Splattercast 156- Night of the Drunken Zombie Film Festival: Re-animated
Episode 156 is ready for download
This episode is massive. 2.5 hours of huge. The first hour is a sober replay of our travels and experiences we recorded last night. The rest is a megaton of interviews we did with various filmmakers at the DZFF as well as three separate discussions we had with the Drunken Zombie guys. I should point out right away that the final segment was the original Splattercast 156 that we recorded at the festival itself and which included Dave and Wes. However, Deejay is so drunk and obnoxious that it’s almost unlistenable.
The other main thing of this episode is a pretty dramatic schism in the review of Night of the Living Dead: Reanimated. Deejay, Steve, and myself despised it and actually walked out of the theater. On the other hand, Dave and Wes of Drunken Zombie were very pro-NotLDR and you’ll hear a bit of their point of view at the very end of the show. Unfortunately, with Deejay drunk as hell, it really wasn’t the forum to get into a real debate about the film, but I do think it’s important to note a positive reaction to the film at the end of this episode because, frankly, we are incredibly negative on the movie. It’s probably the harshest we’ve been on a film since Dead Clowns, Amateur Porn Star Killer or Rob Zombie’s Halloween, if you can believe it.
Here is a list of websites for all of the films and filmmakers we interview in the second half of the show:
- Drunken Zombie
- Fast Zombies With Guns
- Murdersaurus Rex
- Shadowland
- Italian Zombie Move Part 1 and 2
- Of Doom/Reality’s End Productions
Once again, a very special thank you to Bryan, Wes, Randy, and Dave of the Drunken Zombie podcast. They were super cool and we are honored they allowed us to screen Outpost Doom at their festival. It was a great time all around and more thanks to all the filmmakers who were so kind to us and participated in the various interviews we conducted. We’ll definitely try and show up for the next DZFF.
Having some technical issues with the video journal (what else is new?). It’ll be posted as soon as I can get it done. In the meantime, here’s Kali, the girl you’ll get to see shower if she can sell 100 copies of Italian Zombie Movie Part 1 & 2. Do your part 
Filed under: Dead Lantern News, Splattercast
Teen*Idol said:
yes please shower scene.
Bugsyoz said:
“I loved Fast Zombies With Guns, I saw 10 minutes”
“Which 10 minutes did you see?”
“I saw the awesome 10 mintues”
LOL
Doiner said:
“This episode is massive” Indeed it’s Massive!!
Mike said:
Hey Matt,
I think Bryan hit it on the head when he said you might be approaching NOTLD:R from the wrong direction.
1) I don’t call the project a film. I do not see it as film making. To quote our own site: ‘Night of the Living Dead: Reanimated is an art show hung on the cult classic’s timeline.’ I don’t think there is any argument that is what we did, in fact, between the questions of the project that’s even suggested as it would be cool if it were in a gallery show etc. Well, that’s what it is and how it’s meant to be seen… it is a gallery show hung in time instead of space.
Calling NOTLD:R a film is like calling your podcast a song. Your show is audio and is presented as in mp3 format but if someone downloads it looking for music what are the odds are that your podcast is going to satisfy their music craving. ‘Damn this is a long fucking song… with no consistent beat… and a hell of a lot of words and obscure references to events and movies. THIS SONG BLOWS!?!’
Is that an insult to the podcast? No, because you weren’t trying to make a song and failed… you had your own kind of show and it failed people expecting to dance to it. Much the same, you look at something that isn’t a film… of course you’re going to think it’s a piss poor film.
Your penis makes you a bad women (but you’re still a person) … That comic book fails to report the news (but it’s still print with text and images)… Logic says the clearer you define something as one thing the more it fails to be everything else.
So you’re right… we’re as bad at film making as your podcast is at playing classical violin.
