The 32-second Macbeth", a condensed version of the play Macbeth by the Folger Shakespeare Library, is twenty one quotes of some of the most important quotes in Macbeth. Although many of these quotes are necessary to understand parts within Macbeth and to convey important elements of the play, many of these quotes are unnecessary in my eyes, and some things that I feel are extremely important to the story have been left out altogether! To me, in order to get a better feel for the story of Macbeth, some of the twenty quotes many need to be kept, some need to be removed, and then replaced by another, more important quote.
A majority of the quotes stated in the "32-Second Macbeth" are extremely important to play, and should be kept a part of the twenty one quotes. Quote 1, I feel, is important because it is one of the major themes of the play. The witches state this quote in the very beginning of the play, which first of all gives and eerie, menacing tone for the play that is basically kept throughout the play. Also, Quote 1 is important because as I mentioned earlier, it tells a major theme of the play, that not everything is what they seem (exp: Lady Macbeth and Macbeth?s original characters.) The next quote I think is important I Quote 4, spoken by Macbeth, almost saying the same thing the witches said in Quote 1. Although the day weather wise is actually a pleasant day weather wise, it is "foul" because earlier he had fought in a battle and killed a traitor, and although he does not know it, he is about to meet the witches and hear their three prophecies, which lead to almost all of the evil in the play. Quote 5 is another significant quote because it states the most important of the three original prophecies given to Macbeth by the witches. The first prophecy, "Thane of Glamis", is not important because he is already Thane of Glamis, and then the second prophecy, "Thane of Cawdor", is more important but still not needed because one he becomes Thane of Cawdor, that title is not important to Macbeth. But the third of the witches? prophecies, Quote 5, is extremely vital because it can be argued that this is the reason for most of Macbeth?s horrible actions, that this prophecy led him to do things in order to fulfill it. The next important quote is Quote 6, spoken by Macbeth, saying fate will decide whether or not he will become king, which some people may argue (including myself) is the reason behind everything Macbeth does (fate). Quote 7 is another quote I feel should be kept in the "32-Second Macbeth" because it gives you an important first impression of Lady Macbeth. At this point, she has heard of the witches? prophecies, and has come up with the idea of killing Duncan to insure Macbeth?s gaining of the throne. It shows how incredibly evil Lady Macbeth initially was, calling upon spirits to "make her a man" to help her kill the king Duncan. This is important also because it once again refers to Quote 1, that not all things are what they seem. Even though Lady Macbeth is a woman, she is the exact opposite of what a woman in her time would be like and she is extremely masculine. The next quote, Quote 9, is also spoken by Lady Macbeth, and is once again showing her manliness, having to basically push Macbeth into killing Duncan. I feel Quote 12 is the next most significant quote. It is spoken by Banquo, when he is being killed by the three murderers hired by Macbeth to kill him and his son Fleance. I think it is essential that this quote is kept because it is the beginning of Macbeth?s insanity for power. Also, it tells you that Banquo dies, but not his son Fleance, which gives one of the witches? prophecies for Banquo (that his sons will become king) a chance to be fulfilled. Quote 13 is another needed quote because it shows the beginning of change for Macbeth, and a small theme in the play. Lady Macbeth is telling Macbeth to calm down, and to forget about everything and just enjoy the fact that he is king, showing she is becoming more feminine where as Macbeth is the opposite, becoming more masculine and saying he must do all this. And like I said, this is small theme in the play that all these horrible things just lead to more horrible things, that it is just a vicious cycle. Finally, I think the last four quotes in the original "32-Second Macbeth" are also important and should be kept. Quote 18, said by Macbeth, is comparing life to a candle, brief and almost unimportant, after Lady Macbeth has killed herself. Quote 19 is spoken by Macduff to Macbeth in their final fight, urging him to fight him even though Macbeth knows he will lose because of the witches? apparitions, and then Macbeth responds with Quote 20, showing the old Macbeth, someone brave and fighting squarely. And then the final quote, Quote 21, is important because it shows that the king is now Malcolm, and that all the evil Macbeth did is not over.
