Movies

"Hancock" and the Babel of comic-book myth (contains putative spoilers)

By July 3, 2008No Comments

It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s a drunk who can lift cars!…

UPDATE THE SECOND: Apparently I have an insuf­fi­cient appre­ci­ation of what con­sti­tutes a spoil­er; see com­ments; that is, if you deign to read this whole post, which I sup­pose you ought only do if you’ve already seen Hancock or don’t much care about its, um, under­ly­ing premise, which I gath­er is so innov­at­ive and won­der­ful and spe­cial that its nam­ing will ruin the movie for any­one who has­n’t seen it. Thanks for playing!

I saw Hancock around pretty much the same time last week as I did Wanted, and I gotta tell you the com­bin­a­tion of the two made my head spin. It was­n’t just the summer-blockbuster bom­bast that did it, either. Between wrap­ping my head around an ancient “fra­tern­ity” of assas­sins whose tar­gets are chosen via a loom gen­er­at­ing digit­al code on the one hand, and a race of immor­tal super­her­oes of antiquity who lose their powers when in close prox­im­ity to their destined super­hero mates on the oth­er, I had the oppor­tun­ity to muse, most unprof­it­ably, on the wacky worlds, nay, uni­verses, that these par­tic­u­lar films inhab­it. It is said by some cul­tur­al the­or­ists that com­ic books con­sti­tute a mod­ern myth­o­logy. Wanted and Hancock, both the former adap­ted from a, excuse me, graph­ic nov­els, sug­gest that all the myth­mak­ing has gone mad. [UPDATE THE THIRD: SO it turns out Hancock was not adap­ted from a graph­ic nov­el. It just feels like it was. I am now on record as regret­ting writ­ing this post, regret­ting put­ting it up, regret­ting hav­ing ever star­ted blog­ging, becom­ing a movie crit­ic, tak­ing up journ­al­ism as a career in the first place. Now, to din­ner. Although I don’t deserve to eat.] 

I blame Jack Kirby.

Which is weird, because as it hap­pens, like many oth­er per­sons of taste and dis­cern­ment, I revere Jack Kirby. His innov­at­ive super­hero art­work is as close to leg­al LSD as you can get, and until recently I’ve been poten­tially bank­rupt­ing myself with the pur­chases of var­ied antho­lo­gies and col­lec­ted works, which are com­ing up in an entirely jus­ti­fied bump­er crop of late. But still. 

Used to be, in com­ic books, you had the Marvel and DC uni­verses. And that was pretty much that. Over there, Spider Man, Fantastic Four, Hulk, Iron Man, Nick Fury, the Avengers, and so on. Over there, Superman, Batman, Aquaman, Green Lantern, Justice League. Simple. Easy. And for a while of course, there was no con­test as to which uni­verse was more, shall we say, with it. Of course things got a little con­fus­ing when Neal Adams star­ted work­ing for DC. But it was when Kirby star­ted his whole “Fourth World” extra­pol­a­tion from the pages of “Superman’s Pal Jimmy Olsen”—and here I should encour­age you to go ahead and spend all your money on this four-volume Kirbython—that a cer­tain vari­ety of dis­order was blatantly intro­duced into a dis­crete comic-book uni­verse. Kirby’s epic storytelling ambi­tions, along with his grow­ing artist­ic cachet and his sub­sequent frus­tra­tions and battles for his rights as an artist all even­tu­ally fed in to the evol­u­tion of what we call the graph­ic nov­el and the Babel of not-quite-competing myth­o­lo­gies that is the graph­ic nov­el’s by-product. 

Not that any­one cares, really. I just thought it was kind of interesting.

Oh, and what did I think of Hancock gen­er­ally? I almost walked out after an improb­able and extremely dis­taste­ful sight gag that speaks to what H.G. Wells once described (apro­pos James Joyce) as a “cloac­al obses­sion.” I’m glad I did­n’t, though, because, aside from that remind­er that Peter Berg did, after all, dir­ect Very Bad Things, the movie got more inter­est­ing as it got weirder, and then, as is ever the case, got less inter­est­ing as it backed away from its weird­ness. The weird­ness was in the myth­o­logy stuff and the rela­tion­ship engendered by it, which I’m not going to get into in detail lest I spoil. (UPDATE: Apparently, though, this next sen­tence is a poten­tial spoil­er, although I don’t see it. Forewarned, then!) Take all that away, though, and the movie is, of course, basic­ally about the even­tu­al tam­ing of an unruly black man (nev­er mind the “but soci­ety’s to blame” sop near the end). 

No Comments

  • Dan says:

    Glenn…SPOILER WARNING? You just ruined the damn end­ing of the movie!

  • Glenn Kenny says:

    Huh? How so? The tam­ing theme is part of the movie’s—what do they call it?—through line. I’m not giv­ing away any­thing that actu­ally, you know, hap­pens. Unless I’m miss­ing something.

