SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD

The dead are rising from their graves, and the two families inhabiting Slaughter Island, off the coast of Pennsylvania, fuel their historic rivalry by opposing each other on what to do with the living dead. Seamus Muldoon would like to attempt to re-educate them to coexist with the living, while Patrick O'Flynn wants to eliminate them because he believes their aggressiveness is greater than their ability to learn. Muldoon prevails, and Patrick is exiled from the island. Three weeks later, a group of soldiers, joined by a boy, find an online message from Patrick O'Flynn inviting anyone who hears the communication to embark for Slaughter Island, a safe place untouched by the living dead. The soldiers follow the advice and arrive on the island accompanied by O'Flynn himself, but naturally the situation is not as idyllic as it was described. At 70 years old, George A. Romero continues unrelentingly to tell us his vision of contemporary society through the distorting lens of the horror metaphor. The medium is still horror cinema, the main subject is once again the slow and shuffling living dead that made the director famous and revolutionized horror cinema. In reality, Romero confessed in a recent interview (on the occasion of the presentation of "Survival of the Dead" at Venice 2009) that for him everything that could be said about zombies has already been said a long time ago (I like to think that it was the beautiful and underestimated "Land of the Dead" the true culmination of Romero's vision on the living dead) and that now he is literally forced to include his monsters in films otherwise no one is willing to invest in his works. This is a very sad revelation that once again explains the stubbornness of the system, trapped in repetition, in an eternal return that inevitably leads to the sacrifice of "risky" new ideas to settle for safe shores, even if at the helm of the project is a veteran who alone could guarantee security and quality. Thus, Romero once again found himself with stories of living dead, almost starting from scratch an ideal second saga by proposing the beginning of the contagion, adapting to the rule of low budget and content renewal. "Diary of the Dead" in 2007 marked this new beginning, with the novelty of the mockumentary language, the insertion of constant irony, and the desire to shamelessly attack the world of mass media. In 2009 it is the turn of the direct sequel, for the first time in the Romero zombie universe, with "Survival of the Dead," which loses the mockumentary language in favor of a more classic structure, maintains the irony, and promotes one of the supporting characters of the previous film to the role of protagonist. Despite the heavy critical and public failure and the evident fatigue of the author towards the figure of the zombie, "Survival of the Dead" is still a film that has its reason. First of all, it does not lose sight of the two directions that should always and in any case be present in every film that can be considered successful, namely entertainment and the ability to make one think. Romero manages to build an intelligent B-movie, an extremely funny and fast-paced film in which it is not the figure of the zombie that captures the attention, but that of the human being, now emptied of any glimmer of "humanity" and promoted to an even greater threat than the returning cannibal. "Survival of the Dead" has practically no positive characters, it becomes difficult to sympathize with someone and identify with the hero of the moment, since there are none. It is enough to think that the protagonist of the story and the point of contact with "Diary of the Dead" is the bastard soldier who led the group of soldiers who plundered travelers, the symbol of the always declared anti-militarism of Romero. To him are added a handful of "deserters" who are likable but incorrect, who do not think twice about exterminating a group of humans and stealing an armored truck. Then there are the two rival families and especially the leaders who represent them, both obtuse and firm on their positions to the point of resorting to weapons. There is Muldoon who sees in the living dead the human being they were in life and would like to try to bring out a glimmer of their humanity by educating them to eat vegetables and animal meat rather than human flesh. Muldoon's point of view is noble and seems almost guided by the ideals that led Dr. Ted "Frankenstein" Fisher of "Day of the Dead" to his special relationship with Bub. Of the opposite opinion is O'Flynn, who does not believe in the re-education of the zombie and prefers to blow the head off every dead person who comes back to life, even if it is the person closest to him, in the name of the safeguarding of the human race and, in particular, the community. The two leaders are depicted as cynical arrivistes, more interested in demonstrating their respective reasons than in the real safeguarding of the community, and in this sense it is not very difficult to see a metaphor of the author's distrust towards the political factions that clash in reality for the "dominion" of the territory, capable of spending beautiful words addressed to the masses but ultimately aimed only at the safeguarding of the individual. Romero advocates for O'Flynn by portraying Muldoon as a less consistent Republican Texan with the programs exposed, but in the end, he condemns both. And the rivalry that the two have always shown is destined not to stop even in the face of death, thus underlining the stupidity and the immortal bellicose nature of human beings, the true damnation of the species. What most made the public frown is the lack of centrality of the zombie threat and the irony sometimes intrusive in the film. And indeed, it must be said that this time Romero was not able to manage the components of his film in an impeccable way. Shifting the attention from the zombie to the human being is understandable and appreciable, especially in welcoming the author's desire for change, but every time the living dead appear in "Survival of the Dead" there is a lack of pathos and that sense of danger that the situation would nevertheless require. With the exception of the grand finale, the scenes with the zombies are resolved with an impavida shot in the head, as if nothing were happening, thus losing that horror majesty that the director's films have (almost) always had. On the other hand, there is that silly irony that one would not expect and that at times is intrusive and capable of breaking the meager tension. An element that should have been managed much better. Other flaws that "Survival of the Dead" unfortunately has are a poorly attentive management and delineation of the supporting characters and a special effects department that is definitely poor. If the latter concerns computer graphics, primitive and surely dictated by the film's very low budget (about 4 million dollars), which is nevertheless limited to very few scenes, the lack of adequate writing for some characters is more worrying because it is foreign to the old Romero and confirms what was already happening in "Diary of the Dead." The flaws are there, it is undeniable, the verve that Romero demonstrated with his creatures a few years ago is visibly diminishing, "Survival of the Dead" remains a very good example of entertainment not lacking in ideas and while the whole world still churns out zombie films that were made thirty years ago, the inspirer, albeit trapped in his most successful creation, knows how to talk about something else, knows how to renew languages and contents, even if masked by old slow and dusty zombies. The rule is still the same today: when talking about the living dead, better the worst Romero than most of his imitators.