"I've been conscious of working in the [zombie] genre from the beginning, and World War Z is so large in scale," Forster says. "There are a lot of original aspects in the film that I think people haven't seen before. For example, when coming up with the zombies and how they move, I based them on a swarm theory. What I mean by that is originally, when you look at Romero films from the '70s, his zombies move very slowly--I think because he was making a commentary on the consumerism of human beings at the time. For me, today, it was more about zombies swarming, a metaphor for overpopulation. We have fewer and fewer resources in our world today, and more people, so if those people turned into zombies, we are talking about large numbers and huge swarms." (MacDougall, 10)
For at least two reasons.
First, it validates what we do here, decoding. Like Forster decoding Romero's zombies to see consumerism, we decode as well, and, likewise, all of us--including myself--are trapped in our own perceptions about reality and politics (there is, by the way, no way you can get at consumerism for Romero's zombies unless you are erasing about half the film). We also see, beyond my own observations, Forster encoding his zombies as "a metaphor for overpopulation" (but, in spite of Forster trying to come off as original, we have all ready seen the "swarming" effect in I Am Legend with Will Smith). Forster's quote about having "fewer and fewer resource and more and more people" is a line from the UN's book justifying the Final Solution it is determined to enact to save the planet which leads us to our second point.
|The easiest way to determine the legitimacy of a "reading" or interpretation is to see if there are other sources saying the same thing and we see it in The Hunger Games (please see The Hunger Games: Hitler & America's Anti-Socialism). There was a controversy regarding this salute Katniss gives the audience and whether or not it resembles the "Heil Hitler." In May of last year, when I originally reviewed the film, I said it was undecidable, it could be seen as that but it didn't have to be. Given the greater fervor of revolution in the sequel Catching Fire, the "poor people" who are locked up in their districts are supposed to symbolize us, the people of America, and the evil Snow (Sutherland) is the 1% who rules over us (this isn't a convincing message the film sends to us, because most of us see ourselves as being locked up because of Obama's socialism and we want to get back to the way things were BEFORE the 2008 crisis, but this is how propaganda works, and it may work against the authorities). Anyhow, there is an important "slip" in Catching Fire: Snow says that the victors of the Hunger Games (which is Moneyball (Brad Pitt) inverted; please see Moneyball & the Great American Economy for more) must be eliminated, which is what socialism does, not capitalism, because you have to have a world full of Jay Carneys, Susan Rice and Eric Holders to keep a socialism going, in other words, socialism is the rule of the mediocre over the masses, because anyone really smart knows that socialism is a dead end. The problems with The Hunger Games is that it fed the audience images of what we think of under socialism and communism, not democracy and free markets, so if Catching Fire is going to continue in this vein, to incite us to a "revolution" against the 1% and Constitution, it/s apt to make us revolt against Obama and his dictatorship.|
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner