'Warm Bodies' Reverses the Zombie Trend -- Part 2 of 2

Part 2 -- The Love (or, Why We Hate Everyone, But Shouldn't)


 We’ve shown that society is ready to move on from the thought of a destructive apocalypse. So we decide, as a species, to get up and move into “action” mode: then what? What exactly makes this move special? And why does it have to be framed as a farcical zombie romance?
Of the many themes presented in Warm Bodies, I have to say the clearest are most certainly love related: love conquers all, fatal attraction induces change, working together creates strength, and let's not even get into the tantalizing Romeo and Juliet throwbacks everywhere. These are common themes, all done before, nothing extreme.

I find this amusing given the varying degrees of extremism in the film, both zombie and human. When the zombies choose to give up on clinging to their semblance of humanity they eventually decay into skeletal, ravenous monsters known as “bonies,” creatures who live only to consume anything with a pulse. As for the humans, the symptoms are less severe but when they give up on the world of before, opting only for survival and giving up on the “cure” for the zombies, they become battle hardened, stone cold survivalists, interested only in prolonging their own lives and the lives of their children or siblings. Both John Malkovich and Dave Franco’s characters are excellent examples of this. So on both sides there are clear extremes, extremes which are ultimately vilified on both sides.

And why? In the Hollywood system, zombie films have a very clear enemies and heroes. Action films do too, for that matter. So too do epics, thrillers, mysteries, and any other way one could frame an apocalypse scenario. To have more than one villain is to illustrate that situations involving people are invariably complicated. And what format is better to display the complicated interactions of humans (and former humans) than a romantic comedy?

By reframing our view of the apocalypse (a concept we’ve already gone over), Warm Bodies illustrates our changing view of "the masses" and our responsibility to one another as a societal whole. And thus we twenty-somethings begin to fully realize both our actualized potential and responsibility to the world. But in addition to forcing us to realize this, the film also provided a solution, one listed in the themes named above: love.

It seems pretty silly. These days, any answer to society’s problems in which the solution is “just love, man. Love each other,” involves way too many hippies, and not enough illegal substances, for my, or anyone else’s taste. After the many clichéd references to the Summer of Love it’s difficult for us to look upon the idea of loving one’s fellow man merely for the quality of being human, and nothing else, with disdain and distrust. We needed another way of framing it. We needed a way that wasn’t clichéd and tired. We needed it to be framed in such a way that we didn’t know we were being told to love one another. There are only two major times in which society has been told to love one another, one involved long haired, sandal-clad hippies, and the other involved the 1960’s and copious amounts of LSD.

…Do… do you see what I did there? I’m talking about Jesus. Jesus told us to love one another, but it took much much longer to figure out that, yes, for us to prosper as a species, we must learn to act in a manner outside ourselves as individuals and together as a whole.

The divide is pretty clear. There are those who choose to cling to religion (particularly, but not entirely, ruled by Christianity), believing that true Christians (or what have you) look out for one another, caring for each other in a cold, unfeeling world. They do what is right even if it’s not the popular thing, striving to stick together against all odds.

On the other side, there are the (nonreligious) lefties, believing that taking care of one’s fellow human is not just a volunteer effort; it is a requirement of humanity. They believe that they are the last caring piece of humanity, striving to put out a system with built in catches for those less fortunate every day. They are the last defense for the poor, the mentally ill, the weak, the old, and those who sometimes feel depressed.

Nowadays, it seems like humanity is at a clear split: the filthy freeloading liberals, and the tightass conservatives. So. Which side represents the humans? Think hard. Do you think you know? Really? Are you sure?

Well, you’re wrong. If you picked a side, you lost the game.  Warm Bodies takes that split and redefines it.

See, Warm Bodies is pointing out the very obvious flaw in our rhetoric today. It’s not about liberal vs. conservative, or religious versus non-religious. It’s not about Zombie versus human. The real necessity is for zombies and humans to band together against those who are, by design (not necessarily intent), moving in on our destruction: in this case represented by both John Malkovich’s character (as an extremist leader) and the “bonies” (as exploiters of the common good).

See, we needed a message that told us to love each other, not because of what we provide for one another, but because of what we bring to the table simply by existing, as human beings. We needed a way to frame the message in a way that didn’t sound too much like a hippie jam sesh. Yes, It is natural to want to exploit one another by taking everything one can, without giving back. Yes, it is natural to want to shut others out, defining anyone with a dissenting opinion or type as unacceptable. But ultimately, if we are to progress as a species, we have to stop giving in to these so-called “instincts.” We have to rise above and learn to love each other, the same as both Jesus and our hippie ancestors would. The only way in which we can increase the divides we see amongst one another is to continue to deny the bonds we share as human beings.

