Nicole Birch-Bayley
Terror in Horror Genres: The Global Media and the Millennial Zombie
Journal of Popular Culture, 00223840, December 1, 2012, Vol. 45, Issue 6
OUR FASCINATION WITH ZOMBIES, ACCORDING TO GEORGE ROMERO, director of some of the most prominent zombie films to date, has become "idiomatic," something almost natural. "It's become a sort of pop culture," says Romero (Murray para. 7). However, in the past decade, following the turn of the millennium, and occurring in sequence with the September 11th attacks on the United States in 2001, various forms of popular culture changed as a result of the shift in the global media. In lieu of this cultural revolution, zombie films came to reflect the worst-case fears of an apprehensive media culture, entertaining the same anxieties about world events, in this case, a fear of terrorism and epidemic in the zombie form.1 Various zombie films came to be seen as a medium for western culture's "crisis mentality," a kind of vernacular expressing the concerns of a culture waiting for the next terrorist attack, the next outbreak of violence or the next pandemic (Norris, Kern and Just 28). Although there have been films that predate millennial zombie films which address similar anxieties, it was not until the apparent shift in the global media that zombie films became explicitly concerned with a "crisis" culture.2
The "Evolution" and "Revolution" of the Zombie
Early zombie films had once possessed the ability to translate cultural and political immediacy into a means of entertainment, but the tensions of these films were never as explicit as they are now. The apprehensions present in early zombie films were subtly built on the premise of emergent imperialism, capitalism, and cultural racism or ethnocentrism (Williams 6).3 These themes remained implicit undertones, messages felt but unsaid in print, television, and film media.4 As zombie films evolved over the years, their objectives changed; in many cases, the politics of the time period disappeared from zombie films altogether. Many zombie films dating from the early 1980s to late 1990s, even into the early 2000s, were seen as politically docile, melodramatic, even comical.5 Certainly not all zombie filmmakers recognized or explored the cultural, cinematic shift that took place at the turn of the millennium, but for some, the transformation was utterly manifest. In the case of millennial zombie films, the political and social tensions were ever present. These films very often consisted of societies and populations that proved ill equipped to cope with the overwhelming spread of violence and disease; the human crisis became directly linked to authentic global concerns, such as wars on terrorism, political revolutions, inadequate governments, weapons of mass destruction, viral epidemics or even pandemics, which continue to be referenced in the contemporary media. Millennial zombie films were often experienced like the global media itself, as the events of a zombie outbreak were encountered through news frames, including news clips and newspapers that would often "simplify, prioritize, and structure the narrative flow of events" (Norris, Kern and Just 10). These news frames provided basic facts surrounding the event itself, which were often fragmented, and the way in which these events were interpreted by official sources in the government (including the press, political leaders, the military and law enforcement, and intelligence services) often proved insufficient, contributing to the crisis itself (Norris, Kern and Just 13). This stylistic shift in zombie film suggests that the way in which society interprets social and political tensions, such as global anxieties over terrorism and disease, had changed since the turn of the millennium; viewers now watched zombie films experiencing an intensity that was not only the product of a millennial manifestation of popular culture but also the result of a changing global media.
"We are meant to be frightened by horror film," says Clarens, "and fear, no matter how diluted or sublimated, is still a powerful instrument and the most intense reaction to an experience, aesthetic or otherwise" (xi). Zombie films are able to function at a very basic level, instilling fear and anxiety in their viewers. Although there is a clear stylistic distinction between millennial and classic horror films, what is most significant is that what used to make us afraid in horror films has now changed. Zombie films first began with exotic and supernatural themes, such as Haitian voodoo, an expression of a different kind of fear, equipped with a mild social commentary.6 Major historical events played an important role in Depression-era and wartime zombie movies, as the zombie arguably served as a cinematic mechanism for raising awareness of racial and equality issues, including gender and the empowerment of women (Dendle 46). In a millennial examination of zombie evolution, the influence of print media and Internet culture has become of greater importance than mere social or political tensions from decades prior, which seem to differentiate the millennial zombie film from that of early films.7 As a part of a changing genre, horror films began to intensify as a result of a changing, unstable global climate; even today, their cinematic style still continues to change as quickly as the wars that are fought and the political leaders that are elected. However, it was not truly until the turn of the millennium, the transformation of the global media following 9/11, that zombie films were propelled forward into an entirely new phase of filmmaking.
