Thursday, June 13, 2013
Who was that?
Dawn of the Dead didn't have much in the way of character development. We didn't really know or learn anything about Roger; other than he had a tendency to be careless. Peter seemed to be caring, level-headed person; but the only bit of personal information we got about him was we that he became a policeman so "the little people had someone to look up to." Stephen and Franny had an interesting little side story about the pregnancy. Franny's revolving behavior (independent/nurturing) and Stephen's constant personal struggle to prove his manliness to others provided the most interesting character plot lines. What is truly amazing about this film: it is over two hours long, featured four main characters for most of the movie, and we still really don't know much about Roger, Stephen, Franny, and Peter.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That's a great question and something I wanted to ask during our discussion last night, but the conversation veered away before I had time to ask. I noticed that the names of all three men are so generic that you could pick and choose who was who. The names don't stand out at all and are so similar I had trouble deciphering who was who. Did Romero do this to point out how everybody was interchangeable? Everybody is just the same mindless zombie regardless of the name given to them? Franny is the only one who is really different because she is bringing life into a world where life is being destroyed.
ReplyDeleteThere's no character development because the characters' history and lives pre-zombie don't matter. Their only motivation is to survive.
ReplyDeleteParticularly in Romero films, the characters are just stand-ins for some sort of social/political commentary, so who they are is never as important as what they represent.
Exactly so. Actually, genre films in general which operate according to types tend more toward well, generic characters--femme fatale, wrong man, the Private Op, etc. Horror does this even more than other genres, almost like a folk tale or fairy tale. In horror the types are the good guy, the good girl (or Final girl), the bad girl, the bad boy, etc.
ReplyDeleteIn Dawn, it's the anchorwoman (emphasis on woman) Francine, Flyboy Stephen, Hero Peter, Reckless guy Roger. The monsters tend to be more interesting than the characters, as we saw in Frankenstein and Cat People.
I'm curious if anyone else enjoyed the fact that there was minimal character development in the film? I loved how we were thrown into the immediacy of the dire and hectic situation that the characters were forced into. It added to the overwhelming doom and confusion that they must have been feeling while their world was turning upside down.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the comment made earlier about the names being generic and I also agree that the main point of the movie was survival. I think from the beginning of the film the whole theme was shear panic and reaction. Given the circumstances there really isnt much time to do much background development or the film would have been had to been four hours instead of two. The characters really are more like pawns and we followed the experience of said pawns,but if it had been a different group of people experiencing the same situation only in a different location the general outcome would have still been the same, you either find a way to survive or you die.
ReplyDeleteI also noticed not much was known about who these people were before the undead started their chaotic take over and what caused the undead to walk. I guess that's what the director wanted. Not to really identify with these characters but to follow them through their intense, paranoid journey and fight for survival. I enjoyed the film even with the pink blood. Peter's character was strong and I liked him the most out of the group. I think he took too long to decided to leave with Francine in the end, yes it was for suspense.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed that throughout the pandemonium of zombies taking over the world, the broadcast network still had time and capability to take on new guest speakers.
DeleteInteresting comment about the names. It really universalizes the films meaning, especially because the zombies were all over the world. As stated above, Romero is really trying to say this could happen to anyone and anyone would react this way. Details don't bring about the same end result with social critique.
ReplyDeleteI'm usually always wanting more character development in any film I watch, but surprisingly for me, I thought that Romero gave just enough detail to keep me invested in their survival.
Also, we mentioned how the zombies continued to go to the mall because they were acting out their everyday activity pre-zombie-ism.. the survivors seem to do the same thing. Most likely in a comical and satirical way. Even the survivors continue to do what’s natural to them besides, apparently, nesting. But they are still checking price tags, weighing their bags of candy, and even go through the bank’s rope lines!
DeleteI also found it interesting that the character development was lacking, but makes sense. I found it hard sometimes to keep track of who was who because they were so generic - point made. I did get a kick out of the bikers. They were intent on stealing, but instead of food, clothes, or tools that would be helpful, they went for the typical jewels and cash. They do that in many similar genre type films. I am puzzled as to why no one ever takes out the leader in the beginning, but that would end that movie segment, lol
ReplyDeleteThe characters could have definitely developed a little further but there really wasn't much that they really could of done. They were stagnate and had no room for growth and development due to the unfortunate circumstance they were in (zombie infestation...lol).
ReplyDelete