How are ideas about class refracted in Shaun of the Dead?

This essay discusses Edgar Wright’s Shaun of the Dead (2004) and Hot Fuzz (2007) in relation to how the films refract ideas over class. Both films were directed by Edgar Wright, written by Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg, and star Simon Pegg and Nick Frost in the leading roles. They are parodies of their respective genres (Comedy Horror, and Comedy Action respectively) and address social class in different ways, some more subtle than others. Whilst Shaun of the Dead subtly deals with the social isolation of the lower class and middle class within an urban environment, Hot Fuzz concerns itself with divides a community can form for itself within the rural environment, but the underlying comedy of the film has roots in 1930’s comedy cinema with how it portrayed the working class and how one may identify with these themes. There is less written about Hot Fuzz, so I will offer my own interpretation, whilst citing relevant examples.

Shaun of the Dead follows the titular character, Shaun (Simon Pegg), as he races to save his family and friends from a zombie apocalypse. Shaun is a working-class, borderline middle-class, shop worker who lives with his middle-class friend, Pete (Peter Serafinowicz), from college and lower-class friend, Ed (Nick Frost), whom he has known since primary school. The fact that Ed is unemployed and living for free is a source of conflict between Shaun and Pete, as well as between Shaun and his girlfriend, Liz (Kate Ashfield). Liz breaks up with Shaun because she is not content with their lives being spent without ambition and too frequently at the Winchester pub. Shaun’s living arrangements are a subtle representation of his social status: Pete lives upstairs whilst Shaun and Ed live downstairs, ‘below’ their peer.

When we first meet Shaun, he is staring blankly at Liz, monotonously smoking a cigarette, and drinking a beer. Later, he shuffles into the living room groaning like a zombie, (a scene which is repeated at the end of the film). He waits in line for and sits on the bus alongside others but is not truly aware of what is around him. “The mundane, highly routine nature of modern British life is captured here with real simplicity.” (Fitzgerald, 2010, p. 205). Lindsey Decker discusses this further: “the film specifically comments on the debasement inherent in a service economy, the dominant economic system that emerged after the Thatcher government privatized, and devastated, British industry.” (2016, p. 72). Decker continues to cite examples of how working in Britain changed at the turn of the century. “…with the rise of ‘flexible’ jobs associated with variable-schedule service work and freelance contract work, employment had become less stable, while the shift to service work meant an increasing number of jobs required repetitive, mindless tasks.” (2016, p. 72).

The film directly addresses these roles as ones that are performed by zombies, by showing us the television montage nearing the end of the film. “The montage shows zombies taking on the drudgery of service work after the infection has been brought under control. A reporter does a human interest piece on how the ’mobile deceased retained their primal instincts’, which makes them ‘ideal recruitment for the service industry’”. (Decker, 2016, pp. 72-73). Critically, Decker also points out how Shaun can be identified as a zombie from the moment we see him, even though he is never bitten, and we do not see the transformation we see in Philip and Barbara because Shaun is already metaphorically a zombie.

Kim Edwards summarises Shaun’s obliviousness: “Shaun always staggers down his hallway and zombie-groans upon waking of a morning, but he is so immersed in the walking coma of his hangover that he cannot even tell the difference between the apocalypse and the aftermath of a normal Saturday night.” (2008, p. 101). This is reinforced by his second walk to the shops – it plays out almost identically as the first for him and he is oblivious to the changes: The car window is smashed, the delivery bikes are knocked over, the homeless man’s dog is missing and there is blood on the door of the drink cabinet. In fact, when Shaun is in the shop, the man on the radio is shouting in Hindi: “This is a warning! Dead people are attacking the live ones and they’re doing this to…”. Whilst being more of a “hidden joke” or “easter egg”, it could be argued that should the man have been speaking English, Shaun would not have noticed due to him being so oblivious to what else is happening around him. Edwards continues: “The satire is twofold: not only were London and its inhabitants already zombified before the event, but Shaun himself is a mindless and shambolic anti-hero who now fits in comfortably with the post-horror surroundings and meandering monsters.” (2008, p. 101).

John Fitzgerald continues to discuss these opening scenes: “This is further strengthened by Shaun’s own behaviour from his daily trip to the corner shop to purchase a newspaper and can of Coke to the mind-numbing bus ride to work. Self-absorbed, he fails to see what is actually going on around him…” (2010, pp. 205-206).

Linnie Blake writes: “Shaun of the Dead thus seems to explore how late-capitalist society infantilises its males, bombarding them with mass cultural simulacra of their own desires so insistently that they exist in tranquillised isolation from each other; unable to think, act or live for themselves.” (2008, p. 169). There are several scenes which refract this idea. Firstly, in the opening credits, the checkout assistants and people standing at the bus stop seem to move in unison. Secondly when Ed is playing his video game, Shaun directs him “upper left, reload, good shot!”. And thirdly, this scene is mirrored towards the end of the film when Shaun is shooting the undead and this time Ed is directing Shaun by repeating the same words. All these scenes represent the characters “unable to think, act or live for themselves”.