PDA

View Full Version : zombies, malls, and the consumerism debate...



Mike70
24-Dec-2007, 03:20 AM
this is an article about dawn 78 written by dr.steven harper senior lecturer in creative arts, film and media at the university of glasgow for americana, a peer-reviewed journal dedicated to american pop culture.

http://www.americanpopularculture.com/journal/articles/fall_2002/harper.htm

here are two small snippets to whet the appetite:

"Before returning to the work done on consumerism and commodities in cultural studies, I wish first to discuss some of the elements that make Dawn of the Dead a radical (i.e. oppositional) anti-consumerist text.

In a manner that recalls John Fiske's writings on the ruses of mallgoers, Romero's survivors make use of various tactics to wrest control of the mall from the living dead. Having done so, the survivors create a shopping utopia for themselves, a place where they can temporarily ignore the threat of the zombies. In Night of the Living Dead (1968), the first of Romero's zombie films, the survivors receive no respite from the zombies. In both Dawn and Day, by contrast, Romero introduces some brief but significant utopian interludes. In Day of the Dead, for example, two of the male survivors take sanctuary in a cosy caravan, where they indulge in verbose and alcohol-fuelled philosophizing on the value of hedonism; like so many of Romero's characters, they are content to bury their heads in the sand and to ignore the chaos all around them. Dawn of the Dead also contains scenes of release and relaxation; however, these are far more dramatic than the caravan scene in Day. Once the survivors in Dawn have exterminated the zombies in the mall and secured the doors, they indulge in a carnivalesque parody of rampant consumerism. Their delight is heightened by their awareness that they have not retreated, like the survivors in Day, to a safe enclave, but have skilfully taken the entire mall from the zombies and driven them out. Thus, even as he lies dying after being bitten by a zombie, Roger is able to crow with delirious pathos: "we whipped them and we got it all." The same sentiment underpins the fury of Stephen (David Emge) when, at the end of the film, a gang of bikers invades the mall. "It's ours," he says coldly as he aims his rifle at the invaders, "we took it."

and a bit about feminism in dawn:

"Romero's film also mobilizes classical images of female false consciousness which, while undoubtedly radical, are problematic from the perspective of postmodern feminism. In his article about Romero and feminism, Barry Keith Grant has less to say about Fran than any other Romero heroines, but she is in many ways the most complex and intriguing female figure. The Barbra (Judith O'Dea) of Night of the Living Dead is quickly reduced to helpless catatonia; on the other hand, Sarah (Lori Cardille), in Day, is a consistently stronger character than Fran, as is Barbara (Patricia Tallman) in the brilliant feminist remake of Night. Grant does, however, note that Fran is presented as a professional. Although this point is not discussed further, there are grounds to support this assertion. Fran helps the men to defend the mall; she also takes responsibility for herself and others, asking Stephen (presciently, as it turns out) to teach her how to fly the chopper lest anything should befall him. These qualities identify her as a spiky feminist heroine. "I'd have made you all coffee and breakfast," she tells the men ironically when they first arrive at the mall, "but I don't have my pots and pans."

Later in the film, however, Fran's feminist resolution is worn down. Bewitched by the hypnotic magic of the mall, she increasingly falls into stereotypically feminine patterns of behavior. In a particularly striking scene, Fran pampers and perfumes herself in front of a mirror, in the classic tradition of nineteenth-century fiction or twentieth-century film. Various techniques are used in this mirror scene to signal that Fran now identifies with her own glamorous reflection. As she applies her lipstick, she adopts the vacant gaze of the stereotypical female consumer who sees in the department store dummy an image of her objectified, commodified self. Fran becomes a human zombie, no more alive than the conspicuous mannequin heads on which the camera mockingly alights in a series of objective shots. As she makes herself up, she absent-mindedly toys with a pistol, indicating her implication in the film's system of commodity fetishism. In short, despite her own earlier warnings to the men, Fran becomes a cultural dummy.

Although it is fleeting, Fran's narcissism attests to the zombifying power of commodity fetishism on even the liveliest characters. In this sense, Dawn of the Dead may be seen as a modernist critique of the alienating effects of the consumption-led, post-Fordist society which, according to many commentators, developed throughout the 1970s (for a sceptical survey of views on post-Fordism see Callinicos, 132-144). In no sense does Romero regard Fran's absorption in fashion and image as liberating. On the contrary, Fran's increasingly lifeless behavior contrasts starkly with her spirited feminist attitude earlier in the film. It comes as no surprise when, in the very next scene, we see Fran in a domestic role, preparing a meal for Peter and Stephen in what appears to be an incongruous yet perfect recreation of a bourgeois living room. Despite her earlier feminist quip, Fran finds her way to the pots and pans after all. Consumerism alone, Romero implies, will not liberate women from their traditional subordinate roles."

SRP76
24-Dec-2007, 04:06 AM
I could never understand why Romero attacked "consumerism" in the first place. It isn't like he lives in a tent and eats soybeans he grows himself, after all. You MUST be a consumer to stay alive.

Legion2213
24-Dec-2007, 05:25 AM
I could never understand why Romero attacked "consumerism" in the first place. It isn't like he lives in a tent and eats soybeans he grows himself, after all. You MUST be a consumer to stay alive.

Fair point, one also wonders who pays all that "consumer" cash to see and buy his movies...if not us consumers.

I'll let it go though and just enjoy his films as the great zombie flicks that they are.

SymphonicX
24-Dec-2007, 08:13 AM
I could never understand why Romero attacked "consumerism" in the first place. It isn't like he lives in a tent and eats soybeans he grows himself, after all. You MUST be a consumer to stay alive.

