FILM: World War Z

World War Z caught my attention over six months ago for a number of reasons, not least of which was curiosity regarding how Hollywood could take yet another zombie film. Another reason was Brad Pitt’s name attached to it, because I really like Brad Pitt as an actor. You may say what you will about him, but he knows his craft and he knows it well, and I do not believe his celebrity status has hurt his credibility.

The real problem with zombies is that what once may have been a plot device is now an entire genre, and with a genre comes cliché. And as zombies are traditionally a horror fiction convention, the last thing zombie fiction needs is predictability - nothing is scary if the audience knows what is coming. Naturally, there are few places to take the zombie apocalypse anymore as it has become, in my eyes, fairly stale and dull now that we’ve seen more than our fair share of zombies in fiction. We know how this goes.

That being said, World War Z has a lot in common with disaster movies, such as those by Roland Emmerich, which I actually like, because they are a projection of how our world in its current geo-political state would withstand a worldwide catastrophe. The zombies themselves are not the important concept; what is important is how everyone reacts to the zombies. Even so, zombies are still boring, and it takes a fair amount of effort to make them interesting.

I’ve droned repetitively about characterization a lot recently, and for good reason: characters are the core of film. Without characters, the film is nothing - even the most interesting and groundbreaking plot in history will be worthless unless it can be filled with at least one decent person to drive it. The reverse, however, works quite well; a terrible plot can be saved by good characterization, which is likely the only reason zombie films are still around. 

First impressions of World War Z were not great, as opening with a high-speed car chase through inner city streets does not give high hopes for subtlety. Overall, the world to describe this film would be unexceptional - that is, it doesn’t do anything badly, but it doesn’t do much well either. While it’s far from outstanding, the many functional elements that build a film are all adequate and sound. The writing is decent and the characterization is solid, the plot works and the visuals are nice, but not much of this film goes beyond adequate. In some ways, it’s about as generic as possible, as the plot follows the standard predictable storyline of every other disaster/outbreak/zombie film ever made.

The narrative concerns Gerry Lane, an ex-UN worker (it’s never revealed exactly what he did for them) trying to find solace for his family when zombies attack Philadelphia. When the UN accept their asylum on an aircraft carrier, they blackmail Gerry into helping them find a cure by threatening to throw his family off the boat. Naturally, he gets swept unwillingly into the global search for a cure, eventually finds it, goes home to see his family and everyone lives happily ever after. It’s the same plot we’ve seen before - so far, unexceptional

There are many factors which may carry a film. The characters are one; plot, humour, visuals, and philosophical exploration are but a few others. In a film such as World War Z, however, we’re left with the plot, because there’s no humour, the visuals are only there to support the plot, and there’s only so much you can make a grand statement about with zombies. As for characters, there’s only one - Gerry - and the rest fall by the wayside. With this comes no uncertainty about the fate of the protagonist; if he dies, there’s no other character well defined enough to pick up the pieces, and the film falls apart. So it would be foolish to kill off Gerry at any point, and more well-defined characters would have been a good idea to throw into the mix, to allow for the possibility of Gerry’s death. It must be said, however, that Gerry is indeed a very well written character, with subtle throwaway lines establishing his true personality, which is the art of screenwriting.

One thing this film does which I do like is refrain from creating a super-capable and confident protagonist. Rather than have him carve through zombies like an expert, he is shown struggling, making mistakes, and hesitating, establishing him as a mere everyman caught in a massive catastrophe. Yes, he has had some field experience from working in the UN, but he’s no soldier or expert fighter, and it shows. In one scene he’s even hiding in a corner while the soldiers take care of everything. The fact that he is shown to react to situations in the same way most ordinary people would allows us to relate to his experiences, drawing us in and immersing us in the story His previous field experience ensures he is not completely clueless, which adds believability to his survival, striking a nice balance between unrealistic expert and clueless coward. This makes him a real person in the eyes of the audience, which is paramount for effective storytelling.

And now we can get to the good bits. I said that Gerry reacts to situations in a realistic and credible manner, which is but one part of the strength of this film. What makes World War Z stand out is the action scenes, in that it makes every effort to convey accurately how confusing and incoherent the scenes would be in real life. Case in point would be when Gerry and his UN team land in South Korea, and zombies run at them in the night and the rain. This film illustrates that, if this were to happen in real life, it would be far from clear what to do, and any ordinary person’s first emotional reaction would be confusion, followed closely by fear. Small, subtle touches, like shaky camera effects focussing on nothing coherent, blurry lens flares and sound dropping out, are what create the experience. It draws you in thusly, invoking panic and fear, allowing the events on screen to have actual weight and meaning. Whereas in something like Man of Steel the on-screen events feel little more than superficial. Lastly, World War Z manages to carry genuine tension and fear, which I haven’t seen in recent releases since Prometheus last year. It is actually an incredibly intense experience, the pinnacle of which is the gut-wrenching scene after Gerry survives a plane crash and finds he has been impaled with shrapnel. After establishing his helplessness state, the sound of a zombie in the distance is genuinely terrifying, and induces panic as we hope for Gerry to get on his feet and get out of there.

I wouldn’t say it is an amazing film, but World War Z is powerful, and attempts to be realistic, which is more than one could say for the majority of Hollywood’s output. Things like children experiencing post-traumatic stress, and Gerry passing out for three days following his aforementioned impalement help invoke empathy and audience investment in the film, which is essential for creating power and weight. As a result of all I have mentioned, everything from car accidents to people dying actually feel like they mean something, and there’s really no point including such things unless they do.

I mentioned before that I like global disaster films because they show us how our world would react to catastrophes in its current geo-political state, and World War Z does flirt with this idea, even if only fleetingly. North Korea, for example, pulled the teeth of its entire population to stop the spread of the zombie virus, and Israel walled itself in to keep them out. These events are only mentioned in passing, but they help give a sense of scale to the events, and is fascinating to me with my personal interest in world geography.

It’s possible that I am being too kind to World War Z, but after watching Man of Steel I’m sure that’s acceptable. With so much bad film coming out this year - particularly this season - it’s refreshing to see a high-budget film with actual substance, a rare thing these days. World War Z takes a generic plot, and despite the occasional cliché here and there, it does the zombie thing so well that it should be commended. Even though it may not be a particularly exceptional film in other regards, and there are so many, far better thriller films out there, it is an intense experience which I nonetheless enjoyed thoroughly. And it contains many valuable lessons about seat belts.