2) Reanimated is a process onto itself (not just a pun on the word animated). Reanimation was posed by cartoonist/ illustrator/ animator Winsor McCay. In the same era where rotoscoping was gaining steam as a way to make animation fast and cheap by tracing film, McCay countered that art and animation had the freedom to not just show/ record the reality of what is there but to give it that freedom to show an artist’s prospective and exaggerate things beyond reality. That’s what reanimation is… approaching an existing film through the eyes and hands of artists. That’s part of the reason I use the words like ‘curator’ and ‘artists’ not ‘director’ and ‘crew’.
3) Another quote from the site: ‘For the optimal experience, we recommend that you first watch the original film as it will help to inform how you read the artwork.’ Art is useless without a way to enter it. If I show you an abstract painting of a rhino then you won’t see it if you don’t either have a firm grip on abstract art or a firm grip on what a rhino looks like… because you have no way to enter the work and decode what you are seeing.
The fact that it turned someone off who doesn’t have a way to enter is not surprising. Guess what… by building a store you turn away customers who either can’t find or figure out the door.
Admittedly, I’m harsh on this point because I see no excuse for someone not seeing the original film. Since we stand in supplement, if they don’t either have that art background or a background with the film then that’s like watching the bonus features on a DVD first… SPOILER ALERT.. THAT’S A GOOD WAY TO SPOIL THE MOVIE.
4) As far as the tone. Each artist did the scene as they saw it. Experiences are flexible… parody dubs and laugh trax as well as horror hosts show that not everyone is drawn to the horror end of horror. Some see the camp, some see the humor, some see the horror and the gore… but each of them are showing you what they see.
I think the schizophrenic comment is kind of classic… I mean you have the work of over a hundred people each making their own choices. I do not want to meet the person who has all of those thoughts crammed into one head… well maybe I would but only in a Silence of the Lambs talking through the wall situation.
So across the board we missed each other. Did we fail you or did your own false expectations? Who knows… but in the end every screening we have had has seen a group which got up and walked out and a group which was so into it that and either thanked the organizer or emailed me thanking me for showing it. Lol we get people who try to be soft handed and say ‘well I liked parts of it’… actually the ‘that would make a cool poster’ is also an echoed statement… but in the end, if everyone’s honest everyone either finds love, hate or confusion.
Check out Mail Order Zombie (they were more brutal then you) and Seattle Geekly (they praised it up and down
even recommending it on their top pick list for Halloween).
To paraphrase a Dadaist philosophy ‘When you present a point people will be divided. Having an idea in art is like
introducing swords into a crowded theater… in a crowded space putting the handle in one person’s hand means putting the blade into another person’s side.’
-Mike
Jeff said:
Mike, thanks a lot for taking the time to chime in here. I didn’t have the opportunity to attend the festival with the other guys, but I still defninitely plan on checking out Reanimated soon.
MaT said:
Thanks for responding. Here is my response:
1. You’ve got to remember that when someone enters a theatre, buys some popcorn, sits down, the lights go out, and they start watching something on the big screen that, for all intents and purposes, IS a “film” to them, they aren’t thinking “Man, this is a great art gallery I’m watching”. There is a giant disconnect in terms of your “intentions” and what people actually expect when they go into a theater and sit down. Maybe you would be better served to put a warning before the film explaining exactly what people are getting themselves into. Or, don’t show it at a film festival with an audience expecting to see a film.
And, no offense, but to simply redefine NotlD as not being a film, but rather an art gallery in time and not space is disingenuous. NotlDR is a film in the most general sense and definition of the word. I guess we could really geek out and debate the nuances of the word “film” but c’mon, nobody who sees this is ever going to describe it as an “art gallery”. They are going to say “I saw this movie/film and it was….”
2. Nobody is arguing the “freedom” aspect of this movie. People can do whatever they want to anything. You guys obviously felt this was a good idea and worth exploring. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean it’s good to do. My problem with NotDR is that I feel you failed. Disgustingly so. Even if I use your argument that it’s just an art gallery, well then I’m going to criticize what I feel is your seeming lack of quality control in terms of which “art” was included. Most of of it is garbage of the highest order, and I’m not alone in thinking this. Sure, “reanimation” might give artists freedom to interpret and “exaggerate” reality, but freedom does not equal quality in this instance.
