Bargain-Basement Nihilism — ’28 Weeks Later’

Following the view of critics like A.O. Scott, who see the film as a biting satire and an analogy for the war in Iraq, we could interpret “28 Weeks Later” as yet another commentary on how humans are their own worst enemy. The problem is that this kind of cinematic nihilism amounts to hardly anything more than posturing. Setting aside the issue as to whether individual characters in specific circumstances can ever symbolize the universal, the film’s bleak view of humanity has been presented to us before. In fact, we don’t need movies to tell us how horrible people can be to each other; we have the news for that. Still, “28 Weeks Later” wants to drive home the point, which wouldn’t be as much of a crime if it bothered to offer a solution instead on resting on its own oh-so-clever ironies.

The Allegory is Weak

In interpreting the film, however, there is a greater issue, namely, that the film doesn’t really hold up as a serious or consistent allegory for the occupation in Iraq by U.S. troops or any similar real-life situation. “28 Weeks Later” is a film about a highly infectious disease that almost instantly turns people into raging cannibals. However tempting it is to see this in metaphorical terms, it really isn’t well applied to hateful ideologies and our responses to them. People have a choice in accepting or rejecting virulent ideas, based on their own individual philosophies. Infectious diseases, however, don’t tend to involve choice at all. “28 Weeks Later,” then, suffers from a case of over-interpretation. Besides, it’s not like the characters actually spend time discussing, fretting, or otherwise just worrying about what’s going on. The characters really don’t have any meaningful relationships or conversations; they’re too caught up in a sledgehammer plot that only drives characters from zombie encounter to another.

A Strong Beginning

The film does start out strong, though, offering a vignette set during the time of “28 Days Later.” We’re introduced to Don (Carlyle) and other characters whose cozy domestic siege setting is disrupted by the arrival of a boy and a band of the enraged infected. In keeping with the character-oriented drama of “28 Days Later,” the scenario offers up a fascinating lesson in survival ethics through themes of bravery and cowardice. “28 Weeks Later” sets up a morally conflicted man who would make a great protagonist. Unfortunately, the following story involving the re-population of London – with oversight by U.S. troops – doesn’t take long to fall apart. The ideal protagonist is quickly infected and degraded to the all-too-convenient status of a boogeyman who pops up whenever the screenwriters need a scare. This leaves his children as the default heroes, along with their generically sympathetic protectors in the form of an army sniper and a medical officer. Without characters getting any kind of meaningful development, we’re left with an essentially formulaic race-to-survive filled with huge plot holes, stupid characters doing stupid things, and excessively brutal and gory violence. What few interesting ideas the film may have, such as the possibility of a cure for the disease, are quickly abandoned.

Juan Carlos Fresnadillo’s direction isn’t an asset either. Though he creates a few inspired scenes, like a chilling descent into a tube station offered through a night-vision scope, he relies too much on shaky camera shots to achieve that “gritty” feel. Action becomes muddled and disjointed, prompting a wish for Danny Boyle in the driver’s seat.