Night of the Living Dead Movie Analysis

We watched George A. Romero's 1968 film Night of the Living Dead in class. The moral of the story was one of the film's strong points. It also had some weak points, such as the script and acting. As a result, I can't say whether the film was a success or unsuccessful, I would have to say the film falls somewhere in the middle. I’m sure when it was released, it was a clear success; it is just hard to feel that way now because of all the progression the film industry has had. The main part of the film that kept me entertained throughout was the overall moral of the story. If it weren't for the acting and script, I'd say the film was a complete success in 2021.

I realized almost immediately that the script had a unique twist to it. The dialogue was choppy and poorly put together at times. The dialogue felt a little forced at times and lacked creativity. The film also struggled with clarification; it took me halfway through the film to figure out the relationship between the characters Barbara (Judith O'Dea) and Johnny (Russell Streiner). Furthermore, I believe the script had a few logistical flaws, as some plot points seemed a little too far-fetched, even for a fictional film. For example, when Harry (Karl Hardman), was bitten by a zombie he turned in a matter of minutes, while when his daughter was bitten at the beginning of the film, and she did not transform until the end of the film. Nonetheless, I am hesitant to label the film as a failure because it managed to keep me entertained throughout.

As the film progressed, I was able to see how talented Romero's writing was. He was able to share a life lesson without obviously revealing it. Unlike in other films, the director made the audience consider and speculate on what they would do in such a situation.  Matt Brunson, a critic at Rottentomatoes.com, says, “A landmark of American cinema. Intentional or not, the film's sociopolitical content remains as potent as ever.” This is an opinion I agree with, as the lesson in the film is still valuable today. The film depicted two people, one older and one younger, who disagreed and wouldn't back down. All the characters died as a result of a lack of communication skills, maturity, and self-awareness. While Harry, played by Karl Hardman, and Ben, played by Duane Jones, did their best to survive on their own, they would have been more successful if they had just worked together.

That brings me to the subject of acting. While Jones did an excellent job as the protagonist, none of the supporting characters quite measured up. Except for Hardman, who did an excellent job as one of the antagonists. However, those two characters could not carry the entire plot of the story on their own. There were several characters in the film, but only two of them went above and beyond. This makes me wonder what the casting director was thinking when they only cast one real actor among a cast of mere amateurs. The actors' lack of experience and skills was most likely the reason the script fell flat with me.

Night of the Living Dead was a film ahead of its time. The film displayed unfamiliar material to the public, such as a black male lead and a killer child. Telling from reviews of the film, it was clear the movie was a clear success at the time of its initial release, yet the script and acting prevent me from feeling that same way. In 2021, I cannot say I would rate the film as a complete success, as the acting and script fell flat for me.