I've not watched every Zombie film, but as a teenager (I’m now 28!) I watched quite a few zombie films, from Lucio Fulci to George A. Romeo, to White Zombie and the Living Dead trilogy. I have read the first six volumes of the Walking dead comic but after a while I lost interest in the whole thing, around the same time as Resident Evil 4 and the Land of the Dead.

I never knew what had caused my sudden loss of interest in the genre which I loved. That was until recently, when talking to a friend, I finally came to realise : people killed it.

It’s a human story.

There are three basic ‘human elements’ in all human characters which the horror genre exploits.

1. The need to survive. Many horror films portray this, perhaps the best being Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the very ending, jumping on the back of a pick-up covered in blood, crying whilst the villain relentlessly pursues. The character becomes the visual and spiritual embodiment of a survivor, but only when it’s clear she is released from her torture. This is also why the original Wickerman is so iconic, but for different reasons.
   The need to survive also applies to the villain, but this is more psychological, their need to survive is embodied in their need to justify their actions. (Jason needs to kill teenagers to continue justifying his existence beyond the grave.)
2. Too curious for our own good. This element has been used to death, and you can see why. It’s the basic narrative tool to get your character to continually walk further into your situation. The idea at least is backed by the notion that the character doesn't know they are in a horror movie, they believe themselves safe and life goes on. Humans are naturally inquisitive too, and we believe ‘this could never happen to me’. A lot of awful horrors try and change this tool into something it’s not, often by trying to make the audience aware of it’s existence, or outright ridicule it.
3. We are weak. Both in mind and body, human characters are made of flesh and blood. We trip, we fall, we bleed, we die. Our minds too snap very easily and we make stupid decisions when panicked. Life is actually very easy to take away when push comes to shove. A good horror can justify when something dies, how it dies and what’s doing the killing. Early horror typically had an ending which explained or justified the absurd events that had transpired. Such as Psycho, in the ending a psychologist explains all about Norman, whilst Norman himself rambles in his own head, giving credence to the psychologists deductions. However, I have always believed Hitchcock was ahead of his time, and the fact the character justifies his crimes by an event that happened years prior, gave him strength above everyone else — at the time this was genius. This idea eventually created Jason and Freddy.

I would argue very briefly that most recent horror movies have strayed too far from these basic concepts to be good any more. Breaking the 4th wall, making characters too strong, removing audience/protagonist empathy are all reasons why your recent horror blockbuster may have fallen flat.

The zombie genre has it’s own 4th ‘human element’ which sets it apart from a typical horror narrative.

4. We don’t adapt easily. Imagine this; It’s the 1960's, your visiting your mothers grave but suddenly your whole world is turned upside down. You somehow find yourself in a strangers house, fighting for survival. A man appears, Ben, who seems to know how to deal with the situation, but that’s because he’s black and has had to deal with conflict his whole life. You both soon discover that there’re more people inside, some are middle class whom cannot cope with the sudden loss of the upper hand. Others are simple country folk, but the situation has broken them from their familiar routine. Soon, Ben cannot differentiate his past struggles over the new, and eventually the whole situation collapses. This is the description of George Romeos’s Night of the Living Dead, I had explained why it’s a great story without even mentioning the un-dead.

The average zombie movie poses a philosophical question underling the need for adaptation,

‘who is really the mindless zombie? If we rely so much on our preconceived structures and comforts’

The zombie genre is about the cages which humanity has created for itself, how we cope when they disappear over night.

This idea can also be found in Dawn of the Dead: they cannot adapt to a life without a future.
Day of the Dead tries to finally break the mould (completing the trilogy) thanks to the character of John telling everyone to just let go. The military in the story cannot cope with the idea they have lost the war. The scientist copes through science but fails to adapt his logic to the human empathy element.

Return of the Living Dead’s charm is making fun of this 4th element. The plot follows the characters haphazardly adapting to the dead rising, including the dead themselves. The joke is that the dead find it easier to adapt by embracing the eating of brains and nothing else, whilst us humans don’t even know what’s hit us until it’s too late — The armies answer is simple and blunt.

How I had become disconnected by a genre I loved.

One of the biggest faults to the zombie narrative is the fact it’s philosophy must change with the times. The cold war is over and pop culture had prepared us against the supernatural. The old cages no longer feel like cages at all, because we become aware of them.

Things had changed early to mid 2000's and this 4th element was deemed too obvious to modern audiences. The early 2000's introduced a very ego centric cinema and philosophy — the films produced reflected new ideals for the new millennia; we could become anything which we wanted to be, we are not shackled by anything, except by what we want. For instance, Dawn of the Dead used a Mall because it was new at the time. People of the 50's/60's where uneasy of the impact, how it would effect local cohesion in communities, how society would adapt to it. But by the 90's corporations had convinced everyone that rapid change was very good and change would would make people adapt better then ever.

The zombie genre suffered as a consequence, and directors/writers began introducing main characters who had an upper hand over the zombie menace, believing this reflected the times and served the genre best— This nurtured a lot of horror and action genre. The focus too was on the zombies as the main problem over the basic human fault. People where portrayed as faultless unless they where shown to be over the top evil (psychopathic, incestuous, rapists.etc) Norman Bates may have helped bring about Freddy Kruger into cinema, but Freddy eventually made Ghostface.

Well that’s one way to win the cold war.

