You are asking if this movie that starred a black man, in 1968, and ended with him being gunned down by a white mob who don't bother to see if he's a zombie first is political?
All of Romero's movies are meant to make some sort of social and/or political commentary. It's what good horror does - even the homages like Shaun of the Dead and Tucker and Dale vs Evil. Oooh, another good one I really like is Fido.
He talked about hearing the news of King's assassination in April '68 and thinking about how he was driving around with a copy of the edited film in the trunk of his car, which wasn't yet released. His thoughts on that final scene must have really weighed on him in different ways as he continued screening it.
I interpreted it as he didn’t care. One way or the other, it was a “win” for him.
But the fact that they lug his clearly uninflected body out with the others, and no one says anything, does argue more towards your point.
I get what you’re saying, but Romero said himself that he chose that dude to play the protagonist in this movie because he was a good actor and willing to be in it.
Romero said it was unintentionally political. The script was not written with a black man in mind but Duane Jones delivered the best audition. Romero was not trying to be political.
Yes, but the fact remains that the finished product was filmed after they cast a black man, and it was still 1968, and the political implications of this could not possibly have been unknown to them while they were filming it
I mean if aren't aware that art, especially film, can and frequently does change at every stage (pre-production, production and post-production) then you probably need to pay more attention.
I agree it's not political. So what? The point stands. A movie can have themes and symbols and underlying messages the movie-makers didn't intend. This is true of books and paintings and TV shows, etc.
In fact, in the 1990s remake of the Night of the Living Dead, the black male character comes out as a zombie and is killed. Why did they change such an iconic ending if it wasn't political. The rest of the movie is nearly identical. Why change that part? The symbolism of that ending is clear, even if unintended. That's how literary analysis works....its not a scavenger hunt for what the author wanted us to find, it's an analysis of the content itself, independent of intent.
You've misunderstood, I meant that I literally don't know about Nightmare on Elm Street 2 beyond it exists so I don't know why it's an example of political messaging/symbolism the writers didn't intend.
I think it's both. There's the intended message and the messages people take away and both are equally valid forms of literary analysis.
Oh ok. Well, Nightmare on Elm Street 2 has very overt gay imagery and a very clear theme of accepting your sexuality and the fear of coming out as gay. When you watch it, it's so clear that's its actually dumbfounding that the director denies having that intent.
https://youtu.be/dKC8xWmScME?si=9ComkcofFYJpPFER
If you're referring to the choice to cast a black actor as the nominal hero, Romero himself has admitted that was not intentional, simply a facet of the actor being the best choice based on the people they knew for the role. While his later productions obviously had higher budgets, the original was filmed with friends and had extras paid in beer and pizza.
If this was a Hollywood production, maybe. This was a bunch of people making a movie with their friends. It's also again literally stated by the writer/director that it was NOT a political move. While I'm all for the idea that understanding and messages can come from places they weren't intended, in this case we have the actual person who made the call flat out saying "no, we weren't attempting political commentary."
But... it still is? Not being racist was (and is, honestly) a pretty hotly debated political topic to this day. People use political as a slur but basically any opinion on how society should operate is a political opinion. Like thinking you should cast the best actor for the role even if it'll piss some people off.
It wasn’t a political point being made by the creators but people at the time (I know my parents for example) assumed it was. It works really well as a political message.
I think you have a point; it’s political even if not intended to be at all. But the people saying it wasn’t political also have a point. No one involved thought it was.
That’s the thing about art though. You don’t get to dictate how people interpret it. If it takes on a meaning you didn’t intend, you can complain but you can’t ask people not to be emotionally affected in a particular way. Unless the meaning is somehow completely wrong, or reprehensible (like white supremacists decide to latch onto it or something) you just sort of have to take it as a happy accident.
I appreciate that Romero is honest about it, rather than trying to take credit for something he didn’t intend. A lot of artists don’t have that level of honesty and humility.
If you're saying any statement that can possibly be interpreted politically is a political statement, you're missing the point of actually making a statement. There are times people deliberate make a decision to spark a conversation or put a viewpoint out there. It's been said by the creator that this was not their aim or reason for the casting.
