Barb Lien-Cooper
The Real Cannibalization Happened AFTER The Film's Release: How Night Of The Living Dead Became A Victim Of Copyright Law
Barb Lien-Cooper
Night of the Living Dead (arguably) may be the scariest movie ever filmed, but the biggest horror surrounding it may be the way the film has languished in public domain because of a glitch in registering the copyright. Without copyright protection, the film has been left to an ignoble fate. To wit, most fans have only seen badly dubbed, grainy, semi-bootleg prints of the film instead of the horror classic as the creators originally intended it to be seen. When a profit is to be made, opportunists such as those who released the film unofficially make the zombies in the original film look like vegetarians. In a case of caveat emptor, any prospective buyer or renter of said film on DVD or video must be careful to make sure he or she gets an official "quality" product.
George Romero made Night of the Living Dead in an attempt to break into feature film making. Shot in black-and-white, for only $114,000, the documentary quality of said film, its non-acting acting style, and its realistic but sardonic script show that creativity is the most important quality in filmmaking.
The plot is relatively simple. The dead come back to life to eat the living. We as an audience are trapped in a farmhouse with a disparate bunch of people who fight amongst themselves in what turns out to be a futile attempt at survival. The fate of the one survivor of the cannibalistic attack is one of the most shocking and sad endings to a horror story ever put on film.
The 1968 film has been lauded and loathed by critics ever since. Some saw the film as a post-Psycho attempt to make an "art house" horror film. They may have a point, as only Carnival of Souls equals Night of the Living Dead in terms of intelligent, arty horror film making on a shoe-string budget. Others saw it as an almost satiric comment on commercialism, racism, and the war in Vietnam. Still others saw the low budget film as nothing short of prurient trash. However one sees the film, no one can deny its indelible impact on the horror films that followed it. We would not have such recent horror classics as The Blair Witch Project or 28 Days without Night of the Living Dead.
According to George Romero, the original distribution prints of Night of the Living Dead often were of a muddy and inferior quality. Many fans mistakenly believe, therefore, that said film was shot in 16 millimeter. The truth is, it was shot in standard 35 millimeter.
Added to the poor quality of many of the original prints, almost from the start of the film's initial release, there were legal problems between screenwriter John Russo and director George Romero over who owned the rights to Night of the Living Dead. The legal outcome: Russo owns the script, as well as the title "Living Dead" Romero owns the word "Dead". This is why Romero's two sequels were named Dawn of the Dead (1978) and Day of the Dead (1985).
But, the most confusing aspect of the rights to Night concern the way it began being sold by those who were not involved nor had any real right to the film. Due to a series of mix-ups by the original distributor, Night of the Living Dead is still perceived as public domain material. Specifically, the film fell into public domain limbo after the producer/director of the film neglected to include a copyright notice. The law has since been changed (in 1978, a decade after Night was released) so a work no longer requires such a notice to receive copyright protection. In other words, for want of a notice, Night of the Living Dead became as unprotected against cannibalization as the characters trapped in the farmhouse in the original film. As such, the film has been released at least seven times for the DVD market alone. Fans of the film would also be advised to completely avoid the COLORIZED version of the film. As an interesting side note, there's even a redubbed COMEDY version of the original Night of the Living Dead entitled Night Of The Day Of The Dawn Of The Son Of... (the full title is an article in itself). Said long titled film even has a cult following amongst some in the Psychotronic Cinema cult film crowd. However the film has been folded, spindled, and mutilated, one thing is for certain: its original creators haven't received a cent from the rental and sale of these unofficial versions of the film.
So, what's a fan with a conscience supposed to do? Well, there are obvious hints to whether a DVD of Night of the Living Dead is official or not. Bad graphics, a lack of credits, and a very cheap price are pretty obvious indicators that you've got yourself an unofficial version of the film. To purchase such a DVD or video means robbing the creators of their fair share of the profits. What is worse, from the consumer point of view, is that it means you'll be purchasing a bad dub of the film. A bad dub means poor sound quality, a possibility of the film being edited (or, rather, hacked to bits), and the print itself will probably unnecessarily grainy. While many fans have only seen grainy versions of the film, the best original copies show that the movie was actually quite sharply filmed. The only way to see the creators' original intent is to get an official copy of the film.
If matters weren't complicated enough, there are actually two versions of the film that could be considered to be "official", as well as a 1990 remake of the film directed by Tom Savini. The ill-conceived "30th Anniversary Edition" of Night of the Living Dead is probably the one to avoid. While it has the blessings and input of screenwriter John Russo, it does not have the input or endorsement of director George Romero. Most significantly, it has NEW scenes NOT directed by Mr. Romero. The original film has been recut and rescored by Russo and friends. While Romero has been diplomatic enough not to trash his former collaborator's DVD (they have remained on cordial terms, all things considered), his very absence is enough to make a serious fan of the film pause.
Now, we have to go back to legalese to explain why one of the creators of a film classic would do such a thing to his creation. Because this revamped version of Night of the Living Dead has new material in it, the modern version of copyright law (since Jan. 1st, 1978) seems to indicate that THIS mix of new and old material has copyright protection while the original, untampered version of the film does not. In other words, it was a valid way for Mr. Russo to get in on some of the profits made by those who were presenting semi-bootleg copies of the film. While no one would disagree that the screenwriter deserves his share of the profits of his own creation, one wishes that the product had been a better one for interested, die hard "Dead" heads.
To avoid more headaches concerning copyrights, public domain, and poor dubs, the only solution for a discriminating fan of the film is to cough up the bucks for the lovingly put together "millennium" version of the film released by Elite. The cut of the film Elite has made their dub from is taken from a crisp, original 35-millimeter of the film. There's a mono soundtrack, as well as an enhanced version. Most purists prefer the mono version. The viewers also get the original trailer and a TV spot, commentary from George Romero and John Russo, cast interviews, great notes by Stephen King, and other must have features. Fans seem to agree, Elite has the definitive version of the film.
The Elite version of Night Of The Living Dead may well be a revelation to fans---even to those who think they "know" the film forward/backwards/sideways/down.
The author of this article, having a renewed appreciation of copyright law, must acknowledge that she garnered some the raw material for this work from websites such as the following:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/archive/dvd-discuss/msg11780.html
http://www.50footdvd.com/movies/n/night-ot-living-dead-me.html
http://www.esplatter.com/reviewshton/nightofthelivingdead.htm
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?id=660
She gratefully acknowledges these websites and others that gave her research material, as well as thanking the authors of these reviews, discussions of copyright law, etc. for their efforts.
