The politics of horror

Everyone forgets the actual opening scene of 28 Days Later, even though it's deeply relatable, in that it features a helpless chimp strapped to a table and forced to watch doomreels of ultraviolence until it loses its little monkey mind and eats David Schneider. But it's eclipsed by the famous sequence that follows where Cillian Murphy wakes in a hospital bed to find that he has slept through a deadly pandemic and the ensuing collapse of civilisation. As Murphy drags his not-yet-world-famous cheekbones through an eerily abandoned metropolis, we see Piccadilly plastered with the names and faces of the missing and the dead. Audiences in 2002 were reminded of the recent World Trade Centre attacks, which happened in the middle of filming. Unfortunately, it was about to get a lot more prescient.
This week, as the long-awaited last instalment of Alex Garland's zombie trilogy hits cinemas (reviewed in this issue), it's worth looking back on the first two films – the second, 28 Weeks Later, premièred in 2007 – which feel like a 'coming up next' montage for two decades of economic collapse, climate breakdown, civil unrest, carnage and chaos. There's the theatre of quarantine, the masked soldiers swabbing holding pens of survivors. There's Naomie Harris, the original exposition ninja: 'It started as rioting and right from the beginning you knew this was different. Because it was happening in small villages, market towns, and then it wasn't on the TV any more, it was on the street outside… By the time they tried to evacuate the cities it was already too late. The infection was everywhere.'
Decent horror does a lot more than scare the audience. It asks us to think about what frightens us, and why. The big three monsters of mass culture are vampires, werewolves and zombies, in descending order of sexiness. I apologise to everyone whose doctoral theses I'm about to comic sansify but, in brief, the big three are essentially ego, id and superego: vampires are about power, exploitation and the nasty suspicion that, given the chance, you, too, might be prepared to hurt other people if it meant getting to flounce about for ever in a mansion. Werewolves are about the monster inside you, about the fear that one day you'll lose control, tear up your life and wake up in the woods with a weird headache and wearing the wrong trousers. But zombies are the most obviously political. Zombies are all about our fear of other people.
Terror of the unstoppable mob has been baked into the genre from the beginning. In the 1960s, George Romero's Living Dead franchise caught the mood of the mass protest and played into polite society's fear of the civil-rights movement. In the intervening decades we've been served every flavour of shambling undead, and all of them, even Resident Evil, offer us what looks like a reassuringly simple moral choice. The horde has ceased to be sentient and cannot be reasoned with; there is no way to have a productive debate with someone who actively is trying to chew out your pituitary gland. Which is upsettingly relevant to the recent experience of representative democracy.
Garland's ravenous, man-eating mobs of 'infected' are not, technically, undead – they're just very, very cross. The virus spreading unstoppably across the nation is, simply, 'rage'. If you'd pitched that in 2020, it might have felt too on the nose, but Garland has already explicitly told us 28 Years Later is more about Brexit than it is about Covid. Zombie movies aren't just about fear of the mob – they're also about the horror of having to tolerate other people. They're about the price we pay for the notional protections of civilisation, and they're rarely subtle about it, which is fine, because nobody watches monster movies for delicate analogy, and personally I prefer my Hobbesian dilemmas served up with dishy actors dressed mainly in other people's blood panting, screaming and swinging baseball bats.
'Are we the baddies?' is hardly an original thought, but the question will remain relevant until western society comes up with an answer. In the final act of 28 Days Later, it turns out that there are more frightening things than the mindless mob: there is power wielded with ruthless efficiency. There's the cold logic of institutional violence, made flesh in Major Henry West, played with appalling composure by Christopher Eccleston, who shelters our heroes in the apparent safety of his military compound. But West has a problem: his men are despairing, because they have the means of survival, but nothing to hope for. Without women, he explains, there is no future. West's simple solution is to kidnap women and forcibly breed them in exchange for protection from the mob, and while going right to institutional gang-rape might have seemed like a wild escalation in 2002, these days he would be just one YouTube ethno-fascist among many.
I suspect we'll be coming back to this theme in the final film, purely on the basis of the trailers, where a suspiciously monochromatic crowd of survivors seems to be doing some sketchy religion on Lindisfarne. Alex Garland is famously genre-queer – skipping provocatively from big-budget disaster movies to contemporary tech thrillers to murder mysteries in space – but he has certain predictable tropes. Something disgusting will always happen to a priest. Someone will be overwhelmed by the implications of technology and have an existential breakdown. There will be a scene full of bristling symbolism, where someone will run through a forest while a hypnotic soft-metal soundtrack plays. A bloviating, overpowered alpha-male type will play god; a brave lady with an edgy short haircut will try to stop him; and a sensitive young man will have to pick a side.
Over and over again, in action and science fiction and folk horror, Garland grapples with how men are meant to make women love and serve them. It's the driving issue of Ex Machina and of Men, the 2022 low-budget surrealist horror where Jessie Buckley gets hunted through the woods by far too many Rory Kinnears. And over the course of the century the question has become far less academic.
In this age of universal catastrophism, where we all at least get to choose our own apocalypse, some people are far less troubled by plague, famine or financial meltdown than they are by the collapse of certain social norms. Immigration. The active presence of gay and transgender people trampling all over our tidy traditions. And women who don't need men.
I was 14 when I watched the final, controversial scenes of 28 Days Later, where the women in Murphy's party are stripped and prepped for their first session with the lads. For these soldiers, women's agency is a luxury that a post-collapse world cannot afford – along with cappuccinos and subtle analogy. A surprising number of new-right doomsayers are anticipating the fall of civilisation on that very basis. The logic of the manosphere teaches us that when the dung hits the Dyson, society will revert to a natural order where men are real men, women are grateful, and most problems can be solved by shooting at them.
But the world only works like that in the movies. In fact, as we learned in the Covid years, an actual collective crisis doesn't call for tough guys who shoot first and ask questions never. The real heroes are doctors, nurses and first responders, and when things fall apart, people don't just start eating each other. They start feeding each other.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Daily Mail​

