Rabid: Zombie Movie or Not?
Where do we draw the line on what is and what is not a zombie movie? We just can’t decide on our own, so every Monday we’ll post a new movie to be debated by, you, our readers and ask the question: Zombie Movie Or Not? Every Sunday we’ll post our findings and possibly strike that movie off our Zombie Movie List. The week should give you enough time to rent the movie if need be or you desire.
What every reader must keep in mind is that there are two basic types of zombie that every zombie movie based off of - the Voodoo Zombie and the Romero Zombie. The Voodoo Zombie, while not always raised by Voodoo necessarily, is basically a person, either undead or entranced, that is controlled by a person or entity for the purpose of completing tasks, often killing. Romero Zombies are basically mindless, flesh-eating undead whose bite will turn victims into zombies. Now, not all movies adhere to all of these rules, but if the basics are there, you got a zombie movie.
This weeks debate is over Rabid (1977) Directed by David Cronnenberg.
IS: The people infected with the rabies-like virus turn them into ravenous, blood-thirsty zombies that are as good as dead once infected.
IS NOT: They’re not dead, they’re just infected with rabies. They even die soon after getting it.
Now it’s up to you, reader. What do you think? Rabid: Zombie Movie Or Not?
Well, having never seen this Ill say no. From what I gather the people are still alive and have rabies. Though in WWZ the virus was called African Rabies for a time so that isnt a cincher in of its self. The people are still alive right?
Collin- Watch it and see…
how old is this movie? without seeing it im on the fence . it could go either way
Joey- 1977. It always says the year, right after the title on ZMON?
yeah i was just looking at that. i probably looked at it b4 and it just never registerd. how dumb do i feel? duh
I’m going to say this is not a zombie movie, it’s more like “outbreak” in that it just a rare form of rabies. I think the whole movie was basically a metaphor for STD’s.
I totally think this is a zombie movie. While it’s not an all out apocolyptic zombie outbreak scenerio, it definitely has ties to movies like 28 Days Later and would be found interesting by zombie genre enthusiasts. Moreover, the nature of the infected is very zombie like as is the make-up and overall presentation.
Yes, zombie movie.
Not a zombie movie. The more films we go through, the more I realize that “zombie movie” may be more subjective than it seems. I re-screened this today to decide for sure on this one, and it undoubtedly feels non-zombie.
My specific reasons for saying no to “Rabid”: lack of cannibalism, lack of undead, the contemplating nature of the carrier. This is an infection movie, which often gets jumbled with zombie movies because of the apocalyptic and plague of humanity themes the two share. Specifically, it’s a Cronenberg sex plague movie like “Shivers” which we did a few weeks ago. I’m being director biased to some extent; crediting Cronenberg with his own brand of odd, whereas modern examples like Mulberry Street, The Signal, and Slither I’ve chocked into zombie because they clearly reference benchmark zombie movies. Still, this doesn’t feel at all zombieish, it feels very much like a personal drama between the girl and the boyfriend (which is confirmed by the climactic scene, as it’s not the “Rabid” guy who gets the scare, it’s the boyfriend going mental on the phone set that disturbs). Death has no free range in this film; the focus is on the infection and the obviously sexual method of delivery of said infection. This doesn’t question the “walking dead” or the “dog eat dog” philosophical issues society faces that zombie movies tackle. The point of this movie is sexual frustration, sexual ambiguity, and the medical repurcussions of physical sexual activity.
There are a few infection movies in the past that I’ve voted for as zombie anyway because they have scenes which visually draw so directly on *the Romero pantheon* and the consequential (immediate) zombie-avant-garde that stretched the boundaries of “zombie” because zombies were marketable even in a movie they wouldn’t otherwise fit (I’m talking mainly about the exploitation/giallo school of zombie e.g. anything Fulci). There are also a few other “hive mind” movies I’ve voted for despite lack of cannibalism, undeadness, or rendered mindlessness, but because they had some other “signature zombie movie” element that doesn’t ring as unique (things that automatically register as obvious tribute or allusion like shots in “Les Revenants”). Cronenberg is doing his own thing here cinematically, inventing his signature brand of sexual macabre.
did my post get lost in the interwebs?
I voted NOT zombie because this is an infection movie, and specifically a Cronenberg sex plague movie just like “Shivers” which we’ve already covered. I had more detailed explanation…I hope filter comments just turned on or summat cuz it was a decent post.
Hey Kelly - sorry about that your first post accidentally got marked as spam and I had to go retrieve it :)
I say YES. It’s totally a zombie film in the same regards as 28 Days Later or Slither. Infection type zombies bent on destroying all that lives.