Connect with us

Editorials

‘Pride and Prejudice and Zombies’ – Reevaluating the Pulpy Thrills of the Literary Horror Mashup [The Silver Lining]

Published

on

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, via SCreen Gems

In this edition of The Silver Lining, we’ll be discussing Burr Steers’ underrated adaptation, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.

She may not have been a best-selling author when she was alive, but later critics would recognize Jane Austen as one of the most important writers in all of western fiction. That’s why it’s no surprise that there are dozens of adaptations of her work, with some of them dating back to the very origins of cinema. However, one of the most interesting interpretations of her stories is Burr Steers’ Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, based on Seth Grahame-Smith’s literary parody of the same name.

The 2009 novel was already quite the oddity, having been originally commissioned by Jason Rekulak, an editor who wanted to pair popular genre tropes with famous public domain stories. In fact, Grahame-Smith’s book wasn’t so much a complete reimagining of Pride and Prejudice but rather a bizarre reworking of Austen’s original text, only adding passing mentions to an ongoing zombie epidemic and including a handful of martial-arts-based action sequences.

While this literary novelty was initially only meant to supply Jane Austen fans with some pulpy laughs, it wasn’t long before the book became a runaway success and Hollywood came a-knockin’, optioning the rights to the bestselling mashup. This actually made a lot of sense, as producers thought that Austen’s beloved characters could actually make a solid foundation for a fun zombie thriller, and the title alone was sure to attract curious moviegoers.

Unfortunately, the project was trapped in development hell for years, with everyone from Neil Marshall to Natalie Portman (and even Rowan Atkinson) becoming attached to the film at one point or another. It was only in 2013 that Steers came onboard and production finally began to take shape, slowly accruing a star-studded cast featuring veterans like Charles Dance sharing the screen with more recent celebrities like Doctor Who’s Matt Smith. The main romantic duo of Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy was set to be played by Lily James and Sam Riley, a curious pairing that caught the attention of romance fans.

With the studio agreeing to a surprisingly large budget for a romantic-horror-comedy and Steers boasting a clear creative vision – not to mention a solid narrative backbone courteously provided by Austen – it seemed like Pride and Prejudice and Zombies was set to be a fun little blockbuster with a literary twist.


SO WHAT WENT WRONG?

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies movie

Making a mere $16.4 million at the box-office despite a $28 million production budget, it’s clear that the filmmakers overestimated how many people were dying to see a George Romero-inspired take on Jane Austen. Reviewers didn’t take too kindly to the finished film either, with Pride and Prejudice and Zombies currently sitting on a 46% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and being heavily criticizing for its unbalanced narrative and underdeveloped characters.

A common complaint was that the film’s humor didn’t quite work, with the story suffering from tonal whiplash as it transitions from Austen’s deliberately paced drama elements to the silly zombie war (which is played completely straight). At times, the picture feels like two incongruous movies edited together, as the genre elements don’t necessarily enhance any of the original narrative’s tension.

Some critics also complained about a certain lack of chemistry between the leads, which is a bit of an issue when the entire film hinges on a fresh depiction of an iconic romance. Although I legitimately enjoy Riley’s brooding take on a martial-arts-adept Mr. Darcy and have a soft spot for Lily James, even I have to admit that the romantic elements could have been handled differently.

Of course, horror fans were particularly displeased with the picture’s PG-13 rating, a decision which resulted in neutered action scenes and lackluster gore effects. Not only did Pride and Prejudice and Zombies rely on easily censored digital blood splatters and zombie bites, but it also made its main characters way too skilled at dispatching the undead, making for a disappointingly toothless romp.

At the end of the day, the flick’s odd take on romance and subdued horror elements meant that it didn’t really appeal to Jane Austen or horror fans, stranding the project in both box-office and critical limbo.


THE SILVER LINING

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies horror

Not every scary movie needs to be Cannibal Holocaust to get its point across, and sometimes it’s okay to share our favorite kind of spooky thrills in a more family-friendly package. There may be better zombie flicks out there (and there are certainly better Jane Austen adaptations), but if you approach Pride and Prejudice and Zombies in the right mindset, I honestly think that you’ll find an enjoyable gateway horror movie.

While I’ll concede that the lack of proper bloodthirsty zombie action is disappointing, Steers pushes the PG-13 rating to the very limit through some clever directing, allowing the film to get away with a lot more than other similar horror-comedy hybrids. The reduced rating also allows the film to expand on its blockbuster elements with an increased budget, which results in some impressively choreographed martial arts sequences made all the more entertaining by the cast performing many of their own stunts.

Ultimately, the film has the spirit of a schlocky grindhouse thriller and the production value of a traditional summer blockbuster, which I think is an admirable combination even if it doesn’t always work. Additionally, the filmmakers show a lot of love for the source material, with Steers appearing to be a genuine Austen fan and claiming to have re-inserted most of the original novel’s plot-points back into the story when he first joined the project, making it a surprisingly faithful adaptation despite its B-movie influences.

While Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is likely best enjoyed by folks who are already familiar with the original story, as the movie has to divide its runtime between tender character moments and an ongoing zombie outbreak, it’s still one hell of an entertaining love-letter to both zombie movies and classic literature. That’s why I’d recommend this zombified rom-com to genre fans that aren’t afraid of gateway horror flicks trying to do something different.

That being said, it’s still a shame that we haven’t seen an unrated cut of the movie on Blu-Ray.


Watching a bad movie doesn’t necessarily have to be a bad experience. Even the worst films can boast a good idea or two, and that’s why we’re trying to look on the bright side with The Silver Lining, where we shine a light on the best parts of traditionally maligned horror flicks.

Born Brazilian, raised Canadian, Luiz is a writer and Film student that spends most of his time watching movies and subsequently complaining about them.

Editorials

What’s Wrong with My Baby!? Larry Cohen’s ‘It’s Alive’ at 50

Published

on

Netflix It's Alive

Soon after the New Hollywood generation took over the entertainment industry, they started having children. And more than any filmmakers that came before—they were terrified. Rosemary’s Baby (1968), The Exorcist (1973), The Omen (1976), Eraserhead (1977), The Brood (1979), The Shining (1980), Possession (1981), and many others all deal, at least in part, with the fears of becoming or being a parent. What if my child turns out to be a monster? is corrupted by some evil force? or turns out to be the fucking Antichrist? What if I screw them up somehow, or can’t help them, or even go insane and try to kill them? Horror has always been at its best when exploring relatable fears through extreme circumstances. A prime example of this is Larry Cohen’s 1974 monster-baby movie It’s Alive, which explores the not only the rollercoaster of emotions that any parent experiences when confronted with the difficulties of raising a child, but long-standing questions of who or what is at fault when something goes horribly wrong.

Cohen begins making his underlying points early in the film as Frank Davis (John P. Ryan) discusses the state of the world with a group of expectant fathers in a hospital waiting room. They discuss the “overabundance of lead” in foods and the environment, smog, and pesticides that only serve to produce roaches that are “bigger, stronger, and harder to kill.” Frank comments that this is “quite a world to bring a kid into.” This has long been a discussion point among people when trying to decide whether to have kids or not. I’ve had many conversations with friends who have said they feel it’s irresponsible to bring children into such a violent, broken, and dangerous world, and I certainly don’t begrudge them this. My wife and I did decide to have children but that doesn’t mean that it’s been easy.

Immediately following this scene comes It’s Alive’s most famous sequence in which Frank’s wife Lenore (Sharon Farrell) is the only person left alive in her delivery room, the doctors clawed and bitten to death by her mutant baby, which has escaped. “What does my baby look like!? What’s wrong with my baby!?” she screams as nurses wheel her frantically into a recovery room. The evening that had begun with such joy and excitement at the birth of their second child turned into a nightmare. This is tough for me to write, but on some level, I can relate to this whiplash of emotion. When my second child was born, they came about five weeks early. I’ll use the pronouns “they/them” for privacy reasons when referring to my kids. Our oldest was still very young and went to stay with my parents and we sped off to the hospital where my wife was taken into an operating room for an emergency c-section. I was able to carry our newborn into the NICU (natal intensive care unit) where I was assured that this was routine for all premature births. The nurses assured me there was nothing to worry about and the baby looked big and healthy. I headed to where my wife was taken to recover to grab a few winks assuming that everything was fine. Well, when I awoke, I headed back over to the NICU to find that my child was not where I left them. The nurse found me and told me that the baby’s lungs were underdeveloped, and they had to put them in a special room connected to oxygen tubes and wires to monitor their vitals.

It’s difficult to express the fear that overwhelmed me in those moments. Everything turned out okay, but it took a while and I’m convinced to this day that their anxiety struggles spring from these first weeks of life. As our children grew, we learned that two of the three were on the spectrum and that anxiety, depression, ADHD, and OCD were also playing a part in their lives. Parents, at least speaking for myself, can’t help but blame themselves for the struggles their children face. The “if only” questions creep in and easily overcome the voices that assure us that it really has nothing to do with us. In the film, Lenore says, “maybe it’s all the pills I’ve been taking that brought this on.” Frank muses aloud about how he used to think that Frankenstein was the monster, but when he got older realized he was the one that made the monster. The aptly named Frank is wondering if his baby’s mutation is his fault, if he created the monster that is terrorizing Los Angeles. I have made plenty of “if only” statements about myself over the years. “If only I hadn’t had to work so much, if only I had been around more when they were little.” Mothers may ask themselves, “did I have a drink, too much coffee, or a cigarette before I knew I was pregnant? Was I too stressed out during the pregnancy?” In other words, most parents can’t help but wonder if it’s all their fault.

