“Alive” (2023) is set in the United Kingdom, and a zombie outbreak is taking root. Once zombies begin to roam the countryside in clusters, civilization collapses. People are desperate to protect their loved ones and find safety. There is Father Albert (Stuart Matthews) and his congregation, Dan (Neil Sheffield), a man holed up in his countryside home and Helen (Ellen Hillman), a high school student, with her teacher, boyfriend Kevin (Kian Pritchard) and little brother, Barney (Andrew May-Gohrey). Will Helen be able to protect herself and her brother when others find out that he is infected?
“Alive” is ninety-four minutes long, but it takes around forty minutes before the story distinguishes itself from the usual monotonous zombie fare. It is easy to mistake Dan as the protagonist because the movie waits for thirteen minutes before introducing Helen. In the meantime, the narrative rehabilitates Dan from a husband who does not care about his wife enough to attend a doctor’s appointment, to a practical man who cares about his family’s future, is a good friend and perspicacious enough to plan for the coming crisis. It felt like the filmmakers envisioned the ending first, had a couple of themes in mind and wanted to tie them up so they mistakenly focused on Dan’s backstory when they should have been focusing on Helen. Eventually the writers forget about Dan for huge swaths, and he is clearly a champion of hide and seek during critical confrontations.
“Alive” has several intersecting themes: Dan’s inability to have a family, the congregation’s selfishness and brutal bloodlust covered in a veneer of niceness and Helen’s determination to preserve her autonomy as a human being and make other people recognize her brother’s humanity. Horror is most effective when it is used to shed a light on contemporary issues, and it was a pleasant surprise for the film to suddenly have meaning even if it lacked nuance. Many people in power are dehumanizing people with uteruses by treating them as if they were walking, breathing incubators, only useful for their ability to reproduce, not human beings with inherent rights. The ability to give birth renders a person into collective property, and individual rights are no longer respected; thus the early line, “In these times maybe it’s for the best” that a character is unable to conceive a child.
Helen makes a great protagonist though her status is not obvious early in the film. Their teacher has a brief go at it then her boyfriend does a few brave things to help the group survive. Initially Helen seems like a liability because she keeps secrets from the rest of the group that puts them in peril, but she emerges as the leader of her group, is not an obvious physical threat to the people who would prey ob them, but shows a steely resolve throughout “Alive” and is the character whom most people could empathize with since she refuses to be treated like cattle. “Alive” cites “28 Days Later” (2002) as an inspiration, but I was also reminded of an episode from “Battlestar Galactica,” “The Farm,” when badass Starbuck gets reduced to her parts. In this movie, it is more appalling because Helen is still a child, a teenager, but is viewed as a broodmare, not a human being. She becomes the moral center of the film.
Films have focused on the humanity of zombies before, but “Alive” takes it to another level. Zombies are still a threat to the uninfected. These zombies are quick, show signs of intelligence and their transformation is gradual. There is also a question of whether that intelligence means that they are capable of coexisting and not being a threat; thus is killing zombies wrong? While coexistence is a provocative, optimistic idea, it seems a bit of a strain on the film’s credibility, but works in terms of making a bittersweet resolution for some characters and to further condemn the villains as savages and inhuman.
If “Alive” had laid more groundwork to parallel a zombie infection with other pandemics instead of the standard zombie apocalypse, it could have been more effective then viewers could draw parallels between zombies and people who are othered, dehumanized then marginalized for getting ill such as disabled people or gay people. The film could have done this by showing more gradual, permanent alterations to the person without completely turning and depicted examples of people coexisting in human society openly. Instead the film relies on viewers feeling innate sympathy for uninfected familial relationship with the infected.
While the congregation is predictable and two dimensional, it is fun to see a preacher intimidate an ex-cop and a trusted newscaster show zero solidarity with Helen. For people who will be tempted to complain about how Christians are depicted in “Alive,” as a Christian, given how Americans who proclaimed themselves to be Christian (#notall) had the loudest voices celebrating the loss of women’s bodily autonomy, are anti-maskers and consider the vaccine the mark of the beast, I will allow it. It is not a new concept to make human beings more of a threat than the zombie, and I was relieved that they were not rapey.
“Alive” alludes to two possible refuges: the valley with its price of admission and restrictions and the isolated, allegedly uninfected island. The movie looks at refuges as human beings’ practical embodiment of the society that they want to live in, a reflection of their true soul and character. Though the congregation maintains the trappings of pre-zombie apocalyptic society, the theocratic brightness of this atmosphere is deceptive, a veneer for their desire for control and reducing people to their usefulness. Dan’s home is dark and secretive, filled with shame and fear, but that darkness is not a signal of danger. It is more welcoming and safer than the congregation though not as welcoming. The area surrounding Dan’s home is verdant and bucolic. Helen and her group are the future (cue Whitney Houston singing), and the denouement suggests that Helen’s moral vision will create a new type of refuge and equitable society that the older generations were incapable of envisioning. Despite this depiction, I felt as if Kevin was the weakest link and could easily be swayed to any side if Helen did not have such a firm grip on him.
Because I watched too many episodes of “The Walking Dead,” after “Alive” ended, I started creating a violent sequel where the teams manning the radio broadcasts decide to clash. Everyone felt too comfortable broadcasting their coordinates without worrying that the wrong person would accept the invitation.
“Alive” is decent for an exclusive streaming film on demand. The CGI is not great, and it takes too long to warm up, but the story takes some refreshing and optimistic turns unexpected in a zombie movie. While the writers may have too much faith in humanity, an aspirational vision is preferable to recycled grim and determined logistics of surviving in a dystopian world.
