Contains
mild spoilers
I'll admit to going
into this with no idea what to expect. When I began researching what zombie
films I should prioritise, which films were pivotal in establishing or writing
zombie mythology, or which were the finest examples of what the genre offered I
scoured countless zombie film blogs, articles and forums and whilst recognising
Romero's offerings and all the usual contenders, I also frequently came across
the name of a cult Italian director held in particular high esteem that I'll
confess I'd never heard of.
City of the Living
Dead (Italian: Paura nella città dei morti viventi, also known as The Gates of
Hell) is a 1980 Italian horror film directed by Lucio Fulci and the first part
of the unofficial Gates of Hell trilogy which also comprises of The Beyond and
The House by the Cemetery. The film comes with a notorious reputation having
initially been heavily cut to secure its original 1981 BBFC certification and
was only granted an uncut release in 2001. I'd read about gruesome vomiting
intestines scenes, a lot of brains and an infamous 'head drilling' and went in
with some trepidation.
The premise is
simple. Father William Thomas (Fabrizio Jovine) hangs himself in a cemetery in
the rural town of Dunwich, New England (a deliberate tribute to H.P. Lovecraft)
which lies on a former hotspot of Salem Witch Trial activity and unleashes a
great evil on the world. Meanwhile in New York, hack reporter Peter Bell
(Christopher George) investigating the unusual death of medium Mary Woodhouse
(Catriona MacColl) rescues her from being buried alive and the two of them,
after a little explanation, team up and head to Dunwich to dispatch the now
undead priest, close the gates of Hell and save the world, all before All
Saints Day in three days time, and all as prophesised in the Book of Enoch.
Arriving in Dunwich,
they discover a town rapidly spiralling out of control and team up with
psychiatrist Gerry (Carlo De Mejo) and his patient Sandra (Janet Agren), and
set about finding the Father and his tomb, all the while dealing with a town
full of recently deceased citizens running amok after returned as revolting
maggot covered brain hungry zombies.
The zombies of City
of the Living Dead are fascinating and inimitable and they couldn't be more
different to the traditional western shambling undead we've generally become
accustomed to. Now zombies have traditionally never been the good looking and
these days we're used to exposed flesh and bits hanging off but Fulci's undead
are truly disgusting demonic monsters with burnt exposed rancid maggot
encrusted faces and praise must be heaped on make up team and desire to do
something different.
Romero's zombies are
clearly reanimated humans and they behave like people devoid of higher brain
function, running on instinct and muscle memory, believably would. It's implied
that Fulci's zombies receive their strength, power and reanimation from hell
itself and as such they're granted improved strength and the ability to perform
all manner of supernatural trickery. They can materialise anywhere at will,
levitate and possess a particularly devastating and gruesome psychic attack,
which extreme and over the top is a hallmark of Fulci. When locked eye to eye
they will first blood to pour from the victims eyes then in an ultimate act of
destruction, to vomit out all their organs and insides, and yes, it's really as
unpleasant as it sounds.
It's the
materialising/teleporting that's the most interesting though. Fulci's zombies
don't shamble up slowly (or quickly if you look at more modern
interpretations), they appear and disappear at will, they can be sighted as
distant apparitions or in the blink of an eye manifest right on top of someone.
Now it's never clear whether they're teleporting, suspending time or a psychic
manifestations merely in the victims mind and it's all deliberately vague; my
instinct leans me towards the latter and I'm looking forward to seeing if this
is expanded upon in the two unofficial sequels.
I've seen Fulci
described as a horror genius and a talentless hack, his films as wry black
comedies and farces, and also genuine deeply dark imaginative visions. I'm a
firm believer that thinks are never really that black and white and having now
watched City of the Living Dead I'd probably say he and his film are a bit of
both. This particular Lovecraftian tale is dark, mysterious, cold and
imaginatively told, the characters are interesting and diverse and he's not
afraid to allow their relationships to develop in unusual ways. However there's
not much subtlety to the narrative and the whole film is always on the edge of
becoming a b-movie bizarre parody, with wooden acting especially from the
extras, and some quite strange but fascinating directing decisions, like having
monkey noises in outdoor urban scenes.
Fulci is also
certainly not shy of trying to shock and disgust the viewer though at times the
death scenes are so gory and downright gruesome that they're almost comical and
distracting, and they quite regularly seem a little contrived and staged. It's
as if the narrative and story occasionally bends to accommodate a particularly
nasty set piece Fulci has come up with and this is especially true of the drill
scene. But would the film work without them? Probably not and the film works in
part because of the very absurdity and
extremity of the many staged scenes; they're integral to what makes a Fulci's
film a Fulci film and without them I'm not sure what we'd have, but I do know
it wouldn't be nearly the same.
City of the Living
Dead is a fascinating film full of suspense, dread and really unpleasant
killings and set pieces. From an interesting if little cliché premise it spins
a yarn evocative of Lovecraft and full of the absurdities and excesses that make
cult horror films what they are. I do enjoy films that dare to be a little
different and City of the Living Dead certainly fits into this category. It's
nothing like other films I've reviewed and revels in being esoteric, ambiguous
and a ridiculous but never at the expense of appearing disingenuous or
insulting. Extreme, upsetting and unnecessary, but brilliant, 8/10.
A quick note about
this release. I'd read a lot of complaints with some of the Arrow Films Blu-ray
releases but I think other than some grain issues in many of outdoor scenes the
sound and picture quality and the number of extras on the disc, it's a very
well put together release and shouldn't be avoided.
Steven@WTD.
I looked at this as a Vamp or Not? and ended up deciding it was probably fairest to call it a zompire movie (that grey line where the two genres meet).
ReplyDeleteI'd kind of agree with your assessment and if I had to pigeon hole it, it's a zombie film for me, but as with the rest of the movie there's a lot of ambiguity. Is he a possessed reanimated zombie or a vampire or something else? He's definitely different to the possessed reanimated dead and he is ultimately killed by being stake through the chest with a large wooden crucifix... then there's the combustion, him only out at night, the powers of mind control... difficult one.
ReplyDelete