Danny Boyle's "Zombie" Redefined
The clearest indication of this shift in zombie film came in 2002, as Danny Boyle introduced 28 Days Later, a film outlining the rapid spread of a violent virus that instilled "rage" in its carriers. But these zombies were different. As the zombie film had transformed, filmmakers began to broaden their view of what constituted a zombie. 28 Days Later was not a traditional "zombie" film; the dead did not rise from their breathless states, stiffened with rigor mortis, in order to slowly amble and pursue the living and eat their flesh. These were "zombies" as a part of a new definition, zombies that could run, even sprint, to attack you, to destroy everything in their path. Of course, the pattern of outbreak, the societal tensions and the reactions of viewers remained the same.
The film begins with various frames of global violence, of protests, riots and executions around the world. It is uncertain at first whether these are virus-related scenes (as the viewer anticipates this) or simply the result of global violence and terrorism. These scenes zoom out to television screens stationed above a test animal, an ape being exposed to "rage," whether it is to develop the virus or to cure it, it is unknown. There is the suggestion that this pervasive rage, this drug or disease of violence is something physically and psychologically induced upon the animal and subsequently, upon humanity. When a group of activists break into the Cambridge Primate Research Center to free a group of these caged animals, which they believe are being cruelly treated, the outbreak of the rage virus begins shortly after. They are first warned by one of the scientists that the chimps are infected with rage: "I know who you are. I know what you think you are doing… The chimps are infected … They're highly contagious," but the activists do not listen, believing that they are liberating victims of science. It is learned in these first few scenes that infection is in their blood and saliva; "one bite," the scientist warns, will lead to contagion. The infection happens in a matter of minutes; in fact, viewers can barely see what takes place. The room is dark, only somewhat lit and the scene seems so chaotic that there is simply no chance of reconciling what is assumed to be inevitable. As the activists set the animals free from their cages, the apes quickly attack and the subsequent result is widespread rage throughout the center and presumably throughout the city.8
Most of 28 Days Later tells of the aftermath following the initial outbreak in London, twenty-eight days after the fact. Just as viewers are unable to fully witness the first outbreak of the virus in the test center, they are unable to fully witness or grasp the larger outbreak that occurs in London; this almost seems to suggest that we as viewers of global crises are either forced to witness as outsiders or are struggling from within the conflict. Jim (Cillian Murphy) wakes up in a hospital bed, naked, with tubes in his arms, half-shaven hair and abandoned, to find that the city of London itself is empty and devastated by something, but he does not know what. He wanders the empty streets, full of newspapers, broken glass, and rubble from the assumed looting and rioting. Crossing the London Bridge, he nearly trips over piles of London Tower souvenirs and miniature British flags, symbolic in many ways of the fallen, abandoned city itself. Jim walks for what seems like forever, making his way into the downtown core of London, peering into windows, setting off car alarms, not finding any clear indication of what has happened. He finds a newspaper on the ground, with the headline, "Evacuation: Mass Exodus of British People Causes Global Chaos," followed by several fragmented bylines. "Blair declares state of emergency … Military ordered 'Shoot to Kill' … Government Check Points overrun … UN to build giant refugee camp … Chaos at all London airports." These bold, rather unsettling bylines seem in many ways familiar to viewers who may still feel ill at ease about recent global crises, such as 9/11 and subsequent terrorist attacks. He also passes a billboard full of missing person flyers, photographs and letters of personal pleas, another rather familiar image for American viewers. This is in many ways simply a long, drawn out, dramatic scene, keeping with the ambivalence of humanity and the aftermath of a global crisis; the purpose of this initial scene is to show that society has not only stopped functioning but that humanity has essentially ceased to be. The empty streets, the vacant homes, the total silence of London, suggests that society, as viewers once knew it, has disappeared and all that is left are the remnants of civilization. The significance of a film such as 28 Days Later is not necessarily in how it demonstrates an escalation of media or film violence, as viewers have certainly seen a variety of examples of this in post-millennial films; what is significant is how 28 Days Later acknowledges the change in viewer attitudes towards global crises, terrorism and epidemic. Boyle's cinematic style suggests a constant upheaval of humanity, as the characters in the film must combat not only extreme violence and aggression but also the feeling of isolation that accompanies an apocalyptic scenario. Millennial zombie films not only suggest that the nature of film violence has changed as a result of contemporary media triggers, but also how society must combat the aftermath of tragedy, how individuals must cope with the devastation of a world event. The film looks at a rather straightforward outbreak pattern, which is linked to the title of the film: "Day 1: Exposure--Day 3: Infection--Day 8: Epidemic--Day 15: Evacuation - Day 20: Devastation." Indeed, "the days are numbered," and Jim wakes up on the twenty-eighth day to find nothing or at least nothing he wants to find.
