” Like the titular beasts in Hitchcock’s The Birds, the zombies invade the home, the city, the culture, but even more importantly in Night, they invade the self, like a disease, an infection that takes root in us and undoes us from the inside out. In this, the story of the zombie is a story of colonization — reverse colonization to be exact, a story where the Other finally has its day.”
My work attempts to rescue the zombie from its conventional metaphorical trappings, offering up the zombie as a postmodern force to be reckoned with, a deconstructive figure that encourages a deep reconsideration of our basic humanness. George Romero’s Night of the Living Dead (1968) is an invasion narrative, as are most zombie films. In this regard, the film is heavily influenced by The Birds (1963). Like the titular beasts in Hitchcock’s film, the zombies invade the home, the city, the culture, but even more importantly in Night, they invade the self, like a disease, an infection that takes root in us and undoes us from the inside out. In this, the story of the zombie is a story of colonization — reverse colonization to be exact, a story where the Other finally has its day.
NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (1968)
Numerous critics read Night of the Living Dead as a film about politics and 1960s America. Much of this critical work uses Romero’s film as a means to an end in making larger sociopolitical arguments about gender, capitalism, war, etc. Tony Williams argues in The Cinema of George A. Romero that the film “thematically interrogate(s) the dysfunctional mechanisms of a deeply disturbed society. It explicitly presented the image of an America in which the old values were now harmful and obsolete, leading to a chaos very few would survive unless some drastic personal, political and social change would follow” (32). It’s telling that Williams uses the past tense when describing the film, suggesting that it did (and no longer does) its political work — that the film is contextually dead to us. However, like all the best literary texts, Night speaks to us in the perpetual present. Thus, my work offers a still relevant theoretical account of the film and of the zombie, as opposed to a purely historical one. That work has been thoroughly (and exceptionally) done by Williams and the many treatments of the zombie that trace its evolution from early Caribbean travel literature to its first appearance on film in Victor Halperin’s White Zombie (1932) to the birth of the contemporary zombie in Romero’s Night of the Living Dead.
We see Barbara framed with these taxidermy animals in several shots, and her character also becomes associated with windows and doorways (the car window that is smashed in the early scenes, the doors and windows inside the house, and the doorway she is pulled out of at the end of the film). Both associations establish and illustrate the role she plays for much of the film, a liminal character caught between the world of the living and the world of the dead. She begins the film as a mourner, paying respect at a cemetery to her dead father, and later mourns the death of her brother, killed by a zombie in the first scene. In America, we are reluctant to let go of our dead — reluctant to let them stay dead, being caught up instead with a desire to reconstruct and adorn their flesh as though it were still living. Barbara’s answer is to become deader and deader (and then undead) herself as the film proceeds.
The flesh hangs; the teeth are jagged and bloody; and the top of the face is framed by a thick layer of shiny, black goo that creeps across what’s left of the skin. The black substance fades into the shadows, which consume nearly half the frame. The one eye of the corpse gazes unblinking at Barbara, a single bead of light reflected in its eye. The shot is a fairly clear allusion to Hitchcock’s depiction of the body of Marion Crane in Psycho (1960), another corpse that does an inordinate amount of looking even after it’s dead. Like Marion, the body in Night performs its deadness, aware there are cameras about, although for this corpse the performance is a mockery. The teeth gape in an absurd lipless grin but don’t pose any real danger to Barbara, at least not any physical danger. This body doesn’t threaten to climb toward her, but the one eye beckons, a coy seduction, a provocation that Barbara might climb toward it. This is a turning point for Barbara, in which she forgets self-preservation and begins her descent into catatonia and hysteria. The shot is about the thingness of flesh — about the gross fact of death and the carnage that resides in us, oozing just beneath a thin layer of skin.
