Movie Summary can be found here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289043/plotsummary
I assert that "28 Days Later" holds a hidden message behind the action. Looking at the way the disease was spread to the open public, animal rights activists freeing infected chimps from a lab, I believe that the movie proposes the question of how much value we place in nature and other humans. Two scenes in the movie which support this claim are when the group of survivors are observing a stable of horses and when Frank becomes infected. During the scene where they were watching the horses run around in a field one the survivors asks if they were infected or not, in response one of the survivors remarks that nothing that beatiful can be infected by something so ugly. The meaning behind this scene shows that we as humans place more value in "pure" beings, showing that we have an idea of beauty and value that follows no other standard than our own opinions. Second, is the scene in which Frank becomes infected when a drop of blood falls into his eye giving him the disease. In less than a minute Hannah, Frank's daughter, is forced to decide to kill her own father or die. Hannah is unable to do so but luckily a small force of military personel kill the infected Frank in time to save her. This scene asserts two ideas. First being that we place other humans as more valueable than other beings. Second, that our value is relative to the object or being.
Great post, Gage!
ReplyDeleteSince this is one of my favorite zombie-ish movies, I can't help but leap into your discussion of it!
This is a great film, and I think it lends itself well to many different interpretations. I think it does say quite a bit about humanity's place in nature, and perhaps its most fundamental message might be said to be anti-science, at least in the sense of animal experimentation. The viral infection is called "hate," which I think suggests that the film's creators were dealing less with zombification and more with what it means to be human. When it becomes apparent that the military men are as much of a threat to the film's protagonists as the infected, it raises questions of what it is that makes a monster. The infected are no longer thinking beings, it would seem, so their violence might be excused, but the military men still possess their thoughts and demonstrate the tyranny that power brings to those inclined towards evil.
Also interesting is the fact that it was a chimp that was the original host. Evolutionists claim that we evolved from monkeys, so could the humans be seen as degenerating to their supposed animal roots?
ReplyDeleteI look at the idea that the animal rights activists did this and I kind of have to laugh. Some people do seem to put animals over humans. Like those people who attack whaling ships to protect the whales.
By the way, when you mention the idea of humans being valued more than other beings in the last section, are you counting Frank as being not human? If so, then I guess it really raises the issue of what it means to be human.
Either way, I kinda want to see this movie now.
Love this movie.
ReplyDeleteGreat point. Never thought about a hidden meaning.