World War Z
Directed by Marc Forster
Three Stars
By Jon Fisher
I imagine that, fifteen years ago, starring
in a zombie movie would have been considered a major step back in Brad Pitt’s
career. How the popular culture landscape has changed – zombie literature,
formerly of an audience of societally fringe-dwelling nerds and goths, has not
only become accepted in the mainstream, but arguably the world’s biggest movie
star now describes a zombie movie as one of the most fun movies he’s made in a
long time. In addition to that, a zombie serial (The Walking Dead) has become one of the most popular television
shows around in the more cinematic, post-Sopranos
TV landscape. The source material for that show is complex and harsh, with
a focus on the human dimension of a zombie apocalypse. The source material for World War Z, written by Max Brooks (who,
we must note with a whiff of suspicion, is the son of Mel Brooks), attempts the
same level of complexity. I enjoyed the book for its devotion to and
interpretation of the zombie mythology, but concluded that Brooks wasn’t much of
a writer. All of his characters sound the same, whether they are a blind
geriatric rural-dwelling Asian or a pair of American school teachers.
This adaptation of World War Z is a more enjoyable film than it has the right to be,
even if it is by no stretch of the imagination an artistic achievement. It’s
directed by the talented Marc Forster, whose resume features a hodge-podge of
experimental arty movies (Stay, Monster’s
Ball) as well as populist action crowd-pleasers (Quantum of Solace, Machine Gun Preacher). World War Z is most definitely the latter – as much as I was hoping
he’d inject a little bit more depth he's demonstrated in some of his earlier
films to the project.
Yes, with its rather clunky and contrived
story that lurches from one unlikely situation to another, World War Z is inconsequential as an exponent of certain kinds of
movie making. The movie’s structure is hardly worth blaming on the film-makers
– the book is a series of vignettes from a variety of witnesses to the zombie
plague that brought the civilized world to its knees, and most of the
characters are unrelated. To turn all that into a cohesive plot while retaining
elements of the book that engaged people in the first place would have proved
nearly impossible. The movie’s screenwriters (three of them, including Lost co-creator Damon Lindelof) do a
decent job, all things considered. Brad Pitt plays Gerry, a house-husband whose
former career was as some sort of a jet-setting investigator for the United
Nations. When the zombie plague hits, he and his family are rescued by the
Government, and Gerry is drafted to travel the world to work out the best way
for humanity to survive. He doesn't discover much that a few well-placed Skype
or telephone calls would have uncovered, but then if he didn't go jet-setting,
there would be no movie. (Funny thing about that --global communications
infrastructure seemed to have been left largely unscathed, as there are a
number of references to emails received as well as several inter-continental
phone calls made among the carnage).
Gerry moves fairly effortlessly from one
exotic location to another, especially considering that societal stability
across the planet has completely disintegrated. It became clear to me early on
that the story of World War Z was
basically a clothes hanger, an excuse for us to focus on several key action set
pieces. Once I settled in and accepted the kind of movie it was trying to be, I
found World War Z to be a lot of fun.
Occasionally there is a hilarious example of spackling (using one or two lines
of dialogue to spottily attempt to cover over gaping plot holes) that I found
more endearing than annoying. Brad Pitt does a decent job trying to bring
humanity to Gerry – after all of his commercial success and media distractions
over the years, it’s worth remembering that he’s quite versatile and
consistently convincing as an actor. The family story isn't quite dead on
arrival, but it’s not spectacularly engaging. The family are essentially
placards, cardboard cut-outs that provide impetus for Gerry’s actions.
Insofar as basic storytelling goes, World War Z gets a pass, but not really
a commendation. What I would recommend the film for is the way it incorporates the
enthusiasm it has for the genre with a huge budget, which enables it to make
its fine action set pieces convincing. The movie skips the traditional 10-15
minutes exploring the lead-up to the disaster, and within minutes we’re right
in the thick of society collapsing in a matter of minutes in central
Philadelphia. In this scene we are introduced to the zombies, get a basic sense
of their capabilities and traits, and also learn via Gerry’s keen observational
skills how long it takes to ‘turn’ once infected. I personally quite liked the
zombies in World War Z, although I
feel they will certainly be contentious for zombie traditionalists (if there is
such a thing). These zombies are a mix of the Romero-style decaying undead
combined with the Zack Snyder ‘running’ zombies. One of the enjoyable things
about World War Z is the attention it
pays to how these zombies work. We get a whole lot of enjoyable gibberish about
their social interactions, their capacity for co-operation and physical
characteristics. It’s all completely vacuous, but enjoyable nonetheless.
The ending of the film is mildly
satisfying, despite the fact that any real tension is gone because we all know
that Brad Pitt’s character is not in any real jeopardy because honestly, what
film-maker is going to kill off his hero in a movie like this? Nonetheless, World War Z reflects the same goofy love
for the world of zombies that the book did. It’s a little like an imaginative
and articulate primary school student’s story made on a massive budget – short
on efficient storytelling, while big on enthusiasm and attention to meaningless,
but amusing, detail.
No comments:
Post a Comment