Although in the The Walking Dead the characters mess up greatly; they either adapted poorly or their efforts are foiled by other human factions. The Walking Dead eventually suffers from another inevitable block, the zombie narrative is limited in how far you can go. The genius of George A.Romeo was in deciding each of his Dead trilogy films would feature whole new characters, not just places or time periods. The very fact that people cannot adapt easily means they cannot last long in a destroyed world of flesh eating zombies. So the humans that survive must ride off into an unknown sunset, or be featured in a zombie buffet montage. The walking dead serialisation, beyond a ‘certain issue’ creates a paradox, they suck at adapting, but some how manage it all the time. Repeating the same old mistakes disguised as a new situation. The Walking Dead too succumbed to 2000’s mentality and human villains become grotesque monsters, their deeds portered as beyond evil in some to justify why they are clearly the bad guy. (The main protagonist might be an insufferable selfish-prick, but at least he doesn't murder living people for sport)

Sadly the greatest example of the destruction of the genre came from our own ranks. George A. Romeos Land of the Dead, Diary of the Dead and other ‘cheap dead’s’ are perhaps the worst attempts and are from the grandfather of the genre himself. Land of the Dead tried to show how eventually only the truly corrupt will gain advantage in this world. Kaufman, Dennis Hopper, is a business man who had always used bad situations to make an empire - so easily adapted to this new zombie one (and made a profit). Survivors looked to Kaufman to create a resemblance of the old world to help them adapt. Eventually humans raised above the their dependability of an organised world and over come their boundaries, so too do the zombies, who learn how to organise. If this was any other film from the early 90's it would not have been bad, nor good, but as the climax to his dead series in the 2000's George could not have ruined his own message more.

Land of the Dead tried to build on the previous series and appeal to a new audience who no longer related to it. Recognising that it would need updating, he added the 2000's ideals of rising above the problem, but it failed. Land of the dead should have ended with the small resistance against Kaufman failing, people are too dependent of Kaufman’s world and the idea of going back to the unknown too terrifying. Normal people kill the resistance brutally, justifying their barbarity without Kaufman doing a thing. The zombies only act as a contrast between the instinctive brutality and mindlessness to the brutality and mindless followers of Kaufmans new world. Admittedly, this would have been a very depressing ending, however the fact that humans would have abandoned the idea of using zombies, killing them or fighting them. Instead becoming perfectly used-to sleeping with zombies only yards away, that would illustrate a real adaptation, and conclude the philosophy of Georges 60's/80's zombie narrative — One way to win the cold war, was learning to get used to the threat.

Is there Life after death? Send more paramedics…

The emergence of Shaun of the Dead and The Last of Us have created real strides in the genre which only the old master could have once dreamed of.

Despite coming out a year before Land of the Dead, Shaun of the Dead not only revisits the cliché of the zombie narrative, but like Return of the Living Dead, pokes fun at it’s absurdity. Edger Wrights real accomplishment with Shaun of the Dead is perhaps the character himself, by portraying the main protagonist as someone who has purposely chosen not to progress his life, the audience feels his struggle to overcome the situation is not out of character but long overdue. Contrasted by his friend, Ed, who purposely avoids responsibility or room-mate Pete who used to be cool but grew accustomed to adult life and became a ‘prick’. The whole narrative is about ways of adapting, and the zombie element, like Night, Dawn and Day are just a plot devise to shape the transition of characters. Edger Wright even adds in the traditional human villain in David, the jealous friend who wants to use the situation to finally be with Shaun’s girlfriend. David is not a super villain or genuinely evil, just a regular human at fault.

Shaun of the Dead’s success is largely down to Wrights understanding and parading of the genre. It does not create anything new nor pose a new question for a new generation. Instead it’s philosophy is still our reliance on the comforts, but builds on this, exploring the notion of growing up and appreciating what you have. This goes back to Johns philosophy in Day of the Dead, ‘just let it go and move on’. But changing the context from giving up the ruined world, to give up being a child, but enjoy being an adult.

The Last of Us is perhaps the most interesting and modern adaptation of the zombie genre. It is the most recent example of the Zombie narrative, and unlike the previous examples which are old, I will not go into too much analysis to spoil the plot. The Last of Us however introduces a world of both ‘people that have adapted’ and ‘those who haven’t’ then puts them at odds with each other in the background. The narrative also re-opens the zombie wound which George Romero started in 1968 to a new audience, in a new way and with a whole new philosophy.

…Or better yet, please send something new and tasty.

The Last of Us changes the philosophical question underling the need for adaptation. It changes the question;

‘who is really the mindless zombie, if we rely so much on structure and the comforts of this world’

to

‘Who are really the sick ones of this world? If we forsake humanity to adapt’.

The Last of Us realised that the millennia ideals where real, people genuinely believed they could be anything they wanted and that cages could be used as strengths. However ten years on, it exposes the ideal as a fraud by point blank replying, ‘it didn't work, you don’t always get what you want’ and reality hits home once more. The Last of Us twists the philosophy of the zombie genre, turning it away from social problems in the wake of a growing world of capitalism, and instead puts the focus on humanities morality post end of civilisation. How does one adapt ‘morally’, not just socially, when all our morals come from television, internet, news and family/friends? When these are shattered, what will humanity become to survive? It turns out, societies reliance on confidence and self esteem has been the biggest cage of all.

How will we know if we are good or bad,
if we can no longer see our selfies?

The Zombie genre above all other horrors explores the notion that if you want to adapt it comes at an impossible cost. Each generation of zombie story tellers must question it’s own generations readiness to adapt to the new problems facing humanity. What new cages have we created for ourselves? what will happen when these vanish overnight?

The zombie narrative has never really been about the zombie, but I still love them anyway, always have, but perhaps only now appreciate why I love the genre and why I miss it. BUT, with the emergence of new media and critical thought, there’s still life in it yet.