Although a majority of the quotes in the "32-Second Macbeth" are beneficial quotes to understand Macbeth and express elements of the play, many are also not needed. First of all, Quotes 2 and 3 are not needed because I don?t think the reader needs to know of the "bloody man" that Duncan speaks of in Quote 2 and I think that a better quote could be found then Quote 3 that talks about the witches and Macbeth?s first encounter. Quote 8 is also an unnecessary quote to me because I think that first of all, a better quote can be fund to talk about Macbeth?s thoughts before the murder of Duncan and also, I don?t think it conveys Macbeth?s true feelings about him and Lady Macbeth?s plan to kill Duncan. Another unneeded quote is Quote 10, because I think it does not give a clear picture of what is going on in Macbeth?s mind at the time, and I don?t think the reader would understand this quote without physically seeing it done by an actor. Quote 11 can also be removed in my opinion because it only shows Lady Macbeth?s thoughts after the murder of Duncan, even thought it wasn?t even her who killed Duncan! To me, I think the author of this condensed version of the play should put in a quote spoken by Macbeth after the murder, since he is actually the one who goes through with the murder. Quote 14 is the next quote I think can be removed because even though it is an extremely well known quote in Macbeth, sued in many other stories, I don?t think it is an important excerpt from the witches in that scene. The next two quotes, Quote 15 and 16, in my opinion, can be removed because I think if someone was to read this 32-second Macbeth, they would not understand what was going on during those quotes or their importance in the play. And finally, the last quote I feel can be removed is Quote 17, which is spoken by Lady Macbeth. Even though she speaks while she was sleeping and it shows the change she has undergone from being the masculine character to the feminine one, unable to bear all the things her and Macbeth have done, I think another quote could replace it the more adequately shows her insanity and change.
Lastly, in order to keep the "32-Second Macbeth" lose to 32 seconds and more importantly, to show key parts in the play or to replace parts I took out, there are many quotes that should be added. After Quote 1, I think the quote spoken by Duncan, "What he hath lost, noble Macbeth hath won" should be put in because it tells the reader that Macbeth has gained the title of Thane of Cawdor, and that at one point Macbeth was a good guy. Next, after Quote 5, I think that this quote, "Thou shalt get kings, though thou be none", should be put in. I feel this quote is important because in the original "32-Second Macbeth", it mentions the prophecies given to Macbeth by the witches, but it does not talk about any of the prophecies that Banquo received. Also, I think this quote is important because it gives insight into the reason as to why Macbeth tries to kill Banquo and his son Fleance later in the play. The, after Quote 7, I think an important quote that should be added is, "This castle hath a pleasant seat", said by Duncan. I feel this is a vital quote to add because it refers back to Quote 1 and irony to the play, because as an audience we know that in going to the castle, Duncan is going to be killed. Even thought it may seem like a pleasant and a safe place, we know as an audience it is actually not. Next, I have picked a quote to replace Quote 8 of the original "32-Second Macbeth", that I think better shows Macbeth?s thoughts before the murder of Duncan, and how he does not want to kill him at all and is having second thoughts: "He?s here in double trust". I think this quote is also good to replace Quote 8 because it fits better with Quote 9, where Lady Macbeth is encouraging Macbeth to murder Duncan, than the original Quote 8 did I think. Another quote I would like to replace would be Quote 10, showing that Duncan has been killed. I chose to substitute that quote with this one, "?Macbeth does murder sleep!?", spoken by Macbeth after hearing it said by someone in the castle in their sleep. I think this quote is a better quote than the initial Quote 10 because is not only tells the reader that Duncan has indeed been murdered, but also the state Macbeth is in after the murder (Macbeth is almost hysterical, and heard "voices" saying that he is a murderer in other?s sleep). I also think Quote 11 should be replaced to better show Lady Macbeth?s reaction after the murder of Duncan. The quote I chose to replace it is spoken by Lady Macbeth after she must put the daggers back in the guard?s possession to frame them because Macbeth forgot to: "I shame to wear a heart so white". Finally, I think Quotes 14-17 should be replaced from the original "32-Second Macbeth" because I do not feel they sufficiently get across what is going on during those parts in the play. Instead of Quote 14, I think the actual three apparitions should be put there, "Beware Macduff!?Laugh to scorn the power of man!?Great Birnam Wood to High Dunsiane Hall shall come against him!", because not only does Macbeth become obsessed with these prophecies throughout the rest of the play, but also because they tell how Macduff was able to murder Macbeth, even thought Macbeth thought was basically invincible (they were equivocal statements). Quote 15 can then be replaced by a quote spoken by a messenger to Macduff?s family, basically telling them that they will be murdered soon if they do not leave (which I think is easier to understand than Quote 15): "Be not found here; hence, with your little ones". The next quote I want to replace, Quote 16, is referring to Macduff and Malcolm?s encounter, and talking about their land of Scotland and what Macbeth has done to it. In my opinion, the author of the "32-Second Macbeth" focused on the wrong part of this scene. To me, it is more important that Macduff and Malcolm have deiced to form an alliance and kill Macbeth, "Malcolm: Let?s make us medicines of our great revenge, to cure this deadly grief", than the fact that they are upset at Macbeth. Lastly, I think that Quote 17 also does not give an excellent picture of Lady Macbeth at the end of the play. To me, it does not show that Lady Macbeth is in fact going insane and that is the reason for killing herself. I chose to replace Quote 17 with a quote spoken by the doctor, describing Lady Macbeth in the end, "Unnatural deeds to breed unnatural troubles", because it states Lady Macbeth is in fact going insane, why she is going insane, and the reason for killing herself.
