"They're coming to get you, Barbara!"

What better way to start off c/zombies than with the most famous zombie movie of all time?

Night of the Living Dead was directed by George A Romero and released in October of 1968. The plot was novel at the time but probably familiar to all by now - the undead have risen to feast on the flesh of the living, and a ragtag group of survivors must try - and probably fail - to deal with this existential threat.

While there is much to be said about film analysis and critique, much of what's interesting about Night of the Living Dead has to do with its history, both behind the scenes and post-release. For instance, it's a fairly well known story that Night of the Living Dead opened at an afternoon matinee shortly before MPAA ratings became official. The result was that lots of parents dropped their kids off for what they assumed to be a campy movie in the vein of Dracula or the Wolfman, and instead traumatized their children with scenes of immolation and disembowelment.

Night of the Living Dead is often thought of as the first zombie movie. It isn't that, but it was massively influential and changed movie zombies into what we think of today. The days of voodoo and magical resurrection are largely behind us, and zombies are now typically the result of some sort of viral epidemic.

Many of the tropes we think of when it comes to zombies were introduced in Night. You have to shoot them in the head. They hunger for living flesh. Getting bit by a zombie is a death sentence, and what's more you'll become one yourself.

Of particular note is what I would also consider to be the main theme of the film: when people refuse to cooperate, they will fall apart. Romero himself explored this in each of his zombie flicks, and it's become a mainstay in cinema that while zombies are deadly, the true threat to humanity is other humans.

Speaking of the social fabric, there's two significant stories regarding race relations in the film. One has to do with the plot:

Movie Ending

The ending has a black man gunned down without cause by a rural sheriff's deputy. While the film doesn't make any remarks about race here, the subtext is almost impossible to separate.

The other has to do with casting: the character of Ben was originally written as a white man, but black actor Duane Jones gave the best audition. After accepting him for the role, George Romero refused to do any rewrites even though it was the cultural norm of the time.The result is that Ben became one of the first strong black protagonists in a mainstream horror film - without being typecast as a caricature, his race never really plays into his character, and therefore his strength comes from his deeds. An early example of positive representation

---

I know there's some copyright nerds on the fediverse so I'm sure you'll like this: due to publisher error, the theatrical cut was released to the public domain. Ironically this was to avoid a copyright issue of their own - The original title was Night of the Flesh Eaters, but there were concerns it was too close to the 1964 sci-fi thriller The Flesh Eaters. The story goes that the titles and credits for Night of the Flesh Eaters had included the appropriate copyright, but the distributor had insisted the name be changed to Living Dead, and removed all references to the original Flesh Eaters title - including the title card that had the original copyright notice.

This snafu had some pretty serious implications. It meant that anybody could legally make their own copy of the film, cutting the distributor out entirely. This led to hundreds of bootleg versions, as well as colorizations, a 3D adaptation, and even an animated special.

An official remake with Romero's blessing came out in 1990. Notably, the movie is directed by Tom Savini, who served as lead special effects artist in Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Dead.

Night of the Living Dead is available to stream free on Tubi and Youtube. You can probably rent it just about anywhere, but especially since it is in the public domain you should save your money.

it's a fairly well known story that Night of the Living Dead opened at an afternoon matinee shortly before MPAA ratings became official. The result was that lots of parents dropped their kids off for what they assumed to be a campy movie in the vein of Dracula or the Wolfman, and instead traumatized their children with scenes of immolation and disembowelment.

Here’s a snippet from Roger Ebert’s infamous review, which he later described not as a review of the movie itself, but a review of the audience’s reaction to the movie:

The movie had stopped being delightfully scary about halfway through, and had become unexpectedly terrifying. There was a little girl across the aisle from me, maybe nine years old, who was sitting very still in her seat and crying.

I don’t think the younger kids really knew what hit them. They were used to going to movies, sure, and they’d seen some horror movies before, sure, but this was something else. This was ghouls eating people up — and you could actually see what they were eating.

Full review for those interested

Censorship isn’t the answer to something like this. Censorship is never the answer. For that matter, “Night of the Living Dead” was passed for general audiences by the Chicago Police Censor Board. Since it had no nudity in it, it was all right for kids, I guess. This is another example, and there have been a lot of them, of the incompetence and stupidity of the censorship system that Chicago stubbornly maintains under political patronage.

Censorship is not the answer. But I would be ashamed to make a civil libertarian argument defending the “right” of those little girls and boys to see a film which left a lot of them stunned with terror. In a case like this, I’d want to know what the parents were thinking of when they dumped the kids in front of the theater to see a film titled “Night of the Living Dead.”

I do enjoy when people talk about censorship and point out the hypocrisy of graphic violence being allowed as long as there isn't any overt sexuality. Censorship continues to not solve this problem today - Like when Deadpool came out with an R rating and campaigns telling parents that it wasn't just another superhero movie, and parents were still taking their kids to see it.

When people talk about "What's an event you'd go back in time to see" this screening might be the one for me. I genuinely feel bad for the kids, and I do think that many of us have probably seen a movie that was too scary before our time, but that happening to so many people at once is a pretty unique phenomenon.

— and you could actually see what they were eating.

This is also pretty noteworthy. When shown to a modern audience, the film is generally seen as pretty tame. But the effects are really quite good. I think a big part of it is being filmed in black and white - the absence of colour makes the props look less fake. Even the blood is interesting: they used chocolate sauce because it left such dark stains that it gives additional realism. Compare to Dawn of the Dead a decade later - a much gorier movie and while the effects are still really good they don't have that same uncanny realism