Book Review: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies - Jane Austen & Seth Grahame-Smith

When I was in school I hated 'Pride and Prejudice.' To me it was 'chick-lit' and no matter how long ago or how well it was written, that did not change. Truth be told, I still don't much care for it now.

How would I have felt, however, if Austen had added some shuffling, flesh-munching corpses to the mix? Thankfully, Seth Grahame-Smith answers that age old question with 'Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.'

The answer is that it certainly makes it more fun and more silly, even if the joke wears a little thin as Grahame-Smith pushes too far at times.

Any schoolboy or girl with little interest of Austen's work forced to sit in English Lit classes (of which there are many I'm sure) will wish this had made the syllabus.

The idea is sometimes too far, but simplified it could be easily and joyously adapted for the screen and if rumours of Natalie Portman's involvement prove to be true, all the better. Hopefully, Portman will be involved in front of the camera as well as behind the scenes and could give some real quality to the Bennet role.

Should the film ever reach the cinema, the tagline is surely already written... "The Good Lord saw fit to close the gates of Hell and doom the dead to walk among us."

Book Review: Zombie Holocaust

Zombie Holocaust: How the Living Dead Devoured Pop Culture - David Flint

 

Never judge a book by it's cover as the saying goes.

When I saw this book poised on the shelf though I couldn't help but be seduced. A cacophony of dream like images of zombies, ghouls, mummies and damsels in distress. Add a title full of mouth-watering promise and it was a book full of potential promise.

I'm disappointed to say though, this book does not live up to his potential.

In his efforts to cover as many titles as possible, Flint adds no substance to the conversation. Films are referenced, but with little critical depth and even less personality.

What little critical view is opined is minimal, slathered in personal bias and filled with contempt for anything that isn't attached to George A. Romero. In fact anything even resembling a review or critical opinion reads like nothing more than Romero propaganda. Flint has plenty of pages in his book for classics, low budget favourites or cult classics, however, he finds no place in his heart for any.
 

Arguably the biggest disappointment though, is what little connection Flint makes between the films and the pop culture they supposedly devoured. There is nothing beyond a few minor references and nothing in anyway analytical.

Zombie Holocaust does contain some excellent imagery, from film posters to screen shots, but it isn't enough to save it from it's dire lack of content.

Ultimately, Zombie Holocaust is all filler, no maniacal killer. It contains nothing new, different or worthy of note.

Frighten Brighton

At the time of writing this, some media sources are reporting that tickets for the Wimbledon final are selling for £15,000 with the possibility of history on the cards. However, just 0.1% of that price though will buy you a ticket to experience history in it's own right.

Just £15 will get you a day pass to Frighten Brighton, the classic horror film festival.

The festival brings you 5 films, from 5 decades crammed into 12 gory hours on the 11th August at Brighton's Komedia.

If that wasn't enough, the devious little, sultry archangel atop of the horror tree is none other than presenter, B-movie starlet and horror icon Emily Booth. The event starts at midday and ends just before the witching hour. 

The first film is 1930s Mad Love, aka The Hands of Orlac, a tale of mutalation, death, lethal obsession and maniacal doctors. It marks the American film debut of Peter Lorre and claims Citizien Kane borrowed heavily from it.

From the 40s is a personal favourite of mine, Cat People. A stylish, slick noir/horror produced by the legendary Val Lewton and containing the original Lewton Bus. It uses Serbian curses and metamorphosis to express the repressed sexuality of it's female lead.

It's seminal classic Them! next. A 1950s creature feature that kick started the "big bug" sub genre that reflected the pre cold war era and picked up an Oscar nom on the way.

It wouldn't be 60s horror without Hammer and so Plague of the Zombies is the representative. A big influence on the zombie genre with it's themes of colonialism and exploitation.

Then, in the dead of the night, the festival draws to a close with 70s low budget, cult classic Phantasm. A strange and weird tale from the mind of Don Coscarelli. The film contains the infamous antagonist The Tall Man, flying spheres and zombie dwarves.

The festival allows you to view not only some great works of terrifying horror but history itself. History in style and techniques, but also because each reflects the era in which they were conceived. All five films give us a looking into the views and perceptions of the society that produced them. Whether it be the sexual repression of women or cold war paranoia, the evolution of thoughts and fears of people through the ages are evident throughout.

Henry Ford once said, "history is bunk" but he never went to Frighten Brighton.

Shuffle, Shuffle, Moan, Shuffle, Groan, Scream, Run!!!

There seems to be myth perpetuating within horror that’s gathering speed at a frightening rate. On some levels it’s affecting the genre and passing off perfectly sound films as trash. This myth tries to affect the way writers, producers and directors come about their ideas and the way they transfer them to the page and ultimately the big screen. So, what is this argument? Zombies have set rules.
 
I’m not saying zombies don’t have rules, no not at all. It is screenwriting 101 that the universe you create must have rules that you abide by. However, the rules your zombies endure should be set by you and you alone. Have your zombies shuffle, have them run, have tearing up the road on a Harley Davidson just be sure you set the rules and you stick to them.

The rules that many believe to be gospel are long standing, dating back to George A. Romero’s “Night of the Living Dead”. These rules are only in place because Romero dared to challenge the existing, tired premise of what a zombie was though. Before Romero zombie didn’t crave flesh, most never killed and they were rarely actually dead. Pre-Romero zombies were brain dead plantation workers, zombified by a bokor.

Romero stripped the zombie subgenre down to its parts before rebuilding it into something new and relevant to the culture of the period. Romero, in an act not unlike the cadavers in his films, killed the genre, resurrected it and watched it take over the world. It was bold move but it revolutionised zombie cinema and now Romero is synonymous with the undead.  

Now it seems that anybody who tries to do the same is torn to shreds and cast asunder by the same people who praise Romero, often “fanboys” who would gladly shuffle off the end of the earth if George told them to. 

Now I admire Romero and what he did for the genre but am I the only person who sees the hypocrisy in this argument? How can people praise a film maker for being daring by turning a tired format into something new a fresh, yet write off anyone who tries it subsequently?
I have read numerous articles and blog posts in recent weeks declaring that zombies have run (or at least shuffled) their course, that they aren’t nearly as entertaining or terrifying as they once were, more shambolic than shambling. 

So, maybe it’s time that zombies evolved into something to cause us terror again because the truth is the audience has evolved too. The “Dawn of the Dead” remake and Charlie Brooker’s “Dead Set” showed how terrifying fast moving zombies can be and how much more relevant they are to our culture. In a new fast moving world of fast food, instant downloads, on demand TV and anything just click of a button away maybe it’s time our zombies picked up the pace a bit or run the risk of being left behind.