Zombie or not?: An analysis of White Zombie, Night of the Living Dead and 28 days later as different monsters.

Introduction

This article concentrates on the new creation named a modern zombie comparing it to a gothic zombie and arguing that there is not evolution of one creature but the creation of more frightening ones. Using three examples this article will argue that zombies did not evolve into the modern zombie but that there are no modern zombies they are entirely new monsters created for specific anxieties and grouped together. Kellner argues, affirmed by Pirie, that horror films have always, whether explicitly or metaphorically, reflected the social anxieties of the world around them, and Dendle further suggests, zombies specifically reflect anxiety in a more in-depth way (Dendle, 2007). From their inception; in 1930s film, White Zombie, through the transitional 60s, Night of the Living Dead and ending with contemporary film 28 Days Later. This comparison will reflect the differences in not only the monster but societal anxieties, secularisation of society and a possible move for the modern zombie from the Horror Genre and into Science fiction (Bishop, 2010) via new monsters being created under the zombie name.

Context

Monsters have been apparent in horror cinema since almost it’s inception and many scholars have explored and tried to explain their importance. The silver screen has always had an affinity with the horror genre as within a year of the first cinema came the first horror film in 1896 (Pirie, 2007). Film’s affinity with the horror genre comes from the audience, even when it was invented film was perceived to be witchcraft and has been frightening people ever since.  In the nineteenth century gothic horror was tied to the pages of novels but the increased popularity of film, attributed by Laycock to the human preference for images over imagination (Laycock, 2015), meant that the zombies of gothic fiction and folklore became real (Chibnall, 2001).

The monsters maintained their social commentary and, as Kellner suggests, reassert themselves at various times throughout history to make us aware that nothing has changed. However, as popular culture increased the attitudes surrounding social commentary changed (Crane, 1994), the only time horror cinema was less noticeable was during the time of the first and second world wars which suggests either there was enough real horror, there was not enough man power to make these films or film was used by the government more for propaganda and news than entertainment (George & Hughes, 2013). However, the first world war, Pirie argues began a journey towards the graphic horror in contemporary society (Pirie, 2007). The horrors that were seen during this time led to the genre being coined in the 1930s and each gothic monster returned via Universal studios at this time (Kaye, 2001).

The transitional 60s  was the next big change to horror cinema as the dream of the affluent 60s was dying, the media was telling horror stories from Vietnam, Hippy Cult murders and deviant youth (Worland, 2006). The 1970s brought further turmoil particularly for Britain with constant power cuts, militant trade unions and Irish Terrorist (Tiratsoo, 1997). Whilst America dealt with fall back from the Vietnam war and the civil rights movement (Wood, 2003), as a society the West specifically was losing faith in authorities and the government and began to feel hopeless, with the youth being the most prominent disenfranchised mass (Lipset, 1987). According to Tudor, this meant that horror content had to evolve along with its more monstrous audience (Tudor, 1991), the old monstrous fables that had until this point been sufficient were no longer enough for a horror audience (Rigby, 2011). This brought the epitome of a bridging horror film, Night of the Living Dead (Romero, 1968) (Night). This is one of the most important horror films of the transitional 60s as it bridged the gap not only for the newly secularizing society from supernatural to science but also blurred the line between horror and science fiction (Gunn & Treat , 2005) as the beginning of the modern zombie . 

White Zombie 

Made in 1932, White Zombie was one of the first films to approach the idea of the living dead as a monster. The image created by this film was an enduring image of many classic horrors and in fact has appeared in this form alongside other classic monsters like Dracula and Frankenstein’s Monster in parodies that brought the gothic monster to children’s television like Mad Monster Party (Bass, 1967) affirming the idea that the gothic monster was no longer frightening to modern audience (Crane, 1994), they were relatable and romanticized as per Anne Rice’s vampires, almost beloved (Dyson, 1997), no more monstrous than any human (George & Hughes, 2013). In the 1930s in US cinema and Britain during the 1950s the supernatural zombie was a staple “creature feature”  including the famous Hammer picture Plague of Zombies (Gilling, 1966) which is very similar and reflected the anxieties around employment which may have endured in Britain over the United States due to the Trade Unions and immigration (Tiratsoo, 1997). The zombies in White Zombie surround the social anxiety of the United States after the depression of employment. Bela Lugosi’s character controls zombies via voodoo to work in his mill putting the residents out of work. This is like Plague of zombies when the Lord of the Manor causes a disease in the village not only raising the dead but appearing to kill them also.