Ben Hervey uses quite vivid language to describe this sequence in the BFI Film Classics edition on Night of the Living Dead: “That alien squall sounds again,” he writes, referring to the sound effect that stands in for Barbara’s scream, “and a savagely abrupt zoom pushes our face into a corpse’s. We’re realising that Night means to confront us with death more starkly than a horror film should. The face is hideously incomplete, raw and seeping. In this light, it’s hard to tell: has rot set in, or has someone torn the lips from those grinning teeth, peeled the lids from those eyes?” (41). Like the victims in early slasher films, such as Tobe Hooper’s The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) or John Carpenter’s Halloween (1978), this is an image of the body in pieces, a body that is dead but remains somehow lively. Hervey calls attention to this through his use of words like “seeping” and “grinning,” active present participles suggesting that, no matter how dead it might be, the head is still animate.
After Ben kills several zombies in and around the house, Barbara is captivated by another body, this time a zombie laid flat on the living room rug, the victim of a recent pummeling from Ben’s tire iron. Hovering again in a doorway, Barbara moves toward the body on the rug as though a zombie herself, slack-jawed with halting footsteps and unblinking eyes. Shot in close-up, the dying zombie’s face is surrounded by a densely woven and intricately patterned carpet. The pattern looks almost like a topographical map, or like a series of chalk outlines, drawn one on top of the next, suggesting that more than just one body has died here — that our very geography as humans is constituted by layers upon layers of the dead. For Barbara, the body is a mystery she yearns to unravel, a puzzle, like Henry James’s figure in the carpet.4 Here, there is another shot/reverse-shot sequence between her and the zombie. The zombie’s eyes move slightly, and a look of acknowledgment comes across Barbara’s face. Ben shouts, “Don’t look at it!” But she continues to follow the body with her gaze as Ben drags it violently from the room. Hervey writes, “Barbara has seen too much. It’s not some medusan ugliness that makes looking at these ‘things’ dangerous: it’s because they’re too like us” (47). He calls Barbara’s encounter with the zombie “dangerous”; however, in The Cinematic Apparatus, Steven Shaviro figures it in much more positive terms: “We cannot in a conventional sense ‘identify’ with the zombies,” because they have no identity to speak of, “but we are increasingly seduced by them, drawn into proximity with them” (96-97).5 When Barbara looks, she feels pity but also attraction and recognition.
The monstrous body is a distorted body, with a certain (and demanding) to-be-looked-at-ness, much like the body of the woman as it is figured in “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” Laura Mulvey’s analysis of the way film functions within patriarchal culture. In this essay, Mulvey is less interested in specific films (offering only cursory analyses) and more interested in the way the medium of film itself works to undermine female agency. She writes, “In their traditional exhibitionist role women are simultaneously looked at and displayed, with their appearance coded for strong visual and erotic impact so that they can be said to connote to-be-looked-at-ness” (33). According to Mulvey, the woman in film is a bearer of meaning, not a maker of meaning. She is pure signifier, all dressed-up for maximum erotic impact. She is spoken of but does not speak. She is an object of the gaze but does not look. Mulvey flirts with the idea of a female spectator in the final paragraph of the essay, but she never fully appears.
REMAINDER / rɪˈmeɪndər / n.
Finally, I wander back to Mbembe’s question from On the Postcolony, “if one is not a human being, what is one?” I answered this question provisionally once before, and now I will take another stab at an answer: “if one is not a human being, one is a remainder.” Mbembe writes, “So the body is destroyed. It does not necessarily give way to nothingness; it makes way for the remainder. Then, for this remainder, there opens a time after death” (205). In the process of being made not human, the colonized body ultimately becomes the waste product of the dehumanizing project. This “remainder,” like the zombie, goes on after death, and assumes its sire’s insatiable hunger for flesh. Julia Kristeva also plays with this idea of the remainder in The Powers of Horror: “Remainders are residues of something but especially of someone. They pollute on account of incompleteness” (76). For Kristeva, this “residue” finds its way into all the nooks and crannies of our bodies, slowly turning us in upon ourselves. There is liberation in monstrosity, for Kristeva and Mbembe, and certainly for Romero, and not of the conventional sort (using the master’s tools to dismantle the master’s house would be an exercise in futility — i.e., zombies eating zombies). Instead, the vision of monstrosity here involves a liberation of the self — a movement from the rhetoric of rape to the rape of rhetoric (not using the master’s tools to dismantle the master’s house but using the master’s tools to dismantle the master’s tools). Are we to believe, then, that the monstrous is evolution — that zombification is evolution? Yes, indeed, a (de)evolution.