  • Girish says:

    Glenn, I just happened to read this inter­est­ing piece on Jack Kirby by J. Hoberman in Bookforum:
    http://www.bookforum.com/inprint/015_01/2266

  • DUH says:

    Hey Glenn, maybe what needs a SPOILER WARNING is the part at the very top about a race of immor­tal super­her­oes who lose their powers in prox­im­ity to yadda yadda yadda, huh? Nice work. My curi­os­ity about the twist was the only reas­on I would have seen this train­wreck, but I guess I can keep my $10 now.

  • Nathan Duke says:

    I man­aged to see both these films yes­ter­day back to back, so I know how you feel. I found “Wanted” to be more egre­gious, most not­ably the scene in which James McAvoy breaks the fourth wall and asks me what the fuck I’ve done with my life. Alas.
    If you want to hear some really bizarre rant­ing about the cur­rent crop of movies, check out Rex Reed’s review this week of “The Wackness,” in which he actu­ally says that review­ing films has become a chore and, basic­ally, how he hates all the young dir­ect­ors ruin­ing movies today, blah, blah, blah. Apparently, “The Wackness” is no “Smart People.”

  • Glenn Kenny says:

    Well, DUH, that’s not the whole twist—not by a long shot.
    Let me look on the bright side of this mishegas—I’ve appar­ently saved you some money.

  • Dan says:

    Well, DUH was more pug­na­cious than I would have liked, but yes, that is a pretty big giveaway. Albeit the mar­ket­ing mater­i­als are spoiler-heavy as well.
    I’ve heard about this tam­ing theme and once I see the movie I’ll obvi­ously have an opin­ion on it. But def­in­itely some of what I’ve seen is racial wank, which is dis­taste­ful on a lot of levels, but the most obvi­ous is, Jesus, people, he chose to make this movie. The usu­al prob­lems with being a black act­or in Hollywood simply do not apply when you are the biggest movie star in the entire world.

  • Peter Laughner's Ghost says:

    Some of you are babies. YOU RUINED MY TWIST! If you fre­quent movie sites and even have a sko­ash of grey mat­ter you should’ve figured out what this turd smelled like before Glenn shoved it under your nose. What, you figured Charlize Theron was in the movie but they wer­en’t mar­ket­ing her because SHE HAS A MINOR ROLE? That she was CUT OUT OF THE PICTURE?
    Take the audi­ence for a ride
    They ain’t nev­er been satisfied
    Think they owe you some kind of debt
    It’ll take years before they get over it
    And which one of your tur­keys help make that new Coldplay album the most down­loaded bowl of die-uh-rhea in the his­tory of man­kind? WAS IT YOU? OR YOU? You want to feel inspired, you say? Read the Bible. You need some­thing relax­ing to listen to while you’re tak­ing your Sunday drive? Slap on The Dan’s Gaucho.
    Richard Meltzer must be spin­ning in his grave and he’s not even dead yet.

  • DUH says:

    My apo­lo­gies for the pug­nacity but my thanks for the sav­ings of $10.
    As for PL’s Ghost, look: I fre­quent movie sites like this because I enjoy good movies and I enjoy good writ­ing about them; I don’t usu­ally come here expect­ing Ain’t It Cool News-type info. There are few pleas­ures to be had in a pile of crap like Hancock except for air-conditioning and whatever stu­pid twists they’re hid­ing. I don’t have a whole ton of movie-viewing options if I want to go to a theat­er where I am, so I was try­ing to pre­serve whatever mea­ger sur­prises this thing had for me. Just cuz I’m keep­ing my eyes closed on pur­pose does­n’t mean I can­’t tell the dif­fer­ence between Hancock and Metropolis (or Coldplay and Pere Ubu, for that matter).
    Also, Wanted is the biggest pile of shit I’ve smelled all year.

  • Peter Laughner's Ghost says:

    There is no pleas­ure to be found in any­thing Will Smith does and if you don’t know that already then you deserve to have your Sweet Sugary Twist knocked to the ground and stepped on. And stop fre­quent­ing the theatres; there’s noth­ing there for you but a bunch of teddy­graus clear­ing their throats and eat­ing pop­corn and laugh­ing like a kennel-full of Pavlov’s dog. Just in case you did­n’t know: when you go to see a Will Smith movie, and he starts talk­ing like a jive-ass, that’s when you are sup­posed to laugh. Because the only thing fun­ni­er than a white man doing an imper­son­a­tion of a black man is a black man doing an imper­son­a­tion of a black man. I’m just try­ing to help, Duh, so along those lines, if you think there’s a dif­fer­ence between Coldplay and that crap band Crocus fois­ted upon the God-forsaken masses, then I have some Lake Eerie beach-front real estate I’d like to sell you for cheap, along with my mint Electric Eels and Mirror LP’s that I don’t need any­more since my wife con­vinced me that George Strait is the greatest singer-songriter since Christopher Cross. Ride the wind, motherfucker.

  • DUH says:

    Hey, if Peter Laugher could do shit that he knew was real bad for him, who are you to tell me to lay off crappy movies, huh? We’ve each got our own anes­thet­ics. So here’s my deal: if you let me enjoy watch­ing the gears of the cul­ture industry grind on, I’ll ignore the dicey racial polit­ics of your post and the labored retro-hipsterisms of your online per­sona. How’s that sound?

