P
The news of Danny Boyle, Alex Garland, and Cillian Murphy reuniting for a long-awaited third installment in the popular zombie horror franchise, 28 Days Later, is particularly intriguing. What makes it even more interesting is that none of them are in need of a career boost. Oftentimes, when film-makers and actors return to a beloved project for a sequel, it can feel like a nostalgia-driven cash grab. It’s like getting the band back together for a farewell tour before retiring and enjoying the fruits of their success. Who wouldn’t want a second beach house in Malibu to relax in after their prime years are over?
However, Boyle’s recent works do not quite reach the same level as his acclaimed films Slumdog Millionaire and Trainspotting. Nonetheless, he is still highly regarded as one of Britain’s top film-makers. Garland, on the other hand, has gained recognition for his contributions to genre cinema with hits like Ex-Machina and Annihilation. Murphy, who is serving as a producer and potentially taking on a role, is riding high on the success of his multiple Oscar-nominated film Oppenheimer and does not necessarily need to be involved in a zombie film. It seems that the trio must have a compelling story to tell if they have decided to return to this project after decades since the original’s success.
After 28 years, a new film series will begin with the continuation of the 2002 story where Jim, a bicycle courier, woke up from a coma and found out that a large portion of the UK population had been infected by the dangerous Rage virus, creating zombies. The main reason for the need of a new chapter is due to a significant concept.
The issue with zombie stories spanning multiple decades is that zombies, especially the fast-moving infected zombies in the 28 Days series, typically have a short lifespan. As seen in 28 Days Later, the infected tend to die off when there are no more healthy humans to feed on. It is logical to assume that a virus like Rage would quickly wipe out most of humanity before they could mount a defense or be confined to isolated areas through luck. However, as seen in the conclusion of 28 Weeks Later in 2007, the virus has already spread to mainland Europe.
The upcoming movie must resist the urge to expand the scope of the story and show us glimpses of how humanity is faring in other parts of the world. This is because the original’s greatest strength was that we had no knowledge of what was happening in Idaho or Melbourne, and it wasn’t necessary for the story. The limited focus allowed the filmmakers to concentrate on the core humanity of the small group of characters we encountered, as if we were watching a kitchen sink drama where the kitchen residents were forced into the outside world due to hunger, fear of dying alone, and the threat of societal collapse.
The gritty and realistic aesthetic of the first film was a result of Garland’s talent in portraying how individuals respond differently when faced with the same crumbling society and the struggle to survive. Jim, Selina (played by Naomie Harris), Frank (played by Brendan Gleeson) who drives a taxi, and his daughter Hannah (played by Megan Burns) are the type of people you would want to be stuck with in a zombie apocalypse. On the other hand, Major Henry West (played by Christopher Eccleston) and his ruthless military group are not the kind of people you would want to be with.
The combination of a tough yet compassionate perspective is what made 28 Days Later a timeless film, and it will be a challenge for Boyle and his team to maintain this in the upcoming sequel. What we hope to avoid is turning Jim (or any of his allies) into a legendary hero, a seasoned fighter with countless zombie kills under their belt, sporting a bandana and armed with an AK-47. The success of the original movie was due to its avoidance of typical Hollywood action movie tropes, even though the idea of Selina effortlessly taking out zombies with powerful weapons does have some appeal.
Please grant us a sequel to 28 Days Later that maintains the same claustrophobic and straightforward storytelling style as its predecessor and continues to reject elements of fantasy. Show us another well-crafted depiction of a zombie apocalypse, instead of focusing on government agents fighting across continents. This sequel should keep us in suspense for as long as possible, even if it means three movies in, as fear thrives in the shadows.
Source: theguardian.com
