Zombies are really the most modern monster. Let me clarify what I mean: modernity, for me, is the existence of something simply because its existence can be. For example, modern art, for me, is art that exists simply because it can exist. It is experienced because it something to be experienced. There is no ulterior motive, it is and ought to be seen per its “is-ness.” I look at a red square titled “untitled” at the museum because such a thing can be viewed.
This understanding of modern, which I acknowledge may just be mine, really does establish zombies as the most modern monster. Now, zombies may need to be described a bit better. I do not interpret zombies only in the sense of being a product of voodoo and mystical works; in fact, my favorite explanations of zombies are those that offer none. For example, Romero’s Dawn of the Dead offers a particularly wonderful explanation that I believe is meant to be interpreted non-literally: “When there’s no more room in Hell, the dead will walk the Earth.”
Now, let us look at the zombie itself. It is a mindless entity, constantly dehumanized in popular medium (one notable exception is Shaun of the Dead), and is driven purely by will. The zombie wanders around lethargically – well, at least most of the time – and doesn’t get too excited until there’s some fresh blood and guts getting a little too close. Their motive is to eat these body parts and many presentations of zombies seem to illustrate them having some sort of affinity to brains.
But, they consume and have no need to consume. They have a never ending hunger that they feed but nothing is relieved. It would seem to follow that they are in a constant state of distress then, but this doesn’t follow logically. They have no need to consume, but they consume. They pursue flesh, but only when it is available. If there happens to not be any flesh around for them, then they just wander around doing whatever. Some of them just stand still, putrid flesh falling off now again. This seems, to me at least, a very modern way of being a monster. Unlike Dracula who has some sort of megalomaniac plot for world control and Frankenstein’s monster that lives only for revenge – if you reject that, consider him as a lesson of science going too far then – zombies are and persist because they just do. They don’t have those very human motives that so many other monsters tend to experience. Zombies have no desire to hide what they are and exploit their identity to support some agenda – they merely are, no adverbs needed.
Zombies have no bias, hold no hatred, feel no ill will to anybody, and merely wish to exist as they are. They really make great monsters, there is no way to reconcile with them because they don’t want anything except your flesh and they’ll manage okay even if they don’t get it.
Note: I’m not saying movies about zombies are modern necessarily, just that zombies themselves are.
1 comment:
I agree that zombies are very uniqu in their way of existance. As far as "intentions" go, they have none, malevolent or otherwise. THey have no needs to fulfill, only compulsions. This set sthem apart from the malevolent, kiniving monsters, becuase, though they jump at the opportunity to eat a brain, they're okay without them, and there's not a whole lot of thinking going on in a zombie. They're set apart from less threatening, but disgusting monsters, because they have no needs to fulfill. The yeti, the loch ness monster, bigfoot -if they are just weird beings that have no intention to harm, they do have living needs to fulfill, whereas a zombie can statically exist if it must, because it isn't alive.
The only counter that I find myself thinking of is maybe the Swamp Thing... but then it's arguable that he has needs to fulfill, being composed of entirely living matter. In addition, I guess it's arguable whether or not he's really a monster, so I suppose your argument stands.
Post a Comment