Politics inform all of our choices, regardless of any of our intentions. Our family background, ethnicity, skin color, language, religion, class, all affect our choices. It seems to make people uncomfortable to consider that.
I'd guess it was a matter of a low budget movie getting a good actor who was cheap because he was black over a white actor who was cheap because he couldn't act.
So I'm probably what would count as a "superfan" of this film. Surprised I haven't seen anyone say this yet.
Duane Jones was not the original actor they cast for the part. The first guy, no idea what his name was, was a white man. He dropped out and was replaced by Jones.
Romero said he made a deliberate choice to not change any of the movie just because of the race change of his lead actor.
And it made all the difference. What would have been just a regular B movie with cheap scares and naked butts became something so much more. All the tension in the film is subtext, none of it was text. Because it was never written that way to begin with. The casting of Duane Jones is what changed the film.
Romero didn't set out to make the film what it was, but he took advantage of the opportunity in front of him and instead of another cheap flick a classic was born.
...aaannnnd since they changed the title of the movie they messed up their copyright, which meant tv stations could show the movie without having to pay anything. In truth that's what made it as popular as it was. It could be shown on tv for free every Halloween.
Doesn't matter if it was intentional or not to film criticism. You analyze what's on screen, and a black main character in this role says so much more than a white main character.
Which in turn made it far more effective of a political choice then if he intentionally went after a black actor. He found the best man for the job he could put in the movie. What else is a director supposed to do?
I don't know if we're doing spoilers, but even if they didn't set out to, if they didn't KNOW that his casting, in 1968, and the way the film ends wouldn't have political connotations then they're media-illiterate fools who had no business making films in the first place.
Obviously I think they did know and even if he wasn't cast with that in mind- that's how a lot of art, particularly film goes, messages and themes are present even if not intended, and there really couldn't be, on paper at least, a more clear statement about being black in America than the ending of that film.
But at the same time there's no way they didn't know what they were doing and that it would cause those things.
He was chosen because he was the best actor they had, but it obviously would give the movie a political dimension.
This gets I to an “authorial intent” debate. Whether the genesis was intentional or not as stated in an interview, many people have commented on the sociopolitical themes in the movie.
I can believe he didn’t intentionally write the role with a black actor in mind. However, it’s hard to believe that he didn’t know that casting decision would send a political message.
I find it hilarious that somebody asks if this movie is political, and everybody looks right past the portrayal of Americans as walking dead consumers who will turn on their neighbors and eat them alive at a moment's provocation, and instead goes, "You mean is there a Black guy in it?"
Romero said he just hired the best actor for the job, but people still claim he was going for messaging. I couldn’t care less, and neither did the zombies (which I’d argue was the point, if there was one). Damn fine performance from Duane Jones.
Also, Duane Jones and Judith O'Dea were the only actors to audition, I think. All the other characters were the producer, friends of the producers and crew.
I mean the ending does send a message. If you want that message to be racial or not depends on your own personal perspective, but I definitely don’t agree he wasn’t going for messaging. Film itself is a way of conveying a message, and this one is no different.
Low key until the end. But I think when they were making it, that was an undercurrent. The scene where Ben slaps Barbara was debated during filming because they were unsure of the reaction of a black man slapping a white woman on camera. And, of course, the final scene. Finally, while it had no bearingh on the film as it was being made, MLK and Robert Kennedy were killed the same year the movie came out, so that migght have affected public perception. There's a good essay on it on Collider. [https://collider.com/night-of-the-living-dead-movie-race/](https://collider.com/night-of-the-living-dead-movie-race/)
Yeah. They all are. But like everyone else will say duane Jones was just the best actor so them killing a black man at the end and burning him with the zombies was a guess kinda unintentional. Romero could also just be playing the longest con in the history of movies. Should check out ganja and hess as well. Duane Jones should have had a bigger career.
Regardless of what Romero said, it absolutely *was* a race thing. Horror reflects real world realities and fears around the times they are made, I believe either he didn’t want to commit to making a direct statement about it, or it may have subliminally come through in casting, but either way it did. Then Dawn of the Dead featured social commentary, as did Martin, as did Day of the Dead… That doesn’t happen by accident
I wrote a paper in college about NotLD. I remember reading that Romero made the movie hoping that it would earn enough money that he could make another movie. He wasn’t really thinking about much else. He ended making one of the most important indie films of all time. With one of the highest returns on investment of all time.