The "32-Second Macbeth" is all in all a superb resource for looking at the most important elements of the play Macbeth in about 32 seconds. Although some quotes do need to be removed, replaced, or added, it is a great piece and I thoroughly enjoyed it!
Arts Drama & Film
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
28 days later paper
Countdown for the Apocalypse:
Philosophy in 28 Days Later
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he doesn't become one”.
- Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)
From George Orwell’s Animal Farm to Walt Disney’s adaptation of Alice in Wonderland (1951), social allegories in literature and film have been used as ways to interpret political, economic and social tribulations in the world. Defined by Webster’s New World Dictionary, an allegory is:
The representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form (Agnes 17).
Social allegories seem simplistic at a glance. They generally deal with topics and issues that have been discussed repeatedly (such as time, individualism and survival), and then branch off into multi-layered, ambiguous symbolism. They can range in tone from sarcastic and satirical to sinister and sorrowful. Many film genres today can be used as social allegories: the Western allegorically represents Vietnam War; but of all the filmic allegories represented in contemporary cinema, the zombie film as social allegory is perhaps the most pervasive and striking. 28 Days Later, directed by Danny Boyle (Trainspotting), and written by Alex Garland (The Beach), is an interesting cocktail of a social allegory and a rage-driven, zombie infested horror picture. Executive producer Greg Caplan aimed to market this film for the box office for horror-loving film junkies as well as the intellectual film enthusiast. From the combined efforts of Boyle, Garland, and Caplan, comes a film that pleases not only the eye, but the mind as well.
The zombie film has been around since the early introduction of the horror genre from the Hollywood studios. Films like White Zombie (1932) and I Walked with a Zombie (1943) paved the way for the zombie genre, but in 1968 George A. Romero’s Night of the Living Dead really transformed the look and ideology of the zombie film genre. With a low budget and a grainy film stock, Romero’s film depicted a zombie filled city that seemed more believable than the works of his predecessors. After Night of the Living Dead, many films emulated that style, but the zombie film slowly became less and less popular after the late 70s. It wasn’t until recently that Danny Boyle and Alex Garland decided to reinvent the zombie genre with their haunting, symbolic film. 28 Days Later is a contemporary social allegory (the end of the world) that incorporates the philosophies of Nihilism, Existentialism and Darwinism.
One critic writes:
A hybrid of a George A. Romero genre thriller via Kubrickian morality tale with a turgid taste of black humor mix into a highly intoxicating cocktail of lurid emotionally fused melodrama. A rare treat: horror movie and social fable intertwined (IMDb).
In the film, a group of animal rights activists break into a lab to liberate animals. Unfortunately they also release a blood-born virus that induces a zombie-like rage within 10 to 20 seconds of contact.
Within Twenty-eight days, all of Britain has succumbed to the rage-virus. “28 Days Later could best be described as the thinking man’s zombie movie” (IMDb). It is a postmodern, semi-nihilistic take on the genre. No longer are the zombies created from toxic waste that we settled for in the past, these zombies are the by-product of scientific experimentation on our society.
The establishing shot in the film begins with scenes of police brutality, global warfare, rioting, nuclear explosions, and supreme anarchy. The shot zooms out to show that these images are coming from a television in an animal experimentation lab. These heavy images are symbolic of how humans treat each other. It is, essentially, survival of the fittest. We are weeding each other out until there is no more existence.
