With [Rec] playing in festivals across the continent, and Quarantine being released this weekend, not to mention this year's Cloverfield, we're seeing a number of films trying to capitalize on a style of filmmaking that involves a digital camcorder operated by one of the films central characters. It's a gimmicky approach that allows a filmmaker to attempt to surprise his audience, by seemingly putting them in the midst of the films events. This allows the director to manipulate the audience to a much greater emotional effect than traditional filmmaking techniques, yet serves no other purpose. It is not used to advance the story, nor is it generally used to achieve any sort of emotional depth amongst the characters. It is a technique that has worn out its welcome, before it was ever truly effective.

Romero's Diary of the Dead however, contradicts these characterizations by using the first person camerawork to tell the story of the worlds collapse from the perspective of a small group of people. He rarely uses it to manipulate scares, instead telling the story in a ‘documentary' style format, creating characters that are sympathetic from our point of view. The characters are the forefront to the story, as it is the events that affect them directly that drive the plot, as opposed to the bigger picture of the undead gradually overtaking the human population. This is perhaps the most effective and successful film crafted in such a format. It is still far from perfect however.

The film starts out poorly, as many of the characters are instantly dislikeable or annoying; however this problem resolves itself as the film progresses. Characters become more emotionally sympathetic, as their plight is continually caught on film. The film also suffers from a few scenes which play so poorly within the context of the film, that I was reminded of an era of video gaming that revolved around the gamer watching filmic events unfold onscreen, and making decisions as to the fates of the characters, a la “Night Trap”. (Anyone remember that one?)

Perhaps the biggest failing point (save one, which I will save for my closing paragraph), is the use of our central cameraman. From the opening scene, the character of Jason is insistent on filming everything from the personal introductions of those involved, to the ultimate deaths of most of his friends. There are even situations in which he would have the opportunity to rescue these friends from an untimely demise, yet refuses to relinquish the camera. He never achieves a level of depth or sympathy consistent with the other characters, and as such hinders the film from living up to its full potential.

You should also be aware that Romero's Diary of the Dead is not a continuation of his immortal ‘Dead' series. That series of films began with the living dead pandemic on a small scale, isolated primarily to a small farmhouse, carried through ‘Dawn' and ‘Day', as the population of undead eventually overwhelm the living population. Finally, Land of the Dead sees the last survivors boarded up in a city which acts as a fortress protecting them from the zombies outside. Yet Diary… exists on a plane of its own, essentially disregarding the first four films, and begins with the start of the zombie ‘uprising' (pun fully intended), and continues to… well I can't really tell you that, now can I?

So, while the film is essentially successful as an exercise of technique being used to further a story, it's certainly not an essential addition to the 'Dead' series. There are just a few to many missteps to elevate the film to the ranks of Romero's other films. Romero is known for placing subtle social commentary throughout his films. It is never heavy handed, and absolutely never detracts from the enjoyment of the film. Diary of the Dead is nearly crippled during its last scene however, when Romero's generally delicate commentary hits you over the head like a sack of hammer-handles, completely taking the audience out of the film. So much for subtlety…