3. Again, you keep quoting your website that has all these explanations and excuses for how/why you are to watch the film. Trust me, if everything you are saying is so important and integral to the viewing experience, then you have to stick that text before the film. You have to understand that most people don’t go to websites and read all the little quotes or “about” paragraphs. If they go to a website, they usually watch the trailer and that’s it. Most people don’t have the attention span to process all the little nuances that the filmmaker wants them to understand before viewing. I think this project will be helped greatly by explaining to audiences exactly what your goal is because as it stands, it’s getting some extremely negative response which I know can’t feel very good. You should at least try to mitigate some of that. But just as you are harsh on advocating that everyone should have seen NotlD before your film, I’m just as harsh on criticizing what I see as a dismantling of everything great about that film, and seeing first hand people walking out and openly admitting that they have no desire to see the original is a deal breaker for me. You should not need George Romero to hold your hand in order for your project to stand on it’s own. It should make people MORE interested in seeing the original because if you are truly fans, then your ultimate goal should not be to just piggyback off current fans of the original film, but to expand the audience for Romero’s original…yes, even to those who haven’t seen it before. If that wasn’t even in your calculations when you were doing this, then frankly I have even less respect for the results than I did before.
4. Excellent. Some people like your movie. Glad to hear it. A lot of people like Rob Zombie’s Halloween or Michael Bay flicks. Hell, a lot of people like The Grand Horror. Do I take these people seriously? No. None of your arguments have done anything to change the experience I felt as I watched it. The fact that you admit that some people walk out on all your screenings is telling. In the end, I don’t begrudge any of you for doing this. As I said on the cast, it sounds like a great idea. All I’m saying is that you failed miserably, in my opinion. It does nothing to add or enhance the original film and feels more like a bunch of people jacking themselves off to how cool only they think their own idea is. It destroys everything that made the original film good. And to be completely honest, I had no real expectations going into the film. I remember being somewhat wary of the idea when I first heard about it, but I only watched the trailer once, and frankly, was way too busy/worried about my own film to think about what I “expected” from yours.
I’ve never just gotten up and walked out of a film before. I even stuck through RZ’s Halloween and Van Helsing. So congratulations, I guess you did accomplish something
Borp said:
Oh snap!
Mike said:
Well Matt,
1) I think you’re mistaken on the first point. Saying nobody will get it is as absurd as if I were to say that everyone would get it. (Note: I know that’s not true.)
As a point of arrangement, we were just reviewed by Famous Monsters of Film Land: http://www.famousmonstersoffilmland.com/dvd-review-night-of-the-living-dead-reanimated/
To quote them: ” I guess the most important thing to say is that one can’t approach this as a narrative film. It is, rather, in the words of its producers, “an art show hung on the… timeline” of George A. Romero’s cult classic, Night of the Living Dead.”
And they end with: “Like an art show in any gallery, not everything will be for you – but then, that’s not really the point, is it?”
So some people will go ‘oh an art show’ or at least read that off of the box or website. You were just not one of those people.
As far as film festivals go, we were invited and the festivals knew what we were getting into when they invited us. Some festivals present the works and others just play them. After seeing the response is substantially better when it is presented we will be including a host on the DVD release to ‘present’ the project.
In the end, it asks a different question of the media and anything exploring something new will run the risk of losing some viewers, however, if it is true to that exploration, it will also develop an audience of its own.
2) Your opinion shows a lack of understanding in post modernity. Artists show their hand and the medium either through mastery and claiming control over it or by working with its natural tendencies and allowing them to be part of the visual language. This is the argument of art vs anti-art prospectives in formalism. Beyond that, conceptualism would push the point that neither of those things should be the headline and they should only be in service of the idea behind the work. To resolve these conflicting views a common thought in contemporary art is that ‘art is how well the artist reaches their intention’.
Something to keep in mind when viewing art in general… if something completely misses the mark, then you have to consider the possibility that that was not the mark it was going for… if you do not do that then you fail yourself.