From there the world is overtaken rapidly by the virus that transforms people into mindless zombies whose only intention is to kill. The depiction of the zombies is completely original. Some of the aesthetics of the zombie must be credited to George A. Romero’s Night of the Living Dead, but instead of the zombies walking slowly and grunting, these horrific creatures are running and spitting vile blood from their insides. One drop of the “infected” blood into a survivor’s bloodstream, and it is all over.
When the protagonist Jim (Cillian Murphy), a young courier, wakes up in an empty hospital, he walks around the hauntingly quiet streets of London. Here the director shows images of emptiness, desolation and sorrow that strike hard at the audience. He shockingly comes to the realization that humanity has been lost. Jim decides to visit his parents’ house, only to find them lying dead in their bed together. At this point, Jim begins to cry and complain about how his parents died in such an awful way. In response, one of his fellow survivors tells Jim how his family was eaten alive at a subway station. Jim then drops his mouth and apologizes. Money, love, and time especially; as Jim finds out are elements that all modern human beings adopt to use as a way to live our lives. In a post-apocalyptic world, none of these things are important. Dr. Alan Pratt, a professor at Embry-Riddle University, writes in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy about the concept of time. He states:
Time is not present in general relativity, and that a temporal variable is probably not a fundamental part of the universe (Pratt).
The theory of time being irrelevant is essentially nihilistic in nature. 28 Days Later deals with nihilist theory in many scenes. In one scene in particular, an army soldier tries to explain to Jim about time and humanity. He says:
If you think about it, humans have only been around for a blink of an eye. So when we all die out, that is a turn back to normality (Garland 89).
If one were to take a step back and realize the ephemeral existence of humankind in terms of time, one can see how the post-apocalyptic world that is created in 28 Days Later is a filmic interpretation of a social allegory. For centuries, dating back to Socrates, humans have always questioned the significance of time and what the film’s writer, Alex Garland, is stating is purely another example of a social allegory.
Later in the film, the survivors or the “uninfected” find brief salvation when they encounter a military base. There, they eat dinner with a commanding officer who, in a stern tone, tries to make sense of all the madness that has occurred. He says:
You know what I see? I see people killing people; and I saw
that the day before yesterday and the day before that and all of my life. It’s just people killing people (Garland 95).
In this speech, the message of Darwinism appears. What the officer is saying is simply, we are all zombies who kill and destroy. Throughout history there has always been conflict, death and destruction, and even in a post-apocalyptic society, we are still killing. So what makes humans now any different from a zombie who eats flesh? Dr. Walter J. Veith, a Zoologist, writes:
Living organisms, such as humans ... survive the process because they are fitter, and they are fitter because they survive… (Veith 249).
What Dr. Veith is saying is essentially, the stronger or fitter one is, the more likely one is to survive. In 28 Days Later, the “uninfected” are fighting for survival, and the only way to ensure safety is to kill. One look at our world today and it is evident, we are fundamentally doing the same thing; killing by whatever means necessary. The term “survival of the fittest” was coined by Biologist Charles Darwin, but the concept of humans killing humans for survival has been represented in literature since before. Survival is a frequently discussed concept in social allegories, and in 28 Days Later, survival is one of many underlying themes.
28 Days Later at its very core questions human existence, which is primarily an Existentialist thought. The film asks its audience, “What is the point of living if all we do is kill and destroy one another?” Another film relevant to this same philosophy is Larry and Andy Wachowski’s The Matrix. In this film, Agent Smith (a machine that hunts humans) explains to the protagonist, Neo, how his robotic world views the human species. He says:
…as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery…The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from. Which is why the Matrix was redesigned to this: the peak of your civilization (Wachowski 156).
Agent Smith is saying that the only way humans know how to live is through “suffering and misery.” Even if we knew how to live in a perfect society, it wouldn’t happen because human beings are flawed animals that ultimately are alive for their own survival.
Right now, we are living at the peak of civilization. Never before in history have we been so pampered and reliant on materials and objects that will “improve,” but eventually complicate our life. Just as the stock market crashed in 1929, once we reach our peak in social, economic and political evolution, the only way to go is down. Matt Savinar, a graduate of the University of California at Davis, makes an interesting analogy to human existence. He writes:
Bacteria in a Petri dish will grow exponentially until they run out of resources, at which point their population will crash. Only one generation prior to the crash, the bacteria will have used up half the resources available to them. To the bacteria, there will be no hint of a problem until they starve to death. Before that happens, the bacteria will begin cannibalizing each other in last-ditch efforts to survive (Savinar 112).
