How To Let Politics Ruin A Movie

Should a writer or director inject their politics into their movies? If it doesn't interfere with the story and pace of the film, I think it is no big deal. The problem occurs when the politics detracts from the film. That is the main problem in the horror flick 28 Days Later.

Hailed as the return of the "Zombie" movie, director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland have created a picture on par with good horror movies like the early Friday the 13th films or The Ring. It is by no mean a great horror film like The Shining or--a film to which it was erroneously compared--the Exorcist. By the way, what is the deal with comparing every two-bit piece of fright schlock with William Friedkin's classic? Remember how the move "Lost Souls" was dubbed "This generation's Exorcist"? After watching that fiasco, I took a solemn oath to never see another Wynona Rider picture.

Anyway, 28 Days Later occurs in Great Britain, in which a virus that turns people into killer zombies is loosed on the population. After the virus ravages Britain, a bicycle courier named Jim wakes up in the hospital after being in an accident-induced coma. He is saved from a zombie attack by a woman named Selena. They later hook up with a father, Frank, and his daughter, Hannah. They find a radio broadcast that promises a cure to the virus and encourages them to come to a blockade near Manchester. Upon reaching the blockade, Frank becomes infected with the virus, and is about to attack the other three when the soldiers responsible for the broadcast show up and kill him. The soldiers lead Jim, Selena and Hannah to safety. The soldiers show Jim a zombie they have captured which they are using to learn about the virus. Later, the soldiers foil an attack of from a pack of zombies. Frank may be dead, but at least the other three are okay, right?

Alas, as is so often the case in the film industry, the military just can't be a force for good. The soldiers set up the broadcast in the hopes of luring some women for a bit of nooky, the forced kind. So not only are the soldiers about to become rapists but, given that Hannah is only 14, also pederasts.

Continued on the next page Page 1 — Page 2

Article tags

Spread the word
Bookmark and Share
Read comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own
  • 28 Days Later (Widescreen Edition) 28 Days Later (Widescreen Edition)

    Hailed as the most frightening film since The Exorcist, acclaimed Director Danny Boyle's visionary take on zombie horror "isn't just scary…it's absolutely terrifying" (Access Hollywood). ...

Article comments

  • 1 - Alex

    Nov 03, 2003 at 9:18 am

    I just watched 28 Days Later this weekend and I'm as prone as anyone to notice lefty bias in movies, but I don't agree.

    Maybe I'm just used to making excuses for movies (or books or comics) that I enjoy, but I interpreted it as a dozen or so soldiers who truly believed they were among the last uninfected people in entire world and just went crazy. A couple of the individual soldiers may have been scumbags just looking to get off, but the leader seemed like someone who really believed that repopulating the world trumped any morality from the pre-zombie world. They were all nuts (except the one soldier who wouldn't go along with it and also figured out the infection probably wasn't global), but I don't think it was a shot at the military in general.

    And remember, the whole thing was caused by self righteous animal rights activists.

  • 2 - Craig Lyndall

    Nov 03, 2003 at 9:22 am

    I didn't think it was all that political. I thought it had more to do with the isolation that would be felt by a group of people, in this case men who are soldiers, if the whole world basically disappeared. I think maybe you have let your cynicism get the better of you. I don't think this guy was making any sort of a political statement about soldiers, just on people who are left to their own devices, kind of like Lord of the Flies, only a bit older.

    Also, you might want to keep in mind that this movie is about Zombies who get infected with a disease ambiguously titled "rage." Why is it that you need these small details of believability when we are talking about a bunch of zombies running around?

  • 3 - jadester

    Nov 03, 2003 at 12:46 pm

    pfah, why can't they come up with a slightly more original twist on the zombie movie genre? Resident Evil (the game series first of course) and 28 Days Later both ripped off the Living dead series' overall plot of a plague of zombies having been caused by a strange virus. Also, Night Of The Living Dead, Dawn Of The Dead and Day Of The Dead are far superior films.

  • 4 - Michelle

    Nov 03, 2003 at 1:30 pm

    i disliked the movie for the cheap production and the low innovation concerning the zombie topic. this movie was nothing new and purely just an ode to the love of zombies.

  • 5 - sean t. collins

    Nov 03, 2003 at 9:54 pm

    I'll second Alex's comment: What with the entire plague being unleashed by militant E.L.F./PETA types, heroes of the traditional left are being skewered here as well as heroes of the traditional right. I'll also go one step further by pointing out that unlike in, say, Day of the Dead, not all the military men are portrayed as unthinking vicious bastards--even the man in charge is essentially acting out of concern for what he feels is the good of his men. There's more nuance to be found here than just "we hate the army." I wrote about this movie, and many of these issues, here--for the record, I dug it overall.

  • 6 - jadester

    Nov 04, 2003 at 12:16 pm

    day of the dead just shows how one guy who's been catapulted into a position of command under extreme pressure can be turned...well, crazy. To be expected really, in the situation in which they were in. Even the doctor, with his good intentions, was going a little crazy. Although i like the under-pinning story part of the Living Dead series where the groups of rednecks are loving it. They could be said to be acting barbarically, except the things they are fighting are dead, and if they don't fight them they'll take over the world. Also, even tho you might not realise it, the Living Dead series is pretty clever - they show a wide range of peoples' reactions to such a doomsday situation. Have you ever thought how you might react if something like that WERE to happen? would you give up and kill yourself? run away to some secret hiding place and barricade yousrelf in? go hunting zombies? try and tame them? etc.
    Some of the films also play with your "traditional" expectations e.g. of who survives. I won't say which in case anyone yet to see them can then guess what i mean.

  • 7 - JIm C.

    Nov 05, 2003 at 9:01 am

    As James Lileks noted last week, there's not a single firearm in the hands of "regular people" for self defense, either. This is the nanny state UK, after all.

  • 8 - jadester

    Nov 05, 2003 at 6:22 pm

    lol, true, altho if you believe our tabloids the opposite is the case. Then again, i wouldn't call the drug and prostitution gangs "regular people"...

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.
Please preview your comment.

blogcritics lists for Nov 11, 2009

fresh articles Most recent articles site-wide

fresh comments Most recent comments site-wide

most comments Most comments in 24hrs

top writers Most prolific Blogcritics for October

top commenters Most prolific Commenters in 24 hrs