A new form of disaster tourism is born …
I don’t really think it’s possible to make a movie of World War Z, which is basically a kind of public policy review document. I also don’t think that the new movie is a particularly good first attempt, but it is a lot of fun. As an adaptation of the book it has so many obvious problems – not least of them that nothing that happens in the book is actually in the movie – that it clearly stinks. It changes the personality and job description of the main character, who is now some kind of crack investigator for the UN with experience in investigating troublespots (do these people even exist in the UN structure?); it changes the origin of the zombiepocalypse from a Chinese dam to a US military base in Korea; it has Israel collapsing near the beginning of the epidemic; and it presents a completely different resolution to the whole problem, one that is much, much less cynical than the horrible tragedy that unfolds in the book. It also doesn’t present a series of accounts from different protagonists collected after the fact, and the best we can do is pinch ourselves and pretend that this movie is a kind of prequel to the book, the story of what the book’s (unnamed?) narrator did during the first horrible days of the apocalypse. From memory we never find this out in the book, and indeed the narrator seems to have emerged from the zombiepocalypse largely untouched by it, unlike any of his interviewees.
It is in this, however, that the movie is most faithful to the book: where the book is a kind of disaster tourism, traveling from trouble spot to trouble spot and zeroing in (mostly) on people whose suffering was genuinely terrible, in the movie we travel from troublespot to troublespot and watch Brad Pitt somehow survive while all around him goes to hell. Everyone in Jerusalem gets eaten alive, but Brad is on the last plane out of there by the most extreme strokes of luck you can conceive of. Sure, he cops a beating and so do those with him (the few who survive, anyway); but compared to what’s going down as he runs away he’s veritably blessed.
And “Jerry” does do a lot of running for a crack investigator, not that you can really blame him given the (literally overwhelming) odds he faces in every circumstance. The movie has a very good pace, from the first encounter with the zombies to the last (slightly jarring) creepy encounter. The pace and frenetic efforts of the survivors are enhanced by slightly beefing up the zombies compared to the book: these zombies don’t shuffle, but run in chaotic gangs and attack with suicidal intent. They keep the hording properties described in the book, and in the movie they can behave like ants, forming self-organizing bridges to get at prey sources and overwhelming almost any defence with their weight and collective aggression. Street scenes with people running and panicking are great because you can’t tell who is what, and in amongst the chaos people and monsters are flying in every direction, getting up, being broken, giving up, fleeing and dying. The movie also focuses on those first few days when society is failing, rather than (as often happens in zombie movies) picking up once the damage has been done and the survivors are on the run. That’s very much what we saw in the book too, and gives a sense of coherence with the book when every individual aspect of the story is completely different.
The movie also completely changes the “ending” of the zombiepocalypse, coming up with a different solution to the problem and straying widely from the cynicism of the story. I guess the solution makes sense in a narrative and figurative (if not scientific) sense but it didn’t satisfy me, but I accept it was necessary – you can’t put the original solution into a movie easily because it was by nature a systemic and policy solution, not a magic bullet, and they don’t fit into a two hour movie.
Which brings me to a final point about this genre in general: modern television has killed the zombie movie. Specifically, The Walking Dead has shown that the best medium for zombie stories is television, not cinema. This is because zombie stories are primarily about the small desperation of ordinary people, gangs of survivors, not about big special effects, and the dramas unfold slowly over long times, as people starve and get alienated and fight and die. You can’t show this stuff easily in cinema, but you can unravel a group of desperate no-hopers over 12 brutal hours on television very nicely. Similarly, you could do a very nice version of World War Z on television, with a different account each week building to a broad story arc about both the original disaster, its causes and its solutions and even about the rebuilding process. You can’t do that at the movies, which is why this movie is a completely faithless rendition of the book.
Still, it’s a really fun movie. There are some clips on youtube (including an illegal 8 minute clip of the Jerusalem scenes) which should help to show the tension and pace of the movie. If you’re into zombie movies and don’t care about a great book being completely corrupted for cinema, then I recommend this movie. If you are one of those fanboys who gets irate if even the smallest detail of your much-loved canon is corrupted, then steer clear, because this one will make you pop a gasket!
Compromise and Conceit 
August 12, 2013 at 11:06 am
“some kind of crack investigator for the UN with experience in investigating troublespots (do these people even exist in the UN structure?)”