But humans are smarter than bacteria, right? You would think so, but the facts seem to indicate otherwise. The first commercial oil well was drilled in 1859. At that time, the world's population was about 1 billion. Less than 150 years later, our population has exploded to 6.4 billion. In that time, it has been projected that we have used up half the world's recoverable oil. Of the half that's left, most will be very expensive to extract. If the experts are correct, we are less than one generation away from a crash. Yet to most of us, there appears to be no hint of a problem. If we are one generation away from our demise, then we are as clueless as bacteria in a Petri dish.
Questioning existence and the importance of humankind in relation to the universe are both topics discussed in social allegories. This idea is a theme in The Matrix , as well as 28 Days Later. On the first day of realizing that the world as he knew it was over, Jim asks a survivor about the status of the British government:
JIM
Where is the government?
STEVE
There is no government, everybody’s dead!
JIM
What do you mean there is no government? There is always a government! (Garland 32).
Having been so dependent on the structure of Democracy, it is impossible for Jim to fathom a life of disorder. When society fails, the basic human instincts become more relevant. In order to survive, Jim must fight, eat, and find shelter. Essentially, he has become his own government- a rudimentary idea of anarchy.
In the social allegory Animal Farm, George Orwell questions the necessity of governmental institutions and corrupt regimes. In 28 Days Later, Garland’s pivotal characters question the legitimacy of government and the vague obligations of the military. The query of government and politics is again another form of a social allegory.
28 Days Later is simple and powerful. It was made on eight million dollars (fifteen times less than Pirates of the Caribbean's one hundred twenty five million dollar budget). What 28 Days Later lacks in effects, it makes up for with a mind- altering story and excellent acting. There are a few arm-chair gripping, jumpy moments but it is the intellect and intricacy of this movie that make it so powerful. The set design is unique and creative. In fact, for a whole day, the cast and crew had to block off many popular sections of London to create a desolate, disturbing vision of a post-apocalyptic England. The acting is top notch and the lighting, for their very limited budget, is used to perfectly accent a wonderfully dark story.
If you were to rent 28 Days Later at the movie store, you would find it under the horror section; but this movie is way more than a simple horror film. It is a social allegory reflecting aspects of our society combined with a unique zombie plot. From the writing, directing, acting to the cinematography, all the elements that help distinguish this film are made to open the eyes of the masses in order to realize if we, as a society, do not choose to change the way we live our lives, then supreme devastation may arise.
28 Days Later is a clear warning sign for the past, present and future. In Victorian Literature, H.G Wells, “the father of science fiction” (The Time Machine, The Island of Dr. Moreau), warned the world that scientific experimentation would eventually lead to a societal collapse. In that same mentality, director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland are trying to explain to the masses, through a zombie film, that if we do not change the way we all behave towards each other, then who knows? Maybe a zombie will be coming after us.
Philosophy in 28 Days Later
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he doesn't become one”.
- Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)
From George Orwell’s Animal Farm to Walt Disney’s adaptation of Alice in Wonderland (1951), social allegories in literature and film have been used as ways to interpret political, economic and social tribulations in the world. Defined by Webster’s New World Dictionary, an allegory is:
The representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form (Agnes 17).
Social allegories seem simplistic at a glance. They generally deal with topics and issues that have been discussed repeatedly (such as time, individualism and survival), and then branch off into multi-layered, ambiguous symbolism. They can range in tone from sarcastic and satirical to sinister and sorrowful. Many film genres today can be used as social allegories: the Western allegorically represents Vietnam War; but of all the filmic allegories represented in contemporary cinema, the zombie film as social allegory is perhaps the most pervasive and striking. 28 Days Later, directed by Danny Boyle (Trainspotting), and written by Alex Garland (The Beach), is an interesting cocktail of a social allegory and a rage-driven, zombie infested horror picture. Executive producer Greg Caplan aimed to market this film for the box office for horror-loving film junkies as well as the intellectual film enthusiast. From the combined efforts of Boyle, Garland, and Caplan, comes a film that pleases not only the eye, but the mind as well.
The zombie film has been around since the early introduction of the horror genre from the Hollywood studios. Films like White Zombie (1932) and I Walked with a Zombie (1943) paved the way for the zombie genre, but in 1968 George A. Romero’s Night of the Living Dead really transformed the look and ideology of the zombie film genre. With a low budget and a grainy film stock, Romero’s film depicted a zombie filled city that seemed more believable than the works of his predecessors. After Night of the Living Dead, many films emulated that style, but the zombie film slowly became less and less popular after the late 70s. It wasn’t until recently that Danny Boyle and Alex Garland decided to reinvent the zombie genre with their haunting, symbolic film. 28 Days Later is a contemporary social allegory (the end of the world) that incorporates the philosophies of Nihilism, Existentialism and Darwinism.