There's a big line between consuming and being a consumerist. Being someone who lives for the latest gadgets, clothes, music etc as a form of therapy, ie: retail therapy, makes one a target for Romero's vision in Dawn...of course we all consume, but we don't ALL hang out in a shopping mall, or look forward to spending our social lives there (or in any shopping area)...we don't ALL rely on the "comfort" that shopping brings....Dawn is a sort of precursor to how kids are brought up not knowing any different, in a world where "spend spend spend" is the ethos...and how humanity has survived quite well without huge shopping areas and material luxuries like we've got yet we still place a huge amount of value in them.


I could never understand why Romero attacked "consumerism" in the first place. It isn't like he lives in a tent and eats soybeans he grows himself, after all. You MUST be a consumer to stay alive.


Fair point, one also wonders who pays all that "consumer" cash to see and buy his movies...if not us consumers.

I'll let it go though and just enjoy his films as the great zombie flicks that they are.

Who pays to go into an art gallery? consumers?

Nah, what makes us consumers is for instance, buying 13 copies of the same movie on betamax, VHS, laserdisc, DVD, and Blu-ray....

Going to the cinema however is an experience that's been mechanised by hollywood studios, but the art always remains intact.

MikePizzoff
24-Dec-2007, 05:07 PM
I could never understand why Romero attacked "consumerism" in the first place. It isn't like he lives in a tent and eats soybeans he grows himself, after all. You MUST be a consumer to stay alive.

That's not what he means. He's not attacking people that buy things; he's attacking people that compulsively shop and live for material items instead of what's really important. He's attacking the majority of people you will encounter when you enter a mall in real life, people lost in the bright lights and "25% off" signs with 6 bags from various stores under their arms.

Yojimbo
24-Dec-2007, 10:49 PM
There's a big line between consuming and being a consumerist. Being someone who lives for the latest gadgets, clothes, music etc as a form of therapy, ie: retail therapy, makes one a target for Romero's vision in Dawn...of course we all consume, but we don't ALL hang out in a shopping mall, or look forward to spending our social lives there (or in any shopping area)...we don't ALL rely on the "comfort" that shopping brings....Dawn is a sort of precursor to how kids are brought up not knowing any different, in a world where "spend spend spend" is the ethos...and how humanity has survived quite well without huge shopping areas and material luxuries like we've got yet we still place a huge amount of value in them.



Here, here. Hats off to Symphonic for a point well made.

DubiousComforts
25-Dec-2007, 04:07 AM
That's not what he means. He's not attacking people that buy things; he's attacking people that compulsively shop and live for material items instead of what's really important. He's attacking the majority of people you will encounter when you enter a mall in real life, people lost in the bright lights and "25% off" signs with 6 bags from various stores under their arms.
Right on, and I'd also argue that Romero's not "attacking" anyone, he's making a point. Movies and music used to make points, put forth ideas, and challenge people to think--not anymore because thinking affects the bottom line. The "consumer temple" is more prevalent today than it was 30 years ago, yet there was absolutely no comment to be made in the DAWN remake.

By the way, what is the actual debate in the commentary quoted in the first post?

Mike70
25-Dec-2007, 04:14 AM
By the way, what is the actual debate in the commentary quoted in the first post?


frak me i am wondering that too in some ways. i posted the article because i thought that folks on here would be excited that real scholarship was being done on romero's work and that he is being taken seriously by academia and not just considered some sort of horror hack and dismissed. i picked those small parts of the article out for posting because i thought that they would get folks interested in reading the whole thing and discussing it.

there is much more to the article than just consumerism. there is the whole class thing (although i am throwing up sandbangs against redge777's inevitable inanity) , the false utopia, and feminism.

SRP76
25-Dec-2007, 04:24 AM
How much of it actually was intentional?

When Romero wrote the script, was he really thinking "learning how to fly the helicopter will make Fran a 'liberated' woman"? I think too much gets read into things.

Defending herself, learning how to fly, etc. doesn't make Fran a "strong feminist" or "liberated". It just makes her the same as any other poor schmuck caught in that hell. Nothing different. She behaved like anyone else would have.

Anything else out of her would have been unrealistic. The "poor, helpless, man-serving woman" didn't exist beyond the 1940s, if it ever really existed at all. And this film was made in the late 70s. If my parents were any indication, the women of this time were smoking drugs, getting drunk, and screwing. They were NOT trying to figure out how to be good housewives. That was normal for the time, not special.

...oh, but The Elites were out in full force!

Mike70
25-Dec-2007, 04:58 AM
How much of it actually was intentional?


...oh, but The Elites were out in full force!

i have had the same arguement about intention with many an academic that are interested in media/pop culture studies.

is romero trying to carry a flag for feminism or is this simply how he sees gender? i think that given fran in dawn, sarah in day and barbara in night90 (which romero wrote the script for) i think that he does think quite a bit about feminism and the role of the female in modern society.

the false utopia is also a strong theme in dawn, day (to some extent) and certainly land with the whole fiddler's green business. 3 movies with lots of false utopia elements in them. i think that seems to suggest that he is definitely and intentionally trying to make a point about burying your head in the frakking sand and attempting to ignore what is going on.


elites...frak me- don't get that poor muddled boy started.

i don't agree with the whole class/zombie thing at all. in fact i really went after someone at an academic conference in 01 or 02 ,can't remember the year exactly it was a conference on american pop culture, while i was still teaching at UC and i lit into a dude giving a paper on this very subject- we got into a row over this. i hammered away at him over the fact that he seemed to be ignoring the fact that his phenomenon was happening everywhere, to everybody - not just the poor and downtrodden in projects.