White Zombie begins at night with a young couple’s coach trip in which you have the first glimpse of the walking dead. They are appearing from a vast and lonely moor and the coachman recognizes them to be zombies and flees. The couple question this action and seem disquieted by the coachman’s suggestion but don’t believe it, using rationality and sensibility to avoid it, but they are still disturbed. There is  contrast used here as the clothes of the new couple are bright appearing white in the black and white film portraying their innocence and purity as opposed to the native people who appear dressed in dark, black, to emphasize the separation from the local populous (Rhodes, 2006). 

The introduction of the voodoo master bring a lot of tension to the film, Bela Lugosi’s appearance is that of a villain, and every time he is mentioned or seen in the film he is surrounded by darkness and mystery but the director does very little to disguise him (Rhodes, 2006). He uses zombies as cheap labour in his mill but also makes zombies of his enemies to ensure he has all the power and no opposition. Bishop argues that the Voodoo master in this film and use of voodoo is symbolic of a fear of “otherness.” He proffers that otherness is a contextual fear at the time, racial tensions were high, and we were moving into the civil rights movement and the dominant culture feared this (Bishop, 2008). He suggests that the use of an ancient African ritual art to control people shows a reassertion of the imperialist attitude and the white elite using the African rituals confirms the idea that black culture is being appropriated for selfish and capitalist means. Later this is repeated as the Lord of the manor wants the young woman as his own and uses voodoo to kill her and keep her under his control but he realizes that the removal of the soul means that she is no longer a woman (Rhodes, 2006).

The idea of zombies in White zombie  and later in Plague of Zombies are both however significantly more nefarious than any of the later modern zombies as the zombies used in Voodoo are usually not only controlled by a master who will make them kill at his behest, but they do it against their will (Bishop, 2008). As portrayed when Bela Lugosi introduces specific zombies of his crew and says that if they ever got their souls back they would tear him apart (Halperin, 1932). These zombies are also people whom the zombie master kills to control them. Each of the films of the gothic zombie show that to gain power and control people you must be willing to kill, at least a part of them to have the control. Contrarily, the gothic zombie, is a mindless creature who is not a cannibal, they do not crave brains or flesh to live (Dyson, 1997). They are “programmed” to do simple tasks and they are not contagious and cannot create more. In the gothic zombie film there is no fear of pandemic disease although, Plague of Zombies, is a step closer to the modern zombie.

The idea of brainwashing over pandemic disease comes again from contemporary fears., Maddrey argues that the gothic zombie was a symbol of the fears in the US of the communist threat and in the 1950s the idea of being brainwashed and infiltrated by spies increased with the threat of the cold war (Maddrey, 2004), noticeable not only in the increase of zombies but in the increase of science fiction stories surrounding aliens and body snatchers (Wood, 2003). As blah argues the main vein of the zombie and one of the few anxieties that transfer from the gothic zombie to the modern zombie (Dendle, 2012). This film is the epitome of the gothic zombie, the harmless, mindless slave of the authority (Gunn & Treat , 2005). However, with the challenges to society during the 60s (Diski, 2010) and changing perceptions of the authority throughout the transitional 60s and the 70s meant that, as Tudor suggests, the relatability of the monster was not strong enough for the evolving audience (Tudor, 1991).

White Zombie is the gothic image of a zombie, as Botting defines it (Botting, 2013), with classic imagery, including the stereotypical evil and engulfed in supernatural and the belief that the mass population has no control over their lives (Koven, 2011), which is an outdated concept and along with the horror genre as a whole the advancing society needed more (Tudor, 1991). As the transitional 60s began to change society and youth subcultures began to dominate popular culture and the consumer market media had to change with the times and gothic horror began to seem stilted and as Rhodes suggests more comedic than scary. White Zombie is a sign of its times but as time moved on the mindless supernatural zombie was not as frightening (Bishop, 2010). Supernatural horror creations became superstitious nonsense and cinema moved into a time of realism.

Brown suggests that the supernatural was losing its impetus because society was becoming increasingly tolerant not only of other beliefs but the “otherness” within society was no longer steeped in the idea of dangerous beliefs like Voodoo (Brown, 2000). Night, however, made the zombie scary again, although at no point does Romero refer to his monsters as zombies, he created the image of the modern zombie. It has been argued that Romero helped the creature evolve into the modern secularized creature created by man, however it can be suggested that these two monsters are in fact separate entities. The magic that controls the zombie in White Zombie means that the only way to destroy them is to destroy the authority controlling them, unlike the modern zombie whose brain must be decommissioned via a hit to the head.