If they do, I suspect they have levels of accuracy that come close to psychics: “I sense that genocide may have been conducted here. Possibly somewhere near the mountain of skulls, but I don’t want to commit to this statement until it’s been vetted by the General Assembly.”
“Everyone in Jerusalem gets eaten alive”
That sounds like a change for the worse. One of the nice things in the book was Israel abandoning any trace of Zionism to become a fortress that welcomed anyone (Arab or Jew). It also conveyed the message that state-wide paranoia is a useful trait to have in extraordinary circumstances.
“The movie also completely changes the “ending” of the zombiepocalypse, coming up with a different solution to the problem and straying widely from the cynicism of the story.”
It’s interesting that you perceive the book as having a cynical ending. I thought that it was comparatively hopeful (especially for a zombie story). The world manages to kill the shambling hordes while still being widely devastated. I can see how that doesn’t make for a good movie, as per your points.
“The movie also completely changes the “ending” of the zombiepocalypse, coming up with a different solution to the problem and straying widely from the cynicism of the story. “
I strongly agree. The effect is highlighted in the fact that modern zombie movies don’t use shamblers, they seem to feel the zombies need to sprint everywhere. Possibly this relates to your point about the time frame considered: A movie can’t get across the idea of constant pressure from slow moving hordes while TV can emphasise that just because you can out walk your opponent doesn’t mean you’re safe.
August 12, 2013 at 10:51 pm
I suspect that if such UN rapporteurs existed they would make clear and detailed reports that would be of no relevance to any of the further machinations of the UN. Navy SEALS would die in their hundreds so that Brad Pitt look-alikes could document massacres which the UN would then send Dutch troops to not act on. But there would be apologies years later.
Surely the people of Jerusalem agree with you. I thought one of WWZ’s flaws was that it made something of a stock-in-trade of reversing the expected thrust of human cynicism (see e.g. the deliberations in South Africa as another example of this), but I did think the Israeli attitude was a nice ray of sunshine in an otherwise bleak scenario. I complained at the time that the Russians and Chinese were portrayed as excessively stupid and cruel, but the author did at least give some credit to people who haven’t always acted in line with the highest expectations of humanity. So there is that.
Actually, by “ending” here (not I put it in quotes) I’m thinking of certain breathtakingly cruel policy decisions taken near the beginning of the book, which are the source of human survival but are incredibly cynical. Once that decision is made the rest of the book is just really a documentary of the heartbreak that was necessary to win. So what I mean here is that I see the policy that led to the ending of the story as cynical, but the ending itself was, as you say, hopeful. Obviously I’m trying to talk around what that policy was to avoid spoiling it for my blog’s reader(s) when he or she actually gets around to the book. The couple of pages where the policy is unveiled are quite awesome for their callousness, and I wouldn’t want to spoil that for anyone.
I think your last part has a copy-paste error. I think you could be right about the need to up the tempo of movie zombies to keep the movie within the timeframe. Not a problem faced on the set of The Walking Dead.
August 13, 2013 at 2:32 am
Hey Gang,
not read the book which I clearly have to get round to (so thanks for not spoiling that!) but thought the movie was really good – especially given the many issues it apparently went thought before the final wrap (re-shooting the whole latter 40 mins I heard).
It was nice to see the apocalypse itself for once (as opposed to merely the post…) I thought the mass zombie scenes contrasted well with the quieter chills of the finale which was really tense. Not seen any of the classic zombie films myself, nor Walking Dead (you rate that then?) – only Shaun and 28 Days Later (and the poorer sequel).
I liked the effect of sound on them as well – it was interesting to see some specific behaviour from the zombies beyond just the hunger for braaaaaiiiiinnnnnnssssss.
And North Korea’s alleged solution was interesting!
I liked Israel’s approach, benevolent but also purely pragmatic ‘every human we save is one less zombie to fight’. The storming of the wall was one of the most compelling scenes in there I thought – shame they spoiled it in the trailer!
August 13, 2013 at 8:12 am
“I think your last part has a copy-paste error.”
Opp.s You’re right, it’s copy pasta. I should have copied: “modern television has killed the zombie movie.”
“I’m thinking of certain breathtakingly cruel policy decisions taken near the beginning of the book”
Ah, that decision. Yeah. I read it as horrid, not cynical. Though I can see cynical being a valid descriptor too.