The politics of zombies

UPDATE:
It seems my fears here may -- may, I say -- be unfounded. Libertas has now posted a review of the film that suggests liberal reviewers may be willfuly reading their own agenda into this movie:

If there’s an Iraq allusion it’s that we had to do something, what we did is messy, and maybe the solution’s to clear out and let a mushroom cloud solve the problem. What choice did the film’s unseen government and their military have but to carefully rebuild and just as carefully bring its citizens home? There isn’t chaos breeding chaos in 28 Weeks Later. There’s a military not acting lethally or quickly enough breeding chaos. The film’s message can’t possibly be don’t rebuild people’s lives, can it? The message I got was if you promise to protect a people you better be willing to go all the way.

Now I really want to see this.

ORIGINAL POST:

A.O. Scott's review of 28 Weeks Later indicates we're in for another political sermon. Which is a huge bummer given how much I was looking forward to this, um, sequel.

Here, Scott describes a plot point in which the hero, chased by zombies, makes it to...

...the Green Zone, an island of security in London overseen by occupying American troops... That bit about American soldiers patrolling the Green Zone — see what I mean about allegory? ... The initial benevolence of the occupation is clear enough: a shattered country needs to be put back together, its remaining population protected and reassured.

It is only when things spin out of control that the inherent brutality of the situation becomes clear ... To the soldiers and the survivors alike, there are only bad choices, and doing what seems like the right thing ... can turn out to have horrendous consequences.

So... Green Zones... An American occupation... Inherent brutality... Only bad choices... Doing the right thing leads to horrendous consequences...

Seriously, when is it going to end?

I'll defer for the second time this week to D.H. over at Libertas, albeit on a different topic:

Democrats in Congress have already signalled our surrender of Iraq to al-Queda, the mainstream news media refuses to report any good news in Iraq, where the surge is working, or the true nature of our enemy — you’d think al-Queda wasn’t even in Iraq! — and Hollywood incessantly blasts its message to the world that we’re the problem. ... What is their plan other than insuring Bush and America are humiliated in Iraq?

Scott does indicate "some Americans" come off heroic, but he also implies these are renegades, reluctants or otherwise conscientious objectors to whatever the American game plan is.

Then again, I may be pleasently surprised. It's all probably closer to Children of Men than V for Vendetta in terms of its pinko rating at any rate.

But enough of my informed prejudice. I haven't seen this film yet. And I have to admit it sounds like a fun ride whatever its politics.