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