Night of the Living Dead (Night) (Romero, 1968)

Night was a turning point for horror cinema, particularly the zombie, even though the term zombie was never used to refer to this monster it has become the epitome of the modern zombie. This film, however, is more important as a film that bridges the gap between the world of the supernatural and the scientific fiend and dispels the myth of living dead being supernaturally created, particularly if you watch the extended scenes from the 30th Anniversary edition. Romero, used the climate of rebellion and tolerance to challenge every preconceived notion about the horror genre (Maddrey, 2004), but also shattering the optimism of 1950s America after Kennedys assassination (Higashi, 2000). Romero’s living dead films have a lot of acclaim for their social commentary particularly Dawn of the Dead’s explicit use of the living dead wandering the shopping mall as a commentary on mass consumption. However, NotLD, as Hervey argues, is subtler and in many ways tackles social commentary without realising (Hervey, 2008). For example, Ben, according to Romero, should have been a Caucasian truck driver but Duane Jones who played him was the polar opposite, a well educated Black man and although Romero puts this down to his audition over any conscious thought the racial tensions and the commentary surrounding the middle-class white attitude towards Black leadership has become part of the social critique of this film (R. Dillard, 1987).

Night (Romero, 1968) begins like a classic horror film, with empty road and very few people. Royer argues that Romero’s use of lighting and isolation to emphasis the alienation  (Royer, 2005). This is also mirrored using a rural setting. In many of the descendant films of Romero’s monster the survival aim’s to get somewhere rural, and although Romero’s use of the rural setting is incidental, as Hardman says it was all they could afford (Hardman, 1997), it has become a staple or the genre (Dendle, 2012), for instance in 28 Days Later, the way they attempt to survive it to go to a cottage in the most rural area of the United Kingdom (Boyle, 2002). Although Romero justifies his use of the rural area with the emergency broadcast, the crisis had taken two days to reach the more isolated area (Romero, 1968). Although Romero’s malady is not a disease according to Barrett the spread of modern disease begins in the densely populated areas. Romero used this along with the incompetence of the local police, assuming mass hysteria, not being aware of the full extent of crime as the reason this crisis spread this way (Barrett, Kuzawa, Mcdade, & Armelagos, 1998). This image of the monster and the later fear of technology, terrorism and playing god had the modern zombie became a manmade virus spreading from the over populated cities (Anderson, 2002), a new monster when compared to the zombie slave of the voodoo priest who controls the population (Bishop, 2008).

Barbara and Johnny are siblings driving to put something on their father’s grave, a symbol of the traditional family image (Petley, 2001). They appear to be having trouble with the radio which is an ominous sign for things to come. As they approach the graveyard the radio begins to work, and Johnny is heard saying that it was the station not the radio, which is the first suggestion of society crumbling (Wetmore, 2011) the audience are given this subtle insight as a warning. Johnny spends the drive subverting the traditional idea of death and undermining the parental authority, as opposed to Barbara who was obedient and doting on her parents. Johnny at the graveyards infers that funereal market was corrupt and jokes that they may have bought the same arrangement every year (Romero, 1968). This mocking and sacrilege in classic horror would set him to be a victim because horror punishes the challenger (Bishop, 2010). The desolate graveyard setting along with the storm harked back to the gothic settings of its classic predecessors although much of the beginning appears to be a parody including Johnny’s imitation of Boris Karloff. Romero uses these tropes to attach the audience to the idea that this was just another classic horror. 

This was further instilled as the first death was Johnny’s, the first monster appears, and attacks Barbara and Johnny fights him off but trips and falls hitting his head on a gravestone. This is perceived initially as his punishment for not respecting tradition but as later in the film suggests, the funereal traditions and respect for the dead,  are not only superfluous to the scientist involved in the crisis but that they have to be suspended during times of crisis, as they were during war times and times of infections (Wonser & Boyns, 2016). This film came closer to reality and therefore good and evil were suspended and Barbara, who in classic horror would have been rewarded, died in a more horrific way than Johnny did (Worland, 2006). The death of a main character removed the classic resolution from the horror genre and the final death of the hero cemented a change in the genre. Romero’s first monster however, does not eat Johnny, the attack on Barbara in fact makes more sense when viewed with the extended scenes as the first monster gets a back story, he is a rapist and murderer of women who had been executed. This makes his attack on Barbara more understandable, although the lack of justification for the audience makes the attack more frightening (Crane, 1994).

