Terry's Reviews
Page
|
||
| Movies | Music | Books |
Book Reviews: |
||
|
The Cinema of George A. Romero –
Knight of the Living Dead Written by Tony Williams Wallflower Press – 2003 |
|
| In the first chapter Tony Williams establishes
where he thinks the George A. Romero’s traditions originated. Williams says that
Romero’s films have a naturalism tied to French writer Emile Zola. Williams lists the
similarities between many of Zola’s novels and Romero’s films. Supposedly Romero
has never read Zola’s work so it’s hard to tell if this theory has any validity.
EC Comics are also singled out as Romero’s inspiration and is without a doubt true.
CREEPSHOW cements this, but you can also see the plotlines and visuals of many Romero
films steeped with EC Comics style of storytelling. The second chapter is all about NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. Williams describes the movie in detail and cross-references the storyline choices with reality and the way Romero uses his camera to give the film a "real life" feel. Williams compares the look of the movie to the news footage from World War Two concentration camps and Vietnam War photography. THERE’S ALWAYS VANILLA is the topic of the third chapter. I’ve never seen the film but from Williams’ description it is a personal drama about the struggle of a man and woman in a difficult relationship. Williams details the social and emotional struggle of the characters and how it relates to Romero’s other films. I learned in chapter four about JACK’S WIFE. Williams’ states that JACK’S WIFE has a circular story involving a wife (Joan) who feels trapped by her confined relationship with her husband (Jack). So Joan turns to witchcraft as an escape, only to get stuck in witchcraft’s regiment. Williams says that Romero continued his consistent critique of a ruthless government establishment in THE CRAZIES. A plane crashes in a small Pennsylvania town releasing a military designed virus Code named Trixie. This storyline obviously predates much of what the world has seen since Romero came up with this idea and in that way, THE CRAZIES was ahead of it’s time. I’d like the see the film though Williams states the acting is uneven and that Romero has stated the film was a rushed and lacks a cohesive structure. Romero has also mentioned that THE CRAZIES was the first time he came close to representing his filmmaking personality. MARTIN is looked at closely in chapter six. I really like how Tony Williams breaks down the main characters and their mental states. William says the character Martin (John Amplas) chooses to live in the modern world (mid-70s) with fantasy imagery derived from the old Universal horror movies, while Tata Cuda (Lincoln Maazel) holds firmly to Old World values involving vampires and family superstition. Both characters stubbornly affirm beliefs which are anachronistic, redundant and bear little relationship to either their real personalities or to the environment which surrounds them. Tony Williams’ essay on DAWN OF THE DEAD is right on the money. Williams correlates how the important social concerns George Romero had been focusing on in all his previous work finally came together on DAWN OF THE DEAD. One of the most thought provoking is Romero’s statement about how living human beings are in many ways are no different than a zombie. One of the things I liked most that Williams’s said was that the only way to stop our social decline is to stop resorting to violence. Williams follows this up by noting that Peter (Ken Foree) lives after relinquishing his weapon. This shows George Romero’s incredible social insight and something the whole world could learn from. KNIGHTRIDERS is summed up rather nicely in the final paragraph of Chapter Eight. KNIGHTRIDERS is a highly personal and sincere film revealing Romero’s utopian ideals in a cinematically allegorical manner. Although flawed by it’s long running time and some over-emphatic dialogue scenes, it is nonetheless one of the director’s major achievements which deserves better recognition. Williams explains the Romero’s use of double meaning with the dialogue and images in CREEPSHOW. Almost every line or action has meaning that has double ramifications and they are all related to Romero’s social and political stance. With this understanding it would be cool to go back and watch the film with this in mind. It was very interesting hearing the story/character details from the original script for DAY OF THE DEAD. There is no doubt if George Romero would have had the opportunity ($6.5 million dollars) that a film from that script would have been astounding. After Romero paired the script down to fit the smaller budget he did so without losing the social & physical meanings of the action within the apocalyptic DAY OF THE DEAD. We are encouraged to look beneath the surface of MONKEY SHINES because Williams notes that there is a lot going on that may not be noticed on the first viewing. MONKEY SHINES may not have the trademark Romero look or feel but Romero elicits strong performances from his actors, as well pulling off a respectable translation of Michael Stewarts’s original novel. Williams summarizes the critical and popular response to MONKEY SHINES made Romero take a few years off. He eventually worked with Dario Argento to make TWO EVIL EYES but something was missing. The last two sentences in Chapter Twelve sum up Romero’s work on THE DARK HALF. "… a product of a studio system now almost exclusively devoted to ‘mindless entertainment’, disavowing important classical and 1970s traditions which made films much more than that. Romero’s retreat from direction since 1992 may represent his recognition of this very factor." In the final chapter Tony Williams concludes that in BRUISER George Romero has realized that less can actually represent more in terms of significant meaning. He also states that it’s too bad most people will never see Romero’s 25-minute advertising documentary THE AMUSEMENT PARK, which was never released. Williams says this film is remarkable and significantly illustrates the real concerns motivating Romero’s role as a director throughout his entire career. What’s really sad is that Williams describes the film as "…far too powerful for American society then and now. It must remain under lock and key never seeing the light of day." |
||
