The Midnight Hour (1985): Going Home to Byron, the Ghosts of High School, and the Halloween Movie I Missed

The Midnight Hour (1985): Going Home to Byron, the Ghosts of High School, and the Halloween Movie I Missed

By Thomas L. Vaultonburg | Zombie Logic Blog

On Friday, November 1, 1985, ABC premiered a made-for-television horror movie called The Midnight Hour. I didn't see it. I was attending a Byron Tigers football game in Byron, Illinois, the little rural community where I grew up. I wouldn't actually see the movie until roughly 2020, thirty-five years after its original broadcast. By then, the world it depicted had disappeared almost completely, and so had the version of myself who would have watched it. But something about the movie immediately transported me back to that particular moment in American history, when Ronald Reagan was president, high school football was one of the organizing principles of small-town life, and being a nerd or a geek meant something considerably different than it does today.

Last Friday, nearly forty-one years after that November night in 1985, I returned to Byron High School for another Tigers football game. It was the first time I'd attended one since that evening. The circumstances were different, of course. I was now 57 years old, the Byron Tigers had become multiple-time Illinois state football champions, and my youngest brother was the school's Activities Director. Because of his position, I had access to the building and an opportunity to explore a place that had once been such a significant part of my life. I even got to put on the tiger mascot head. Because of course I did. If someone offers you the opportunity to become a giant tiger at 57 years old, you don't spend a lot of time debating the philosophical implications.

BYRON, ILLINOIS — OCTOBER 2026

But the experience turned out to be more emotionally complicated than I expected. Returning to the school, walking through the building, and watching the football game brought back memories I hadn't thought about in decades. Some were pleasant, some less so, and some seemed to belong to a person I could barely remember being. What surprised me most was how much the school had changed. I suppose I expected to find something resembling the rural high school I attended in the early 1980s, perhaps with some renovations and new equipment. Instead, I encountered a thoroughly modern facility that seemed almost impossibly advanced compared with the institution I remembered.

The School That Time Didn't Leave Behind

There is a popular conception of small-town America as a place that has been left behind by history. We see it constantly in movies, television, political rhetoric, and nostalgic accounts of the American past. The buildings are aging, the institutions are deteriorating, and the people are supposedly clinging to a way of life that no longer exists. Sometimes that depiction is justified. Plenty of communities have suffered enormously from economic decline, population loss, and the deterioration of their public institutions. But walking through Byron High School, I found something very different.

Everything seemed top of the line. The facilities were modern, the technology was impressive, and the school appeared to have invested substantially in providing its students with resources that would have been unimaginable when I attended. In a country where so much of our public infrastructure seems to be falling apart, it was genuinely encouraging to encounter an institution that appeared to be moving forward rather than backward. Whatever else has changed about America in the past forty years, this particular school had not been standing still.

The scoreboard alone was something to behold. My brother, demonstrating the sort of humor that apparently runs in our family, arranged to have my freshman high school photograph displayed on its enormous video screen. There I was, a 14-year-old boy from Reagan's America, looking out over a football field in 2026. And there I was again, standing beneath it at 57, looking up at a face I hadn't worn in more than four decades.

THEN AND NOW — THE BYRON TIGERS SCOREBOARD

There is something profoundly strange about seeing your younger self projected onto a screen that large. At fourteen, I had very little idea what kind of life I would have, what I would accomplish, what I would survive, or even who I would eventually become. I certainly couldn't have imagined returning to that same football field at 57 and seeing my own freshman photograph towering over the proceedings. The boy in the picture knew nothing about the next forty years. The man looking at him knew quite a bit. For a moment, the distance between us seemed both enormous and almost nonexistent.

And then there was the tiger head.

I don't know exactly what possessed me to put it on, except that I have never been particularly good at resisting opportunities for harmless absurdity. There is something wonderfully liberating about being an adult who no longer feels compelled to maintain an appearance of dignity at all times. At fourteen, I would have worried about what people thought of me. At 57, I was perfectly happy to walk around wearing an enormous tiger head. Perhaps that's progress. Or perhaps I've simply become more comfortable being the person I always was.

The Midnight Hour and the Small-Town America of 1985

Which brings me back to The Midnight Hour, the movie I missed that November evening in 1985. Directed by Jack Bender and written by William Bleich, the film premiered on ABC on Friday, November 1, from 9 to 11 p.m. Eastern. It starred Shari Belafonte, LeVar Burton, Lee Montgomery, Peter DeLuise, Dedee Pfeiffer, Jonna Lee, and several familiar character actors, including Kevin McCarthy, Dick Van Patten, and Kurtwood Smith. It was a made-for-television Halloween horror comedy, the sort of production that once occupied an important place in American popular culture before streaming services, endless cable channels, and the fragmentation of television audiences changed the way we experienced movies.

The story takes place in Pitchford Cove, Massachusetts, a fictional New England town with a history of witchcraft, buried secrets, and the usual collection of teenagers who don't fully appreciate the consequences of meddling with the supernatural. A group of high school friends steals costumes and artifacts from a local museum, discovers an ancient scroll, and unwittingly unleashes a curse that raises the dead. Soon the town is overrun with witches, vampires, zombies, and other creatures who have apparently decided that Halloween is an excellent opportunity to resume their social lives.

On paper, it sounds like a fairly conventional 1980s horror comedy. And in some respects it is. The teenagers are recognizable types, the supernatural mythology is cheerfully ridiculous, and the movie combines horror, comedy, romance, and music without worrying too much about whether all those elements belong together. There is even an elaborate musical number, "Get Dead," performed by Shari Belafonte, which owes a considerable debt to Michael Jackson's Thriller. The movie seems perfectly comfortable interrupting its supernatural apocalypse for a little singing and dancing. I admire that sort of confidence in a production.

But what struck me when I finally watched The Midnight Hour around 2020 wasn't its horror elements or even its peculiar charm as a television movie. It was the atmosphere. The high school students, the Halloween decorations, the houses, the streets, the music, the clothes, the hairstyles, and the social rituals all seemed to belong to a world I recognized immediately. The movie was ostensibly set in New England, but it might just as easily have been set in the small Illinois towns I knew during the early 1980s. It captured something about the emotional geography of that period that I find increasingly difficult to describe to people who didn't experience it.

When Being a Nerd Wasn't a Fashion Statement

One of the things that modern nostalgia for the 1980s tends to overlook is that being a nerd or a geek wasn't necessarily considered desirable. Today, those identities have been absorbed into mainstream culture. Comic books dominate the movie industry, science fiction franchises generate billions of dollars, and people proudly identify themselves as geeks. There is an entire economy built around celebrating interests that once marked people as outsiders. But in the small-town America of my adolescence, those distinctions could carry considerably more social weight.

If you were interested in horror movies, comic books, science fiction, obscure music, or other pursuits that didn't fit comfortably into the prevailing social order, you might find yourself regarded as strange. There were certainly people who shared those interests, but finding them wasn't always easy. There was no internet to connect you with thousands of other people who liked the same things. You had your friends, the local library, whatever appeared on television, and the occasional discovery at a video rental store. The world was smaller in some ways, but it also contained an extraordinary amount of mystery.

Movies like The Midnight Hour understood the importance of high school social hierarchies because those hierarchies were such a dominant feature of teenage life. The athletes, the popular kids, the outsiders, the misfits, and the people who didn't quite belong all occupied recognizable positions. Those categories weren't absolute, and people moved between them, but the distinctions mattered. The idea that a shy or awkward teenager might become the hero of a supernatural adventure carried a certain emotional appeal. It offered the possibility that the qualities that made someone an outsider in ordinary life might become valuable under extraordinary circumstances.