The monster itself is the other move from the classic horror film, the zombie as it was deemed, changed from the controlled henchmen of a voodoo master to an uncontrollable mass. The living dead from Night were not killed by a dark force, they were killed by “nature,” each monster was dead before they changed, unlike later films where any interaction with a zombie could infect (Dendle, 2000). Kellner argues that as the awareness of environmental problems increased, these monsters became part of the disaster movie (Ryan & Kellner, 1988). Many argue that Romero’s monster is an evolution of the zombie, however, this article suggests that Romero created his own monster. When watching the extended scenes Romero dispels any myth that his monster is supernatural and that, that idea is ludicrous with his character Reverend Hicks. The body of the criminal has the reverend pray over it not calling for mercy but for justice and the criminal becomes the first monster that the audience sees. Whereas on the radio and the television the audience then finds out that the monsters have been around for two days prior to the reverends call to God (Romero, 1999). Brown suggests that this would be an allegory for the secularising world (Brown, 2000) and Romero for his monsters turned more to Frankenstein for his monster than the Voodoo Zombie (Dendle, 2000). This may be why he never refers to his monster as a zombie and the only relation they have is the reanimation of corpses.

Romero’s Ghoul, to which it is referred, is a reanimation of a corpse via a reawakening of the brain, as the television states, therefore a headshot kills them (Gunn & Treat , 2005). The entire story is based on a scientific mutation as opposed to black magic and because it is based within alien technology over magic religion does nothing to stop it the onslaught, as per the extended scene when Reverend Hicks dominates the shot as he quotes scripture at one and it proceeds to bite his face (Brown, 2000). The radio and television broadcasts shown implicitly denounce religious activity when they say you must get rid of the pomp surrounding death, survival was more important than stale tradition. The Ghoul in NotLD itself goes through stages, associated with horror, via the authorities (Yanez, 2010). Contextually, society was losing faith in the knowledge of authorities, reflected by Romero’s emergency broadcast. It began with the mass homicide being criminals, followed by cults and ending with the idea of radiation from recent space investigation. This reflects not only the upcoming space mission in 1969 or Chibnall’s suggestion that the infiltrators and aliens in American film can be symbolic of the threat of communism of the Cold War (Chibnall, 2001), science fiction became more important in the 1950s for the same reason with Invasion of the Body Snatchers  and The Thing (Dyson, 1997).

Romero uses the documentary style and low budget to his advantage, this “guerrilla style” resembles the unflinching style of the war time reports, adding not only to the realism but adding emphasis to the emergency broadcasts within the film (Maddrey, 2004). Miller affirms this but argues that the documentary style confirms his satirical perception of the government and reflects the popular perception that of the transitional 60s that the government and particularly the army were unable to cope with the new threats (Miller, 1999). Later films continue this vain, Resident Evil shows a virus created by a large company trying to create chemical warfare that escapes into society, as people who don’t truly understand it want to control it. 

Anderson’s use of a spy trying to sell the T-Virus in fact affirms the idea the modern zombie film reveals an anxiety within society of a threat from within that has endured in society since the Cold war (Anderson, 2002). This became more apparent post-9/11 as a normal situation, a plane flight, was turned into a terrorist attack and the spread of a manmade virus built for biological warfare within technological advancements simulates what terrorist attacks could become (Wetmore, 2012). This also reflects the anxiety of mutual destruction, as the United States attempts creates a virus a retaliation the risk of infecting their own population because of capitalist greed is as much of a concern as biological warfare (Reed, 2016), with Vietnam and the campaign for Nuclear disarmament the general population was against certain defence mechanism (Petley, 2001). The use of a company like Umbrella also symbolizes the hidden secrets within big businesses that are being hidden or ignored by the government to maintain dominance on a worldwide stage. Some of this is apparent in 28 days later, which more noticeably shows newest monster and the fear of science (Ellis, 2002).

