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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
No comments:
Post a Comment