I thought I'd branch out from creative writing to my own literature analysis. Literature meaning films. I may do another when I play GTA V.
I recently watched the film Hancock, a Will Smith superhero flick.
It breezed under the radar and received fairly mild reviews, neither
underwhelming nor re-defining films. However, to me the film symbolised
something special. Now I have never been a huge superhero fan, preferring they
show the superhero as a flawed individual, such as Jumper, where the protagonist’s first action is to rob a bank, or
when the superhero is in fact just a human aiming to be something better, such
as in Kick Ass or Super. I couldn’t recommend these films
enough. But Hancock stood out to me
as being something else, something I loved- a satire. I will briefly be
examining the levels of satire presented, commenting on superhero films and the
realities of what a superhero would actually act like. I should also point out
that the satire in this film is very subtle. On surface level it is just
another dumb action film, but shows signs of self-conscious decisions
throughout.
My first
point of call is the protagonist of the tale. John Hancock is an alcoholic
superhero who doesn’t appreciate his powers or those around him, causing huge
damage when saving others. In his introduction it is shown he doesn’t take
himself seriously, casually throwing around racist banter and Will Smith’s own
brand of one-liners as he drops a car onto a building’s spire.
This introduction is in stark contrast to the
typical comic-book superhero, heroes meant to be part symbolic as they stand
for justice and hope while fighting crime and evil-doers. They are paragons and
idols for the audience to aspire to be. Now obviously, these ideals are in
stark contradiction to usual human behaviour, and a superhero that conforms to
usual human nature in proving self-destructive via drinking and antisocialism
is a comedic poke at the typical assumptions that heroes are all heroic.
A humorous scene after Hancock
decides to reform is his costume choice. Jason Bateman shows him three
superhero comics. His response? ‘Homo… Blue homo… Norwegian homo.’ While the
gay slurs may offend some in this hyper-PC age, the main focus is on the
superhero costumes. His reaction connotes ridicule at the costumes which he is
asked to wear. He comments on this later when he is forced to wear a costume ‘don’t
stare… it’s a little tight’ commenting on the revealing nature of the costume.
This itself seems to be a dig at
the odd costumes presented in superhero stories. Flimsy nylon costumes such as
those worn by Spiderman have always been questioned as to their durability,
function and overall appearance value, which co-writer Vince Gilligan obviously
seemed to pick up on.
Most superhero films follow a
similar structure- origins story for the first half, and then a super-villain
is thrown in to give the tale some form of villain or tension. Audiences
everywhere have commented on the way these always seemed forced in or thrown in
out of the blue. Director Peter Burg obviously concurs, as there is no ‘main’
villain through the majority of the film. The only candidate that would seem
suitable is a bank robber foiled by Hancock’s first post-prison rescue, who
teams up with some of Hancock’s other victims to try and shoot him. His
response? Throwing them all out of windows or into walls to incapacitate them.
This comments both on the seemingly shoe-horned in ‘villain fights’ at the end
of these films, and the synthetic tension of these fights that shouldn’t be
there. I can only speculate if this is on purpose, but I picked up on it and
therefore I can only assume I’m not the only one.
Now this is not a definitive list
of satire in the film, but I’d really recommend checking out the film. Visual
effects were fun, the comedy was top-notch and the soundtrack was simply
phenomenal.
Tom Bedford is struggling because his back-catalogue has already been uploaded. 03/10/2013 20:59. Happy Birthday for tomorrow!
No comments:
Post a Comment