Keeping The Faith

[ItsJustaScratch]

Nope. . I'm tired of the conversation frankly. Oh and this thread needs to be moved by the by. It has nothing to do with the untitled project. It's just another Land love/hate thread. Your right Clanglee. Both sides of the fence have already been fought well, and we'd just be re-treading old ground, so I'll try and refrain from sidetracking into Land Loving too much, and save the rammy stuff for the appropriate thread. Land is definitely rife with political satire and it's certainly not shy about being heavy handed but Night and Day were pretty clear in their time too. When Night came out the country was just getting into Vietnam and the film was a grisly war footage-esque display of young people being senselessly murdered. It wasn't until much later that people started looking at that film as anything more then trash it hit to close to home to be liked. To a lesser degree the same can be said of Day brutally representing the nihilistic attitude of a nation coming out of the 70s and enduring the cold war. I think Dawn's popularity had a lot to do with it just being a lighter fun romp and commenting a commercialist phenomena that hadn't even hit it's stride yet. And once again we have GAR making Land and having it blatantly commenting on the times and seeming redundant and/or ridiculous about it but I can't help wondering what the first generation to know grow up thinking of 9/11 and Bush as something in a history book will think of the film. I'm curious what you guys think about it in that respect. Basically taking the movie out of it's era of context and looking at it. That's got me thinking. It would still be enjoyable, but wouldn't be nearly as potent. Maybe it would be like Dawn 04 without the shiney, flashy things that make the general public drool, and to some extent I think they do look at Land in that way; stripped of it's personality because their CG craving minds aren't programmed to look any further. Not their fault neccessarily, but possibly just a result of visual expectation from years of heavily CG laden botox. I have even witnessed this from the occasional GAR fan, which is both unusual, and saddening. ...Of The Dead's main theme is focused on tribalism. I wonder what current political aspect will be most predominant? Looks like this film is the microcosm of the storys future world. Once again, without the rules of goverment guidence and order, the world is descending back to it's primal instinct's, much like the info you supplied on GAR's outlook. I do hope it takes a swipe at that twat Mugabe at somepoint.

[MoonSylver]

Land is definitely rife with political satire and it's certainly not shy about being heavy handed but Night and Day were pretty clear in their time too. When Night came out the country was just getting into Vietnam and the film was a grisly war footage-esque display of young people being senselessly murdered. It wasn't until much later that people started looking at that film as anything more then trash it hit to close to home to be liked. To a lesser degree the same can be said of Day brutally representing the nihilistic attitude of a nation coming out of the 70s and enduring the cold war. I think Dawn's popularity had a lot to do with it just being a lighter fun romp and commenting a commercialist phenomena that hadn't even hit it's stride yet. And once again we have GAR making Land and having it blatantly commenting on the times and seeming redundant and/or ridiculous about it but I can't help wondering what the first generation to know grow up thinking of 9/11 and Bush as something in a history book will think of the film. I'm curious what you guys think about it in that respect. Basically taking the movie out of it's era of context and looking at it. Land & Diary both are much harder films to separate from their message/era/context, because they're so blatant about it, which has one of my few (small) complaints about both films. The original movies were fairly subtle with their message. It was subtext. Dawn was probably the most overt. The theme of consumerism was pretty central to taking of, dissatisfaction with, & losing of, the mall. Land, and particularly Diary, put the message MUCH more front & center. Heck in Diary the message IS the movie for the most part. So, for the earlier movies I think it's easier to accept them as pure entertainment without even being aware there IS a message. With the latter two, it's pretty hard to miss with the amount of emphasis placed on it. Maybe GAR figures subtlety is lost on the younger generations of movie goers...

[RickGrimes]

Land & Diary both are much harder films to separate from their message/era/context, because they're so blatant about it, which has one of my few (small) complaints about both films. The original movies were fairly subtle with their message. It was subtext. Dawn was probably the most overt. The theme of consumerism was pretty central to taking of, dissatisfaction with, & losing of, the mall. Land, and particularly Diary, put the message MUCH more front & center. Heck in Diary the message IS the movie for the most part. So, for the earlier movies I think it's easier to accept them as pure entertainment without even being aware there IS a message. With the latter two, it's pretty hard to miss with the amount of emphasis placed on it. Maybe GAR figures subtlety is lost on the younger generations of movie goers... But that's what I'm thinking. I agree that both Land and Diary especially are hard to seperate from their theme but imagine you had a 15 year old kid watching them 30 years from now. They are going to be far enough removed from the socio/political/economic climate of today that they'll probably just see a fun zombie movie. Day was the only one of the original 3 movies that was made during my lifetime and I saw it 10 years after it came out. When I watched it along with Night and Dawn I was young enough that most of the historical context of the films were lost on me. I've learned more about them and looked deeper in subsequent viewings but I took it at face value that first time. I'm wondering what Land and to a lesser extant Diary are going to feel like to future generations that view them as old movies.