- In describing colonial reason, Mbembe draws further attention to the thingness of the colonizer. He writes, “From the standpoint of so-called objective thought — as from the standpoint of colonial reason — the answer is simple. I have to project myself intentionally outwards and treat what is not myself in a certain way: in the terms of opposition, by distancing myself from it and, if need be, projecting against this non-I an inhuman gaze” (191). Here Mbembe puts himself in the position of the colonizer, offering up a sort of speculative ventriloquism. Mbembe, though does not explicitly identify or acknowledge his own thingness and the inevitable thingness of theory. [↩]
- Here, I would distinguish between “unbeing” and “nonbeing.” “Nonbeing” is the opposite of being while “unbeing” is a slow process or movement toward the removal or obliteration of being — not a simple negation or destruction but a methodical undoing. [↩]
- This argumentative leap from Mbembe to zombies is not haphazard. In fact, the zombie is a figure in Mbembe’s work, even if only an implicit one. For Mbembe, the Colony is a place of the grotesque, a “meta-text . . . about the beast,” and a “site of the strange and monstrous” (1). He writes, “Colonial language thus advances, deaf to its silent vibrations and endlessly repeating itself” (178). The colonizer (with his language and rhetoric in tow) “advances” like the zombie toward its prey, grasping and biting randomly, “deaf” but hypnotized by the sweet smell of live flesh. Like the zombie, the colonizer also feeds, for “above all, there is the relationship between death, body, and meat” (200). However, in Mbembe’s vision, the colonizer’s cannibalism may seem slightly more epicurean than the zombie’s. The colonizer, after all, has “recipe[s]” (197) and serves up his meat “on a platter of gold and silver” with “champagne” (201). Nevertheless, Mbembe makes plain that “power, in the postcolony, is carnivorous” (201). And, after being devoured, the colonized become zombies themselves, further perpetuating the project of colonization. [↩]
- In “The Figure in the Carpet,” James writes in the voice of his character, himself also an author, “‘There’s an idea in my work without which I wouldn’t have given a straw for the whole job. It’s the finest fullest intention of the lot, and the application of it has been, I think, a triumph of patience, of ingenuity. I ought to leave that to somebody else to say; but that nobody does say it is precisely what we’re talking about. It stretches, this little trick of mine, from book to book, and everything else, comparatively, plays over the surface of it. The order, the form, the texture of my books will perhaps some day constitute for the initiated a complete representation of it. So it’s naturally the thing for the critic to look for. It strikes me,’ my visitor added, smiling, ‘even as the thing for the critic to find'” (20). Romero’s Night of the Living Dead and the rest of his Dead films are filled with just this sort of “trick,” which James describes, moments that pass with barely a notice but reveal themselves to be intricate and layered on closer inspection. In interviews, Romero is often rather coy about the social and philosophical significance of his films, insisting that many aspects were entirely unintentional, realized only after the fact. These comments, though, are generally said with a wry glimmer in his eye and a laugh, suggesting that he is and has been more aware of potential interpretations of his films than he lets on. [↩]
- Tony Williams also offers a relatively positive account of Barbara’s look at the zombie: “This is the first appearance of a compelling gaze between humans and zombies, which will occur throughout the trilogy. Despite the barriers separating both species, the looks often exchanged between hunters and hunted hint at some deep, unconscious connection between the living and the dead” (27). [↩]
- Gaines’s point here also departs from the work of Mary Ann Doane, who writes in “Film and the Masquerade,” “the female spectator’s desire can be described only in terms of a kind of narcissism” (Doane 1999: 45), a comment suggesting women are always the object of the gaze even if they are also the possessor of it. In Doane’s account, the female gaze is necessarily turned upon itself. [↩]