Would a Zombie by Any Other Name Smell as Meat?…

Text (c) Richard Gary, 2012 / Indie Horror Films Blog

Images from the Internet

As with many others, I am a fan of the whole zombie genre, which seems to have picked up steam again over the past few years. But I am having terminology issues.

Growing up, pre-Night of the Living Dead (1968) [NOTLD], zombies were a whole different breed. They were slow and lumbering, undead, and usually Haitian. While there were horror films based on the characters, such as Bela Lugosi’s White Zombie (1932), mostly they were used as comedic fodder, as was with Bob Hope’s The Ghost Breakers (1940, infamous for the Willie Best line, “Feets, don’t fail me now!”). Of course, as most zombies were black, since they originated in the voodoo culture of Hispaniola, they were seen as derogatory and existed to be made fun of in a white colonialist stereotyping Hollywood way. Just the double-entendre title of the Bowery Boys’ Spooks Run Wild (1941) alone is an indication of that.

Early zombie

Even as late as the mid-1960s, zombies kept their kitsch appeal and were mainly used in comedies, such as in Ray Steckler’s ridiculously bad (in a good way) cult classic musical, The Incredibly Strange Creatures That Stopped Living and Became Mixed Up Zombies (1964), or, as they called a re-release when it played a midnight show at a Brooklyn theater where I worked during the mid-‘70s, Teenage Psycho Meets Bloody Mary.

Of course, NOTLD was a paradigm shifter, changing the image of clumsy voodoo servants and mindless murderers who followed the orders of their masters into clumsy flesh eaters free roaming the countryside (and malls, natch). This became the standard for years, through the likes of Children Shouldn’t Play with Dead Things (1973) and Return of the Living Dead (1985; including sequels).  While just a bit more limber in these later films, a sheriff from NOTLD said it best with “Yeah, they're dead. They're all messed up.”

However, once again things took an evolutionary leap with the Brit flick, 28 Days Later... (2002; not to be confused with Sandra Bullock’s 2000 mind-numbing-zombie-like-inducing 28 Days). In this flick, a virus turns people into violent and swift flesh eaters… but they’re still alive! This story is almost copied in another, more recent British release, The Devil’s Playground (2010), which actually inspired this column.

Slow zombies

Films like 28 Days Later... ignited a familiar question asked of horror fans recently, “Do you favour slow zombies or fast zombies?” An example of this is the documentary, The Walking Dead Girls! In fact, if you search the Web with this question, you will get many links on the topic. But I have an issue with this. First, let me admit that I like the viral running around fast eating people films; in some ways they are more exciting, though sometimes the editing and shaky camera used by seemingly everyone who does a story like this can be annoying, even if it doesn’t produce motion sickness. At least with a slow creature (or horde, as sometimes happens), you get to see the people get ripped to pieces (a nod to Tom Savini here), rather than a quick shot in edits, often in shadows or the corner of the frame for shock value. Give me a full-on, non-CGI appliance so we can to see some action, rather than shake it (apologies to the Flamin’ Groovies).

Essentially, the definition of a zombie, as is stated in part by Wikipedia, is “an animated corpse brought back to life…” In other words, from the voodoo to the flesh eating kind, a zombie is basically the dead arisen. However, in the later, faster versions, the attackers are not dead, merely infected, making them – er – hungry. We need a different word for this situation.

Fast zombies

My idea is to call them ghouls. Yeah, it’s an antiquated term that brings up memories of the likes of Eerie and Creepy comic magazines from the ‘60s and ‘70s mostly (where they seemed to be always in conflict with vampires, but I digress…). Again, Wikipedia describes ghouls, in part, as “…consuming human flesh, often classified as but not necessarily undead…Ghouls are perceived to be unintelligent and are primarily driven by their instinct to feed.”  Where my idea of using this definition falls short, is that in literature ghouls usually feast on dead flesh, while our infected humans (and zombies, apparently) prefer their tidbits still squirming.

Surely we can come up with a term that can differentiate between the classic risen dead chompers and those living foodies fond of animated flesh, or at least yet uninfected. 

Certainly, I don’t have all the answers. “Cannibals” seem to fall short as well, because in culture, with many of them it’s a matter of choice. Living people infected by a disease that makes them need to feed (there’s a tee-shirt slogan for ya) is not a option. “Biters” seems too mild, and “Flesheaters,” while a great band, also doesn’t give enough information.

The term zombies will always bring ‘em in to the theaters, or the television screen in the case of The Walking Dead series, so the odds that the appellation of zombie (or its alternative of zombi) is here to stay. Follow the fan base and surely the wallet will follow.

And look, no mention of braaaaains. Oh…never mind.