7 hours ago

• Daily Mail​

28 Years Later fans say they're WILDLY distracted by zombie's surprising appendage

Fans of a popular movie series said they were constantly being distracted from the sequel film's plot because one of the zombies kept flaunting his surprisingly large penis. 28 Years Later, which came out Friday, is the follow-up to 28 Days Later, a 2002 apocalypse film starring Cillian Murphy. The premise is that Murphy's character, a bicycle courier, wakes up 28 days after a highly contagious virus was released, causing society in Britain to collapse. The sequel, starring Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Ralph Fiennes, focused on a small group of survivors of the so-called 'Rage Virus' 28 years after the initial outbreak. Throughout the 2025 film, the group is repeatedly pursued by the Alpha, the noticeably hung zombie that has caught the attention of people on social media. The Alpha is presumably the leader of the infected and is bigger, stronger and obviously more well-endowed than his counterparts. Dr. Kelson, one of the survivors played by Fiennes, calls him Samson, a reference to the biblical hero of the same name known for his extraordinary strength and his battles against the Philistines. The Alpha certainly lives up to his name, as he is able to withstand barrages of arrows and pull off the heads of humans with their spines still attached. But the Alpha's power in that department was largely ignored by social media users, nearly all of whom were thoroughly focused on his downstairs anatomy. Many threw around the joke that the film should have been called 28 Inches Later. One commenter pointed out that the constant full frontal male nudity was only possible because the zombies were wearing no clothes. According to the movie's logic, they were nude because the clothes they had been wearing had degraded in the decades since they were infected. 'The infected in 28 years later don't wear clothes and it's one infected who got like a 10 incher,' they wrote. Another person compared the Alpha to Jason Momoa in looks, though the famous actor wasn't actually in the movie. 'Went to 28 years later. Wasn't expecting to see a well hung Jason Momoa zombie throughout the whole thing lmao,' they wrote. Someone else began to write what seemed like a legitimate review of the movie, only to mention the penis once more. '28 Years Later is a hauntingly beautiful, deeply affecting evolution of the franchise. There's horror and dread, but also strangely stunning moments of beauty and a giant zombie dong. Well worth the wait,' the person wrote. But the Alpha's power in that department was largely ignored by social media users, nearly all of whom were thoroughly focused on his downstairs anatomy Behind the scenes, it was a nightmare to film the movie, said Director Danny Boyle. That's because with all the extras playing nude zombies, the film crew needed to take extra care to protect the film's child star, Alfie Williams. Boyle told PEOPLE: 'I mean, if you're recently infected [with the zombie virus], you'd have some clothes, but if you've been infected for a long time, the clothes would just disintegrate with the way that you behave. 'We never knew [about rules governing nudity on set when there's a child present] going in, it was a nightmare.' In order to still film scenes featuring naked zombies while adhering to the safeguarding rules, Boyle revealed the actors had to wear prosthetics. 'Interestingly, because there was a 12-year-old boy on set, you're not allowed for anybody to be naked, not really naked, so they look naked, but it's all prosthetics,' he shared. 'So it's like: ''Oh my God,'' so we had to make everybody prosthetic genitals.' Boyle said he was keen to push boundaries with the elements of nudity and gore in the film, and he's glad studio bosses were supportive of his plans. So far, 28 Years Later has been well received, with an 89 percent score on Rotten Tomatoes.

