimes I just want it to be an enjoyable, dark and slightly funny gorefest with a cynical edge...not JFK with zombies.... Here is my take on your question. First of all, I think the original dead trilogy is a great set of films. For sure, some people do not like them at all, but that is a matter of taste. Some people do not like The Sopranos, but that doesnt mean that The Sopranos sucks, it just means that it doesnt appeal to everyone. Same with GAR dead films. One can find many faults within the GAR series of films for sure, but still I think that they are very well done movies. I think that there is no doubt that GAR purposely put social commentary in his films. However, I dont think he labored for weeks and months thinking of all the subtle little things he wanted to put in there. I think it was more of a quick thing, maybe as simple as "hey this is cool, my friend will let me shoot in this mall, it will be a cool setting for a film, and I can make some comments about consumerism." That could be as much thought as he put into it. The fact that fans, such as myself and many on this board, "see" more commentary than was originally intended does not in any way diminish the effect that it has. When Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa, do you think that he actually thought it would become one of the most famous paintings of all time? That five CENTURIES later most of the people on earth would know of the painting? Or do you think it was just one of numerous paintings that he did just because he was a good painter and enjoyed painting? We have all seen the painting. It is a good painting for sure... I definately can not come close to making any sort of good painting, I have no talent for it. But does it seem like it is so much better than other paintings I have seen? Not really. But for whatever the reasons, it is viewed as such by "art" people, and therefore that aura spills over to non-art types like the rest of us. Same for GAR's dead films I say. To the average movie fan (non-Romero freak category) they may like the films or not, but to die hard fans, we put the films on a pedestal, and our beliefs spill over to others that dont put as much thought into as we do. So regardless of Romeros overall intentions, and regardless of our opinons of them, the movies are good for what they are. I dont think that they are JFK with zombies, nor would I want that. I think that they are enjoyable, dark and slightly funny gorefests with a cynical edge.

[Yojimbo]

So regardless of Romeros overall intentions, and regardless of our opinons of them, the movies are good for what they are. I dont think that they are JFK with zombies, nor would I want that. I think that they are enjoyable, dark and slightly funny gorefests with a cynical edge. Score to Philly once again for a very well written statement, one which I am in total agreement.

[lullubelle]

Here is my take on your question. First of all, I think the original dead trilogy is a great set of films. For sure, some people do not like them at all, but that is a matter of taste. Some people do not like The Sopranos, but that doesnt mean that The Sopranos sucks, it just means that it doesnt appeal to everyone. Same with GAR dead films. One can find many faults within the GAR series of films for sure, but still I think that they are very well done movies. I think that there is no doubt that GAR purposely put social commentary in his films. However, I dont think he labored for weeks and months thinking of all the subtle little things he wanted to put in there. I think it was more of a quick thing, maybe as simple as "hey this is cool, my friend will let me shoot in this mall, it will be a cool setting for a film, and I can make some comments about consumerism." That could be as much thought as he put into it. The fact that fans, such as myself and many on this board, "see" more commentary than was originally intended does not in any way diminish the effect that it has. When Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa, do you think that he actually thought it would become one of the most famous paintings of all time? That five CENTURIES later most of the people on earth would know of the painting? Or do you think it was just one of numerous paintings that he did just because he was a good painter and enjoyed painting? We have all seen the painting. It is a good painting for sure... I definately can not come close to making any sort of good painting, I have no talent for it. But does it seem like it is so much better than other paintings I have seen? Not really. But for whatever the reasons, it is viewed as such by "art" people, and therefore that aura spills over to non-art types like the rest of us. Same for GAR's dead films I say. To the average movie fan (non-Romero freak category) they may like the films or not, but to die hard fans, we put the films on a pedestal, and our beliefs spill over to others that dont put as much thought into as we do. So regardless of Romeros overall intentions, and regardless of our opinons of them, the movies are good for what they are. I dont think that they are JFK with zombies, nor would I want that. I think that they are enjoyable, dark and slightly funny gorefests with a cynical edge. Well said Philly

[Thorn]

Honestly I think any good writer and director tries to put something special into his film, a plot twist, some irony, some commentary, witty observations, their political agenda.... something beyond the story and their vision. Then I think as has been said fans and critics swoop in and read all kinds of things into it, blow it out of proportion and people all grab on to that as intended. I think and always gave though that to some degree that was at play in these films, more over I assumed it was expected as it is everywhere. I think where Diary failed was that Mr. Romero felt pressure to make a commentary piece instead of a good movie because that was what he thought people wanted. That was after all what people applaud him for. Throw in the fact he was trying to "be fresh and timely" and you had a project that in no way resembled a Romero offering and one that completely missed the mark.

[Doc]

I got into the dead films when I was about 12 years old and didn't actually pick up on the social commentary until I was about 15 or 16 (I'm 21 now). I read about the social commentary, particularly in Dawn, when I first viewed them, but I didn't pay much mind to it because, to me, they were just really f***in' cool movies! When it comes down to it, you don't need to be hip to the commentary or even like the commentary to enjoy the series. If people want to enjoy them for action, gore, and other brilliant elements, then that is just fine in my book. Honestly I think any good writer and director tries to put something special into his film, a plot twist, some irony, some commentary, witty observations, their political agenda.... something beyond the story and their vision. Then I think as has been said fans and critics swoop in and read all kinds of things into it, blow it out of proportion and people all grab on to that as intended. Pretty much what you guys said. When I first saw this films I didn't even know about the social commentary. I just though they were scary, gorey, and all around ehtertaining films. It wasn't til I started using the internet more that I started hearing all about the social commentary. It was then I started watching the films more careful and saw some of what people were talking about.

[Danny]

Only in diary where it went from subtext to being forced down your throat.