3) I’d agree that a introduction is needed for people who believe they are walking into a narrative film… and we are planning to put that disclaimer/ presenter on the front end for the DVD.
Still I’d argue that in a screening arena where they don’t have the option to pause the DVD and prepare themselves… viewers who are just introduced to what the project is all about will not have time to adjust themselves and so that would remove the point. You could take this argument towards it not belonging in a film festival… though I take the stance that the stagnation in media is the result of people allowing the audience to become passive. This is a common debate between art and mass media. Mass media caters to the mass market where as art caters to the concept or process often at the risk of seeming esoteric.
In the art world, the expectation is that the viewer will read the show prospectus, the artist statements (if provided), look at the title card and consider the details of where when and how the work was made… to the point that numerous works do not function without these steps being taken. Art has freedom mass media does not because art requires more from the viewer… and if the viewer does not want to extend themselves to the work then they screw themselves out of a potentially rewarding experience.
>> ‘it’s getting some extremely negative response which I know can’t feel very good.’
Actually, I’d rather that everyone either love or hate the project. Failure is passivity… but again I’m an artist not a film maker.
For every negative review there is a positive review… and for every rant I receive… I also receive thank yous.
We would not have this conversation about a b-movie and this is the success of the project. Besides how could I take it personally when someone says they don’t like my film when from my prospective I haven’t made a film.
4) ‘And to be completely honest, I had no real expectations going into the film.’
Wrong… by your own admission you had the expectation of going into a film. That’s pretty major.
In the end, if I view your film on the terms of our project I’d bet it’d fail… if you view our project on the terms of your film it will fail.
In the end, the project has strong opinions on both side… and that’s a good place to start the conversation. Passionate conversation is the only way we’re going to get anywhere. So hey you may have gotten up and walked out of the theater… but we’re still talking about it… and that’s awesome.
Mike said:
Jeff, we’re doing virtual screenings this weekend through the Facebook Comic Con. If you’d like to weigh in you can watch it tonight and tomorrow for free online.
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=160692464632
MaT said:
That was the worst art gallery I’ve ever been to in my life
Mike Schneider said:
Ha… well Mat that’s an opinion I can support… but dude, seriously, if that’s the worst gallery you’ve been to then either you don’t go to a lot of galleries or you have better luck then I do because when I either do an old city (Philly art area) or chelsea (NYC art area) run I see it as a rewarding day if I find a handful of pieces which speak to me and that’s grand total after a day of running about hitting 10-20 galleries in a stilt.
Still… the instance is almost second to the platform. Anyone who likes the idea but thinks they could somehow help to do better with the next project we’re approaching old time horror radio dramas… as they are great stories which only have descriptions of visuals… but no video track to question how loyal the artist wants to be to it. So if you think it can be better… join us and lets make the next one better. For details email mike@unseenhorror.com
-Mike
MaT said:
Dude, I thought almost all the artwork you selected for NotlD:R was abysmal. Like, it was brutal to have to sit through and view. I thought I made that point perfectly clear. Hopefully your next project will have some better quality standards
Mike said:
Mat, If you ditched early, how can you say almost all when you didn’t see most of it? That’s like judging a museum on the first area when you know full well each section is different artwork by different artists in different styles.
Still, you’re not satisfied with the work that was presented and I’m not satisfied with the way you approached the work. We have come to an impasse. However we explain it and whatever we believe to be at fault, we both can agree that the interaction between you and the project was a failure… and yet this was clearly not the case for everyone.
I was asked to comment on the divide and I have. This is as subjective as any other opinion and so there isn’t a right or wrong answer here.
The issue is not even a question of quality but the perception of quality because there are no absolutes. The nature of these projects has each artist individually dictating their approach to their work from content to regulation to justification. My standards are that conventional standards are arbitrary and should be avoided as they are at the determent of exploration and experimentation. The higher those standards are places, the more divided the viewers will be… and the case will be clear for both sides.
Jeff said:
Well, hey, you put together a project that involved many different people and many different types of art, and that’s an accomplishment in and of itself.
MaT said:
Your movie blows and is a failure, dude. Get over it.