****** - Verified Buyer
4.5
There are SPOILERS in this review. Seeing Night of the Living Dead with only four stars is a bit of a surprise to me because it is such an influential and important film in many ways. But it's also true that in terms of what has happened since its release long ago in 1968, that it seems tame and its relative cheapness shows through in a way that would leave viewers who did not experience its initial release wondering what all the fuss is about. But Night of the Living Dead was one of the most revolutionary films ever made and completely changed the horror genre and even influenced other types of films.Every genre, whether of film, music or literature, has it's tropes, its cliches, the rules under which it operates. What Night of the Living Dead did was to overthrow and subvert almost all of the rules of the horror film as well as add new elements. Romero and Russo did not set out to make a revolutionary film; they were just bored with their Latent Image Company making local television ads and wanted to do something different. They just made the film by instinct, but by being apart from the film making world they were less aware of its rules and aware somehow that times had changed.Horror in the 1960's was dominated by Hammer Films based in Britain and Roger Corman's American International. They both did about the same thing. Their films were made cheaply, often using the same sets in a number of films. They were filmed in lurid color and were basically Gothic dramas, thrillers and mysteries which often implied the supernatural but which usually turned out to be a front for a murderer or someone trying to drive someone else mad (for an inheritance). They did some pretty fun things this way and gave the world Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee and the late career of Vincent Price. Some of their films were quite stylish, especially Corman's Poe dramas and some Hammer titles like The Wicker Man. But even when they included Frankenstein or Dracula they were never really scary. Of course there were a few independent masterpieces in the decade like Hitchcock's Psycho and The Birds and films like The Innocents, The Haunting and Rosemary's Baby but these were few and far between.What you sat through was about 80 minutes of a semi-boring, often campy drama usually set in an isolated castle or manor somewhere, until the last ten minutes when the entire special effects budget would be used to show ghosts, magic, vampires or whatever. Night of the Living Dead turned all this on its head from the start. What was the last ten minutes in any other horror film started within the first ten minutes of this one, with Barbara being attacked and trying to flee, and it never let up for a minute after that. It completely blew up the old structure of horror films. The setting was an ordinary cemetery and a farmhouse - nothing special about that, but that was the point. Previous horror most often had been set in some exotic locale: a mansion, haunted house, castle, remote tropical island, etc. all "other" kinds of places where such things could happen. Here was horror set in your own backyard, implying it could happen to you. Hitchcock had done this with The Birds, and Spielberg would use the idea of setting the extraordinary in an everyday setting, but that was yet to come.Already you were off balance. Then there are the monsters themselves; ghouls, later to be known as zombies, who were the reanimated dead and not only that but they wanted to eat your flesh. This was a whole new monster. It was like a blind force, unable to think but totally relentless and seemingly unstoppable in numbers. These were not mad scientists, elegant vampires or serial killers that you just might be able to reason with or trick; these just came at you. Then there was the gore. I know, it doesn't look like much now but in its day it was the extreme of gore. Snobbish critics called it junk. The editors of Variety were so upset they called it pornographic and called on the Supreme Court to set limits. (there was no MPAA rating system yet).There were other unusual elements as well. The fact that the hero was a black man was highly unusual, though somehow I didn't notice that as much as the fact that he seemed to be the only sane, centered person there. Still, in many places that must have not gone down well, especially when he punches the cowardly Harry, who was white. Then there are Tom and Judy, two nice local kids, a jock and his attractive girlfriend. If anybody makes it out it will be them, right? That's the way any standard film would play. But when they die, that's the real turning point of the film. Now the world is turned upside down. Now you don't know what's going to happen. This film has no moral center, the fundament has opened up beneath your feet: anything can happen now. And it does. In the chaos that ensues only Ben is left, taking refuge in the very death trap basement he had (with good reason) scorned before. Then the film lulls you a bit with the sheriff and the locals acting almost comically until they see "something" moving in the farm house. They shoot Ben. The chaos is complete. In this disordered world even the hero of a thousand faces die. The universe is totally nihilistic.The small budget worked for the film. The black and white stock made it seem more, not less real, and gave it a kind of documentary feel. The local actors often improvised their lines giving it even more of a cinema verite sense. Even the cheap stock music from older films rented from Capitol Records (they couldn't afford a composer) gave it an appropriately gritty feeling. In the end, even the mistake that caused it to not be copyrighted worked in the film's favor. It's true it was a cult hit, as big in Europe as in the U.S. and Romero lost a lot of potential money. But falling into public domain gave it an afterlife it likely would never have had otherwise, much like It's a Wonderful Life. Being free, it got played on thousands of TV station's Saturday Horror Night shows, Halloween shows making it familiar to just about everyone. Videos were put out by every conceivable company, often terrible-looking, but again, it was everywhere. This is what made it a mass phenomenon for so long.We can thank Romero for sticking to his guns. Columbia Pictures and American International were both open to distributing it as long as he cut the gory scenes and re-shot a happy ending. What kind of movie would that have been?PERSONAL NOTE: I first saw Night of the Living Dead under almost ideal circumstances. Everyone was back in Ohio on summer break in 1969 and a friend from NYU said we had to see this film, he hadn't, but everybody had been talking about it there. (Remember, movies weren't released everywhere at once then). When I heard the title I laughed, "A zombie film? Those aren't scary, they just walk around like sleepwalkers." Another friend and I said Okay reluctantly, and we planned to make jokes and wisecrack throughout the film. The only place showing it was a drive-in way out in the country. It was surrounded by acres of corn fields as far as you could see. It was a lonely an almost spooky setting; it seemed like anything could walk out from the rows of corn. NOTLD was the second feature. I don't even remember the first. Once it came on and Barbara was attacked the car was total silence. Afterward we skipped the third feature and went home stunned.