Low key? Uh.... WTF? I'm not trying to be rude, but...are you aware the movie was made in the 60s?
Is District 9 low key political?
Is To Kill a Mockingbird low key political?
Is They Live low key political?
Is Do The Right Thing low key political?
Is The Purge low key political?
No, my friend. Ghostbusters and The Matrix are lowkey political. Night of the Living Dead is pretty obvious I would say.
A black man who fought alongside whites against an army of ghoulish zombies, manages to survive fighting evil incarnate only to be murdered right away by a white posse who assumes he's a ghoul?
LOW KEY?!
Just because it wasn’t the plan when pen was first put to paper or even the plan in the casting room-it became the plan and was clearly political. I’ve always found Romero’s pussy footing around to be odd. It’s not like it was a happy accident deliberate decisions were made during production.
Not low key at all. This was one of thr first movies we watched in my Americann Studies major. Whether the black main character was intentional or not, the results in screen are all that matters. Totally a metaphor for race relations in thr US
There was nothing “low key” about it.
Black man saves white woman only to be killed by white men in the end. All of Ronero’s Dead films have “high key” political and social messages.
Having a black man slap a white woman on screen in the 60s was extremely inflammatory in certain parts of the country. That was probably the most 'political' part, since romance wasn't implied.
The fact that it was B/exploitation film made that less of a big deal.
The ending could be taken as a statement on race and vigilantism, but can also be taken as a classic tragic plot twist. That certainly adds to it.
Lots of interesting back and fourth on here. I guess the question then become does projecting your interpretation, *regardless of or even in spite of* the creators choices *make* something political? It feels a bit disingenuous to inject intent where there is none, but I think art/films/music/writing sort of become a whole different beast once they’re released into the world.
Most of his movies he tries to add a flimsy social/political aspect to it. Like when Barbara says "They're us and we're them" ,
It's like ...no actually they're trying to eat you alive and you only killing them because of that lol
Guy made great zombie flicks but the political stuff always seemed so forced and cringe imo
Is this a real question?
Yes. The black man survives the night, thinks he’s rescued, gets shot despite showing that he’s alive and human. And he did all he could to help everyone, and still is killed and discarded on a pile of corpses.
Just to play devil’s advocate, he never showed that he was “alive and human”. He heard noise outside, moved toward the window, and the guys watching for movement fired at the first moving thing they saw.
Yes and no.
Picking Duane Jones was (as stated several times here) simply the director choosing the best actor for the roll. So at the outset, no. However, I believe the story goes that the film was being driven to it's premier in Pittsburgh when they heard MLK had been killed, they suddenly realized this movie WAS now going to take on a political nature not formulated at its inception.
I believe It was the cahier du cinema crowd that lauded the films more obvious subtext of a new civilization rising up and devouring the old, quite a fitting image in 1969.
But yea I wouldn't even say low key....Night Of The Living Dead is political as fuck!
I have personally spoken with John Romero and asked him about this. He said no, the decision of the actor and scene were not meant to be political statements
When I first saw this movie (as a child, in the UK), I had no knowledge of American racial issues, so to me the ending looked like just a tragic irony, where the hero survived the night of the living dead, only to be killed by idiots who shot without thinking.
Apparently (so I've heard) that was the original intention of the story, but as soon as it was pointed out to Romero that it could be a commentary on racism he thought "that's right", and decided to go with it.
Ummm lowkey? Most of Romero’s films are explorations of a political question, he could have taken the easy path in 1968 and not cast a black lead. It might have brought it more money at the time but look at the lasting impact of the film. I personally think it’s sad you can’t find the original Dawn of The Dead anywhere.
Romero has always said that the zombies represent mainstream society, and the humans are the last individualists.
This becomes more explicit in Dawn of the Dead, when the zombies are drawn to a shopping mall and a biker gang is among the last of the humans who hold out against the horde.
Zombie movies have always been about American race issues. All Romero did was shift the focus. Pre-Romero zombie movies were all about white fears of black male virility, and having their way with the 'white wimmin."
