Hancockamamie
July 6th 2008 11:16
Hancock, the latest number for Will Smith to shimmy his way down to the multiplex in, sees him take on the role of Hancock, an alcoholic, tactless super-hero with some serious PR problems. Problems that one Jason Bateman intends to solve after having been saved from certain death by our eponymous hero.
.
For the first 45 minutes of the film I was tentatively enjoying the fare, that is before I realised the true intentions of the film maker and his desire to inject the film with some heavy metaphor and a sub-text that simply doesn’t ring true.
.
American cinema is littered with comic-book adaptations films of the adventures of the ‘super-hero’. Figures, who are undoubtedly quintessentially American, submerged in pro-American symbolism and who represent true ‘American values’. With his great power he has the great responsibility of attempting to solve the worlds ills. Hancock is no exception to this, he is also drenched in symbolism, he wears a beanie with an eagle sewn in, and his first suit given in his PR sharpened role as the local super-hero has an eagle emblazoned on the back. As a result I think it’s fair to say where we read Hancock we can read America. Hancock is un-loved and he is heavily criticised for his sincere but rather clumsy efforts. This is where the filmmaker lost me, mainly due to his personal politics. He clearly recognises the demise of the American ideal in the eyes of the world. However, he seems to imply that U.S. foreign policy is well intended but clumsy and that an adjustment in leadership and some good PR could return it to the role of Hero in the world, coming to the aid of people who need it most. I would argue this point pretty fiercely, American foreign policy is not clumsy and well intended; it is criminal and determined by self-interest.
.
For the first 45 minutes of the film I was tentatively enjoying the fare, that is before I realised the true intentions of the film maker and his desire to inject the film with some heavy metaphor and a sub-text that simply doesn’t ring true.
.
American cinema is littered with comic-book adaptations films of the adventures of the ‘super-hero’. Figures, who are undoubtedly quintessentially American, submerged in pro-American symbolism and who represent true ‘American values’. With his great power he has the great responsibility of attempting to solve the worlds ills. Hancock is no exception to this, he is also drenched in symbolism, he wears a beanie with an eagle sewn in, and his first suit given in his PR sharpened role as the local super-hero has an eagle emblazoned on the back. As a result I think it’s fair to say where we read Hancock we can read America. Hancock is un-loved and he is heavily criticised for his sincere but rather clumsy efforts. This is where the filmmaker lost me, mainly due to his personal politics. He clearly recognises the demise of the American ideal in the eyes of the world. However, he seems to imply that U.S. foreign policy is well intended but clumsy and that an adjustment in leadership and some good PR could return it to the role of Hero in the world, coming to the aid of people who need it most. I would argue this point pretty fiercely, American foreign policy is not clumsy and well intended; it is criminal and determined by self-interest.
| 43 |
| Vote |
Comments (1)
Add Comments
Read More