Having been aided by two survivors, Mark (Noah Huntley) and Selena (Naomie Harris), during a violent encounter with a group of "infected," Jim is told what has happened in London. Selena describes the outbreak:
It started as rioting. And right from the beginning you knew this was different. Because it was happening in small villages, market towns. And then it wasn't on TV anymore. It was in the street outside. It was coming through your windows. It was a virus. An infection. You didn't need doctors to tell you that. It was the blood. It was something in the blood. By the time they tried to evacuate the cities it was already too late. The infection was everywhere. The army blockades were overrun. And that's when the exodus started. The day before the TV and radio stopped reporting, there were reports of infection in Paris and New York. We didn't hear anything more after that.
"What about the government? What are they doing?" Jim asks. "There is no government," Selena responds. "Of course there's a government. There's always a government. They're in a bunker or a plane." "No there's no government," Mark answers, "No police. No army. No TV. No radio. No electricity." The outbreak and panic that take place in the film demonstrate how society virtually erupts in the midst of crisis. 28 Days Later became the first and most marked film to imitate global anxieties, both in the respect of terrorism and epidemic. The film's release also coincided with the 2002-2003 SARS outbreaks, so the threat of global disease was particularly relevant to media and film audiences. 28 Days Later is especially groundbreaking in the way it triggered a series of films to follow, which remarked on the growing concern over global epidemic. Full of images of isolation, of human violence, destruction and rioting, 28 Days Later suggests, like many other millennial zombie films, that societal structures and institutions, and the military, are ultimately ineffective in stopping the random disorder that occurs during a zombie outbreak or, very generally, in a global crisis. Danny Boyle ends the transitional period of zombie films, from the classic to the millennial film period, initiating a new phase in zombie films. People felt, after the SARS outbreaks, that there was no way of escaping the threats of disease or air born virus, and filmmakers, like Danny Boyle, certainly took advantage of the rather unique circumstances around the globe.