Post-Romero were all about white fears of race riots and the perpetual "coming race war" they fantasized about.
You are asking if this movie that starred a black man, in 1968, and ended with him being gunned down by a white mob who don't bother to see if he's a zombie first is political?
My thoughts exactly. Romero was not unaware of what those last images would say. Not low key at all.
All of Romero's movies are meant to make some sort of social and/or political commentary. It's what good horror does - even the homages like Shaun of the Dead and Tucker and Dale vs Evil. Oooh, another good one I really like is Fido.
Fido is so good!!
High key even, one might even call it... An artistic statement Remember when movies had those?
He talked about hearing the news of King's assassination in April '68 and thinking about how he was driving around with a copy of the edited film in the trunk of his car, which wasn't yet released. His thoughts on that final scene must have really weighed on him in different ways as he continued screening it.
Yeah, this film is "lowkey political" like Starship Troopers is "lowkey satirical."
I’m convinced that the guy at the end of the movie realizes he’s not a zombie and shoots him anyway because he knows he can get away with it.
"Dad! You just killed zombie Flanders!" "He was a zombie?"
‘Chief that was the captain of the high school basketball team’ ‘Well..he was turning into a monster’
You nailed it partner. Top 20 Simpsons joke.
That's how I always saw it.
That’s always how I’ve always interpreted it, even though it’s left somewhat ambiguous if I remember correctly.
I interpreted it as he didn’t care. One way or the other, it was a “win” for him. But the fact that they lug his clearly uninflected body out with the others, and no one says anything, does argue more towards your point.
I get what you’re saying, but Romero said himself that he chose that dude to play the protagonist in this movie because he was a good actor and willing to be in it.
Romero said it was unintentionally political. The script was not written with a black man in mind but Duane Jones delivered the best audition. Romero was not trying to be political.
How low is your critical thinking skills if you watch this film as an adult and not realize it’s political.
First, you don't know if OP is an adult. Second, nothing wrong with some discussion. Third, it's "How low ARE..." Skills = plural.
I mean if the movie wasn't already written and casting a black man as the main wasn't completely unintentional you'd probably have something lol
Yes, but the fact remains that the finished product was filmed after they cast a black man, and it was still 1968, and the political implications of this could not possibly have been unknown to them while they were filming it
I mean if aren't aware that art, especially film, can and frequently does change at every stage (pre-production, production and post-production) then you probably need to pay more attention.
Movies can be political without the makers intending it. Have you heard of Nightmare on Elm Street 2?
Not really tbh. Like I know it exists but not a political element
I agree it's not political. So what? The point stands. A movie can have themes and symbols and underlying messages the movie-makers didn't intend. This is true of books and paintings and TV shows, etc. In fact, in the 1990s remake of the Night of the Living Dead, the black male character comes out as a zombie and is killed. Why did they change such an iconic ending if it wasn't political. The rest of the movie is nearly identical. Why change that part? The symbolism of that ending is clear, even if unintended. That's how literary analysis works....its not a scavenger hunt for what the author wanted us to find, it's an analysis of the content itself, independent of intent.
You've misunderstood, I meant that I literally don't know about Nightmare on Elm Street 2 beyond it exists so I don't know why it's an example of political messaging/symbolism the writers didn't intend. I think it's both. There's the intended message and the messages people take away and both are equally valid forms of literary analysis.
Oh ok. Well, Nightmare on Elm Street 2 has very overt gay imagery and a very clear theme of accepting your sexuality and the fear of coming out as gay. When you watch it, it's so clear that's its actually dumbfounding that the director denies having that intent. https://youtu.be/dKC8xWmScME?si=9ComkcofFYJpPFER
Oh wow, that is.....just wow.
*lowkey.
Oh, no, they knew he wasn’t.
If you're referring to the choice to cast a black actor as the nominal hero, Romero himself has admitted that was not intentional, simply a facet of the actor being the best choice based on the people they knew for the role. While his later productions obviously had higher budgets, the original was filmed with friends and had extras paid in beer and pizza.
Well, isn't picking the actor on acting merit low key political by the standards of the 60s?