But of course, in the years preceding Warm Bodies, we couldn’t possibly realize this message. We were so wrapped up in our own cynicism, so busy preparing to deal with the ever-consuming threat of zombies, that we became slave to the very idea. We spent so long trying to avoid zombies that we became them ourselves. We didn’t care about each other, only about ourselves, and how to ensure our survival past 99 percent of the rest of humanity. “That’s not going to be me,” said literally everyone, watching a dead, shambling corpse shuffle across the screen. “I have a zombie plan. I have food and guns and supplies, or at least an inkling of how the apocalypse will go down. I’ll be better than everyone. I’ll be stronger, faster, and more fit for survival. I’ll manage the resources better. I’ll take everything and make it work for me.” I’ll take. I’ll consume. But we never took into account what would happen if we just stopped with the planning for ourselves while bitching about various political platforms and just started preparing each other.

If the extremes of both sides are the ones holding the power, it is the people in between who suffer. Just as the humans are bound by the protocol created by the battle-hardened, soulless humans, so too are the zombies ruled by the bonies, even though they have no pulse.

In our own ways, each of us is both human and zombie, controlled on both sides by those who exploit us and those who demand our acquiescence. These power-holders are each side of exactly what happens when we lose our ability to hope, our ability to care. I think the ultimate theme of Warm Bodies is that if we give up our ability to love both ourselves and one another, if we give in to the cynicism of the age and start polishing our shotguns with grim resignation, we are the ones who will be to blame for the apocalypse. Though it won’t be the kind of apocalypse we expect: instead of an end of society because of the decay of humanity, it will be an end to humanity because of the decay of society.

So, to recap: a farcical apocalyptic romance uses the teachings of Jesus and a rough approximation of socialist leanings to remind us that if we don’t love and tolerate the hell out of each other we’ll create an apocalypse from which we can’t escape. The moral of the story is, if you’re approached by a shambling moron in a stressful situation, don’t smash his/her brains out. It might be a learning experience.

Take That, Mayans! Warm Bodies Reverses the Zombie Trend

Part 1 -- The Apocalypse (or Lack Thereof)

Everyone who's hip with the internet jive is by now so tired of the mere idea of walking corpses that the thought of going to a movie theater to watch dead, shuffling masses is cause for near riot. Oh, and they're sick of zombie movies too.
So when the film Warm Bodies hit theaters, most folks were pretty skeptical. For those not familiar, I'll give you a basic rundown: Humanity has, for the most part, become zombified. But this film is different in that the zombies still hold on to loose facsimiles of their daily routines, just with more moaning and shambling about. In addition, these zombies are driven to specifically eat brains, because eating the brains gives the zombie a glimpse of their victims’ past memories. The film focuses on one young zombie, played by Nicholas Hoult, whose inner monologue orchestrates the film. When he eats the brains of one freedom fighter, he gains the poor guy’s memories including those of his girlfriend, fighting beside him. Stirred by these new feelings, the zombie goes in to put the moves on the gun-toting gal, played by Teresa Palmer. She responds by stabbing him in the chest. Romance ensues.
 I myself might not have bothered seeing it had it not been billed as an absolute mockery of the Twilight love story arc--A love between a supernatural male and human female, unsustainable and ill-advised, but unstoppable. And in fact, Warm Bodies does take a few moments here and there to poke fun at itself in self-aware fashion. The romance, however, is secondary to the theme. Though the dead-boy-meets-girl premise is what draws the audiences in, what causes them to stay is the absolute overturning of the genre.
To understand how the film does this, we have to go back and look at monster movie archetypes as a whole. This is a concept that has been repeatedly covered in depth, and so I'll just briefly touch on the main points. We know what each of the movie monsters represent: Godzilla represents a fear of nuclear weapons, King Kong represents our own hubris regarding the natural world, vampires represent fear of oversexualization of society, Frankenstein's monster and The Fly are a fear of technological advancement, and werewolves a fear of our own animal, violent tendencies. Zombies, of course, represent the most relevant fears of the age: overpopulation, homogeny, fear that our fellow humans will turn on us, and fear that our society will fail, quickly and unexpectedly, due to factors beyond our control in spite of technological advancement. Ultimately, it's a fear trend that can be seen through factors as broad as bipartisan politics or as simple as the increased gun sales of your local pawn shop. There are many factors involved but the ultimate indication as clear.
However, zombie films are different from the other genres, in that each of the others has experienced some kind of reversal. Think about films like Underworld, Daybreakers, Teen Wolf, and the 1998 Godzilla reboot. Think about television shows like Once Upon A Time and The Vampire Diaries. There are dozens of examples I could name, but the point is each of these movie monsters is in some way exonerated or expanded. The relative quality of the film aside, I remember feeling pangs of sadness when Godzilla and his (her?) babies were killed (even though half of Manhattan was destroyed) simply because rather than a destructive behemoth, this was a creature created by humans seeking to eke out its own living and have a family, a perfectly natural and understandable desire. Movies like Teen Wolf and Van Helsing show how misunderstood, yet useful, werewolves can be. Vampires, of course, have the largest plethora of reversal examples, from Blade and Vampire Hunter D to Twilight. Turns out we like sex... a lot.
But zombies are a set whose fears are difficult to reverse, simply because of what that reversal would suggest. First, it would suggest that most other people aren't horrible, not an easy concept in film. Second, it would suggest that we, as a society, needed some kind of reaffirmation that other people aren't horrible. That would indicate that our view of humanity would be pretty bleak indeed.
But aren't we forgetting how awful the last few years have been, in general? Five, even ten years ago it was easy to complain about "the masses," bitch about how stupid people were, and even use the term "sheeple" unironically. The economy crashed, politics became less about progress and more about winning, rational discourse showed itself to the toilet to be flushed. Trolling became not just accepted practice, but encouraged. It wasn't enough to say "we're growing more cynical," the motto of the time was "if you're not cynical, you're an idiot begging to be screwed by a population that is." That was around the time that young people around the world thought it was cool and quirky to begin designing "zombie plans," viewing daily society through all but the most cynical lens possible. In a post-9/11 world still feeling the sting of extreme security measures and not one but two unending wars, there didn't seem to be many bright spots and apocalypse seemed inevitable at some point or another. Society was sick, we reasoned. There was no quick and easy solution to fix it, and so it just seemed simpler to start from scratch. It seemed the only thing that made sense: Despite technology and science being at their height, nobody seemed very happy about it, to say the least. Rapture dates came and went like fashion trends; it was kind of inevitable to fall into an "all for naught" sort of mindset. "After all," we'd joke to one another, "the world's ending in 2012 anyway." And so we only let the problem fester.
And though no one (at least, no sane person) believed that December 21st meant the end of the world, it was almost as though the year 2012 was to be spent in a state of suspension, not moving toward any sort of great success, accepting failures quietly. It was a year everyone would have been happy to see walk out the door, had we been able to muster up enough energy to feel joy.
But, as December 21st came and went, so too did the haze of ennui surrounding the minds of American twenty- and thirty-somethings. Or at least, it began to.