[MoonSylver]

But that's what I'm thinking. I agree that both Land and Diary especially are hard to seperate from their theme but imagine you had a 15 year old kid watching them 30 years from now. They are going to be far enough removed from the socio/political/economic climate of today that they'll probably just see a fun zombie movie. Day was the only one of the original 3 movies that was made during my lifetime and I saw it 10 years after it came out. When I watched it along with Night and Dawn I was young enough that most of the historical context of the films were lost on me. I've learned more about them and looked deeper in subsequent viewings but I took it at face value that first time. I'm wondering what Land and to a lesser extant Diary are going to feel like to future generations that view them as old movies. Ah...I see where you're going. Hmmm....I have a feeling you could be right w/ Land. Diary I'm not sure as the message is SO central to the film. as I said, the message IS the film in that one. BUT, I think the message would play out just as well regardless of time period as it's pretty well spelled out & not necessarily dependent on the socio-political forces of it's time. It's hard to say right now as they're so fresh & still feel "in-context". But I think you're onto something there.

[clanglee]

Land & Diary both are much harder films to separate from their message/era/context, because they're so blatant about it, which has one of my few (small) complaints about both films. The original movies were fairly subtle with their message. It was subtext. Dawn was probably the most overt. The theme of consumerism was pretty central to taking of, dissatisfaction with, & losing of, the mall. Land, and particularly Diary, put the message MUCH more front & center. Heck in Diary the message IS the movie for the most part. So, for the earlier movies I think it's easier to accept them as pure entertainment without even being aware there IS a message. With the latter two, it's pretty hard to miss with the amount of emphasis placed on it. Maybe GAR figures subtlety is lost on the younger generations of movie goers... That's what I am hoping George means by this new movie being more like Dawn. I am hoping that he going light on the message and letting the story stand on it's own. Then those that CHOOSE to look for the subtext of the movie can be free to do so. But at it's heart a good movie must be a good movie first. Informative and thought provoking second. Otherwise it will turn people off like Land and Diary did.

[DubiousComforts]

The original movies were fairly subtle with their message. Absolutely, positively not true. Don't recall the original advertising for DAWN? "We have spawned our own savagery. Soon, it will consume us all. It is a horrible, hauntingly accurate vision of the mindless excesses of a society gone mad." Say what? I was 11 years old and just wanted to some heads exploding! No overt message in NIGHT? Just watch the documentary Come Walk In My Shoes, particularly the news footage, and then try explaining it away as "subtext."

[clanglee]

Absolutely, positively not true. Don't recall the original advertising for DAWN? "We have spawned our own savagery. Soon, it will consume us all. It is a horrible, hauntingly accurate vision of the mindless excesses of a society gone mad." Say what? I was 11 years old and just wanted to some heads exploding! No overt message in NIGHT? Just watch the documentary Come Walk In My Shoes, particularly the news footage, and then try explaining it away as "subtext." Sigh. . Point being. . back then GAR could tell a story without browbeating anyone about his message.

[DubiousComforts]

Sigh. . Point being. . back then GAR could tell a story without browbeating anyone about his message. The point being that anyone who doesn't see the very obvious message is simply looking back at those films through rose-colored glasses. We were first exposed to the early Romero movies as kids. Now we look at the latest ones more critically as fans. Ask a few 11-year olds if they felt clobbered by the message in LAND, if you can find any here that have seen it.

[clanglee]

The point being that anyone who doesn't see the very obvious message is simply looking back at those films through rose-colored glasses. We were first exposed to the early Romero movies as kids. Now we look at the latest ones more critically as fans. Ask a few 11-year olds if they felt clobbered by the message in LAND, if you can find any here that have seen it. No man. . there are obvious and blatant differences. Land and definitely Diary were the messages. Hell in Diary the "message" is repeated ad nauseum. In Night, Dawn, Day, and to a lesser extent. . Land, you had entertaining stories with a SUBTEXT there if you chose to see it. If you didn't. . .you still had an entertaining movie with all the stuff that the more base fans could enjoy. I still, personally don't buy that George had plans for much commentary in his older movies. But since fans saw so much meaning in his films (maybe some of it was intended) he figured that it was ok just to focus mostly on just that. Only. .he forgot the art of subtlety.