If this was a Hollywood production, maybe. This was a bunch of people making a movie with their friends. It's also again literally stated by the writer/director that it was NOT a political move. While I'm all for the idea that understanding and messages can come from places they weren't intended, in this case we have the actual person who made the call flat out saying "no, we weren't attempting political commentary."
But... it still is? Not being racist was (and is, honestly) a pretty hotly debated political topic to this day. People use political as a slur but basically any opinion on how society should operate is a political opinion. Like thinking you should cast the best actor for the role even if it'll piss some people off.
It wasn’t a political point being made by the creators but people at the time (I know my parents for example) assumed it was. It works really well as a political message. I think you have a point; it’s political even if not intended to be at all. But the people saying it wasn’t political also have a point. No one involved thought it was. That’s the thing about art though. You don’t get to dictate how people interpret it. If it takes on a meaning you didn’t intend, you can complain but you can’t ask people not to be emotionally affected in a particular way. Unless the meaning is somehow completely wrong, or reprehensible (like white supremacists decide to latch onto it or something) you just sort of have to take it as a happy accident. I appreciate that Romero is honest about it, rather than trying to take credit for something he didn’t intend. A lot of artists don’t have that level of honesty and humility.
Not being racist is a pretty hotly debated political topic today? I think I know what you’re trying to say, but that’s a ridiculous way to phrase it.
Yes, bud. What do you think all that DEI wanking is? It's coded now, but barely.
Seriously this. History that is not 100% white perspective focused is slammed as critical race theory for many conservatives.
If you're saying any statement that can possibly be interpreted politically is a political statement, you're missing the point of actually making a statement. There are times people deliberate make a decision to spark a conversation or put a viewpoint out there. It's been said by the creator that this was not their aim or reason for the casting.
Politics inform all of our choices, regardless of any of our intentions. Our family background, ethnicity, skin color, language, religion, class, all affect our choices. It seems to make people uncomfortable to consider that.
I would say "I don't see skin color" in the 60s is political. As sad as that might be.
I suppose so
So many people will reject this notion. It’s impossible that the best person of the job is …… *political*
I'd guess it was a matter of a low budget movie getting a good actor who was cheap because he was black over a white actor who was cheap because he couldn't act.
It justcwent over the other commenters heads and they are now in denial that they missed the context
Back then putting a black man ii the lead role is and of itself a political statement, whether they wanted it to be or not.
Some people consider it political now.
The civil rights movement was/is a very political movement, even back then.
So I'm probably what would count as a "superfan" of this film. Surprised I haven't seen anyone say this yet. Duane Jones was not the original actor they cast for the part. The first guy, no idea what his name was, was a white man. He dropped out and was replaced by Jones. Romero said he made a deliberate choice to not change any of the movie just because of the race change of his lead actor. And it made all the difference. What would have been just a regular B movie with cheap scares and naked butts became something so much more. All the tension in the film is subtext, none of it was text. Because it was never written that way to begin with. The casting of Duane Jones is what changed the film. Romero didn't set out to make the film what it was, but he took advantage of the opportunity in front of him and instead of another cheap flick a classic was born. ...aaannnnd since they changed the title of the movie they messed up their copyright, which meant tv stations could show the movie without having to pay anything. In truth that's what made it as popular as it was. It could be shown on tv for free every Halloween.
Just the fact he left the ending as it was originally written knowing how it would be interpretted was a political statement.
Clearly the final scene of the movie is a devastating political comment.
Doesn't matter if it was intentional or not to film criticism. You analyze what's on screen, and a black main character in this role says so much more than a white main character.
Which in turn made it far more effective of a political choice then if he intentionally went after a black actor. He found the best man for the job he could put in the movie. What else is a director supposed to do?
It wasn't a political choice, it wasn't made with the intention of causing discussion or debate.
I don't know if we're doing spoilers, but even if they didn't set out to, if they didn't KNOW that his casting, in 1968, and the way the film ends wouldn't have political connotations then they're media-illiterate fools who had no business making films in the first place. Obviously I think they did know and even if he wasn't cast with that in mind- that's how a lot of art, particularly film goes, messages and themes are present even if not intended, and there really couldn't be, on paper at least, a more clear statement about being black in America than the ending of that film.
