And why is the unpretentious horror film, shot for three kopecks in Pittsburgh, became a cult in the end and is the purest example of the genre of zombie horror even today, in the spoiled XXI century?

And why is the unpretentious horror film, shot for three kopecks in Pittsburgh, became a cult in the end and is the purest example of the genre of zombie horror even today, in the spoiled XXI century? What was it like in this film that helped George Andrew Romero become a movie director, and this work is a benchmark of the genre of zombie horror?

Plot? Partly. Despite the logical holes and a wonderful rationale in the spirit of "adored, people became zombies because of the radioactivity of NASA's satellite flying from Venus!", Then there were no films that would tell about people in a closed space. This is now every seventh shoots low-budget horror films about a couple fleeing in a locked house from Necht, then "Night of the Living Dead" was the first film on this topic. In addition to this - a new brilliant idea of ​​zombie horror. This film is rightfully considered the best work, revealing this topic. Why? Because, despite the fact that we are talking about a zombie apocalypse, and, perhaps, the entire world is infected there, as well as in other, subsequent films, but how many of the dead did we see? One here, one there, a dozen and a half - in the most intense scene. It was a terrible confrontation with ghoulish moving corpses, the appearance of each of them made them shudder with horror. When the zombies began to shoot back in packs and make their way through their crowds, the zombies ceased to frighten. At all. They have no cruelty, no malicious and charismatic personality, not even a desire to kill heroes, they are terrible only by the fact of their existence - and it depreciates if we see them too much. In the "Night of the Living Dead" this is not: perhaps it is hardly terrible, but keeps in an ominous tension brilliantly.

Moreover, the plot touched on the fact that earlier, although it was not too tabooed, but still tried to adhere to some kind of framework - the behavior of the family at the time of the disaster. Of course, this is not a horrific "The Hills Have Eyes" of 2006, but at that time it was a shocking and meaningful violation of the taboo for the cinema: these are the parents whose daughter was bitten by the dead, and they do not know what to do; here is a girl killing a mother with a garden shovel ... and then she starts eating it. And figuratively, and really scary. This is a step into the territory of the taboo - and a strong public reaction to this film is connected with this. But then let me give myself the floor, again, to Stephen King:

"A good horror film director, if he does not want to sound ridiculous, must clearly visualize where the taboo borders are and what's beyond. In "Night of the Living Dead" George Romero plays on different instruments, and plays them as a virtuoso. Much could be said about the visual power of this film, but one of the worst moments occurs just before the culmination, when the heroine's brother appears again, still wearing chauffeured gloves, and grabs a sister with the idiotic intent of a hungry dead man. The film is full of violence, as is its sequel, "The Dawn of the Dead", but this violence has its own logic, and I argue that in the horror genre, logicality plays an important role - it is necessary to uncover morals. "

Frightened violations of the taboo. Scary self-sufficiency of zombies - because before that in the movies, they certainly ruled the sorcerer Voodoo. Scares their very presence. Frightens the absence of any purpose. The inevitability is frightening. The list, in fact, can continue and continue - because not all the horrors of the film are associated with zombies, people are scared no less, whether it's crazy Barbara or a self-insane egoist performed by Karl Hardman. And in the end, despite the absolute logic of what is happening, most of all I'm sorry for a simple black guy, the whole movie that saved other people from the zombie attack, and eventually died from the bullet of the deputy sheriff who took him for zombies.

That is, if we return to the plot, we get a mixture of horror, psychological thriller and even social drama. Why social drama? It's not just the intricacies of the relationship between the characters - by the way, it's very symbolic that one of the leading roles was taken by a black actor, it was not customary to put them on the main roles - but in the symbolic part of the film. For example: the film begins with a demonstration of a typical country road. And then ... on you! The road leads straight to the cemetery! And what do we see among the silent graves? Star-striped flag, proudly fluttering in the wind! Usually this attribute is inherent in Hollywood cheers-patriotic films, where the banner of the nation is the guarantor of the inevitable victory over the enemies of America. Well, in Romer's masterpiece, this is nothing but a harbinger of the inevitable apocalyptic tragedy. Here it is - the most powerful and indestructible country in the world ... Which after a few moments will plunge into wild chaos, and citizens of the great state will turn into the dead, tearing the flesh of those who have still preserved human form. And in memory forever will remain an ominous phrase, jokingly abandoned by one of the characters before the unexpected start of the bloody slaughter: "They're coming for you, Barbara! They follow you! ".

And it is very correct that the film does not end well in the end. This was not a special discovery by Romero, but only a reminder by the modern director, shoving happy ends wherever you get - a horror film should not end with anything good. Always. Whether it's zombie horror, battle with a werewolf, fighting ghosts or whatever. It's not even that they are horror films and in principle they should be scary - it's just that it's never possible to completely defeat an evil.