I think that is one reason The Midnight Hour resonated with me so strongly when I finally saw it. It wasn't simply reminding me of the movies I watched as a teenager. It was reminding me of what it felt like to be that teenager.

Phil, Sandy, and the Girl From Another Time

At the center of The Midnight Hour is Phil Grenville, played by Lee Montgomery, a relatively unassuming high school student who becomes involved in the supernatural chaos after his friends awaken an ancient evil. Phil isn't the loudest or most socially dominant member of the group. He is thoughtful, somewhat awkward, and considerably more sympathetic than some of his companions. As the situation deteriorates, he encounters Sandy Matthews, played by Jonna Lee, a mysterious girl dressed as a cheerleader from the 1950s.

Sandy seems to belong to another era, which, as it turns out, she does. She helps Phil understand the supernatural threat and eventually becomes his romantic interest. Their relationship gives the movie an unexpectedly melancholy emotional center. Beneath the monsters, costumes, and musical numbers is a story about two young people separated by time. Phil belongs to the present, Sandy to the past, and their brief connection can exist only because the ordinary rules separating the living from the dead have temporarily been suspended.

This is where I think the movie becomes more interesting than its modest ambitions might suggest. The supernatural premise allows Phil to encounter someone from a vanished world, someone who carries the manners, clothing, and emotional sensibilities of an earlier generation. Their relationship is impossible, but for a few hours it feels completely natural. The past has returned, not as a historical lesson or a collection of artifacts, but as a living presence capable of loving and being loved.

I must confess there was someone I have had a crush on since the third grade I was hoping to see Friday night. I didn't. Perhaps for the best. One happy memory and instance of reclaimed past may have been all i was allotted in this instance

When I watched the movie decades after its original broadcast, I found myself in a situation not entirely unlike Phil's. I was encountering a world that no longer existed, populated by people who looked and behaved like people I had known. The movie itself had become a kind of ghost, a surviving artifact of 1985 that could temporarily restore the atmosphere of a vanished moment. And because I hadn't seen it when it originally aired, it carried none of the specific memories that usually accompany a beloved childhood movie. Instead, it seemed to contain the general atmosphere of an entire period of my life.

I was nostalgic for a movie I had never seen.

The Ghosts of the 1950s Haunting the 1980s

One of the more interesting things about The Midnight Hour is the way it layers different periods of American history. Its central story takes place in the 1980s, but the town is haunted by events from centuries earlier, while Sandy brings the 1950s into the present. The film's soundtrack mixes contemporary sensibilities with older rock and soul music, including recordings associated with Wilson Pickett, Creedence Clearwater Revival, Sam the Sham and the Pharaohs, and Three Dog Night. Wolfman Jack even appears as a radio disc jockey, bringing his distinctive voice and the mythology of American rock-and-roll radio into the proceedings.

This blending of eras was particularly characteristic of the 1980s, a decade that was itself fascinated by the 1950s. Movies like Back to the Future, television shows like Happy Days, and the continued popularity of oldies music reflected a widespread cultural interest in an idealized postwar America. For teenagers growing up in the 1980s, the 1950s seemed impossibly distant, a world of sock hops, diners, letter jackets, and early rock and roll. Yet the adults around us had lived through that period, and its cultural influence remained everywhere.

Now, of course, the 1980s occupy a similar position in the popular imagination. Shows like Stranger Things reconstruct the decade through its clothing, music, technology, suburban landscapes, and adolescent social dynamics. For younger viewers, that world can seem exotic or charmingly primitive. For those of us who lived through it, the experience is more complicated. We recognize the details, but we also remember the things that don't translate easily into nostalgia: the anxieties, the social pressures, the loneliness, and the uncertainty of being young in a world that seemed to have already decided what kind of person you were supposed to become.

A Halloween Movie That Understands the Meaning of Halloween

Halloween is a holiday built around the temporary collapse of boundaries. The living dress as the dead. Children become monsters. Ordinary neighborhoods become landscapes of imagined danger. People disguise themselves, adopt different identities, and briefly participate in a world where the usual rules no longer apply. The Midnight Hour takes that premise literally. When the dead rise from their graves, they enter a town already populated by people pretending to be supernatural creatures. For a while, nobody can distinguish the real monsters from the costumed partygoers.

There is a clever observation about appearances buried beneath the movie's comedy. Halloween allows people to become something other than themselves, but it also makes it difficult to recognize what anyone actually is. The undead blend into the festivities because the living have already disguised themselves as the dead. The boundary between reality and performance disappears. It is an idea that could have supported a much darker film, but The Midnight Hour is more interested in having fun with it.

The movie's relatively gentle tone is part of its appeal. This is not George Romero's vision of the apocalypse, with its dismemberments, social collapse, and increasingly hopeless assessment of human nature. The Midnight Hour belongs to a different tradition, one in which monsters can be frightening without becoming unbearable and the supernatural can be dangerous without eliminating the possibility of romance, humor, or redemption. It is a Halloween movie in the old-fashioned sense, designed to be enjoyed as part of the holiday rather than endured as an exercise in terror.

And yet its ending is genuinely bittersweet. Phil succeeds in reversing the curse, but doing so means losing Sandy, whose temporary return to the living world must come to an end. The supernatural adventure concludes, ordinary life resumes, and the past retreats to wherever it belongs. The final radio dedication suggests that their connection has not been entirely erased, but it cannot continue in the ordinary world. Phil has experienced something extraordinary, and now he must live with the memory.

That seems to me a remarkably appropriate ending for a movie about Halloween, and perhaps for a movie about nostalgia as well. The past can visit us. It cannot stay.

Returning to the Scene of the Memory

I've heard psychologists discuss the idea that returning to a place associated with difficult experiences and creating new, positive memories there can help change our emotional relationship with the past. I don't know how universally applicable that principle is, and I wouldn't suggest that a single pleasant afternoon can erase everything that happened decades earlier. But I do think there is something to it. Places acquire emotional significance through the things that happen to us there, and sometimes those associations remain long after the circumstances that produced them have disappeared.

My years at Byron High School were certainly not all negative. Far from it. There were friendships, discoveries, experiences, and moments of genuine happiness that I wouldn't trade for anything. But adolescence is a difficult period under even the best circumstances, and I was no exception. Like many teenagers, I spent a considerable amount of time trying to understand where I belonged, what other people expected of me, and how much of myself I was willing to surrender in order to fit in. Some of those questions followed me long after I graduated.

Returning to Byron High School at 57 gave me an opportunity to experience the place without those old pressures. I wasn't a student anymore. I wasn't trying to impress anyone, avoid anyone, or negotiate my position in the complicated social hierarchy of a small-town high school. I was simply a visitor, enjoying a football game, spending time with my brother, and exploring a building that had once occupied such a large part of my world. The experience was unexpectedly liberating.

Forty-one years after my last Byron Tigers football game, I finally got to wear the tiger head.

And perhaps the most encouraging thing was discovering that the school itself had continued to evolve. The students attending Byron High School today inhabit a world radically different from the one I knew. They have access to technology, facilities, and opportunities that would have seemed almost futuristic to us. The football program has achieved extraordinary success, and the institution appears to have developed a confidence and ambition that reflect those accomplishments. Whatever difficulties contemporary America may be experiencing, there are still places where people are building things, improving institutions, and giving young people reasons to believe in the future.

It would be easy to romanticize the school I attended in the 1980s, just as it would be easy to romanticize the decade itself. But nostalgia can become a trap when it convinces us that everything worthwhile happened in the past. The Byron High School I visited in 2026 wasn't a diminished version of the one I remembered. In many respects, it was a better one. That seems worth celebrating.

