It was a great way to put a twist on the original, thus preventing it from being a mere rehash. Romero did write the screenplay for this one, after all.
Could be that he felt compelled to show a different approach to a character that was deemed a sexist portrayal years after the release of the original 'Night'. But I hope he did it mainly out of interest in a spin on a concept that would have come across as outdated if they'd just carbon-copied it with color and more gore.
Besides, Barbara's transformation contributes a great deal to the character dynamics. She's not the only one who gets more lines, either. Everyone gets a voice, even Judy, who was little more than a cardboard cutout in 1968.
It heightens the quality of despair in their failure to communicate, work together, not downright kill each other.
I love that Ben seems just as unstable as Barbara in this one, if not more. You're tricked into expecting the same setup as in the original, before Barbara finally speaks up while Ben rapidly deteriorates and finally succumbs to madness.
reply
share
richard-III
9 years ago
What sexism? The 1968 Barbra going catatonic was different from what they expected back then - the usual way that characters in a horror film behaved when their beloved ones died was shock & grief, then after two minutes it was 'oh hell, we better save ourselves'. So more realism (even in a fantasy horror movie). Judith O'Dea did an amazing job.
Though I liked Patricia Tallman in the 1990 remake, she turned unconvincingly from a frightened younger sister to a commando. It was fun, but - yeah.
-I don't discriminate between entertainment
and arthouse. A film is a goddam film.-
reply
share