One critic writes:
A hybrid of a George A. Romero genre thriller via Kubrickian morality tale with a turgid taste of black humor mix into a highly intoxicating cocktail of lurid emotionally fused melodrama. A rare treat: horror movie and social fable intertwined (IMDb).
In the film, a group of animal rights activists break into a lab to liberate animals. Unfortunately they also release a blood-born virus that induces a zombie-like rage within 10 to 20 seconds of contact.
Within Twenty-eight days, all of Britain has succumbed to the rage-virus. “28 Days Later could best be described as the thinking man’s zombie movie” (IMDb). It is a postmodern, semi-nihilistic take on the genre. No longer are the zombies created from toxic waste that we settled for in the past, these zombies are the by-product of scientific experimentation on our society.
The establishing shot in the film begins with scenes of police brutality, global warfare, rioting, nuclear explosions, and supreme anarchy. The shot zooms out to show that these images are coming from a television in an animal experimentation lab. These heavy images are symbolic of how humans treat each other. It is, essentially, survival of the fittest. We are weeding each other out until there is no more existence.
From there the world is overtaken rapidly by the virus that transforms people into mindless zombies whose only intention is to kill. The depiction of the zombies is completely original. Some of the aesthetics of the zombie must be credited to George A. Romero’s Night of the Living Dead, but instead of the zombies walking slowly and grunting, these horrific creatures are running and spitting vile blood from their insides. One drop of the “infected” blood into a survivor’s bloodstream, and it is all over.
When the protagonist Jim (Cillian Murphy), a young courier, wakes up in an empty hospital, he walks around the hauntingly quiet streets of London. Here the director shows images of emptiness, desolation and sorrow that strike hard at the audience. He shockingly comes to the realization that humanity has been lost. Jim decides to visit his parents’ house, only to find them lying dead in their bed together. At this point, Jim begins to cry and complain about how his parents died in such an awful way. In response, one of his fellow survivors tells Jim how his family was eaten alive at a subway station. Jim then drops his mouth and apologizes. Money, love, and time especially; as Jim finds out are elements that all modern human beings adopt to use as a way to live our lives. In a post-apocalyptic world, none of these things are important. Dr. Alan Pratt, a professor at Embry-Riddle University, writes in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy about the concept of time. He states:
Time is not present in general relativity, and that a temporal variable is probably not a fundamental part of the universe (Pratt).
The theory of time being irrelevant is essentially nihilistic in nature. 28 Days Later deals with nihilist theory in many scenes. In one scene in particular, an army soldier tries to explain to Jim about time and humanity. He says:
If you think about it, humans have only been around for a blink of an eye. So when we all die out, that is a turn back to normality (Garland 89).
If one were to take a step back and realize the ephemeral existence of humankind in terms of time, one can see how the post-apocalyptic world that is created in 28 Days Later is a filmic interpretation of a social allegory. For centuries, dating back to Socrates, humans have always questioned the significance of time and what the film’s writer, Alex Garland, is stating is purely another example of a social allegory.
Later in the film, the survivors or the “uninfected” find brief salvation when they encounter a military base. There, they eat dinner with a commanding officer who, in a stern tone, tries to make sense of all the madness that has occurred. He says:
You know what I see? I see people killing people; and I saw
that the day before yesterday and the day before that and all of my life. It’s just people killing people (Garland 95).
In this speech, the message of Darwinism appears. What the officer is saying is simply, we are all zombies who kill and destroy. Throughout history there has always been conflict, death and destruction, and even in a post-apocalyptic society, we are still killing. So what makes humans now any different from a zombie who eats flesh? Dr. Walter J. Veith, a Zoologist, writes:
Living organisms, such as humans ... survive the process because they are fitter, and they are fitter because they survive… (Veith 249).
What Dr. Veith is saying is essentially, the stronger or fitter one is, the more likely one is to survive. In 28 Days Later, the “uninfected” are fighting for survival, and the only way to ensure safety is to kill. One look at our world today and it is evident, we are fundamentally doing the same thing; killing by whatever means necessary. The term “survival of the fittest” was coined by Biologist Charles Darwin, but the concept of humans killing humans for survival has been represented in literature since before. Survival is a frequently discussed concept in social allegories, and in 28 Days Later, survival is one of many underlying themes.