The Boy on the Scoreboard

Of everything that happened during my visit, the image of my freshman photograph on the scoreboard will probably stay with me the longest. There was something simultaneously ridiculous and moving about seeing that face displayed above the football field. My brother had intended it as a joke, and it was a good one. But it also produced an unexpected moment of recognition.

My brother put my freshman photograph on the Byron Tigers scoreboard. Fourteen years old again, at least for a moment.

I was looking at a boy who hadn't yet encountered most of the experiences that would define his life. He didn't know the people he would meet, the books he would write, the places he would go, or the things he would lose. He was living in a small Illinois town during the Reagan administration, surrounded by the particular cultural atmosphere of the early 1980s. He liked strange movies, unusual ideas, and things that didn't always make sense to the people around him. He was trying to figure out how to become himself.

I suppose I could tell him that everything would work out, but that wouldn't be entirely accurate. Some things worked out. Some didn't. There were successes, disappointments, unexpected turns, and experiences I never could have anticipated. But I could tell him that he would eventually reach an age when he no longer felt obligated to apologize for being interested in the things that interested him. And that one day he would return to the same football field, see his picture on an enormous scoreboard, and put on a tiger mascot head simply because the opportunity presented itself.

I think he would have liked that.

The Midnight Hour and the Strange Business of Going Home

The more I think about The Midnight Hour, the more appropriate it seems that I missed its original broadcast because I was attending a high school football game. The movie is about teenagers in a small town, the persistence of the past, and the strange ways people from different periods can briefly encounter one another. Its central romance involves a boy from the 1980s and a girl from the 1950s, two people whose lives ordinarily could never have intersected. Their meeting is possible only because Halloween has temporarily suspended the usual boundaries between past and present.

My return to Byron High School wasn't quite so supernatural, although seeing my fourteen-year-old face towering over the football field came close. But it produced a similar sensation of different periods of my life occupying the same space. The boy from 1985 and the man from 2026 were both present in some peculiar way, separated by forty-one years but connected by a place that had survived us both.

When I finally watched The Midnight Hour around 2020, I had no idea that I would eventually return to Byron High School and attend another football game. I certainly didn't know that my brother would put my freshman photograph on the scoreboard or that I would end up wearing the mascot head. But those experiences now seem inseparable from the movie. The fictional town of Pitchford Cove and the very real town of Byron, Illinois, have become connected in my memory, along with dozens of other movies, television programs, songs, and experiences from that period.

This is one of the things I find most fascinating about popular culture. A movie doesn't have to be a masterpiece to become meaningful. Sometimes its importance has less to do with its artistic accomplishments than with the memories and associations it awakens. The Midnight Hour is an entertaining, occasionally silly, unexpectedly touching made-for-television horror movie. I wouldn't place it alongside Romero's original Living Dead trilogy as a major achievement in horror cinema. But it accomplishes something that many more ambitious films cannot. It preserves the atmosphere of a particular time and place so effectively that watching it can feel like visiting a world that has disappeared.

And in my case, it preserved a world I was actually living in on the night it premiered, even though I wasn't watching.

Forty-One Years Later

There is a temptation, as we get older, to imagine that the past was somehow more authentic than the present. The music was better, the movies were better, the communities were closer, and people understood things that subsequent generations have forgotten. I don't entirely subscribe to that view. There were wonderful things about growing up in the 1980s, but there were also plenty of things I wouldn't care to experience again. The world was smaller, and that could be both comforting and suffocating. Being different could be difficult. Information was harder to find. Opportunities were limited by geography, circumstance, and the expectations of the people around you.

But I wouldn't trade my experience of growing up in that world for anything. The isolation encouraged curiosity. The scarcity of information made discoveries feel important. The absence of an enormous online community meant that finding someone who shared your interests could feel like a minor miracle. Movies, books, records, and television programs weren't simply entertainment. They were ways of discovering that other people, somewhere beyond the boundaries of your little town, might see the world the way you did.

That's what movies like The Midnight Hour represent to me now. Not simply a collection of familiar hairstyles, clothes, songs, and cultural references, but an entire way of experiencing the world. A world in which a teenager might spend Friday night at a football game, come home to a house with a handful of television channels, and have no idea that a Halloween movie was being broadcast that he wouldn't discover for another thirty-five years.

And somehow, forty-one years later, that same teenager could return to the same football field, stand beneath an enormous photograph of his younger self, and discover that the place he remembered had become something new.

Maybe that's the real lesson of The Midnight Hour. The past isn't something we can permanently recover, and perhaps we shouldn't want to. We can visit it through memories, movies, photographs, music, and the occasional return to a place that once mattered to us. We can acknowledge the things that hurt, appreciate the things that were wonderful, and recognize that the people we used to be are still part of us, even when we barely recognize their faces.

And sometimes we can make new memories in old places.

On November 1, 1985, I attended a Byron Tigers football game instead of watching The Midnight Hour. On October 9, 2026, I returned to Byron High School for another football game, almost forty-one years later. Somewhere between those two evenings, I grew up, got older, wrote some books, watched an enormous number of horror movies, and eventually discovered the peculiar little Halloween film I had missed.

I also learned that you can go home again, although the home you return to may be very different from the one you left.

And if somebody offers you a tiger mascot head, put it on.

You never know when you'll get another chance.

Pin It

 

Day of the Dead (1985): The Entropy of Communication and the End of the Human Race

By Thomas L. Vaultonburg | Zombie Logic Blog | Day 3

I first encountered George A. Romero's Day of the Dead in 1986, sitting on a shelf in the little video rental section of Cacciatore's Food Mart in Byron, Illinois. It had probably been about a year since the movie's theatrical release. I was already a devoted fan of Romero's zombie movies, having discovered Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead, and naturally I was eager to see the third installment. I don't remember exactly what I expected, but I remember being disappointed. It wasn't that the zombies weren't convincing. They were spectacular. Tom Savini's makeup effects represented an enormous advancement in the depiction of the living dead. The violence was more graphic, the decomposition more convincing, and the zombies themselves more horrifying than anything Romero had previously put on film. But the movie seemed to consist mostly of people screaming at each other.

Everybody was angry. Everybody was frustrated. Nobody seemed capable of having a conversation without threatening somebody else. The soldiers hated the scientists. The scientists regarded the soldiers with contempt. Everybody was trapped underground, everybody was miserable, and nobody seemed particularly interested in doing anything about it. I didn't get it. For years afterward, I continued to regard Day of the Dead as the weakest of Romero's original trilogy. Night was a masterpiece of claustrophobic horror. Dawn was a brilliant satire of American consumer culture. Day seemed like an unpleasant experience populated by unpleasant people. It took me a long time to understand that this was precisely what Romero intended. The movie wasn't failing to communicate its ideas. It was a movie about the failure of communication itself.

The Entropy of Communication

Entropy, in its simplest thermodynamic sense, concerns the dispersal of energy and the tendency of systems toward equilibrium. Applied metaphorically to human communication, it provides an interesting way of understanding what happens when information, meaning, and cooperation break down. People continue talking, but less and less information is successfully exchanged. Eventually communication becomes little more than noise. That is the world Romero depicts in Day of the Dead. The survivors have retreated into an underground military installation, where a small contingent of soldiers and scientists attempts to maintain some semblance of civilization while the dead have inherited the surface of the Earth.

They have weapons, scientific equipment, food, electricity, and a relatively secure shelter. They possess nearly everything necessary to survive except the ability to cooperate. Every conversation becomes an argument. Every argument becomes a contest of authority. Every contest of authority becomes another opportunity for violence. The characters aren't listening to one another because they aren't really trying to communicate. They're trying to impose their individual understanding of reality on everyone else. The remarkable thing is that nearly everyone believes he or she is acting rationally. The scientists believe scientific investigation might eventually provide a solution. The soldiers believe maintaining order and exercising force are the only realistic means of survival. Sarah believes cooperation remains possible. Captain Rhodes believes his authority entitles him to obedience.

