Short Take: A good mix of what is traditional with what is new

Directors: Michael and Peter Spierig (Undead)

Screenwriters: Michael and Peter Spierig (Undead)

Cast: Ethan Hawke (Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead), Sam Neill (Jurassic Park), Willem Dafoe (Fantastic Mr. Fox), Claudia Karvan

Length: 1h 38m

Synopsis: In the year 2019 most of the world’s population consists not of humans, but of vampires. Like a plague, the supernatural makeup of these undead has spread to all corners of the earth, dropping humanity from #1 on the food chain down to #2. Vampires soon overgrazed on their primary food source, reducing the human population to less than 5% of what it once was. If starved for human blood long enough vampires are transformed/deformed into nothing but wild animals, which is a change the vampires want to avoid at all costs. A small number of humans continues to fight for their lives with the help of certain sympathetic vampires, and together their goal is to find a cure that will re-humanize the earth.

Analysis: Unlike the Twilight series which toys and plays with traditional vampire lore, Daybreakers holds firm to most of the attributes commonly associated with vampires (burning to death in sunlight, vulnerable to a stake through the heart, unnatural physical strength, commonalities with bats, etc.). However unlike with some other variations, like the kind found in 30 Days of Night, here vampires are not demonized. Vampirism is instead spread like a disease. It transforms humans on the molecular level, altering their DNA so as to engrain the need for blood while maintaining a human form. This version of the vampire monster might most readily be compared to the kind found in Underworld, although here they don’t bother showing excessive prowess in various forms of combat.

One motif that sticks out in the film is that of the phoenix. The significance of this is to be truly understood after discovering the cure that the humans find for vampirism, which I unfortunately cannot divulge here (I may have already said too much). However, to extend our thinking of the motif we shall consider the metaphorical possibilities. That a phoenix’s natural cycle is to burn to death only to rise again from its own ashes has made it a commonly used symbol for all things cyclical, but usually the concept of the natural occurrence of life and death. To take this one step further, if humans were to be thought of as phoenixes – already living – then their turning into vampires would be the act of burning (i.e. dying), and receiving a cure for vampirism would be the act of rising from their ashes. Interestingly enough, the movie attests that humanity is not lost in these stages of metamorphosis if the person has such a quality to begin with. Whether human or vampire a humane nature is capable of thriving, and it is this very quality that eventually bridges the gap between the two.

On top of the fear of disease which undead creatures like vampires and zombies have instilled in audiences for decades, there is also the fear of human objectification. In Daybreakers a number of humans are “farmed” for their blood so as to act as a stable and continuing food supply for the vampire population. Unlike, say, The Matrix, these humans are objectified more in the traditional horror movie style. For as the machines in The Matrix at least provide a computer-generated hallucination in which to live normally (in their minds anyway), the vampires do not or are incapable of providing such a service and simply anesthetize their victims. Whereas the machines arguably at least see their victims as minds attached to useful bodies, vampires see their victims as merely slabs of meat – completely dehumanized (I leave it to you to contemplate the irony of a once human species dehumanizing actual humans). For these reasons it would seem reasonable to compare Daybreakers with films belonging to the body horror subgenre (not to also mention the film’s penchant for the bloody spectacle), however being that the depicted acts of violence themselves are not innately integrated into the film’s narrative structure (unlike, say, a Cronenberg film) this association is far from plain.

Rating: 7.5

Clarification: A narrative’s calling for violence gives justification for depictions of it, such as with the Saw series, however a direct connection between a narrative and violent acts must be present for said narrative to qualify as body horror. In other words, for a movie to be rightfully considered body horror its story must not simply have violence but at least partially be about violence.