Metro

18 hours ago

• Metro

I watched 28 Years Later despite hating horror films - scaredy-cats should too

I distinctly remember the moment I started hating scary films. My friend's mum had snuck me and her daughter – two only-just-13-year-olds – into a screening of 15-rated Hot Fuzz. I know now that this Simon Pegg cult classic is considered a comedy but for teenage me, it was the most terrifying thing I'd ever seen. Beheadings, impalings, and charred bodies – it was far too much. So when 28 Weeks Later came out that same year, and friends suggested watching the original in preparation, I squirmed. I actually believe I sat on my pal's sofa with eyes closed, periodically walking in and out the room (which has resulted in a very patchy recollection of the plot). Anyway, all that's to say that I haven't strayed far from the rom-com/action/comedy genre since. Until this week – when I scored an invite to the premiere of 28 Years Later. Not one to turn down a freebie, and with my 31-year-old big girl pants firmly on, I decided to give it a watch. Warning: This article contains spoilers. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video And I have to say, even as someone who despises jumpscares, it's definitely worth seeing. I do have a slight disclaimer in that I did demand Metro's senior film reporter Tori Brazier – who had seen the film the day before – warn me about the scariest moments. I was met with instructions like 'when you see the deer skull, close your eyes', and 'turn away when they enter the train carriage'. For those who have spent a life trying to stay blissfully unaware of the plot of the zombie trilogy, it's this: 28 years before the most recent installment, animal rights activists release chimpanzee lab subjects who essentially spread a rage-inducing virus across the UK creating 'the infected' (aka zombies). These running, blood-vomiting, shrieking monsters (who are largely naked by 28 Years Later) terrorise the UK to the point that the nation is placed in global quarantine, with human survivors left to defend themselves while life goes on in the rest of the world. In a little community, on a small island off the mainland, separated by one road through the water, 12-year-old Spike (Alfie Williams), his mum Isla (Jodie Comer) and his dad Jamie (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), have found safety. The film sees Spike and both of his parents make trips to the mainland; in his dad's case, it's so Spike can make his first kill; in his mum's, Spike's looking to find the mysterious Dr Kelson (Ralph Fiennes) who lives on the mainland and who Spike believes can cure Isla of her unknown illness. And of course, there's the infected to navigate around – especially the new alphas (aka super zombies) providing ample opportunity for blood, gore and scares. There's the opening five minutes, where we wait with bated breath to see if a roomful of terrified children survive the infected descending. Well, you can guess how that goes. And there's the scene where we see an alpha rip a man's head from his neck, withdrawing his spine like a bone from a tender beef rib, and using it to batter another man. But you know what, despite Tori's warnings, I only closed my eyes once (I did, however, jump out of my skin twice). Because, in that moment, I really felt like I would be missing out if I decided to watch the insides of my eyelids instead. The acting in this film is phenomenal. Right before it screened, Danny Boyle talked about the 'Harry Potter effect' and how there are an incredible amount of talented young wannabe-actors out there. We saw it with Owen Cooper in Adolescence, and we see it again with Alfie Williams who does a stand-out job, considering it is his character that leads the entire plot of the film. We feel his terror, fear for his safety from the offset, feel the immense pressure that's on him, see his youthful innocence when he notices his dad is exaggerating their successes, and treasure the moments he has with his mum, pulling silly faces in a crumbling cathedral. The main cast may be small but they are mighty. Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Jodie Comer and Ralph Fiennes don't have a huge amount of screen time each but when they do appear, they draw you in with their quirks, flaws and humanness (which is kind of the whole point of the film, I know). Yes, I might have found the straddling of the slapstick comedy vs the heart-wrenching vs the horror jarring at times, but I'm well-assured that that is the beauty of Danny Boyle, and in honesty the film would be a lot weaker if even one of these aspects were missing. As part of her warning, Tori mentioned that there was one scary scene I must keep my eyes open for, and I'm glad I listened. Thinking they've escaped an alpha after a night of near-death experiences, Jamie and Spike walk back across the causeway, the stress falling away as they joke around. The peace doesn't last and we see an immense chase scene, with the camera panning in and out to show the splash of the father and son's strides being closely followed by that of their pursuer, all under an inky blue sky peppered with stars and northern lights. More Trending It's utterly gorgeous while also bringing you out in a cold sweat. I'd have been a fool to look away. And so I'm glad I faced my fears and gave into the horror genre. I would hardly say I'm a convert (I'll still be comfort-watching Miss Congeniality for the rest of my days), but maybe I'll go back and give 28 Days and 28 Weeks later a go. Maybe I'll even like them. Maybe I'll finally be able to face Hot Fuzz. Do you have a story you'd like to share? Get in touch by emailing Share your views in the comments below. MORE: I went to Glastonbury and discovered it's just really overrated MORE: 'One of the best horror films' is finally coming to Amazon Prime next week MORE: 'I'm the 6ft 8in Alpha in 28 Years Later that's haunting your dreams'