They aren't merely disagreeing about tactics. They're operating from fundamentally incompatible definitions of what it means to survive. And every attempt to resolve those differences makes the situation worse. The underground facility is a closed system, and the people inside are consuming its remaining reserves of trust, patience, and goodwill faster than they can replenish them. By the time the zombies arrive, the human community has already disintegrated.

The Line That Explains the Movie

For me, the key to understanding Day of the Dead eventually came from John, the helicopter pilot played by Terry Alexander. Sarah is still attempting to convince the survivors that cooperation might save them. She believes that if everyone could set aside their differences, the group might accomplish something worthwhile. John understands the problem more clearly. He tells her, "That's the trouble with the world, Sarah darlin'. People got different ideas concernin' what they want out of life." It took me years to recognize that this might be the thesis statement of the entire movie.

Not everyone wants the same things. Not everyone shares the same values. Not everyone defines progress, success, freedom, or even survival in the same way. And people are remarkably reluctant to acknowledge that other people might have legitimate reasons for wanting something different. Sarah wants to save humanity. Rhodes wants to control what remains of it. Dr. Logan wants to understand the zombies. John wants to escape the entire miserable enterprise and live whatever life remains available to him. They are all using the language of survival, but they are describing completely different objectives. John has stopped believing that the problem can be solved through further discussion. He isn't necessarily the most intelligent character in the movie, but he may be the wisest. He has recognized that the greatest danger facing humanity isn't the walking dead. It's humanity's inability to live with itself.

Captain Rhodes and the Failure of Authority

Joseph Pilato's Captain Rhodes is one of the most memorable antagonists in the history of zombie cinema. He is also one of its loudest. Rhodes screams, threatens, humiliates, and intimidates nearly everyone around him. He demands respect without earning it and expects obedience without demonstrating competence. At first glance, he seems like an exaggerated caricature of military authoritarianism. But Romero is doing something more interesting than simply portraying a bad soldier. Rhodes represents authority that has become disconnected from its original purpose. The military exists, ostensibly, to protect the surviving community. But Rhodes has transformed that responsibility into a justification for maintaining his own power. The survival of the group has become secondary to the preservation of his command.

This is a recurring phenomenon in human institutions. Organizations created to accomplish some beneficial purpose eventually become more concerned with protecting their authority, reputation, and internal hierarchy than with fulfilling their original mission. Rhodes cannot tolerate disagreement because disagreement threatens his conception of himself as the person in charge. He has confused being obeyed with being right. His soldiers, meanwhile, are not particularly interested in the scientific mission. They want security, comfort, and the assurance that their sacrifices have some meaning. The scientists cannot provide that assurance. Rhodes responds by increasing the pressure, and the more pressure he applies, the less cooperation he receives. It is an almost perfect illustration of how authoritarian systems can accelerate their own collapse.

Dr. Logan, Bub, and the Question of What Makes Us Human

One of the most extraordinary elements of Day of the Dead is the relationship between Dr. Matthew Logan, played by Richard Liberty, and a zombie named Bub, played by Sherman Howard. Logan believes the undead can be conditioned to recover certain aspects of their former behavior. Through repeated exposure to familiar objects and carefully structured rewards, he attempts to demonstrate that memory and learned responses persist after death. Bub responds to a telephone, a book, a razor, and eventually a firearm. He is learning. Or perhaps he is remembering. Either possibility is disturbing.

Romero has gradually been developing the idea that zombies are not entirely separate from the human beings they once were. In Dawn of the Dead, the undead return to the shopping mall because something about the place remains embedded in their memories. In Day, that residual humanity becomes the center of an experiment. But Logan's research contains a terrible irony. While he attempts to teach a zombie to behave like a civilized human being, the supposedly civilized human beings around him are becoming increasingly savage. Bub demonstrates curiosity, attachment, memory, and eventually grief. Rhodes demonstrates rage, cruelty, and an almost complete inability to regulate his impulses. Which one is more human? Romero doesn't offer a comforting answer.

Logan himself is hardly an uncomplicated hero. His experiments are ethically grotesque, and his obsession with scientific discovery has compromised his judgment. He believes he is pursuing knowledge that might benefit humanity, but he has become increasingly indifferent to the humanity of the people around him. Science, like military authority, has become detached from its moral purpose. The tragedy is that Logan may actually have discovered something important. But nobody is capable of communicating long enough to understand what it means.

The Zombies Are Learning While the Humans Are Forgetting

Perhaps the most fascinating reversal in Day of the Dead is that the zombies appear to be moving toward a rudimentary form of civilization while the humans are moving away from it. Bub learns to recognize objects, respond to instructions, form attachments, and distinguish between individuals. The human survivors are losing their capacity for restraint, cooperation, empathy, and meaningful communication. The evolutionary trajectories seem to be crossing. This is one of Romero's most subversive ideas. The zombies aren't simply a threat to civilization. They may be civilization's successors.

They are patient. They are persistent. They do not waste energy arguing over status or ideology. Their motivations are primitive, but at least they are comprehensible. The humans possess language, reason, technology, and historical knowledge, yet they are unable to organize themselves around a common purpose. Bub, the supposedly mindless creature, eventually demonstrates something resembling loyalty. Rhodes, the supposed defender of human civilization, demonstrates almost nothing beyond his capacity for violence. Romero has turned the distinction between human and monster inside out.

The Reagan Era and the Militarization of Survival

Released in 1985, Day of the Dead emerged during the second term of Ronald Reagan's presidency, when Cold War tensions, military spending, nuclear anxiety, and ideological confrontation were prominent features of American political life. Romero's underground military installation is not an accidental setting. The survivors have retreated into the machinery of a civilization organized around the possibility of annihilation. They are surrounded by equipment designed to preserve military capability, maintain records, and prepare for catastrophe. But the catastrophe has already happened. The machinery remains. The institutions remain. The titles and ranks remain. The civilization that gave those things meaning is gone.

Yet the survivors continue behaving as though the old structures of authority still possess some inherent legitimacy. Rhodes insists on military discipline. The scientists continue their experiments. Everyone clings to the procedures and hierarchies of a world that no longer exists. It is difficult not to see this as a criticism of institutions that become incapable of recognizing when their original assumptions have ceased to apply. The world has ended, and the people entrusted with managing the aftermath are still fighting over who gets to run the meeting.

Sarah and the Burden of Being Reasonable

Lori Cardille's Sarah is the moral and emotional center of the movie. She is intelligent, resourceful, compassionate, and determined to preserve some possibility of a future. She also spends much of the film attempting to reason with people who have no interest in being reasonable. Her predicament is familiar to anyone who has ever tried to resolve a conflict between people who are more invested in winning than in finding a solution. Sarah believes that cooperation is necessary because the alternative is extinction. She is correct. But being correct does not make her persuasive.

This is another of Romero's uncomfortable observations. Truth does not automatically prevail over anger. Reason does not automatically overcome fear. Evidence does not necessarily change minds. Sometimes the people with the most reasonable arguments are the least capable of influencing the outcome. Sarah's frustration becomes the audience's frustration. We want someone to listen to her. We want someone to recognize the obvious danger. We want the survivors to stop behaving like idiots long enough to save themselves. But they don't. And perhaps that is why the movie initially feels so unpleasant. Romero is forcing us to watch people destroy themselves through behaviors we recognize from ordinary life.