28 Days Later (Boyle, 2002)

The images of rioting shown at the beginning of this film are a prophetic image of society’s imminent collapse but zoom out to an image of a primate being forced to see images of aggression very similar to scenes from A Clock Work Orange, and it appears that the scientist is testing the same way. The scientist in the building however refers to the induced “rage” as a disease and some animal activists releasing the test subjects, infected with “rage” and this begins the chain reaction to Britain becoming “Ground Zero” for the rage disease. This mirrors Resident Evils image of corruption, the company that is experimenting on animals with this virus appear to be doing this in an underground manner. Boyle uses darkness here to symbolize the shady operations as there are still scientists working so there is no other reason for the building to be dark. The activists are then killed by the monkeys and this begins the release and parallels NotLD as acts that should be perceived as “good” are not rewarded in fact misguided acts lead to the creation of the monsters.

Twenty-Eight days later appears of the screen and you are confronted with an isolated man (Jim) in hospital. He wanders the building testing the phones which are dead, as compared to NotLD, this is the first sign on societal trouble. The use of panoramic shots at this point allow the audience to see a normally busy capital city, empty and using landmarks from London Boyle adds to the sense of isolation and uses what Fisher calls the eerie citing Freud suggestion of the notion of the Uncanny, using familiar images in an unfamiliar way to make the audience feel uncomfortable (Fisher, 2017). This is an extended version of what Romero portrays as he uses similar techniques during the car journey to the graveyard, Boyle then increases the tension using increasing tempo music, news papers and memorials to attempt to inform the lead what has happened to London. He and the audience together learn that London has been evacuated due to mass killing, again mirroring NotLD. 

Brown’s suggestion of a secular world becomes important as Jim enters a church, hoping to find salvation (Brown, 2000). He is shown walking into a room full of bodies and the priest appears, infected, and Jim hits him saying “Shouldn’t have done that” (Boyle, 2002). This is symbolic religion no longer being the salvation for the damned that it once was and that the virus has no boundaries, much like the extended scenes from NotLD. This addition also reflects, as Romero did, that this virus is the equalizer. Boyle however, shows an extreme version because within twenty-eight days Britains social structure has fallen and the whole country has succumbed to the virus and no-one is safe (Bishop, 2010). Wetmore argues that this sense of hopelessness is brought via the events of 9/11 (Wetmore, 2012), that random violence and pessimistic attitude are all symptoms of this increased terrorism and this may be true because this film was made in 2002 (Birkenstein, Froula, & Randell, 2010). 

However, NotLD, although possibly not on this scale, began a sense of hopelessness in horror films as none of his party survive (Higashi, 2000). In this sense, 28 days later, has a new sense of hope as the main characters survive long enough to find a rural location to hide, and although at the end of this film the audience sees monsters in this are there fewer, and they appear to be reasonably safe (Koven, 2011) and an aeroplane appears that they are trying to attract. They find that the infection may not have reached outside the United Kingdom allowing significantly more hope than NotLD offered. Further to this, in the beginning of the film the female lead, Naomi Harris, is pessimistic and infers “Plans are pointless, staying alive is as good as it gets (Boyle, 2002),” but she never stops fighting and changes to believing there is a chance by the end of the film, Boyle here may be attempting to bring back the hope (Carroll, 2012). 

  NotLD and 28 days later both show the lack of confidence in the government, as Harris’ character non-chalantly mentions it’s fallen and the image that within one month the whole social structure including the army has fallen because of slow reactions has meant the loss of an entire population. Jim and Selena are opposite in their ideas of survival as shown by the different views, Jim has not lived through the month he still has traditional values and will not leave a man behind whereas Selena shows that she is not willing to be slowed down if it means a risk to survival, this may be Boyle’s suggestion that the individualistic society is problematic, the whole notion of the film is that if good people stick together then there is a chance of survival which harks back to the message in the original horror film. Other images of this are the scene in the supermarket when they “go shopping” and, the final survivors, they end as a family unit, there are two “parents” and a child, not biologically related, but that is how the relationships end, an additional image of hope in an arguably hopeless situation.

The main difference in the NotLD and 28 days later is that laced throughout this film is a retention of sense of humour, there are instances where the group are laughing and the first words said to Jim by other survivors is a joke, this is symbolic it appears of the British attitude of a stiff up lip and again brings hope back, that along with the times the group has of piece, the vibrant colours of nature as opposed to the grey tones of the city and the scene of the horses showing not everything is infected and nature goes on, life goes on (Bishop, 2010). This is also Selena’s turning point, she realizes that there is more to life than just surviving and that involves being together with other people. In fact, the next time Jim appears frightened is a dream where he is alone again and that does reflect human fears (Dendle, 2007).The narrative of this film is closer to the classic horror film as it tries to restore some semblance of order and keeps many traditional images (Botting, 2013) however the monsters are closer to Romero’s and therefore fit the modern monster over the gothic zombie, giving the impression that if there was any influence from 9/11 it may have been that there is hope in the wake of terrorism and NotLD’s hopelessness was more a reflection of societal feeling than a realism regarding this type of crisis (Higashi, 2000).

