» Columns

» Reviews

» Screenplays

» Short Stories

- Join Here
- Terms & Conditions
- What is Writers Club?

Bizarre news reached me in the basement recently that Cat Stevens was refused entry to the States for security reasons. I’ll say it again. Cat Stevens was refused entry to the US because he’s deemed a security threat.

Did it sound any less strange the second time around?

Good – because this is about the oddest, most paranoid thing I’ve heard in a long time (and I listen to a lot of odd paranoid things). Cat Stevens is as peaceful a man as you’re likely to see in this day and age. I think the pope probably loses his rag more than he does.

So he’s funded hospitals and schools in the Middle East and Britain (maybe even in the middle east part of Britain, and the British part of the Middle East). Shame on him! What was he thinking educating children who don’t have a chance and giving them medical care?

Does that mean he funds terrorists? (Does the fact that I paid to see ‘Waterworld’ mean that I’m funding intellectual corruption?) If so fine, but where’s the proof?

For argument’s sake – let’s assume Stevens got into America. What would he have done? Started up a witches’ coven? Braai effigies of Bush on the lawns of the White House? No, he probably had something more sinister in mind like attending prayer meetings or a subversive cup of coffee or heaven forbid something as truly suspicious as enjoying the company of, er, friends.

We’re talking about a country that sees fit to reject a pacifist like Stevens, but allowed an anarchist like Sid Vicious in. All he got up to was stabbing his girlfriend to death in a drug-induced rage and later killing himself. But, no, he wasn’t a security threat.

Once again, folks, the indications are there: the world is really on its last few shuddering spins. There’s no handbasket for us to go to hell in, we have an express elevator. It’s time to dig out the suicide pills (don’t get them mixed up with the laxatives; they’re both blue).

Okay, so on that cheerful note welcome back: just enjoy it while you can.

Now I know I said I’ve finished with the zombie thing (although I haven’t looked at Lucio Fulci so technically I haven’t), but there is one film that I’ve overlooked. And I’m surprised I have, given that its director qualifies for access to the basement due to the number of cult hits already under his belt, films like ‘Shallow Grave’ and ‘Trainspotting’.

The film is '28 Days Later’ and the director is Danny Boyle.

And the film is the last word on zombie pictures — snuff said.

The plot is relatively simple: a deadly virus known as Rage is unleashed on humans after animal activists break into a testing facility where chimps are exposed to the virus. Within 28 days the entire country is a steaming pile of the dead and the enraged dying.

Everyone seems aware of what’s going on except Jim (Cillian Murphy) who wakes in hospital to find himself utterly alone. He was hit by a car before the outbreak, so he hasn’t got a clue what’s waiting for him outside the hospital.

He stumbles through deserted London and is rescued by survivors who travel north to Manchester where hope awaits him. I must admit I was pleased that Manchester is seen as a place of hope, given what most Londoners think of the north.

That’s beside the point though. The survivors manage to get to Manchester, but they get a lot more than they were bargaining for.

Boyle’s vision of Britain on its knees is a rare find; it’s a truly frightening film, made believable by the inventive use of digital video.

What I’ve outlined here sounds like ground already covered by the likes of George A. Romero, and in many ways it is. But that said, '28 Days Later' is an exceptional film, because Boyle sells you the film with the ease of a polished car salesman.

Very simply it’s frightening because it could happen. Think of Foot and Mouth disease, Mad Cow, think of SARS and then think that the biggest threat to our continued madness is biological. We could all be wiped out by a simple cold or flu virus — never mind your WMDs, Mr Bush.

The film also puts forward a terrifying proposal: that one day animal diseases could be transmitted to humans. There’s already a train of thought that SARS is in fact a mutated animal virus.

Foot and Mouth anyone?

Given this, given globalisation and the fact that we’re not in the greatest of health anyway '28 Days Later' is as much prophecy as it is chilling horror.

To scare you Boyle does what any good director would do: he takes you out of your comfort zone and immerses you in his world, a world where the great cities of England are convincingly deserted.

The menacing sight of an empty London is almost as terrifying as the infected attacks on Jim and his comrades in arms.

The acting is convincing and Cillian Murphy does an astounding job of bringing reluctant hero Jim to life.

The theatrical release had a downbeat ending, which I prefer to the alternate ending. It’s a slight change, but it makes such a difference.

It could be the scripting, the use of digital video or simply the scale of this film, but it seems more frightening because it’s British.

'28 Days Later’ is the next step in the evolution of the zombie genre. It’s grim, it’s uncomfortable to watch and terrifying … basically, it’s infectious.

The answer to last week’s Cult de Sac meaningless trivia question:
Martin Scorcese makes a couple of appearances in the film. What does he do in the back of Travis’s cab and where else does he appear in the movie?

He plays the role of the man who plans to kill his wife and her lover. He can also be seen sitting outside the offices of the party campaign HQ.

This week’s Cult de Sac meaningless trivia question:
If you could ban anyone from entering your country who would it be and why?

Cult de Sac is sponsored by the THE VIDEO SHOP 13 North Park Centre, 7th Avenue, Parktown North - Tel: 011 788 8613. Email: tebaldi@mweb.co.za. THE VIDEO SHOP is Cult de Sac’s video outlet of choice.