The Best We Can Hope For (28 Days Later)

      Most zombie movies the beginning of the movie doesn't matter. It's generally about what happens after the horrible catastrophe. The virus, nuclear accident, or whatever it is: is almost an excuse for the rest of the plot to move forward, not that that's a bad thing. There is something unique to the beginning to "28 days later."  It begins with radical animal rights people breaking into a scientific facility, and freeing an infected chimp. The scientist tries to stop the three intruders, but he is outmanned. 
 28 Days Later
It plays into the theme well because the film is really about ideals. What is the norm? What is the best we can hope for? Near the beginning Selina, the main female survivor, says that staying alive is the best they can hope for. This is right after you witness her murder her cohort a few seconds after he gets bitten. The main character has been thrown into this world after he wakes up naked at a hospital. He seems much more thrust into this new world of zombies than the others, who seem to have been slowly moved into it. This gives a black and white conflict between cold stone pessimism, and warmer idealism. 
Near the end of the film they arrive at a small base: where about 7 soldiers live. Probably the most philosophical scene is the dinner scene. They discuss what normalcy is, and the head of the soldiers says that this is normalcy. What do we have now: humans killing humans, and now we have humans killing humans. 
The soldiers betray their guests in a rather cruel way, and they pay the price by the hands of the main protagonist. The implication here is that the cruelty of the zombies, and the cruelty of the soldiers are looked upon as one, and the same. 
This seems to ask the question that Richard Mattherson in his book "I Am Legend," attempts to answer:"What is normalcy?" So, I'll try to answer that question in terms of a Christian worldview. This has two answers. First, in terms of his/her life on earth. Do you remember when you were younger, and you took you're bike up that monumental hill, so that you could rush it all the way down? The first part of Christian normalcy is sort of like that. You have to change the way you're heart works. You have to want things that it's not programmed to want at first. You also have to work on your mind so that you can reach people, and equip others. 
The second, is the ride. It's where the things you've trained your heart to want are fulfilled. It's like the retirement after the long career. Never forget about the ride. I think you'll find that the people who have done the most for this world have ben the ones thinking about the second one. 



  1. Do you ever actually get to the ride?

  2. I would say yes for couple reasons. C.S. Lewis points out that no instinct exists unless the fulfillment of that instinct were to exist. He talks about men that go from woman to woman from house to house and from job to job never to have fulfillment. The Christian says if my instincts can't be satisfied in this world then I am somehow connected to another world.
    The other reason I think is the combination of two different elements: suffering and the moral law. We seem to have and understanding of morals that press down upon humanity despite an increasingly changing world. This seems to suggest to me that the moral law comes from outside nature itself, and even from God himself.
    With most religions they have some understanding of suffering for the modern jews its the holocaust, and for Christians generally the early roman oppression. Most of these situations end without the villains of the events getting their "just deserts." So, why would God impose an eternal unchanging law upon man if he did not wish for the soul itself to move on?