The Underground Bunker as a Tomb

The setting of Day of the Dead is one of its most effective visual metaphors. In Night of the Living Dead, the survivors barricade themselves inside a farmhouse. In Dawn of the Dead, they occupy a shopping mall. In Day of the Dead, they retreat underground. Each location reflects a different stage in the collapse of civilization. The farmhouse represents domestic security. The shopping mall represents consumer abundance. The underground bunker represents institutional preservation. By the third film, humanity is no longer attempting to maintain its ordinary way of life. It is attempting to preserve the remains of a civilization that has already died.

The bunker resembles a tomb. Its inhabitants live among records, machinery, supplies, and artifacts of the vanished world. They are surrounded by evidence of human accomplishment but increasingly incapable of reproducing the social relationships that made those accomplishments possible. They are preserving the body of civilization after its spirit has departed. The zombies aboveground may be dead, but at least they are moving freely. The humans have buried themselves alive.

John, McDermott, and the Possibility of Escape

Against the relentless hostility of the bunker, John and Bill McDermott provide something approaching an alternative philosophy. They are not particularly interested in saving the old world. They want to find somewhere peaceful and live. John's outlook is sometimes interpreted as resignation, but I think it is closer to an acceptance of human limitations. He understands that not every problem can be solved, not every institution can be repaired, and not every person can be persuaded. He recognizes that continuing to participate in a destructive system can become a form of self-destruction.

There is something almost Zen-like about his position. Stop trying to control everything. Stop believing that every question requires an answer. Stop sacrificing the present to preserve a system that has already failed. The possibility of a simpler life becomes more appealing than the fantasy of restoring civilization. And John is not merely advocating selfishness. His friendship with McDermott and his eventual willingness to help Sarah demonstrate that he remains capable of loyalty and compassion. He simply refuses to confuse those qualities with an obligation to save everyone from themselves.

Why Critics Rejected Day of the Dead

When Day of the Dead arrived in theaters in 1985, it faced an almost impossible burden of expectation. Night of the Living Dead had revolutionized horror filmmaking. Dawn of the Dead had expanded Romero's mythology while delivering a savage and entertaining satire of American consumerism. Audiences expected another leap forward. Instead, Romero delivered a grim, claustrophobic film in which the principal attraction seemed to be watching people argue in a basement. Roger Ebert gave the film one and a half stars, praising the special effects but criticizing the performances and incessant shouting. He concluded that Romero should abandon the series while he was still ahead.

Other reviewers expressed similar frustrations. The film's extended arguments, limited setting, and overwhelmingly hostile atmosphere made it difficult to enjoy in the conventional sense. Commercially, it was also perceived as a disappointment compared with Dawn. Its domestic theatrical performance was modest, although subsequent international distribution and home-video revenue complicate the idea that it was an outright financial failure. The production itself had been compromised by budget limitations. Romero's original ambitions were considerably larger, but he scaled down the screenplay to preserve the graphic violence he considered essential. The result was a smaller, more concentrated, and arguably more philosophical movie.

The same year brought The Return of the Living Dead, a faster, funnier, punk-inflected zombie movie that offered audiences a very different kind of entertainment. I saw both films around the same period. Return was immediately accessible to me. Its humor, music, characters, and anarchic energy made an immediate impression. Day required something I didn't yet possess. Patience. And perhaps a little more experience with human beings.

The Rehabilitation of a Misunderstood Film

Over the following decades, Day of the Dead underwent a substantial critical reevaluation. As viewers returned to the movie, many began recognizing qualities that had initially been dismissed as defects. The claustrophobia was intentional. The unpleasantness was thematic. The arguments were not interruptions of the story but the mechanism through which the story unfolded. Romero had made a movie about the exhaustion of civilization. Its characters were supposed to be exhausting.

The film's extraordinary practical effects also helped sustain its reputation. Tom Savini and his collaborators created some of the most convincing and memorable zombie imagery ever committed to film. But the movie's lasting significance extends beyond its technical achievements. It is now frequently discussed alongside Night and Dawn as an essential part of Romero's original trilogy, and some critics and fans consider it his most philosophically ambitious zombie film. That doesn't mean everyone has come to love it. Its reception remains more divided than that of its predecessors. But the conversation has changed.

What once seemed like a disappointing sequel can now be understood as the logical culmination of Romero's argument about humanity. Night showed people failing to cooperate in the face of an immediate threat. Dawn showed people attempting to recreate consumer society after its collapse. Day showed people who could no longer even agree on what civilization was supposed to be. The progression is devastating.

The End of the World Is a Communication Problem

Looking back on Day of the Dead now, I find myself returning to that line from John. People have different ideas about what they want out of life. It sounds almost ridiculously simple. But the implications are enormous. We tend to assume that if people possessed the same information, they would eventually arrive at the same conclusions. We imagine that disagreements are caused by ignorance, misinformation, or failures of explanation. Sometimes they are. But sometimes people understand one another perfectly well and simply want incompatible things.

One person wants power. Another wants security. Another wants knowledge. Another wants freedom. Another wants recognition. Another wants to be left alone. Communication cannot resolve every conflict because not every conflict is the result of misunderstanding. Sometimes the problem is that people understand one another and refuse to accept what they hear. This is the deeper horror of Day of the Dead. The survivors aren't doomed because they lack intelligence or resources. They are doomed because they cannot reconcile their competing desires. Their language has become an instrument of domination rather than understanding. Their institutions have become mechanisms for preserving authority rather than serving human needs. Their knowledge has become disconnected from wisdom. The zombies merely finish what the humans have already begun.

The Movie I Wasn't Ready to Understand

When I picked up Day of the Dead from the video shelves at Cacciatore's Food Mart in 1986, I wanted another great zombie movie. I wanted the terror of Night of the Living Dead and the exhilarating social satire of Dawn of the Dead. Instead, I got a movie about people who couldn't stop arguing long enough to recognize that their world was ending. I thought it was tedious. I thought the characters were obnoxious. I thought Romero had somehow lost his touch.

Nearly forty years later, I see something very different. I see a filmmaker who had followed his central idea to its most disturbing conclusion. The living dead were never really the problem. They were a device for revealing the problem. And the problem was us. Not our hunger, exactly. Not our violence, although certainly that. Not even our stupidity. Our inability to understand that other people have different ideas about what they want out of life, and our willingness to destroy everything around us rather than accept that fact.

I can imagine that teenage version of myself standing in Cacciatore's Food Mart, studying the box and wondering whether the movie would be as good as the first two. I wish I could tell him that it was. He just wasn't ready for it yet. Because the older I get, the more I recognize the world Romero was describing.

Everybody talking. Nobody listening. And somewhere beyond the walls, the dead are gathering.

At least they seem to know what they want.

Pin It

 

The Return of the Living Dead (1985): The Night Zombies Learned to Run

October Horror Movie Retrospective — Day 2

By Thomas L. Vaultonburg

In the summer of 1985, I drove my ivory-white 1976 Pontiac Grand Prix to CherryVale Mall outside Rockford, Illinois, to see a movie called The Return of the Living Dead. It was the first movie I had ever driven myself to see alone, which probably tells you something about the importance I placed on seeing it. I don't remember the exact date, but I remember the heat. It was one of those rare Northern Illinois summer days when the temperature approached 100 degrees. Inside the theater, the air conditioning was running so aggressively that I was freezing. There were six other people in the audience. Seven of us, sitting in the dark, about to witness a significant mutation in the history of the American horror film.