[MoonSylver]

Absolutely, positively not true. Don't recall the original advertising for DAWN? "We have spawned our own savagery. Soon, it will consume us all. It is a horrible, hauntingly accurate vision of the mindless excesses of a society gone mad." Say what? I was 11 years old and just wanted to some heads exploding! No overt message in NIGHT? Just watch the documentary Come Walk In My Shoes, particularly the news footage, and then try explaining it away as "subtext." The emphasis should have been on the FAIRLY subtle. I never saw the ad for Dawn, nor the documentary before I saw the MOVIES. And I can tell you the first time I saw them when I was younger I saw them as almost pure entertainment without being aware of any agenda. I knew they were a little deeper than a standard horror flick, but it took repeated viewings, maturity, & reflection to "get" what was there. Land to a certain extent, & Diary in particular, it's up front & in your face in a way that I contend that it still never was in the older films. You'd have to sleep through the whole movie to miss it in Diary. Sigh. . Point being. . back then GAR could tell a story without browbeating anyone about his message. Bingo. The point being that anyone who doesn't see the very obvious message is simply looking back at those films through rose-colored glasses. And as I said, the message in those movies didn't come to me 'till later. At the time of the first viewings, they were just cool films. Disagree. I've shown all 3 movies to friends & family & none of them really walked away from it with any comment on the "message". To them, it was just a zombie movie. No man. . there are obvious and blatant differences. Land and definitely Diary were the messages. Hell in Diary the "message" is repeated ad nauseum. In Night, Dawn, Day, and to a lesser extent. . Land, you had entertaining stories with a SUBTEXT there if you chose to see it. If you didn't. . .you still had an entertaining movie with all the stuff that the more base fans could enjoy. I still, personally don't buy that George had plans for much commentary in his older movies. But since fans saw so much meaning in his films (maybe some of it was intended) he figured that it was ok just to focus mostly on just that. Only. .he forgot the art of subtlety. Agreed. I do think that the commentary was planned, at least in Dawn & Day for sure, but it was the complement to the story, not the central focus. Now it's vice versa.

[ItsJustaScratch]

The emphasis should have been on the FAIRLY Disagree. I've shown all 3 movies to friends & family & none of them really walked away from it with any comment on the "message". To them, it was just a zombie movie. No disrespect, but some people listen to the lyrics, others just bop along to the song.

[clanglee]

And some people make up their own lyrics. . .

[ItsJustaScratch]

And some people make up their own lyrics. . . Which has an intro (Night), verse (Dawn), bridge (Day), chorus (Land), Middle 8 (.../Island) and an END (?). Albeit with small steps. Every good song has interesting chord changes.

[DubiousComforts]

The emphasis should have been on the FAIRLY subtle. I never saw the ad for Dawn, nor the documentary before I saw the MOVIES. And I can tell you the first time I saw them when I was younger I saw them as almost pure entertainment without being aware of any agenda. That is exactly my point. All of us that first viewed these films at a younger age only saw the entertainment value. That still doesn't prove the message wasn't extremely obvious, only that we didn't see it. I didn't have any politics when I was 10-12 years old. Now it's all about politics. You have very little chance to see these films without the opinion pool being tainted by all the semi-illiterate posturing on sites like Ain't It Cool Snooze. Wait a minute... isn't that exactly what DIARY was about? Amazing that such an obvious, overbearing message need any further explanation. Disagree. I've shown all 3 movies to friends & family & none of them really walked away from it with any comment on the "message". To them, it was just a zombie movie. Which proves nothing unless you're willing to accept that the reverse is true, as well. I've shown LAND and DIARY to family and friends including my wife. To her, DIARY is just a horror film with a message that wasn't overbearing in any way. To be honest, she was probably more pleased at not having experienced any of the motion sickness that was induced by Cloverfield or The Blair Witch Project.

[ItsJustaScratch]

Wait a minute... isn't that exactly what DIARY was about? Amazing that such an obvious, overbearing message need any further explanation. . Ok, so that's pretty much case closed as far a Diarys concerned. Couldn't have said it better myself.