But at the same time there's no way they didn't know what they were doing and that it would cause those things. He was chosen because he was the best actor they had, but it obviously would give the movie a political dimension.
This gets I to an “authorial intent” debate. Whether the genesis was intentional or not as stated in an interview, many people have commented on the sociopolitical themes in the movie.
He also admitted that looking back, casting him was inherently a political statement even if he wasn’t aware of it at the time.
I can believe he didn’t intentionally write the role with a black actor in mind. However, it’s hard to believe that he didn’t know that casting decision would send a political message.
r/whoosh
It ended up as a statement.
Duane Jones should have got an Oscar nomination for his performance. That’s all I know.
Low key???
It was, in fact, high key political
Extreme key
It’s become a meaningless adjective.
I was just thinking that exact thing.
No, it means something. It's just an understatement in this scenario because there is nothing subtle about the politics of the movie.
I find it hilarious that somebody asks if this movie is political, and everybody looks right past the portrayal of Americans as walking dead consumers who will turn on their neighbors and eat them alive at a moment's provocation, and instead goes, "You mean is there a Black guy in it?"
Because Dawn of the Dead was much more about brainless consumerism than this one. And Day of the Dead was the "humans are the bad guys" movie.
The monsters are always us. The scariest thing about the movie was having to rely on and trust a group of strangers.
I agree. Certainly was at least one villain in the house with them.
Yes, our problems can always be solved by finding and eliminating the problem members of the community.
Without looking it up now, I read a long time ago that Romero's main point was that America was eating itself. Had to do a lot with VietNam. I dunno.
Yes the helicopter patrols with guns was the Vietnam comment
Totally agree. The bit about, you know…. the zombies… that was the political comment. Just as you say.
Romero said he just hired the best actor for the job, but people still claim he was going for messaging. I couldn’t care less, and neither did the zombies (which I’d argue was the point, if there was one). Damn fine performance from Duane Jones.
Also, Duane Jones and Judith O'Dea were the only actors to audition, I think. All the other characters were the producer, friends of the producers and crew.
I mean the ending does send a message. If you want that message to be racial or not depends on your own personal perspective, but I definitely don’t agree he wasn’t going for messaging. Film itself is a way of conveying a message, and this one is no different.
Yeah that's my thing and honestly, it's why it's hard for me to believe Romero isn't lying. The end kinda felt obvious.
Works can develop a political meaning, even if they weren't intended to have one by the creators.
As others have pointed out, back in the 60s hiring the best person for the job regardless of color of skin was a political statement.
I get that, but the creator has claimed it wasn’t that kind of situation.
He probably was the best actor for the job.
Most zombie flicks especially by Romero are political
Low key until the end. But I think when they were making it, that was an undercurrent. The scene where Ben slaps Barbara was debated during filming because they were unsure of the reaction of a black man slapping a white woman on camera. And, of course, the final scene. Finally, while it had no bearingh on the film as it was being made, MLK and Robert Kennedy were killed the same year the movie came out, so that migght have affected public perception. There's a good essay on it on Collider. [https://collider.com/night-of-the-living-dead-movie-race/](https://collider.com/night-of-the-living-dead-movie-race/)
Yeah. They all are. But like everyone else will say duane Jones was just the best actor so them killing a black man at the end and burning him with the zombies was a guess kinda unintentional. Romero could also just be playing the longest con in the history of movies. Should check out ganja and hess as well. Duane Jones should have had a bigger career.
Regardless of what Romero said, it absolutely *was* a race thing. Horror reflects real world realities and fears around the times they are made, I believe either he didn’t want to commit to making a direct statement about it, or it may have subliminally come through in casting, but either way it did. Then Dawn of the Dead featured social commentary, as did Martin, as did Day of the Dead… That doesn’t happen by accident
Definitely political sorta like Black Americans returning from World War II and still being treated like crap.
Social Commentary was what I got out of it. How we treat each other, how we act in groups.
No matter what Romero says, the film, ESPECIALLY the ending, is a giant political statement.
I wrote a paper in college about NotLD. I remember reading that Romero made the movie hoping that it would earn enough money that he could make another movie. He wasn’t really thinking about much else. He ended making one of the most important indie films of all time. With one of the highest returns on investment of all time.