Millennial Adaptations and Sequels
Millennial zombie films in some cases have attempted to readdress the plots of past films and supplant them with contemporary cultural anxieties. In 2004, Zack Snyder introduced a remake of George Romero's 1978 classic Dawn of the Dead.9 Snyder's remake reflects much of Romero's original film, depicting a modern society of suburban sprawl and a twenty-first century shopping mall, honoring a similar critique of American capitalism and materialism.10 However, Snyder's remake does not abide by the same image of the zombie. In Snyder's film, the zombies are almost too alive, running, jumping, biting and screaming, unlike Romero's slow moving (traditionally blue) ghouls. Many of the scenes throughout Snyder's Dawn of the Dead appear to happen with astounding speed. Even the outbreak itself seems to have happened overnight, as Ana (Sarah Polley) leaves work at the hospital at night, observing suspicious injuries in the overloaded hospital waiting room, and awakes to find her neighborhood and city overrun with zombies. Snyder's remake suggests that like most contemporary zombie films, outbreak is unavoidable, simply because it happens too quickly. Snyder's Dawn of the Dead is the result of a changing genre, like many of the other millennial zombie films, where individuals are forced to run, even sprint to escape from zombies but in the end it is usually in vain. These highly hyperbolized zombies are a part of a film culture that suggests that since the media is often exaggerated, since newscasters feed images of violence and urgent threats on a regular basis, why not create zombies that mimic that same cultural urgency?11
In 2007, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo introduced 28 Weeks Later, a sequel to Danny Boyle's 2002 film. The film outlines the American military operation to assist in the rehabilitation of London, following the outbreak of the quickly spreading rage virus. After only five years in between the two films, the zombies of Fresnadillo's sequel seem somehow more extreme than the first film; the zombies are more aggressive, and the scenes themselves happen with greater urgency and anxiety (with more blood being spit from the "infected" and more violent encounters between them and the survivors). The film centers on the same global climate as the first. Society in Britain and elsewhere has been virtually crippled by the outbreak of the "rage" virus. The film shows how the American military is ineffectual in its attempts to uphold order in what remains of London. Believing that the virus has been removed from the hot zone, the military allows refugees to return to London in small amounts. However, this proves disastrous, as the military fails to stop the "Code Red" situation, resorting to the shooting, bombing and gassing of infected areas where the infected are mixed with civilians. But the virus simply spreads further and the military is forced to firebomb "District One." Scarlet (Rose Burn) recognizes what the military must do to control the situation: "It all makes sense. They're executing Code Red. Step One: Kill the infected. Step Two: Containment. If containment fails, then Step Three: Extermination." 28 Weeks Later in many ways mirrors the pervading sense of futility in modern military intervention. Like the contemporary intercession in Iraq, the attempts of the American troops to assist in solving the problems of London and the rage virus merely result in antagonizing the situation. In these films, the spread of a zombie virus is inevitable and pandemic is ultimately unavoidable. What Fresnadillo centers on, and what Snyder too was focusing on, is not necessarily the fear of violence but the fear of society's inability to suppress violence, and in the end, society's inability to suppress a global crisis; it is the fear of the ineptitude of society, of social or governmental institutions that propels these films forward towards a contemporary form of media skepticism. 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later both seek to both uphold and condemn global anxieties, once more casting a light on the fears of terrorism and epidemic that spread globally like a disease.
Romero's Global Media Commentary
Also released in 2007, Diary of the Dead remains one of George Romero's lesser-known productions.12 Diary of the Dead is different from other millennial zombie films in terms of how it explicitly centers on the nature of the global media, providing a progressive commentary on the legitimacy and sincerity of film and television media. The first scene of the film takes place at an undisclosed emergency incident, which is being filmed by a local news station, Channel 10 News. In this opening scene, it is understood that an immigrant man has killed his wife and children, subsequently taking his own life. The paramedics are taking the bodies out of the apartment building, with the police standing by. But the bodies begin to move; the corpses make their way off the gurneys, and begin attacking the people in the surrounding scene, including the female news reporter that the cameraman from Channel 10 is accompanying. This initial scene is one of the first images available to the general public, according to Debra (Michelle Morgan). "We downloaded a lot of what we found on television off the net, off blogs, images and commentary over those first three days. Most of it was bullshit. None of it was useful," she explains in the opening scenes following the outbreak.
The rest of the film follows a group of students, who are interrupted while filming a class assignment. These students must cope with an emergency situation, understanding that societal institutions have undoubtedly failed, and that the media is likely misleading the public. The students must face what the news tells them versus what they can capture themselves on film. Jason Creed (Joshua Close) decides to shoot the whole ordeal, creating a documentary film called, "The Death of Death," in order to reveal the true nature of the crisis. The documentary is all about the global media mania, about spin doctrine and the reality of international crises. "None of us can claim to know the chaos of what we are experiencing," says the newscaster in the opening scenes of the film. Many of the students in the group themselves cannot seem to face the reality of the situation. When the students are interrupted while filming, they hear the news of the event on the radio, particularly one case of a drive-by shooting victim waking up on the autopsy table to attack the coroner. Tony (Shawn Roberts) utters, "Horseshit
…. The news is always horseshit. Always make things sound worse than they really are." According to Debra at this point in the film, "[i]t was all over the news, all over the web but no one really knew what was happening … I think that's what started the panic, not knowing the truth." The students are forced to travel across the state of Pennsylvania, to try and regain a sense of order, and reunite with their families (though they are met with little success). On route in their mobile home, the students watch the news channel relay information to the public about the government's handling of the situation:
Will you explain why the Department of Homeland Security suddenly raised its alert level to orange earlier this evening, even though there are no indications of a terrorist attack? … You're right. There's no indication of any terrorism. We believe these are simply isolated and unrelated phenomena, and we expect things to return to normal very soon.
