I Fucking Told You So (Or, How World War Z Proves That Sav is Always Right)

Yes, I told everyone my next post would be on quantum immortality and its importance in film, but I saw World War Z recently and compared to the ideas of explodey zombie swarms, quantum immortality just has to take a backseat. Yes, I'm that person, sue me. I'm writing it. So strap yourselves in and prepare for the most beautiful, mind-blowing rant you've ever read, bitches.
Here's the deal: Once the Warm Bodies weekend came and went, once everyone settled comfortably into the ins and outs of 2013 and we collectively moved on, most everyone could agree that we needed a break from zombie movies. I was subject to more than a few rants on how zombie movies were so passe and it was time for a change, so thank god Star Trek: Into Darkness and Pacific Rim were up next, because DAMN shambling corpses were getting old.
Coming from the perspective of one who had never read the book, it seemed perfectly reasonable to me to assume that perhaps World War Z would represent the last of the zombie film horde and it would follow the pattern of other film crazes: one major box office flop, a disappearance for about two years, a weak attempt at revival, and then finally slipping into the mists of obscurity for a half century, relegated to attempts by indie filmmakers and nothing more.
And then the trailer happened:



Suddenly, everyone was actually excited about this movie. Yet when pressed, I couldn't pinpoint exactly why. Was it because the zombies in this film were portrayed with different behavior? No, running zombies were present in Zombieland and herdlike behavior reigned in films like I Am Legend. Was it Brad Pitt's starring role? Well, maybe, but even that couldn't make up for the content so reviled by the masses. What was it? Why were we so excited? Perhaps the trailer conveyed some subtle difference in portrayal that couldn't simply be told, but had to be experienced.
Still, that's giving a one-minute sequence of film cuts a lot of credit.
Either way, World War Z opened second at the box office last weekend, beaten only by Monsters University, which had the Pixar trump card fueling its numbers. Ultimately, World War Z surpassed even the most generous estimates for its opening weekend, netting an unlikely 66 million, and making it the all-time most profitable opening weekend for a zombie movie.
I'm gonna say that again: This zombie flick made the highest opening weekend gross of any film like it, ever. More than Warm Bodies, more than Resident Evil, even more than the beloved Zombieland, albeit by a narrow margin. So much for being sick of zombie movies.
Perhaps it was the timing of the thing. I mean, it had been almost a week since the release of an apocalypse movie, surely we were hungry for another.
Perhaps it was the hype surrounding the film and its numerous rewrites, as surely people can respect a film that exceeds both its budget and its deadlines for the sake of perceived improvement.
Perhaps it was the film buzz created by the media and its--
Okay, I can't even type that with a straight face so I'm gonna just stop there and cut to the chase.
This film is the first fruit from a society that has collectively decided that the cynicism of 2012 is no longer tolerable. This film represents our need to move on to a new attitude, especially in crisis. Remember my Warm Bodies article? The one about learning to care for each other because we're human? The theme rang true and it resonated. I'm gonna quote myself here:

We needed [the theme] to be framed in such a way that we didn’t know we were being told to love one another... [I]t 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.

 Warm Bodies said "quit hating, and just love." We all agreed, and patiently awaited a big change in the zeitgeist. So how does World War Z, with its apocalyptic scenes and violence, represent that change?
One word: Focus.
See, when I went in to watch World War Z, it was with an air of defeat that I conceded perhaps society wasn't ready to move on in attitude. Perhaps we needed another year of cynical apocalypse movies after all. "Oh well," I reasoned, "at least I'll get to enjoy some cool action and CG while I wait for them to try something new."
Then the film began.
And then, I took it all back.
This film opens with a juxtaposition of images that ultimately foreshadow the film's plot without being overly obvious, an applaudable move. But rather than using images that convey shambling automatons alongside crumbling infrastructure, the images used are those of a buzzing, productive society overshadowed by an unseen, pervasive threat. In addition, it was well executed, lacking any great amount of cliche or heavy-handed agenda.