Return of the Living Dead 1985

I had already become something of a zombie movie fanatic. Growing up in Byron, Illinois, I had rented George A. Romero's original three zombie films from the tiny video department at Cacciatore's Food Mart. There was no internet, no streaming service, and certainly no comprehensive library of obscure horror films available at the touch of a button. You watched what you could find. Sometimes that meant renting the same movies repeatedly, studying their details, and imagining what else might be out there. Romero's films had established the rules of the genre for me, and I had come to understand the living dead as slow, relentless creatures whose greatest advantage was their sheer numbers.

Then Dan O'Bannon came along and changed the rules.

The zombies in The Return of the Living Dead didn't merely shuffle toward their victims. They ran. They lunged. They demonstrated intelligence, coordination, and an alarming capacity for problem-solving. You couldn't simply walk around them or barricade yourself somewhere and wait for them to lose interest. These things could catch you. Worse, they seemed to enjoy doing it. I later learned that Umberto Lenzi's Nightmare City (1980) had already featured fast-moving infected attackers, although whether those creatures qualify as traditional zombies remains debatable. But I hadn't seen that movie in 1985. For me, this was the first time the dead had demonstrated that they could outrun the living.

Nightmare City 1980 is probably the first time zombies moved fast

And it was terrifying.

Today, The Return of the Living Dead is generally remembered as a horror comedy, a delirious combination of punk rock, grotesque practical effects, black humor, and adolescent rebellion. All of those descriptions are accurate. But they can obscure something essential about the experience of seeing the movie when it was new. It was legitimately frightening. The comedy didn't cancel out the horror. If anything, it made the horror more disturbing, because the movie refused to maintain a comfortable distinction between what was funny and what was dreadful.

The Other Living Dead

To understand why The Return of the Living Dead was such a radical departure, it's worth examining its peculiar relationship to George Romero's original Night of the Living Dead (1968). John A. Russo, who co-wrote the original film with Romero, was involved in developing the project that eventually became Return. Following the division of creative interests between Romero and Russo, Romero continued making his own Dead films, while Russo pursued the Living Dead name. The result was not a conventional sequel but an entirely different branch of zombie cinema.

The project underwent a lengthy development process before Dan O'Bannon, already known for his work on Alien (1979) and Dark Star (1974), wrote and directed the finished film. Released by Orion Pictures on August 16, 1985, it arrived just weeks after Romero's Day of the Dead. Two remarkably different visions of the zombie apocalypse appeared in American theaters during the same summer.

O'Bannon's cleverest narrative decision was to acknowledge Romero's original movie within the fictional universe of Return. The characters know about Night of the Living Dead. They've seen it. They believe it was based on an actual incident that the government subsequently concealed. Unfortunately, the movie got certain details wrong.

This conceit accomplishes several things simultaneously. It pays tribute to Romero, gives the audience a familiar reference point, and establishes that everything we think we know about zombies may be dangerously inaccurate. Shooting them in the head doesn't work. Dismemberment doesn't work. Burning the bodies creates an even larger problem by spreading the chemical contamination through the atmosphere.

In Romero's universe, the living dead are nearly impossible to stop because there are so many of them. In O'Bannon's universe, they're nearly impossible to stop because practically nothing kills them.

That's a significant escalation.

Punk Rock Comes to the Cemetery

Another thing I remember vividly about that first viewing was the punk rockers. Growing up in Byron, Illinois, I had never encountered people who looked or behaved like the characters in The Return of the Living Dead. Their clothing, hairstyles, music, language, and general disregard for conventional behavior seemed to come from another planet. They represented a subculture that might as well have been science fiction to a teenager living in a small Midwestern town.

There were no punks in Byron, Illinois in 1985

The characters gather in a cemetery near a medical supply warehouse, where an unfortunate industrial accident has released a military chemical known as 2-4-5 Trioxin. Among the group are Suicide, Trash, Spider, Scuz, Casey, Chuck, and Tina, a collection of young people who look as though they wandered into the film from a Los Angeles punk club. Their presence transforms what might otherwise have been a relatively conventional monster movie into a collision between several different American subcultures.

The adults are warehouse workers, businessmen, and mortuary employees. They represent employment, responsibility, property, and the institutional world. The young people represent music, sexuality, rebellion, and the refusal to take any of those institutions seriously. Neither group is particularly well equipped to handle the arrival of the living dead.

One of the movie's great achievements is that it doesn't treat the punk characters simply as disposable victims, even though some of them eventually become exactly that. They have personalities, loyalties, disagreements, and recognizable human vulnerabilities. Suicide, played by Mark Venturini, initially appears to be an intimidating caricature, but he also demonstrates a desire to protect his friends. Spider, played by Miguel A. Núñez Jr., becomes one of the film's most resourceful survivors. And Linnea Quigley's Trash has become one of the most recognizable figures in 1980s horror cinema.

For someone encountering punk culture for the first time, the movie was an introduction to an entirely unfamiliar aesthetic. The music was aggressive, the clothing deliberately confrontational, and the characters seemed almost as alien to me as the zombies themselves. Looking back, that collision of cultural worlds was one of the reasons the movie made such a lasting impression.

The Soundtrack of the Apocalypse

The soundtrack deserves special attention because it isn't simply background music. It's part of the movie's identity. The Cramps, 45 Grave, T.S.O.L., The Damned, The Flesh Eaters, and Roky Erickson contributed to a musical landscape that was considerably different from the orchestral scores or synthesizer soundtracks generally associated with horror movies of the period.

The Cramps' "Surfin' Dead" captures the film's combination of rock-and-roll absurdity and morbid fascination. 45 Grave's "Partytime" accompanies one of the movie's most memorable sequences, while Roky Erickson's "Burn the Flames" provides an unexpectedly haunting atmosphere. The soundtrack moves between punk, deathrock, psychobilly, and horror-inflected rock without ever sounding like a random collection of licensed songs.

The Cramps Surfin' Dead

This was one of the earliest horror movies I encountered in which the music and the monsters seemed to belong to the same cultural universe. The soundtrack wasn't there merely to frighten the audience. It was there to establish an attitude toward death, authority, and the absurdity of human existence.

It was music for people who already suspected that civilization was a joke.

Send More Paramedics

One of the film's most famous sequences involves a zombie using a police radio to request additional officers after the first responders have been killed. The same principle applies to the unfortunate paramedics who arrive expecting to treat an ordinary medical emergency. The zombies aren't simply hungry animals reacting to movement. They understand how human institutions function and can manipulate those institutions to obtain more victims.

Send more cops.

This is one of the movie's genuinely disturbing innovations. The living dead retain enough intelligence to exploit the habits and assumptions of the living. They know that when someone calls for help, help will probably arrive. And they know that the people who respond will be relatively easy to ambush.

The joke is funny because it's so grotesquely inappropriate. The horror is effective because it reveals that the zombies are capable of planning.

The film repeatedly uses comedy in this fashion. James Karen's Frank and Thom Mathews's Freddy begin the disaster through an act of workplace foolishness, accidentally releasing Trioxin while showing off a supposedly secure military container. Their escalating panic provides some of the movie's funniest moments, but their predicament gradually becomes one of its most disturbing elements.

They aren't heroic survivors trying to rescue humanity. They're two ordinary working men who made a terrible mistake and have absolutely no idea how to correct it.

As their exposure to the chemical begins transforming them, the movie shifts from slapstick toward body horror. Their bodies deteriorate, their vital signs disappear, and they gradually confront the possibility that they are already dead. The sequence in which Freddy realizes what is happening to him is particularly effective because it turns the familiar zombie transformation into a conscious experience.

He knows what's happening.

And he can't stop it.

The Most Frightening Zombie in the Movie

For all the movie's punk-rock excesses and dark humor, its most enduring monster may be the creature generally known as Tarman. Emerging from a contaminated military container, Tarman appears to be a decomposing human body held together by little more than black sludge, tendons, and malicious determination.

