Sticking with Jim: Exposition in 28 Days Later
Idle thoughts (and associated spoilers) about 28 Days Later.
Just about all of Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s not-a-zombie film is told from the point of view of the protagonist Jim (Cillian Murphy). The only part that isn’t is the prologue where we see some animal rights activists break into a primate research laboratory and unwittingly release the Rage virus. It introduces us to what’s taken place and we see the effects of the virus. When we meet Jim for the first time - 28 days later - we know more than he does about what might have taken place.
But what if the prologue wasn’t there? What if the film started at the point where Jim first woke up? Well, it would mean that the clever way the title of the film is used as a super would be lost. So let’s go back 28 days from that point - what if we were with Jim when he had his bicycle accident and we saw him being taken into hospital, be treated and find that he’s in a coma. Then, 28 days later, he wakes up to an empty world. If we stuck with his point of view all the way through then the discovery of a deserted London would be as much a mystery for us as it is for Jim. His first encounter with the Infected would be the first time we saw what happened too.
So why am I thinking about this? It’s related to the scene in the sweet shop after Jim gets rescued by the two survivors and Selena (Naomie Harris) starts wittering on about what happened in one of the dullest pieces of exposition I can recall. The only person that this tedious coverage of recent events benefits is Jim because we, as the audience, should already be able to work out what’s happened by putting 2 (the activists unleashing the rage virus) and 2 (empty streets of London) together and getting the answer which is 4 (rage virus unleashed, everybody dead or, as we’ve just seen, infected). But if we had been with Jim then while the exposition scene may still have been dull, it would have at least been more relevant because we would want to know what’s going on as much as Jim does.
What do you think?
Hmm, good point. I’ve always kind of liked both the opening scene, and not knowing anything about Jim for a large portion of the film - which would obviously change if we were introdced to him before the accident. I’ve never felt I needed the story in the store, we’ve learned a fair amount already - but perhaps if it were told during action, it would be a bit better.
Comment by Laura — June 27, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
I think without the opening scene the first 3rd (or so) of the film would be a lot more interesting (while the audience tried to figure out what the fuck was going on), and the introduction of the Rage-infected masses would have been all the more scary without knowing where exactly they came from (”so like, it’s just like super-rabies? That’s not very scary.” was my first thought when I saw the film for the first time).
Having the audience make up in their (warped, in my case) imaginations makes things more tense and terrifying, assuming of course that the audience has an imagination, and doesn’t have to be spoon-fed plot points at the relevant junctures to make their Neanderthal-like brains realise what is happening.
Comment by Matt — June 27, 2008 @ 5:31 pm
Laura - hastily referring to my (signed) copy of the screenplay, the only thing we learn early on about Jim is that he’s a bicycle courier who got knocked off his back. What I’d forgotten was that he tells Selena and Mark that at the beginning of the scene in the store. Not that there’s particularly a problem with the opening scene but I certainly wouldn’t advocate knowing more about Jim - just like you, I also like the fact that we know next to nothing about him.
Matt - would you have been more disappointed by learning it was “super-rabies” after introducing more build up and suspense though?
Comment by Tom — June 27, 2008 @ 10:01 pm
oooh, I like the idea of that…
Comment by Elinor — June 29, 2008 @ 6:13 pm