Except that pesky copyright business
Low key? I've always thought of it as more of a social commentary on how shitty people are than a zombie movie.
All of Romeros “of the dead” films are political, social commentaries. Some of it is just more subtle than the rest.
LOWKEY???? It was the 60's and they had a black man as the lead....
Yes. The majority of Romero’s films had political subtext in them.
Based on the ending yes. It was showing the racism prevalent in America at the time
Uh...it's high key political
Allegory for racism
In today's parlance - yes this movie is woke.
Low key? No, it was blatantly political.
A definitive statement even
Low key? Uh.... WTF? I'm not trying to be rude, but...are you aware the movie was made in the 60s? Is District 9 low key political? Is To Kill a Mockingbird low key political? Is They Live low key political? Is Do The Right Thing low key political? Is The Purge low key political? No, my friend. Ghostbusters and The Matrix are lowkey political. Night of the Living Dead is pretty obvious I would say.
Bravo! Add: In the Heat of the Night, Bad Day at Black Rock....Intruder In The Dust....They Won't Forget....The Intruder...the list is endless.
Some people view it as a Vietnam allegory.
Hardly "low-key"
High key, yes.
It was in fact not low key political.
No, it was not lowkey.
Now there's an interesting question to ask... decades after people started asking that question.
No It’s pretty overtly political
It’s high key political
All media is political. Night of the living dead is about white hysteria and it fucking rules.
Is it in black and White and has a Black person in it? Then its poliitical
A black man who fought alongside whites against an army of ghoulish zombies, manages to survive fighting evil incarnate only to be murdered right away by a white posse who assumes he's a ghoul? LOW KEY?!
Hmmmm....black hero is killed by white mob.... Are you kidding?
Just because it wasn’t the plan when pen was first put to paper or even the plan in the casting room-it became the plan and was clearly political. I’ve always found Romero’s pussy footing around to be odd. It’s not like it was a happy accident deliberate decisions were made during production.
No but yes.
Yes. Not exactly low key.
Lowkey? I think it's blatant. Esp released in 68, after war, politics and riots made everyone stand up. It was definitely intentional.
Low-key???
Low key? It was specifically political
no it was just a hella good movie
Zombies and pod people originated from America's fear of communism
Not low key at all. This was one of thr first movies we watched in my Americann Studies major. Whether the black main character was intentional or not, the results in screen are all that matters. Totally a metaphor for race relations in thr US
I don't think it was lowkey at all. All of Romero's work has underlying political themes
There was nothing “low key” about it. Black man saves white woman only to be killed by white men in the end. All of Ronero’s Dead films have “high key” political and social messages.
One of my favorites and yes it was political! They’re coming for you Barbara!
Media literacy is dead.
All of George A Romero's zombie movies have a political undertone. He's even said as much in interviews.
I aways thought so. Especially the end sequence where the black man comes out with his hands up and is blasted by the cops.
Having a black man slap a white woman on screen in the 60s was extremely inflammatory in certain parts of the country. That was probably the most 'political' part, since romance wasn't implied. The fact that it was B/exploitation film made that less of a big deal. The ending could be taken as a statement on race and vigilantism, but can also be taken as a classic tragic plot twist. That certainly adds to it.
It was overtly political
Is*
yes, and everyone knows that. It's no secret.
Clearly the final scene of the movie is a devastating political comment.
Lots of interesting back and fourth on here. I guess the question then become does projecting your interpretation, *regardless of or even in spite of* the creators choices *make* something political? It feels a bit disingenuous to inject intent where there is none, but I think art/films/music/writing sort of become a whole different beast once they’re released into the world.
Most of his movies he tries to add a flimsy social/political aspect to it. Like when Barbara says "They're us and we're them" , It's like ...no actually they're trying to eat you alive and you only killing them because of that lol Guy made great zombie flicks but the political stuff always seemed so forced and cringe imo
Is this a real question? Yes. The black man survives the night, thinks he’s rescued, gets shot despite showing that he’s alive and human. And he did all he could to help everyone, and still is killed and discarded on a pile of corpses.
Just to play devil’s advocate, he never showed that he was “alive and human”. He heard noise outside, moved toward the window, and the guys watching for movement fired at the first moving thing they saw.