"See, already starting to play this shit down," says Tony, continuing to deny the actuality of the events. The students are more concerned with the media's handling of the events than the events themselves. What is most important in this particular zombie film is the message that is being sent through media outlets, through film, through television, and through the internet. Debra (as the narrator) admits that, "it is interesting to see what we are capable of becoming. Up until that night, we had lived predictable lives. Now we would never be able to predict what might happen next. God had changed the rules on us. And surprisingly, we were playing along." Debra criticizes her boyfriend Jason of fixating on filming the experience but she is the one who eventually finishes the film's editing and distributes it through the net. She eventually submits to the same need, the need to film, to actualize the events so that others might learn from their mistakes. She says she is compelled, just like the man on Channel 10, compelled to shoot things that others find horrible or disturbing. Her boyfriend Jason is compelled to film the pandemic, and she is compelled to finish it. "What is it? What gets into our heads when we see something horrible?" Debra asks. "A horrible accident on the highway. Something keeps us from just driving on. Something holds us. But we don't stop to help. We stop to look." In the beginning of the film, she explains that,
We made a film, the one I'm going to show you now. Jason was the one who wanted to make it, like that cameraman from Channel 10 … I did the final cut… I've added music occasionally for effect, hoping to scare you. You see, in addition to trying to tell you the truth, I am hoping to scare you, so that maybe you'll wake up. Maybe you won't make any of the same mistakes that we made.
Certainly, the characters in the film warn against the anxieties of media culture but most importantly, they urge the necessity of distinguishing truth from fiction. As the outbreak worsens and spreads throughout the area, Debra notes that, "the mainstream had vanished, with all its power and money. Now it was just us, bloggers, hackers, kids. The more voices there are, the more spin there is. The truth becomes that much harder to find. In the end, it's all just noise." In contemporary society, many viewers have been conditioned to recognize what this media mania means, to hear the competing voices of reason in the global media and be forced to identify the soundest message. Following the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent national security crisis in North America, the global media erupted in a similar fashion, communicating hundreds of competing frames and different interpretations of events, and it was up to the media's respondents to uncover the truth for themselves. Furthermore, in an experience such as a zombie outbreak, there is the risk of becoming immune to the trauma and violence shown on the television screen, immune to the images shot through the camera lens. Many of these millennial zombie films call upon this very question: have we become immune to violence and global crisis, or do we simply react differently to it? "By now," Debra admits, "we'd become part of it, part of it 24/7. It's strange how, looking at things, seeing things through a lens, a glass, rose-colored or shaded black, you become immune. You're supposed to be affected but you're not." Just as viewers watch zombie films, caught in the state between fear and thrill, they often do not recognize their immunities to violence and terror; in many instances, they do not even recognize the correlation between reality and zombie fantasy. These zombie films become not necessarily worst-case scenarios for society but for individual viewers. Like other millennial zombie films, Diary of the Dead leaves off open-ended; film viewers do not know the fate of the few remaining characters, nor do they know the fate of humanity. Debra, Tony and their professor are held up in the panic room of their friend's mansion. When the door of the panic room shuts, after the zombies enter the house and surrounding property, nothing else is said of these three characters and their future. The film ends on a solemn note, as Debra explains how inhumane some humans can be, questioning whether or not the human race is really worth saving.