The Herald Scotland

a day ago

• The Herald Scotland

When does '28 Years Later' come out in theaters?

The post-apocalyptic film dubbed "28 Years Later" is directed by Academy Award-winning British producer Danny Boyle, known for his work on movies including "The Beach", "Sunshine", and "Slumdog Millionaire." The movie comes after 2007's "28 Weeks Later," and it will be followed by director Nia DaCosta's "28 Years Later: The Bone Temple" set to hit theaters on Jan. 16, 2026. "Obviously, 28 years is quite a compressed amount of time for evolution to really establish itself. But they are evolving just like humans evolve," Boyle previously told USA TODAY. But when does "28 Years Later" come out in theaters? Here's what to know about the upcoming film including its debut date in the U.S., its cast and where to stream the first film before the sequel hits theaters: When does '28 Years Later' come out in theaters? The latest film, "28 Years Later" is scheduled to be released in the U.S. on Friday, June 20. The newest installment in the horror series premiered in Asia and Europe on June 17-19. A' compassionate' side of horror": How the sequel '28 Years Later' shows empathy Where to stream '28 Days Later' ahead of new sequel Horror fans can stream the series' first film, "28 Days Later" on the free (with ads) streaming platform Pluto TV. Dunnnn-dunn... 50 years ago, 'Jaws' scared us senseless. We never got over it. How many '28 Days Later' movies in the series? There are three movies in the "28 Days Later" series. They are: "28 Days Later" "28 Weeks Later" "28 Years Later" '28 Years Later' cast: The film stars the following actors and the character they play: Contributing: Brian Truitt Natalie Neysa Alund is a senior reporter for USA TODAY. Reach her at nalund@ and follow her on X @nataliealund.