28 Days Later at its very core questions human existence, which is primarily an Existentialist thought. The film asks its audience, “What is the point of living if all we do is kill and destroy one another?” Another film relevant to this same philosophy is Larry and Andy Wachowski’s The Matrix. In this film, Agent Smith (a machine that hunts humans) explains to the protagonist, Neo, how his robotic world views the human species. He says:
…as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery…The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from. Which is why the Matrix was redesigned to this: the peak of your civilization (Wachowski 156).
Agent Smith is saying that the only way humans know how to live is through “suffering and misery.” Even if we knew how to live in a perfect society, it wouldn’t happen because human beings are flawed animals that ultimately are alive for their own survival.
Right now, we are living at the peak of civilization. Never before in history have we been so pampered and reliant on materials and objects that will “improve,” but eventually complicate our life. Just as the stock market crashed in 1929, once we reach our peak in social, economic and political evolution, the only way to go is down. Matt Savinar, a graduate of the University of California at Davis, makes an interesting analogy to human existence. He writes:
Bacteria in a Petri dish will grow exponentially until they run out of resources, at which point their population will crash. Only one generation prior to the crash, the bacteria will have used up half the resources available to them. To the bacteria, there will be no hint of a problem until they starve to death. Before that happens, the bacteria will begin cannibalizing each other in last-ditch efforts to survive (Savinar 112).
But humans are smarter than bacteria, right? You would think so, but the facts seem to indicate otherwise. The first commercial oil well was drilled in 1859. At that time, the world's population was about 1 billion. Less than 150 years later, our population has exploded to 6.4 billion. In that time, it has been projected that we have used up half the world's recoverable oil. Of the half that's left, most will be very expensive to extract. If the experts are correct, we are less than one generation away from a crash. Yet to most of us, there appears to be no hint of a problem. If we are one generation away from our demise, then we are as clueless as bacteria in a Petri dish.
Questioning existence and the importance of humankind in relation to the universe are both topics discussed in social allegories. This idea is a theme in The Matrix , as well as 28 Days Later. On the first day of realizing that the world as he knew it was over, Jim asks a survivor about the status of the British government:
JIM
Where is the government?
STEVE
There is no government, everybody’s dead!
JIM
What do you mean there is no government? There is always a government! (Garland 32).
Having been so dependent on the structure of Democracy, it is impossible for Jim to fathom a life of disorder. When society fails, the basic human instincts become more relevant. In order to survive, Jim must fight, eat, and find shelter. Essentially, he has become his own government- a rudimentary idea of anarchy.
In the social allegory Animal Farm, George Orwell questions the necessity of governmental institutions and corrupt regimes. In 28 Days Later, Garland’s pivotal characters question the legitimacy of government and the vague obligations of the military. The query of government and politics is again another form of a social allegory.
28 Days Later is simple and powerful. It was made on eight million dollars (fifteen times less than Pirates of the Caribbean's one hundred twenty five million dollar budget). What 28 Days Later lacks in effects, it makes up for with a mind- altering story and excellent acting. There are a few arm-chair gripping, jumpy moments but it is the intellect and intricacy of this movie that make it so powerful. The set design is unique and creative. In fact, for a whole day, the cast and crew had to block off many popular sections of London to create a desolate, disturbing vision of a post-apocalyptic England. The acting is top notch and the lighting, for their very limited budget, is used to perfectly accent a wonderfully dark story.
If you were to rent 28 Days Later at the movie store, you would find it under the horror section; but this movie is way more than a simple horror film. It is a social allegory reflecting aspects of our society combined with a unique zombie plot. From the writing, directing, acting to the cinematography, all the elements that help distinguish this film are made to open the eyes of the masses in order to realize if we, as a society, do not choose to change the way we live our lives, then supreme devastation may arise.
28 Days Later is a clear warning sign for the past, present and future. In Victorian Literature, H.G Wells, “the father of science fiction” (The Time Machine, The Island of Dr. Moreau), warned the world that scientific experimentation would eventually lead to a societal collapse. In that same mentality, director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland are trying to explain to the masses, through a zombie film, that if we do not change the way we all behave towards each other, then who knows? Maybe a zombie will be coming after us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)