30 Years Ago: Night of the Living Dead
Today in 1990, George Romero released a remake of his classic zombie movie
If this newsletter were a critical guide, it might nudge you toward watching the original 1968 version of Night of the Living Dead, while gently steering you away from the remake released 30 years ago today in 1990. The original was bestowed the status of cult classic, with a 97% fresh score on Rotten Tomatoes. The remake was deemed as a hollow clone, with a paltry 66% fresh score.
But this is not a critical guide. This is a newsletter about the anomalous blips of cultural memory. And the case of Night of the Living Dead reveals an odd hiccup in the pulse of history.
First off, something is amiss with that 30-point scoring disparity. If you watch both films today, the first thing you immediately notice is how scary similar they are. Except for new actors and colorization, the original and the remake are nearly identical. Roger Ebert noted this in his review: “The remake is so close to the original that there is no reason to see both.” And yet, he gave the reboot only one star, while dishing three-and-a-half to the original.
If they are facsimiles, how can one be so much better than the other?
The answer, it seems, had to do with perception. At the time, the remake was regarded as a crass money grab — and Romero admitted as much. Because he did not initially own the rights to the original, he saw very little profit from its success. To worsen matters, the original film had entered the public domain, and Romero feared an unauthorized copy would appear. When asked by the media, he confessed that producing a remake would capitalize on lost profit and fend off bogus copycats.
This rationale did not sit well in the public. Keep in mind, this was the early ’90s, an era obsessed with the rhetoric of selling out and authenticity. The aura around Night of the Living Dead remake was instantly sullied: it was perceived as a crude ploy to cash-in.
The whole situation makes me wonder: Would Romero’s act of reappropriation be perceived differently today? We have at least one comparative case study — Gus Van Sant’s Psycho, a shot-by-shot remake that, like Romero’s simulacrum, simply added color. It drew critical praise (Tarantino famously said it was better than the original), but Ebert still hated it. But again, keep in mind: This was still the 1990s.
A better comparison might be found in today’s music industry. Artists who have lost the rights to their masters are now re-recording their albums. Taylor Swift bears the torch at the moment, but others — including Def Leppard, ELO, and the Everly Brothers — have re-recorded their songs as a means to regain financial reward. These redubs are widely viewed as artist positive, and few people begrudge today’s musicians for fending off copyright trolls.
Perhaps if Romero had simply called the project a historical reinterpretation to restore artistic ownership, his remake would have fared better. Instead, he is accused of creating a zombie.
MORE ANNIVERSARIES
15 Years Ago Today: A defiant Saddam Hussein (1937–2006) pled innocent to charges of premeditated murder and torture at his trial in Baghdad.
150 Years Ago Today: The first Black Americans were elected to Congress. In 1870, over four years after the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, South Carolina voters elected Joseph Rainey to the House and Mississippians sent Hiram Revels to the Senate.