At one point in the film, Frank goes to the elementary school where his baby has been sighted and is escorted through the halls by police. He overhears someone comment about “screwed up genes,” which brings about age-old questions of nature vs. nurture. Despite the voices around him from doctors and detectives that say, “we know this isn’t your fault,” Frank can’t help but think it is, and that the people who try to tell him it isn’t really think it’s his fault too. There is no doubt that there is a hereditary element to the kinds of mental illness struggles that my children and I deal with. But, and it’s a bit but, good parenting goes a long way in helping children deal with these struggles. Kids need to know they’re not alone, a good parent can provide that, perhaps especially parents that can relate to the same kinds of struggles. The question of nature vs. nurture will likely never be entirely answered but I think there’s more than a good chance that “both/and” is the case. Around the midpoint of the film, Frank agrees to disown the child and sign it over for medical experimentation if caught or killed. Lenore and the older son Chris (Daniel Holzman) seek to nurture and teach the baby, feeling that it is not a monster, but a member of the family.

It’s Alive takes these ideas to an even greater degree in the fact that the Davis Baby really is a monster, a mutant with claws and fangs that murders and eats people. The late ’60s and early ’70s also saw the rise in mass murderers and serial killers which heightened the nature vs. nurture debate. Obviously, these people were not literal monsters but human beings that came from human parents, but something had gone horribly wrong. Often the upbringing of these killers clearly led in part to their antisocial behavior, but this isn’t always the case. It’s Alive asks “what if a ‘monster’ comes from a good home?” In this case is it society, environmental factors, or is it the lead, smog, and pesticides? It is almost impossible to know, but the ending of the film underscores an uncomfortable truth—even monsters have parents.

As the film enters its third act, Frank joins the hunt for his child through the Los Angeles sewers and into the L.A. River. He is armed with a rifle and ready to kill on sight, having divorced himself from any relationship to the child. Then Frank finds his baby crying in the sewers and his fatherly instincts take over. With tears in his eyes, he speaks words of comfort and wraps his son in his coat. He holds him close, pats and rocks him, and whispers that everything is going to be okay. People often wonder how the parents of those who perform heinous acts can sit in court, shed tears, and defend them. I think it’s a complex issue. I’m sure that these parents know that their child has done something evil, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are still their baby. Your child is a piece of yourself formed into a whole new human being. Disowning them would be like cutting off a limb, no matter what they may have done. It doesn’t erase an evil act, far from it, but I can understand the pain of a parent in that situation. I think It’s Alive does an exceptional job placing its audience in that situation.

Despite the serious issues and ideas being examined in the film, It’s Alive is far from a dour affair. At heart, it is still a monster movie and filled with a sense of fun and a great deal of pitch-black humor. In one of its more memorable moments, a milkman is sucked into the rear compartment of his truck as red blood mingles with the white milk from smashed bottles leaking out the back of the truck and streaming down the street. Just after Frank agrees to join the hunt for his baby, the film cuts to the back of an ice cream truck with the words “STOP CHILDREN” emblazoned on it. It’s a movie filled with great kills, a mutant baby—created by make-up effects master Rick Baker early in his career, and plenty of action—and all in a PG rated movie! I’m telling you, the ’70s were wild. It just also happens to have some thoughtful ideas behind it as well.

Which was Larry Cohen’s specialty. Cohen made all kinds of movies, but his most enduring have been his horror films and all of them tackle the social issues and fears of the time they were made. God Told Me To (1976), Q: The Winged Serpent (1982), and The Stuff (1985) are all great examples of his socially aware, low-budget, exploitation filmmaking with a brain and It’s Alive certainly fits right in with that group. Cohen would go on to write and direct two sequels, It Lives Again (aka It’s Alive 2) in 1978 and It’s Alive III: Island of the Alive in 1987 and is credited as a co-writer on the 2008 remake. All these films explore the ideas of parental responsibility in light of the various concerns of the times they were made including abortion rights and AIDS.

Fifty years after It’s Alive was initially released, it has only become more relevant in the ensuing years. Fears surrounding parenthood have been with us since the beginning of time but as the years pass the reasons for these fears only seem to become more and more profound. In today’s world the conversation of the fathers in the waiting room could be expanded to hormones and genetic modifications in food, terrorism, climate change, school and other mass shootings, and other threats that were unknown or at least less of a concern fifty years ago. Perhaps the fearmongering conspiracy theories about chemtrails and vaccines would be mentioned as well, though in a more satirical fashion, as fears some expectant parents encounter while endlessly doomscrolling Facebook or Twitter. Speaking for myself, despite the struggles, the fears, and the sadness that sometimes comes with having children, it’s been worth it. The joys ultimately outweigh all of that, but I understand the terror too. Becoming a parent is no easy choice, nor should it be. But as I look back, I can say that I’m glad we made the choice we did.

I wonder if Frank and Lenore can say the same thing.

Continue Reading