Conclusion
The zombie film has been used as a pervasive tool throughout the past century of film in order to moderate cultural and political themes through cinematic devices. It was not until the turn of the millennium and 9/11, however, that the zombie film truly began to fulfill different political and cultural objectives. According to Dendle,
[i]t is not without some justice… that the resurgence of zombie movie popularity in the early 2000s has been linked with the events of September 11, 2001… apocalypticism has always been engrained into the archetypal psyche of any society defining itself - as all mortal endeavors must - in the context of history and time. (54)
Throughout almost seventy-five years of film evolution, the zombie can be understood as tracking a range of cultural, political and economic anxieties in North American society. However, this understanding of zombie film culture seems to neglect the considerable impact that the turn of the millennium, 9/11 and globalization have played on the nature of the horror film genre. The genre became hyperbolized like the media itself and a significant and quite obvious change did occur in the horror film genre. It may be in theory that horror genres produce and sustain a violent and aggressive society, something that Clarens set out to challenge; however, in practice, these films are the direct result of an uncertain political climate and an evolving popular culture, both in the case of pre-millennial fears that had informed various science fiction and disaster narratives and in the change in film that occurred as the result of a millennial society. What is most striking about this particular age in film is not necessarily in how society has been variously paralleled or mimicked, but in how these films cast a light on the anxieties and antagonisms of the global media in the new millennium. The zombie has functioned in various ways, first as an implicit cultural undertone marking an era of imperialism and political upheaval, and then proceeding towards an age of cultural anxiety and media monopolies. Now the zombie's influence still continues to change, as contemporary zombie film adaptations have moved towards zombie satires and comedies.13 Throughout their remarkable history, zombie films have been a source of entertainment for viewers, and now, more than ever, perform as a site of the spectator for those who wish to partake in films of violence and terror. In the contemporary globalized world, zombie films have served as a cultural insignia, marking an age of restlessness, disorder and fear.
Notes
1. Norris, Kern and Just observe that, "[t]he events of 9/11 understandably brought a new feeling of vulnerability to many Americans, as security threats that were long familiar elsewhere around the world directly affected US citizens" (260).
2. The term "millennial" is used in this case to describe zombie films that were released following the turn of the millennium and reflect the cultural, technological shift in popular culture; this shift coincided with changes in special effects, subject matter and plot, and changes in political and social contexts. This shift also overlapped with the September 11th attacks on the United States. According to Norris, Kern and Just, "the events of 9/11 can best be understood as symbolizing a critical cultural shift in the predominant news frame used by the American mass media for understanding issues of national security, altering perceptions of risk at home and threats abroad" (Norris, Kern and Just 3-4).
3. See Halperin's White Zombie (1932) and Revolt of the Zombie (1936), and Yarbrough's King of the Zombies (1941).
4. According to Hess, "these films (e.g., Westerns, Horror and Sci-Fi) never deal directly with present social and political problems … all of them are set in the non-present. Westerns and horror films take place in the past--science fiction films, by definition, take place in a future time … the society in which the action takes place is very simple and does not function as a dramatic force in the film--it exists as a backdrop against which the few actors work out the central problem the film presents" (qtd. in Williams para. 1).
5. See Hoskins' Chopper Chicks in Zombie Town (1989) or Link's Zombie High (1987).
6. See Tourneur's I Walked With A Zombie (1943), which is set on the island of Saint Sebastian in the West Indies and explores the myths of voodoo in Caribbean culture.
7. Zombie film began to evolve as early as the late 1960s. The politics of zombie films during this time period were no longer as passive as before, beginning in some measure to mimic world events, including the Vietnam War, the Cold War and eventually the American Gulf Wars, but this was a lengthily process, an evolution rather than a revolution, as was seen at the turn of the millennium (Dendle 48).
8. The origin of the virus plays on the contemporary commentary against the corporate nature of the Western world, as companies get carried away in their profiteering pursuits, whether it is the development of new pharmaceuticals to hold a monopoly over or a scheme of military science, in hopes of creating a new indestructible weapon with which to wage war. However, there are other precedents for this, as film viewers have seen the military science mania of such films as The Incredible Hulk (Johnson 1978; Lee 2003), X-Men (2000) and Resident Evil (2002). What is important is how certain zombie films participate in a culture of skepticism, in a society in fear of terrorism, infectious disease and government conspiracy; these are all elements that intermingle in millennial zombie films in the transformation of the film genre.
