Retro Cinema: Shaun of the Dead
Filed under: Comedy, Horror, Universal, Retro Cinema

I'm no horror buff, but I do love the zombies. Well, I love the idea of zombies. I'm not really that interested in watching all the low-budget zombie movies, all the Italian zombie movies, or all the non-Romero Living Dead movies. But it's funny, I was looking over Ryan's recent Cinematical Seven of reasons he doesn't care for zombie movies, and it dually serves as my own list of reasons I like zombie movies. Or at least those zombie movies that apply. Primarily, I like zombie movies for the first reason: the symbolism.
Shaun of the Dead may be a comedic zombie movie, and it may not have any political undertones or serious social commentary, as do Romero's films and other prominent examples of the genre, but it does permit a scholarly subtext reading nonetheless. And because I'm a scholarly sort of gent (or maybe really I just like to over-analyze everything), I'm going to take this opportunity to look at this deeper level of the movie. Sure, I could just write about why I think the movie is one of the most hilarious I've ever seen, but that would be boring; plus, I respect that some people don't have the same sense of humor as me.
Shaun's symbolism comes in the form of the romantic story. The movie, often referred to as a "rom zom com" (romantic zombie comedy), actually serves as a sort of cinematic relationship guide, comically instructing us about dealing with commitment issues. Look at the order in which the members of Shaun's party are killed (killed dead, not undead): #1: his stepfather (Bill Nighy); #2: his mum (Penelope Wilton); #3: the other guy who loves his girl (the underrated Dylan Moran, who must be seen in Run Fatboy Run); #4: his roommate (Peter Serafinowicz); and finally, #5: his immature best friend (Nick Frost). These are the people that have to die in order for Shaun (Simon Pegg) to devote his full attention to Liz (Kate Ashfield). In real, non-lethal terms, they are the people Shaun has to let go of before he can fully connect in a relationship.
Who hasn't had to deal with one or more of these examples when in love? I don't want to get all psychological about it, especially with the mama's boy stuff, but certainly everybody has had that good friend who has to be compromised somewhat because he or she poses a threat to the relationship. The interesting thing is that Ed doesn't actually have to die, whereas the rest of the threats do. The roommate one is a little less obvious than the others, in the sense that he's just representational of the bachelor pad. And there's probably other characters that can also be considered in the order, such as the bartender, who personifies Shaun's penchant for hanging out in a bar and drinking too much.
Okay, so maybe you don't appreciate the academic dissection approach to the film, but the level is there to think about if you want to. The script is also filled with other gems that similarly involve close attention, yet aren't as analytically nerdy. Much of these bits of genius are revealed in the film's DVD commentary, such as the many references to Romero and Raimi and others. The most genius line, though, is the foreshadowing drinking plan of "a Bloody Mary first thing, a bite at the King's Head, a couple at the Little Princess, stagger back here and bang ... back at the bar for shots." It cleverly plots out the events of the rest of the movie. Also, it's great how, whether intentional or not, Shaun's stepfather, Philip, evokes the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail when insisting that his bite is not that bad ("I ran it under a cold tap").
Of course, there's also simple slapstick comedy like when Shaun slips on the blood in the market. And there's plenty of gross, bloody gore, too. If there weren't a subtext I would surely enjoy the movie for the surface comedy and horror alone. I might even want to watch it a million times, as I do now. But the symbolism and depth of the movie make me appreciate it as a masterpiece.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
10-27-2007 @ 8:20PM
YouFaceTheTick said...
Retro? It's like three years old!
Reply
10-27-2007 @ 10:20PM
CLS said...
Not to quibble, but the brilliant 'Shaun' absolutely has social commentary! The credit sequence plays over shots of regular people going about their days. We see the sleepy-eyed checkout girl (later found in Shaun's backyard) at work, the dopey ogre of a man (besieged by Shaun's record collection) pushing carts, and other disengaged, molasses-moving folks. The whole conceit of 'Shaun' is that no one notices what's going on because a zombie infestation isn't that very far off from the society we already know. This point is reiterated in the end when the world has survived the apocalypse and seamlessly assimilated the zombies into mindless entertainment (game shows and talk shows), mindless jobs (there's that supermarket), and its' (mindless) rock stars are throwing smug benefit concerts with catchy names (Zombie-Aid). The powerful and hungry maw of society's consumerist machine has essentially bested the zombies at their own game, as it has controlled the brains (yes brains!) of its' people for a long, long time. After all, if you can still play video games with your best friend after the 'apocalypse', has anything really changed?
Reply
10-28-2007 @ 9:45AM
brute said...
Nick Frost's character didn't die...he became a zombie version of his best friend. He was kept in the shed at the end and Simon would steal away to play video games with him...
Reply
10-28-2007 @ 1:21PM
Christopher Campbell said...
Good point CLS, and one I've been aware of. I just wasn't addressing it here and shouldn't have said it doesn't have serious social commentary (I meant the social commentary here wasn't serious, but I guess it really is).
And Brute, thanks for correcting. I know Ed doesn't die, and I meant to make that clear in a parenthetical reference that I didn't end up throwing in. I must have been thinking it was clear with the other parenthetical reference "(killed dead, not undead)" but that was a clarification that David is killed dead but is never a zombie -- unless he's a zombie in many parts and we just never see it, but I think we all know he simply becomes food (even for his girlfriend up in the tree).
Reply
10-28-2007 @ 7:07PM
mikull said...
I happened to watch this on television tonight - GREAT movie; however, this movie came out in 2004. It is not "retro" cinema. This is still modern!
I tuned 30 this year and I still consider myself somewhat of a younger guy. Nevertheless, I understand I'm getting to the point in my life where movies I saw in the theater new can be called RETRO by younger folk...
I know retro just means 'retrospective' - or reviewing something in the past; but when you talk about movies, I think a retro reviews deserve at least a 20 year breather before you make us all feel like we're ancient out here in reader land! Dang!
Reply
10-28-2007 @ 8:47PM
Nathan said...
I also validate the social commentary angle. It says a lot about how we live and have become disengaged from neighbours and those around us.
They also seem to cover the seperation of generations, the comment about running the wound under a tap is such an older generation thing to do.
We live in a society that is never short of resources (as long as you are not poor). Philip was probably a child during WWII he would have grown up in the mentality of not complaining about minor issues and to get on with things.
There are many other things that spring to mind about this movie and it's deeper meanings.
It's a modern day classic. One of my favortites of all time and one of the many pieces of evidence that 98% of decent humour comes out of Britain. Other evidence, Good Luck Chuck came out in the last couple of weeks.
Reply
10-29-2007 @ 3:22AM
The Addict said...
Um... Brute, news flash: zombies are not alive. Undead, yes, but the body has in fact died.
Reply