It exceeded my expectation, to say the least. So I settled in to watch wide panoramas of destruction, satisfied that at least one piece of the film was done right.
"No, no," said the film. "Not yet. We've got a world to build first." And build it did. Of course, the starting scene is the obligatory display of the hero, played by Brad Pitt, enjoying a happy breakfast with his family. Sure, there's troubling news on the television tuned to CNN, but when is that not true? They banter as they enjoy their pancakes.
But instead of wasting time on the family's daily routine, the film quickly moves on. Overall the establishment of Pitt's homeostasis takes less than two minutes. Then comes the wholesale destruction of that homeostasis, which takes less than five. But rather than giving the audience that deliciously cathartic, showy display of buildings falling as everyone scrambles to save themselves, World War Z's cinematography uses extremely tight, controlled perspective to create a sense of real tension, and that's where things start to get interesting.
Although World War Z sounds like a cliched title, as the film goes on it becomes increasingly clear just how apropos the name really is. But unlike past zombie movies, wherein the body count stacks higher and higher as the remaining humans give the race up for lost, WWZ and its characters never for one moment give up hope that there is a cure, somewhere out there. Ultimately, humanity will survive, one way or another. It's just a question of how.
One of the things I admire most about this film is its dedication to realism in human interaction. Yes, there are hordes of zombies overrunning the populace. But you know what else is happening? Police and the military are doing their jobs, as effectively as possible, and they're willing to sacrifice their own lives to protect the lives of others. You know, like in real life.
I realized this film represented a core shift in the way filmmakers think when I heard a line I had never thought before, uttered by Ludi Boeken: "Every human being we save is one less [zombie] to fight." The thought of saving human beings, instead of just killing zombies, is not one I had ever really attributed to that kind of apocalypse scenario.
And it's not just in the good ol' US of A, no, this kind of willingness to fight for the common good is pretty ubiquitous, something not generally found to be true in past films. In spite of the grittiness of World War Z, the worldview displayed by its plot is actually pretty positive. "Look!" it says. "People all around the world want to help each other too! Yay humanity, we don't all suck!"
And really, this human interaction permeates the whole of the film, rounding it out with a much warmer, more and even reasonable feel. The reactions and situations have the honesty of Zombieland but with a far more dramatic flair. Even the abject panic scenes feel more realistic. The one scene with an "every man for himself" attitude involves Pitt and family heading to a grocery store for supplies, which, unsurprisingly, is being looted at a rapid rate. Even then, the looters are leaving each other alone, only taking what they need and leaving supplies for the rest of the people. One looter even assists Pitt in finding the right medicine for his asthmatic daughter. Yes, his wife is attacked by another looter and Pitt guns her assailant down, but he puts his hands up for the cop that immediately rounds the corner, ready to cooperate. The cop looks over the scene, then strides past Pitt to gather supplies as though nothing happened. The scene gets a little veneer of extra poignancy when you realize he's grabbing baby food and diapers.

And yet, that scene could have so easily been an exposition on how it's humanity that should be feared, not the zombies. Too often in the last ten years have directors relied on the age old question, "who's the real monster? Is it man, or the monster man creates?" News flash: it's the monster. It has always been the monster, and it will always be the monster. Even King Kong caused millions in property damage and killed people.
World War Z is a film created by people who know this. It's clear in the extreme lack of cynicism present throughout the plot. Between the more realistic, humanistic portrayal of people, the quick, effective work they can do, and the actual attempts they make to handle the situation and find a cure, World War Z's depiction of the human race is pretty rosy. And maybe it's right. Maybe we're sick of viewing ourselves and each other as pathetic automatons.
Which means, maybe, we're going to move on.
In conclusion, I predict a massive shift in the way filmmakers execute stories. I predict that stories will become leaner, faster, and more driven by the necessarily good human traits we all were too cynical to realize we had. No longer will directors attempt to create characterization by shoehorning in irritating amounts of exposition, or using grittiness as a spackle to coat an otherwise mediocre plot. We're headed into a new golden age of film, my friends. Don't take those seatbelts off just yet.