In our analysis of 28 Days Later, we discussed the film’s emphasis on the duality of humans. We can be incredibly civilized, but then we descend into primal behavior. It’s a common dichotomy that’s been a centuries-long subject of philosophy and art. 28 Days Later just exaggerates it.
28 Weeks Later drops that thread to explore, instead, responsibility and leadership.
Like usual, an analysis of the opening sequences yields most of the insight we need to understand the rest of the movie.
How the Opening Scene of 28 Weeks Later Establishes the Theme of Failed Leadership
We open with a typical domestic scene, except it takes place in this post-apocalyptic landscape. A husband and wife, Don and Alice, banter before dinner. Then they discuss their children. Alice worries but Don reassures her. They kiss. We cut to dinner and this assemblage of survivors. There’s Don and Alice, an older couple, an angry guy, and a woman in denial about her missing boyfriend. Don is the leader by default. All of the sudden, a child bangs at the front door, yelling for help. After some hesitation, Don opens the door and lets him in.
The kid has a line that he was running from his mom and dad (implying they were zombies). Just then, a horde attacks the house. Don initially acts as a leader, trying to protect everyone, but the situation quickly grows out of control. Don tries to get Alice to leave the boy and go with him, but she chooses to run across the room to save the boy. That’s when an infected breaks into the room. Alice cries out, “Don, help us!” He closes the door, trapping Alice in the room. He escapes, and, looking back over his shoulder as he runs from the house, he sees Alice in the window then torn away. He escapes while everyone else dies.
Rebuilding Society: The Illusion of Control in District One
We then cut to London, where the United States Military has organized a reintroduction of people to a safety zone on the Isle of Dogs, called District One, including Don and Alice’s kids, Tammy and Andy. We see shot after shot of American military. Soldiers standing by as people leave the airport. Soldiers in the streets pulling out trash. Snipers on rooftops. Helicopters, convoys. 15,000 people have already repatriated District One.
Personal vs. Political: How Films Like The Godfather and 28 Weeks Later Reflect Societal Change
Enough recap. Let’s dive into the secret techniques of movie analysis. Here’s the key thing to understand. One common tactic is to have a personal storyline mirror a macro storyline. The Godfather is an example of this. On the personal side, you have the story of the Corleone family. Over the course of 10 years, we witness the decline of Don Vito. He starts the film with all this power and respect. Scene by scene, he loses both. Until, finally, a decade later, he passes away. As Vito falls, his son, Michael, rises, gaining in confidence, reputation, and authority. Until, finally, his crew lay waste to the old guard, murdering the heads of the other four mob families. Michael is the new, undisputed Don of New York City.
All of The Godfather takes place between 1945 and 1955. It could have happened in a shorter period of time, a day, a week, a month, but then you’d lose the film’s thematic subtext. You see, over the course of the film, the Corleone family transitions from Vito’s old world ways to Michael’s new school approach. This parallels a change in America over the same period of time. World War II ended in 1945 (remember that Michael was a marine who served in the war and just returned). And the new beginning brought a sweeping transformation of the American zeitgeist. Radio gave way to TV. Rock and roll became the new anthem. Fashion grew bolder. All the ol models of propriety and tradition faced an onslaught in what became the Beat Generation. The counterculture was real.
So Michael’s rise to the top becomes a metaphor for the generational shift that occurred between 1945 to 1955. You could tell that story in a realistic way, but that’s a documentary that’s probably fascinating but boring. A better way to tell it is as a gangster story. Which is exactly the kind of thing you can do so powerfully in film. Killing Them Softly does the same thing, but with the 2008 Financial Crisis.
The War on Terror and the Political Subtext of 28 Weeks Later
28 Weeks Later came out in 2007. For those of you who didn’t live through this period, America was deep into its War on Terror, following 9/11, and a great deal of media at the time was veiled criticism of how Bush’s government had handled everything. Rock bands like Linkin Park, Green Day, and System of a Down had songs about Bush and the war. The Mist also came out in 2007 and its director changed the end of Stephen King’s story so he could make it a more pointed commentary on 9/11 and the American military response. James Cameron said Avatar is a “political film” that includes commentary on “Iraq stuff”.
There’s an obvious parallel in 28 Weeks to America’s attempt to “fix” Iraq and Afghanistan. In the film, as in real life, our leaders thought we had everything under control and could protect the general public. But then we lost control and our response was horrific. That’s embodied by the commanding officer ordering his soldiers to kill everyone: infected and non-infected alike. According to Brown University’s Watson School of International and Public Affairs, “at least 408,749 civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen died as a direct result of the post-9/11 wars.”
Don and the Military: The Fallibility of Protectors in 28 Weeks Later
The parallel between Don and the United States might seem rough but it’s there. We’re supposed to find him endearing, even heroic, until that moment he leaves his wife behind. Likewise, the efforts of the US military are endearing, even heroic. Until they open fire on civilians. The opening scene teaches us to lose respect for Don, which then sets up the film wanting us to lose respect for the military. Notice the later parallel, as both Infected Don and the remaining soldiers chase Tammy and Andy.
Official Marketing Confirms the Film’s War on Terror Allegory
If that seems like a stretch to anyone, please keep this in mind that this was the official synopsis that accompanied the picture’s first trailer: Six months after the rage virus has annihilated the British Isles, the US Army declares that the war against infection has been won, and that the reconstruction of the country can begin.
That language, “the US army declares that the war against infection has been won” is a play on George Bush’s quote, from September 2006: Five years after Sept. 11, 2001, America is safer and America is winning the war on terror.
So “the war against infection has been won” is a direct reference to “winning the war on terror” and shows the entire premise of the movie is grounded in commentary on the Bush administration and America’s presence in the Middle East.
Cast
- Don – Robert Carlyle
- Alice – Catherine McCormack
- Tammy – Imogen Ppots
- Andy – Mackintosh Muggleton
- Doyle – Jeremy Renner
- Scarlet – Rose Byrne
- Stone – Idris Elba
- Flynn – Harold Perrineau
- Written by – Rowan Joffé | Juan Carlos Fresnadillo | E.L. Lavigne | Jesus Olmo
- Directed by – Juan Carlos Fresnadillo