Unlike the relatively fresh corpses that populated many earlier zombie films, Tarman looks as though death has been working on him for a very long time. His skin hangs from his bones, his movements are grotesquely exaggerated, and his exposed teeth seem permanently fixed in an expression of predatory excitement.

The character was performed by Allan Trautman, and his appearance remains a remarkable example of the effectiveness of practical creature effects. William Stout's production design and the film's makeup-effects artists, including William Munns and Tony Gardner, helped establish a physical world that feels appropriately filthy, decayed, and unpleasant.

Tarman is frightening partly because he seems almost playful. There is something horribly enthusiastic about his pursuit of the living. He doesn't behave like a suffering victim or a mindless organism. He behaves like a creature delighted to have discovered something edible.

And what he wants, of course, is brains.

Why the Zombies Eat Brains

Perhaps the film's most enduring contribution to popular culture is the idea that zombies specifically crave human brains. Although the living dead had been eating human flesh in earlier films, the brain-specific appetite became so closely associated with zombies that many people now assume it was always part of the mythology.

It wasn't.

O'Bannon's movie helped establish the convention, and its explanation is more disturbing than the joke that eventually grew around it. When the surviving characters interrogate a captured female zombie, they discover that the dead remain conscious of their own decomposition. They experience the agony of being dead, and consuming living brains temporarily relieves that pain.

Think about the implications.

These creatures aren't simply monsters driven by appetite. They're suffering beings attempting to escape an unbearable condition. Their violence is motivated by a desire for relief. They kill because existence has become intolerable, and the only available anesthetic is the destruction of someone else's life.

That is a remarkably bleak philosophical proposition for a movie often remembered primarily for its jokes and punk-rock soundtrack.

Romero's zombies can be interpreted as embodiments of consumerism, social conformity, and humanity's inability to escape its own destructive instincts. O'Bannon's zombies are something different. They are conscious sufferers trapped in bodies that will not stop decaying.

Death has not liberated them from pain.

It has made pain permanent.

The movie's comedy becomes considerably darker when viewed through that interpretation. The zombies are not particularly interested in conquering the world or establishing some new social order. They simply want the suffering to stop.

And they will do absolutely anything to make that happen.

The End of the World Is Not a Happy Ending

One of the reasons The Return of the Living Dead has endured is its refusal to provide the audience with a reassuring conclusion. In most conventional horror movies, the survivors eventually discover some weakness in the monster, defeat the immediate threat, and escape to tell the story. Even Romero's bleakest films generally leave open the possibility that humanity might survive somewhere.

O'Bannon offers considerably less encouragement.

As the outbreak escalates, local authorities prove incapable of containing it. The military, which bears responsibility for the original chemical contamination, eventually intervenes with overwhelming force. The solution is essentially to destroy the infected area, eliminating the immediate problem without addressing the larger implications of what has happened.

The ending is both horrifying and absurd. The institutions responsible for creating the disaster respond by making it worse, while treating the resulting destruction as a successful exercise in crisis management.

There is a distinctly Romero-like element of social criticism here, but O'Bannon delivers it through a different sensibility. Romero's institutional failures are often the products of racism, militarism, consumerism, or ordinary human selfishness. O'Bannon's institutions seem incapable of doing anything without accidentally creating a catastrophe.

The government can't contain its chemicals. The warehouse employees can't safely store their inventory. The mortuary can't dispose of the bodies. The emergency responders can't rescue anyone. And the military's ultimate solution only perpetuates the cycle.

It's a world in which every attempt to solve a problem produces a larger problem.

The dead, meanwhile, keep getting hungrier.

Before Zombies Became Everybody's Favorite Monster

It's difficult to communicate to younger viewers just how different the cultural position of zombies was in 1985. Today, the living dead are a familiar component of mainstream entertainment. They've appeared in blockbuster movies, television series, video games, advertising campaigns, Halloween decorations, and practically every conceivable form of merchandise.

In 1985, being a zombie movie enthusiast was a considerably more specialized interest. The genre had its devoted followers, but it had not yet become the enormous cultural industry it would eventually become. Finding obscure titles required effort. Horror magazines, video-store shelves, late-night television broadcasts, and conversations with other fans were important sources of information.

I didn't know anyone in Byron who shared my level of enthusiasm for the genre. I had discovered Romero's movies through that little rental department at Cacciatore's Food Mart, and those films had already convinced me that zombies were capable of expressing ideas considerably more interesting than their reputation suggested.

Romero understood that the living dead were frightening partly because they represented something recognizable about the living. They were consumers, conformists, and creatures of appetite, wandering through a world they no longer understood. They were us, stripped of our pretensions and reduced to our most basic impulses.

O'Bannon took that premise and introduced a new possibility. What if the dead weren't simply mindless reflections of the living? What if they retained consciousness, intelligence, and the capacity to suffer? What if death didn't eliminate the human condition but intensified its worst qualities?

That is a more disturbing idea than the film's reputation for comedy might suggest.

The movie also anticipated changes that would become increasingly important to the genre. Fast-moving zombie-like creatures would eventually become familiar through films such as 28 Days Later (2002) and Zack Snyder's remake of Dawn of the Dead (2004). O'Bannon wasn't the first filmmaker to experiment with speed; Umberto Lenzi's Nightmare City had already introduced fast, violent, contaminated humans in 1980. But Return demonstrated how frightening mobile, intelligent, apparently indestructible undead creatures could be within an American horror comedy.

It also demonstrated that a zombie movie could be funny without surrendering its capacity to frighten.

That may be its greatest accomplishment.

Seven People in a Freezing Theater

More than forty years later, what I remember most clearly about seeing The Return of the Living Dead isn't any particular line of dialogue or special effect. It's the experience of sitting in that freezing theater at CherryVale Mall, surrounded by six strangers, watching something that seemed to have arrived from a completely different cultural universe.

Outside, Northern Illinois was enduring one of those punishing summer days when the pavement seems to radiate heat. My ivory-white Grand Prix was waiting in the parking lot. I had driven myself to the movies for the first time, alone, because seeing this particular film mattered enough to make the trip.

Inside, punk rockers were running around a cemetery, corpses were climbing out of their graves, and everything I thought I knew about zombies was being cheerfully demolished.

I had no idea that the film would eventually become a cult classic, that its characters would appear on T-shirts and posters, or that its innovations would influence decades of zombie entertainment. I didn't know that the punk-rock subculture it depicted would become such an important part of my own understanding of American underground culture.

I only knew that I was watching something I had never seen before.

There is a tendency, when discussing older horror films, to judge them entirely by how they play to contemporary audiences. We remember the jokes, the outrageous costumes, the dated fashions, and the special effects that have become familiar through repeated viewings. We forget the circumstances in which those films first appeared and the impact they could have on someone encountering them without decades of accumulated cultural references.

The Return of the Living Dead is funny. It was funny in 1985, and it remains funny today. Its camp sensibility, grotesque humor, and punk-rock exuberance are essential parts of its appeal.

But I want to make one thing clear.

The first time I saw those zombies run, I wasn't laughing.

And somewhere in the middle of that nearly empty theater, a teenage zombie fanatic from Byron, Illinois, discovered that the living dead still had a few surprises left.

Pin It

 

Zombiethon (1986): When Finding a Zombie Movie Was Half the Fun

Halloween Countdown to Two Million — Day 1

By Thomas L. Vaultonburg

Sometime around 1993, when I was attending Rockford College in Rockford, Illinois, there was a video rental store near campus that I remember as Cinema Centre Video. I believe it was on or near Morsay Drive, although thirty-three years later I'm not going to swear to the precise location. What I remember considerably better is the experience of going there, looking through the horror section, and occasionally finding something I had never seen before.