It's a slow process.

As we realized we were still here, and here indefinitely, the lifeless minds began to stir, and hearts began to beat in rhythm with one another once again. Oh look, a parallel! But more on that later.
I predict a dramatic change over the next two years in terms of how our apocalypse movies are portrayed. Yes, there will be residual big-budget thrillers with the same amount of grating lassitude, the Hollywood film system is a slow lumbering machine at best. But we're humans, we're at the top of the food chain, inventors of the selfie, the Kickstarter, and the maple bacon sundae. We are way too varied and awesome to wallow in self pity like some sexless, drugless Foucaultian nightmare. Ultimately, I predict that future destructo-films will be less helpless desolation and more humanity pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps, inventing some badass machinery, and getting the job done in a blaze of glory.

Incidentally, is anyone else really excited for Pacific Rim to come out?

Beautiful Creatures -- Girl's Worst Nightmare

This article has also been published at FilmPopper.com.

Ahh, the sexuality of a teenage girl, what a fine and fickle thing. Flitting from pretty boy to pretty boy like an experimental, yet volatile butterfly, the desire of a maiden is as volcanically repressed and variable as a snowflake. A snowflake butterfly volcano, if you will.

Let me clarify. Within many preteen girls (I daren't say all) sleeps a unique sexual profile. Sure, she may indulge in romanticisms, listening to boy bands sing her praises, dedicating a small shrine to whatever silver screen heartthrob is in the news, maybe even holding hands with that dreamy Josh Henderson in the hallways, because, OMG you guys! But ultimately, these actions result more from a desire to be perceived as mature than any sort of sexual urge.
But it doesn't last long. One day, that frozen cocoon bursts open, and in a great, fiery cacophony the sexually aware teenage girl is born, ready to wantonly objectify and lust after every male she comes in contact with!
That is, until the various powers that be surrounding her snap a cage down onto that persona faster than you can say "yaoi."
See, the silver screen has a bit of an interesting take on teenage sexuality. I, like many of you, can think of half a dozen comedies offhand that make some kind of lewd joke about a teenage guy and his relationship with his right hand. I can think of a dozen more whose main arc is centered around a teenage guy trying to have sex with a beautiful girl. Note, I said have sex with, not get into any sort of relationship with. We see that in film, male adolescent prurience is something to be laughed over, because hey, boys will be boys, right? Everyone knows once his biological clock ticks "on" his every waking thought will be consumed by scantily-clad supermodels, video games and food! Obviously this isn't giving teenage boys nearly enough credit, but we're looking through the eyes of filmmakers here.
Now, how many films can you think of that involve jokes about girls and their electric toothbrushes? How many movies involve getting a heroine into bed with her sexual conquest? (Really, how many raunchy comedies have a girl as the main protagonist at all?) The sexual development of a teenage girl, to a producer, really isn't something to laugh over. It's a social gray area, strange, unfamiliar, and even a little creepy. But, definitely easy to monetize.
It's a bit of an interesting double standard, surrounded by social stigma whose history is so long and tangled it would need a whole different article, if not a book. For our purposes, let it suffice to say that filmmakers don't make crude comedies about sexually frustrated girls because they're too busy making money off of supernatural romantic heroines who are sexually frustrated.
The film Beautiful Creatures, set to release nationwide as of February 14th, is just another in a long line of recent examples of this trend. Its clear ties to the oft-maligned Twilight Saga are clear and inescapable, though the implication the various film trailers give is much clearer on the subject of sex:



