(no subject)

[fredericks]

Hancock led to a rather inevitable race discussion with Middle Bro. I started things by pointing out that the makers of the movie neatly sidestepped direct mention of racial tension/discrimination against Hancock (played by Will Smith) and Mary (played by Charlize Theron) by labeling the people who perpetrated violence against the two characters "they". The ambiguous "they" who burned down their house in the Midwest in the 1850s and then beat Hancock with a baseball bat in the 1920s (and attempted to stab Mary in the B.C.'s, but who knows what may have been going down then). Anyone with a sense of the racial history of this country would know that an interracial couple would cause major waves in the US during those times (and, let's be honest, things ain't exactly hunky-dorey on the interracial front in the present day either). But not a peep in the script addressing it. Bro accepted it, saying "it wasn't important [to the story]", at which point my statement that the writers *chose* to make it not a part of the plot in order to keep the "feel good summer hit" status of the movie in check was met with "oh, you see everything according to race". Which is a damned frightening thing for me to hear from a young black man in this day and age. When did acknowledging race become a bad thing (btw, I'm going to go ballistic on the next person I hear say "I don't see race")? I know I'm trying to intellectualize a rather thin (if occasionally intriguing) "shit go BOOM" movie, but oh well.

If anything, the cut-and-paste feel of the movie leaves open the possibility that lots of stuff was conceived and fleshed out but left out at the last minute. The whole history of Hancock and Mary deserved a good ten minutes of unfolding instead of a two minute bit of verbal exposition. Hancock's rehabilitation, imo, shouldn't have been montaged. The establishment of Hancock's baddie? Could have happened with a little more plot padding. The ending? Pure sequel set-up. I think part of the reason I spent time thinking about things I wasn't too fond of was because I saw the kernel of a really amazing movie in Hancock. Like, "release in November and garner award buzz" amazing. But I guess that's Watchmen's job.

Comments

[captainschlumpy.livejournal.com]

Ah, so I'm guessing I'll be skipping this one. yeah, I internally cringe when I hear someone say,"I'm not racist but..." gag. People are different, difference in my opinion, is awesome! I think the baddies were "they" because people, especially in this country, tend to like to forget parts of the past where something aweful was perpetrated. Who wants to learn from the past? let's just pretend it never happened, that's more comfortable.

[fredericks.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'd say go all avoid-y on this movie. It might be worth a video looksie if you're curious, just because you really do get the sense that it could have been great. The "twist" (*grin* thanks to you I was actually aware there was one coming) was fun, but when the script hit explanation mode things took a couple of giant steps back.

I was just trying to point out that, because this was created by people, someone(s) had final say as to what was and wasn't mentioned, and they decided *not* to mention bigotry. My attempts to speculate why it was left out of the mix is what led to the argument with Bro and to this post. People are different, definitely. People that may appear similar are different too. That doesn't mean not talking about differences is going to make things all good in the 'hood, nor does it mean talking about differences will make everything fall apart.