One of those discoveries was a movie called Zombiethon.

Zombiethon 1986

To appreciate why this mattered, you have to understand that being a zombie movie enthusiast in 1993 was considerably different from being one today. There was no The Walking Dead on AMC. No enormous zombie merchandising industry. No endless streaming catalogues full of films about the living dead. The zombie apocalypse had not yet become a familiar setting for television dramas, video games, comic books, and practically every other form of entertainment.

In fact, people thought it was a little strange that I liked zombie movies so much. They were genuinely curious about what I saw in them. I would try to explain the social commentary in George Romero's films, the consumerism in Dawn of the Dead, the collapse of institutions, the way the living dead represented something uncomfortably familiar about human behavior. Usually, somewhere during this explanation, I could see their eyes beginning to glaze over.

The essential observation about zombies was simple enough: They are us, that's all.

Human appetite stripped of reflection. Creatures moving through the world consuming things without much understanding of why they want them. They have desires but little comprehension of those desires. They are endlessly hungry and never satisfied.

People didn't particularly enjoy hearing that interpretation. In fact, most of them didn't really hear it. They tuned it out.

But Romero understood something important. The zombies weren't necessarily the most frightening things in his movies. The surviving humans, with their territorial disputes, greed, violence, and inability to cooperate, were often considerably worse. The living dead simply made the underlying problem impossible to ignore.

By 1993, I had already been fascinated with the genre for years. But finding new zombie movies wasn't easy.

Every reasonably well-stocked video store had the classics. Night of the Living Dead. Dawn of the Dead. Lucio Fulci's Zombie. Maybe Day of the Dead and a few other familiar titles. But each store might have one or two oddities that nobody else carried. Some obscure Italian production. A cheaply dubbed European horror film. Something with a lurid cover promising unspeakable atrocities that the movie itself could barely afford to deliver.

And occasionally you found something like Zombiethon.

Before the internet, you couldn't simply type the title of a movie into a search engine and locate seventeen places to watch it. If the local video store didn't have it, there wasn't always a practical way to see it. You might encounter a title in a horror magazine, hear someone mention it, or stare at a photograph in a book for years before actually finding a copy.

So the video store became a kind of treasure hunt.

Friday night was the expedition. Get some snacks, pick up some beverages, wander through the aisles, and bring home five or six movies hoping that at least a couple of them would be entertaining. This was a perfectly respectable weekend for a college student. That and coursework, naturally.

There was something wonderful about the uncertainty. You didn't know what you were going to find, and sometimes you didn't even know what you were looking for until you saw the box.

Zombiethon was exactly the sort of movie that rewarded this peculiar method of exploration.

Released in 1986 and directed by Ken Dixon, Zombiethon wasn't really a conventional zombie movie at all. It was a compilation of scenes from other horror films, packaged as a feature-length celebration of the living dead. The project came from the world of Charles Band's Wizard Video, a company that understood the importance of an outrageous title and an even more outrageous VHS box.

The concept was wonderfully economical. Take footage from a collection of existing horror movies, film some new connecting sequences, and sell the resulting compilation as another movie. It was simultaneously entertainment, advertising, and a way to get additional mileage out of films already in the distributor's catalogue.

And somehow, for someone like me, that made perfect sense.

The framing story involves women fleeing assorted monsters and finding themselves inside Los Angeles's El Rey Theatre, where the audience is composed largely of zombies. The undead have apparently decided that the best way to spend an evening is to sit in a movie theater watching other undead creatures terrorize the living.

I have always appreciated this premise. Even after death, people still want to go to the movies.

The featured attractions include substantial excerpts from Fulci's Zombie (1979), Jean Rollin's Zombie Lake (1981), and Jess Franco's Oasis of the Zombies (1982). There are also selections from The Invisible Dead, A Virgin Among the Living Dead, Fear, and Ted V. Mikels's The Astro-Zombies.

If that sounds like a wildly uneven program, it is.

Fulci's Zombie is a genuinely memorable horror film, full of decaying tropical atmosphere, gruesome special effects, and some of the most notorious sequences in Italian horror cinema. Zombiethon includes the famous underwater encounter between a zombie and a shark, as well as the unforgettable scene involving a wooden splinter and a human eyeball.

These are not scenes anyone who has watched them is likely to forget.

Zombie Lake, on the other hand, concerns Nazi zombies emerging from a lake, frequently painted an alarming shade of green. The movie is notorious for its threadbare production and liberal use of nudity. It isn't exactly Citizen Kane, although I suppose Citizen Kane would have been improved considerably by the sudden appearance of several green Nazi zombies.

Oasis of the Zombies offers another variation on the Nazi undead, this time in a desert setting. Its combination of wartime treasure, shambling corpses, and bargain-basement production values is representative of the sort of European exploitation cinema that circulated through American video stores during the 1980s.

And then there's The Astro-Zombies, a 1968 Ted V. Mikels production involving artificial killers and mad science, which stretches the definition of a zombie movie considerably. Other selections are similarly loose in their interpretation of the genre. Evidently, the producers were less interested in establishing a rigorous taxonomy of the living dead than in assembling as much blood, nudity, and general weirdness as possible.

Which, under the circumstances, was probably the correct commercial decision.

The new material connecting the excerpts is just as peculiar as the films themselves. Women wander through strange locations, encounter monsters, and eventually make their way to the theater. At one point, a zombie projectionist has trouble operating the equipment. The undead audience becomes impatient. There is an almost dreamlike quality to the whole production, as though someone had assembled a late-night television horror program after being deprived of sleep for several days.

It isn't particularly coherent. It doesn't need to be.

Modern viewers approaching Zombiethon as a standalone feature might reasonably wonder what the point is. Why watch disconnected excerpts from several movies when you could simply watch the movies themselves?

But that question overlooks the historical circumstances in which something like Zombiethon was useful.

In 1993, I couldn't necessarily watch those movies themselves. Not unless somebody in Rockford happened to have a copy.

A compilation like Zombiethon was a sampler, a catalogue, and a glimpse into a larger world of obscure horror cinema. It introduced viewers to films they might otherwise never encounter. You could see a few minutes of something completely ridiculous and spend the next several years hoping to find the whole movie.

The clips weren't merely substitutes for the original films. They were invitations to go looking for them.

And that was one of the great pleasures of the video store era. The limitations of availability created an entirely different relationship with movies. You couldn't have everything immediately, so finding something felt like an accomplishment. A movie could exist for years as a rumor, a photograph, or a tantalizing title before you finally got to watch it.

Sometimes the movie turned out to be terrible.

That was part of the adventure, too.

I don't want to romanticize every aspect of the old video rental experience. There were plenty of disappointing Friday nights, plenty of movies that couldn't possibly live up to their cover art, and plenty of rental fees spent on productions that probably shouldn't have been made in the first place.

But I miss the treasure hunt.

I miss wandering through an unfamiliar video store and discovering that it had three horror movies I'd never heard of. I miss taking chances on strange titles because there wasn't a website containing thousands of reviews telling me exactly what to expect. I miss the possibility of being genuinely surprised.

Zombiethon was a minor, opportunistic, frequently ridiculous piece of 1980s horror entertainment. It was also precisely the sort of thing that made those Friday nights memorable.

The living dead were never particularly good at explaining their motivations. They just kept wandering around, looking for something that might satisfy them.

Come to think of it, that wasn't so different from me wandering the aisles of Cinema Centre Video on a Friday night in 1993.

Except I usually came home with six movies and a bag of snacks.

And I had to return the movies by Monday.

Pin It