It's simple. If this girl has sex with this boy, the trailer implies, she will become evil and the world will end or fall into darkness. Now, before I have a gaggle of girls jumping down my throat and shouting about how that's not really the plot, the story is completely different and the characters are really deep, let me explain one thing: I don't care. I really don't. It's not about the actual plot of the movie, that part is secondary.
What's important is why the producers of these trailers think that the idea of repressed and unfulfillable sex would sell. The idea of some guy and some girl desperately wanting to dance the horizontal tango but barred by some irritatingly transparent macguffin of a plot, with some supernatural elements and Florence and the Machine thrown in for good measure, has been done so many times it's not even funny to parody it anymore. It's clear that most people are tired of this arc, and with good reason: the only thing more obnoxious than the hackneyed semi-goth pretension surrounding this movie is the font they used for its title.

Somewhere in Switzerland, an entire foundry of designers sits weeping.

What would possess any producer to make yet another one of these annoyingly sexless pieces of trash? And who would go to see it, knowing that any sexual investment they have in the characters will ultimately be made worse and go unfulfilled?
Producers and directors of these kinds of films are in a unique power position, one created by decades of complicated sexual dynamics. Thanks to the Sexual Revolution, today's adult woman protagonist  can engage in as many or few sensual endeavors as she pleases and, so long as she protects herself, emerge none the worse for wear in society's eyes (think Sex and the City, The House Bunny, True Blood, pretty much every romantic comedy ever).
But almost universally, the teenage heroine is haunted by a need to keep her virginity intact, despite frequent temptation. This would seem like an outdated idea, but recent filmmakers and authors have found a rather clever little loophole by making said virginity of tantamount importance, if secondary to the plot. Think about Twilight, the Hunger Games, or nearly any fairytale adaptation in the last ten years. Even more realistic stories like She's All That and A Cinderella Story are guilty of it, albeit to a lesser degree. "How can you think of sex at a time like this??" screams the film. "We have a competition to win, a witch to slay, a world to save! If you do it now your boyfriend will try to eat you! You'll be irrevocably turned to the dark side! You and all your friends will lose everything you've fought for! And everyone will HATE YOU."
By pitting the girl's sexual needs against all of her other needs (social acceptance, personal fulfillment, a world that isn't ruled by destruction) the film creates an interesting quagmire that seems like an awfully tough sell--but there is one ray of hope. This is the part where Robert Pattinson leans in close. "We can't do it," he whispers, "but you can be seduced all you want."
Yes, so long as the heroine doesn't give in to the pressures building inside her, she remains an integral part of the plot. And in fact, the longer she holds out despite being surrounded by some of the most beautiful manlings Hollywood has to offer, the more value as a human being she has. Really, the sight of Bella Swan holding out until sanctioned heterosexual marriage is just icing on the cake, because teenage girls are now the ONLY demographic segment filmmakers ever expect to remain sexless until marriage. And they use it very much to their advantage.
As a result, we have an entire generation of teen girls obsessed with seduction, who don't actually want to sleep with Taylor Lautner, they just want to touch him, or smell his hair. Or steal his running shoes. And because those actions are extremely creepy, everyone is allowed to mock and deride them for it. And so the tautology comes full circle: we treat the sexuality of teenage girls as creepy and weird, because they act creepy and weird, because we make them feel creepy and weird.
The only thing that would make this sick media fantasy complete would be to just come out and tell these girls outright that their desires are dirty and filthy, maybe punish them for even having a sex drive. Yeah, that's the ticket, punishment, like a spanking, maybe with a whip or a cane, and tie them up so they can't squirm, and--
Wait. Where have I heard this before?