9. For other remakes, see Miner's Day of the Dead (2008) or Broadstreet's Night of the Living Dead 3D (2006).
10. See Harper, "Zombies, Malls, and the Consumerism Debate: George Romero's Dawn of the Dead."
11. See Thussu and Freedman, War and the Media: Reporting Conflict 24/7 (2003).
12. Romero is most widely known for his first two films, Night of the Living Dead (1968) and Dawn of the Dead (1978). Also, see Romero's later released Day of the Dead (1985) and Land of the Dead (2005).
13. See Wright's Shaun of the Dead (2004), Currie's Fido (2006) or Fleischer's Zombieland (2009).
Works Cited
Anderson, Paul S., dir. Resident Evil. Constantin Film Produktion, 2002. Film.
Boyle, Danny, dir. 28 Days Later. Fox Searchlight Pictures, 2002. Film.
Broadstreet, Jeff, dir. Night of the Living Dead 3D. The Horrorworks, 2006. Film.
Clarens, Carlos. An Illustrated History of the Horror Film. New York: Capricorn Books, 1967. Print.
Currie, Andrew, dir. Fido. Lion Gate Films, 2006. Film.
Dendle, Peter. "The Zombie as Barometer of Cultural Anxiety." Monsters and the Monstrous: Myths and Metaphors of Enduring Evil. Ed. Niall Scott. New York: Rodopi, 2007. Print.
Fleischer, Ruben, dir. Zombieland. Columbia Pictures, 2009. Film.
Fresnadillo, Juan Carlos, dir. 28 Weeks Later. Fox Atomic, 2007. Film.
Halperin, Victor, dir. Revolt of the Zombies. Edward Halperin Productions, 1936. Film.
----, dir. White Zombie. Edward Halperin Productions, 1932. Film.
Harper, Stephen. "Zombies, Malls, and the Consumerism Debate: George Romero's Dawn of the Dead." Americana: The Journal of American Popular Culture, 1.2 (2002). Web.
Hoskins, Dan, dir. Chopper Chicks in Zombie Town. Chelsea Partners, 1989. Film.
Hussu, Daiya Kishan, and Des Freedman. War and the Media: Reporting Conflict 24/7. London: Sage Publications, 2003. Print.
Lee, Ang, dir. The Hulk. Universal Pictures, 2003. Film.
Link, Ron, dir. Zombie High. Cinema Group, 1987. Film.
Miner, Steve, dir. Day of the Dead. Millennium Films, 2008. Film.
Murray, Rebecca. "George Romeo Talks about 'Land of the Dead'." 2009. Web. 18 May 2009.
Norris, Pippa, Montague Kern, and Marion Just. Framing Terrorism: The News, Media, the Government and the Public. New York: Taylor and Francis Books, 2003. Print.
Romero, George A, dir. Dawn of the Dead. Laurel Group, 1978. Film.
----, dir. Day of the Dead. Dead Films Inc., 1985. Film.
----, dir. Diary of the Dead. Voltage Pictures, The Weinstein Company, 2007. Film.
----, dir. Land of the Dead. Universal Pictures, 2005. Film.
----, dir. Night of the Living Dead. Image Ten, 1968. Film. Singer, Bryan, dir. X-Men. Twentieth Century Fox Corporation, 2000. Film.
Snyder, Zack, dir. Dawn of the Dead. Universal Pictures, 2004. Film.
Johnson, Kenneth, prod. The Incredible Hulk. Marvel Productions, 1978. Television.
Tourneur, Jacques, dir. I Walked With A Zombie. RKO Radio Pictures, 1943. Film.
Williams, Tony. "White Zombie Haitian Horror." Jump Cut: A Review of Contemporary Media 28 (1983): 18-20. Web. 1150 Nicole Birch-Bayley
Wright, Edgar, dir. Shaun of the Dead. Studio Canal, 2004. Film.
Yarbrough, Jean, dir. King of the Zombies. Monogram Pictures, 1941. Film.
~~~~~~~~