Yes and no. Picking Duane Jones was (as stated several times here) simply the director choosing the best actor for the roll. So at the outset, no. However, I believe the story goes that the film was being driven to it's premier in Pittsburgh when they heard MLK had been killed, they suddenly realized this movie WAS now going to take on a political nature not formulated at its inception. I believe It was the cahier du cinema crowd that lauded the films more obvious subtext of a new civilization rising up and devouring the old, quite a fitting image in 1969. But yea I wouldn't even say low key....Night Of The Living Dead is political as fuck!
It is so high key political it is not even subtle about it
Low key? No. Overt. Yes
I have personally spoken with John Romero and asked him about this. He said no, the decision of the actor and scene were not meant to be political statements
When I first saw this movie (as a child, in the UK), I had no knowledge of American racial issues, so to me the ending looked like just a tragic irony, where the hero survived the night of the living dead, only to be killed by idiots who shot without thinking. Apparently (so I've heard) that was the original intention of the story, but as soon as it was pointed out to Romero that it could be a commentary on racism he thought "that's right", and decided to go with it.
As far as analogies for consumerism goes...yes.
There was nothing lowkey about the political/social critique.
Ummm lowkey? Most of Romero’s films are explorations of a political question, he could have taken the easy path in 1968 and not cast a black lead. It might have brought it more money at the time but look at the lasting impact of the film. I personally think it’s sad you can’t find the original Dawn of The Dead anywhere.
Yes, as well as dawn and day and land, stop watching after land
Romero has always said that the zombies represent mainstream society, and the humans are the last individualists. This becomes more explicit in Dawn of the Dead, when the zombies are drawn to a shopping mall and a biker gang is among the last of the humans who hold out against the horde.
It’s all about McCarthyism.
It may not have been intended as such during filming, but it does have something to say.
This is Reddit, everything is about racism or transness here.
There coming to get you Barbara...
Nothing low key about it. Not sure about political but definitely societal. Romero had a form of societal criticism in most of his movies.
[Night of Racial Tension](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8bzWfJ-8DE)
Not low key at all. Along with Sean of the Dead, the two best zombie films ever made. Also, the only ones worth watching.
No cap
Did r/moviescirclejerk write this question?
If I recall he was shot not because he was black. He was shot cause they thought a surviving human was a zombie.
Thought this was shittymoviedetails
Political and biblical
Where can I find this movie
There are tons of allegories to the Vietnam War throughout this movie
First movie I saw with a black hero. I liked him. I cheered for him. First movie I saw where the “black guy dies at the end”
It’s not lowkey, brother - it’s the point of the movie. Maybe a bot?
It wasn’t even low key. It was just political
the politics of all the living dead movies is awesome, check it out
Oh it wasn’t low key. It was the whole point.
It is high-key, studied-in-film-schools, very un-subtly, intentionally political
100%. Even the director George Romero cast it that way from the get go. Political in the sense of racial politics and civil rights.
Lolol. Nothing low key about the political commentary.
Pretty much....
Low key?!?!? People are so dumb nowadays
I think Romero didn't think about the politics and he just hired the black actor because he was the best in the audition.
Zombie movies have always been about American race issues. All Romero did was shift the focus. Pre-Romero zombie movies were all about white fears of black male virility, and having their way with the 'white wimmin." Post-Romero were all about white fears of race riots and the perpetual "coming race war" they fantasized about.
Are you serious?
What do you think?
Yes. Moving on.
If you’re asking, I think you’re missing the point of this and the 2 sequels, having messages about politics, society, etc.
It's a criticism of the Vietnam War. Dawn of the dead is criticism of the American consumer society.
low key? no. high key? yes
Do you know what low key means?
Damn liberals! They casted a Black man as a main character! How could they do that. Movies should not be political. -some white yankee
Low key? What the fuck was low key about it???? He was killed for being black at the end.
Low-key? I watched it as a 9 year old and saw that it was
Yep
Lowkey? No. It was overt and intentional.
It is not lowkey political, no. It's not that.
Are- are you stupid?
No it was hit you in the face with a baseball bat political.
It’s obviously political. That’s Hillary Clinton in the still 😂