The monsters are a similar vision of zombies seen in popular culture and relate more to the Romero monster. They are born from science as opposed to black magic but as per the more modern creature, the main differences are that as Romero’s monster evolves and the infection means that you do not need to be dead in order to succumb to it, making the scene with Frank more poignant, he and his daughter join the main characters and they escape the city but he has one drop of blood enter his system and he changes. This plays on the fear that these monsters could be anyone and all people are susceptible. 28 days later, is unique however, in that the monsters shown in this movie are not living dead, they are alive but diseased, but this meant that they may as well be dead. This meant that unlike Romero’s monsters they are more easily killed, they are by no means indestructible, Franks death also shows this as he dies via shots to the torso by the soldiers, there is no more need for a shot to the head. This also brings more realism to the monster as the idea of radiation reanimating a corpse has gone it is now the idea of mutating the living. Romero and the afore mentioned Resident evil, the infected must be dead before they change, this gives humanity a further chance whereas 28 days later infers that the living are susceptible almost instantly.

Conclusion

In conclusion, of the films analysed here only one is a zombie film, White Zombie, using the occult voodoo folklore of the zombie as a mindless slave controlled by a master is the accurate image of a zombie. It is also the only film of the three that refers to its monster as zombies (Rhodes, 2006). Each of these films and Resident Evil have been referred to as modern zombie films where science has replaced the supernatural but in reality, the gothic zombie was tamed along with its other gothic counterparts (Ryan & Kellner, 1988). The Zombie that is apparent in children’s television including the afore mentioned and in shows like Scooby Doo, being debunked as supernatural nonsense is the only zombie that should be named as such (Crane, 1994). Romero, Anderson and Boyle have each created a new image of fear that has certain traits in common which seem mainly to do with the primal nature of humanity, hunting in packs, having only the drive to eat or kill and the spread of infection, but beyond that each monster is entirely separate. 

Romero’s monster although important as an evolution of the so-called zombie genre and certainly reflective of a changing attitude in society (Bishop, 2010), whether intentionally or not, did not have any impact on the image of a zombie because his creatures were not zombies and were never referred to as such. Correspondingly, all films influenced by Romero including those mentioned reflect their contemporary society and therefore each monster is different, and they are not zombie films either. They are new mutated creations along a similar theme to that which Romero created so he may not be the father of the modern zombie but he if the beginning of the use of humanity as the monsters of modern horror, unlike the slasher movies these films are less explicit and more around the metaphors of social commentary (Bishop, 2010). For instance, 28 days later is arguably closer to the classic horror of the 1930-50s (Chibnall, 2001) than it is Romero’s hopeless creation as it brings back some of the restoration idea and certainly brings back some of the more traditional tropes despite the monster being arguably more frightening due to its rage, speed and contagiousness.

Alternatively, Resident Evil, shows the epitome of the modern Romero monster as despite their viral beginnings, they are the reanimated dead and the T-Virus restarts brain activity creating a primal creature with only the need to feed which is almost the same as Night although Resident Evil furthers the idea of the cannibalistic nature evolving into the brain-eating monster that is now more associated with the modern zombie, also continuing the idea that severing the brain stem is the way to kill them and that groups of them are dangerous as opposed to single ones as they still move very slowly (Dendle, 2012). 28 days on the other hand speeds up the zombie and bases the entire virus on rage which means although the creatures are biting people they are not doing it to sustain themselves. This is the danger of aggression in a human being as opposed to a fear of the animal instinct. At least with both Resident Evil and Night the monsters have a reason behind them, both of which are related to science one that was alien infiltration, the other biological warfare, they are not positive meanings, but they have them (Dendle, 2007), whereas, 28 days later although science is the reason for the virus there is no answer as to why they are infecting or experimenting with it. Finally, Romero removes the hope from the horror film and Resident Evil follows this, it has many sequels in film and stems from a computer game which has seven sequels, this gives the impression that this is another link to the classic gothic monster because these monsters do not die and will keep returning, like their gothic counterparts until they can their social commentary is no longer relevant (Chibnall, 2001).