  • Peter Laughner's Ghost says:

    Oooh. Okay, Mr. Nastypants. I did­n’t know I soun­ded so labored. What, you can hear my heavy breath­ing? And the only type of per­son who would find what I wrote racially dicey is someone who drives around with a rope and a lad­der in the trunk of their car. Have fun spend­ing your hard earned cash at Meet Dave. When you get back drop me line because I want to spend some more time with you. You sound like a really great guy.

  • Glenn Kenny says:

    OK fel­las, sim­mer down. Don’t make me come in there…

  • DUH says:

    I take excep­tion to your implic­a­tion that I would see Meet Dave. There are some lines that I will not cross.

  • Peter Laughner's Ghost says:

    Don’t over estim­ate your­self, Duh. Anyone who would pay to see Wanted is cap­able of many things, like run­ning over a child because their tacos are get­ting cold. You strike me as that type of per­son. You also strike me as the type of per­son who would like to come over to my house and watch my repair my Rusty Brown lunch­box. Retro-hipster? You have no fuck­ing idea.

  • DUH says:

    Actually, tacos sound pretty good right now, so I think I’ll head out and get some. But con­grats on deploy­ing a ref­er­ence that I had to google.

  • Mark says:

    The only hope for the Hollywood block­buster is if one of these hor­rible pieces of cor­por­ate crap belly-ups Last Action Hero-style at the box office. Fingers crossed Avatar her­alds the return of intel­li­gence and film­mak­ing skill to the block­buster. James Cameron, where have you been?!
    (Can you believe Peter Berg is going to dir­ect Dune?)

  • vadim says:

    Since when did all the trolls start com­ing here? Are things slow at the AV Club?

  • Bill says:

    Go fuck your­self, Vadim.

  • Glenn Kenny says:

    GUYS!!!!
    What am I gonna do with you? I mean, it isn’t even the hot­test day of the year yet.
    I think I need to calm stuff down. Another post about Nazi col­lab­or­at­ors ought to do the trick. Or not…

  • Jason says:

    Yes, blame Kirby! As the sad little kid who grew up with DC Comics (and picked on by the Marvel-loving kids, des­pite my pro­fessed love for the Silver Surfer), even I’m grow­ing weary with all the comic-book adaptations/inspirations made or planned. I real­ize com­ic books and graph­ic nov­els provide ample source mater­i­al to move away from adapt­ing old TV shows, but is the pub­lic clam­our­ing for films based on Ant Man or Green Arrow (who is great, thanks to Neal Adams)? Aw, maybe I should just go buy those Kirby omni­bi and shut up.

  • vadim says:

    Oh c’mon. That’s not even the most offens­ive thing I’ve pos­ted this week.

  • Krauthammer says:

    (RE: Jason:
    is the pub­lic clam­our­ing for films based on Ant Man or Green Arrow?)
    I keep hear­ing jokes about how they’re mak­ing a movie about Ant-Man, but it’s basic­ally the only super­hero movie I’m look­ing for­ward to , It’d be great to see what Edgar Wright could do with the material.

  • lichman says:

    i agree with bill.
    vadim should go fuck more.

  • Scott says:

    Just FYI: Hancock was not based on a graph­ic nov­el or com­ic. The film began its life as a spec screen­play by Vincent Ngo titled, “Tonight, He Comes.” It was very dark in tone and not comed­ic at all. The script bounced around town for almost a dec­ade before it got rewrit­ten and filmed.

  • Glenn Kenny says:

    Correction above. I think my point almost still holds. Though I think we can all agree that in the end it prob­ably was­n’t worth making.

  • Dan says:

    @Mark
    Unfortunately, it’s prob­ably going to be “Avatar” that’s going to be the wake-up call. The more I think on it the more, hon­estly, it fills me with dread. That bas­tard’s got the poten­tial to be the next “Cleopatra”.

  • Dan says:

    Glenn, I finally saw the movie, so was finally able to read this post and so I feel I can safely say this, on the last line:
    SHAME ON YOU.
    Seriously, I’m really dis­ap­poin­ted that you jumped to this con­clu­sion based on noth­ing more than Will Smith’s skin col­or. This was not a role writ­ten spe­cific­ally for a black man, which is abund­antly obvi­ous in the course of the film (the film, like all of Smith’s block­busters, makes no hay of his race). Anybody who wants to argue oth­er­wise, although it’s way too late, I’ll be happy to hear from them, but, ser­i­ously, folks, read­ing “the tam­ing of the black man” into this movie says noth­ing about the film, just some­thing about you.

  • Glenn Kenny says:

    No, there isn’t much “hay” made of Hancock’s race—there does­n’t need to be. And bey­ond that, the pic­ture is hardly race-neutral—witness its gra­tu­it­ous race-baiting humor aimed at Hispanic and French char­ac­ters, not to men­tion the back­story that explains Hancock’s amne­sia. I’m not say­ing the film is a vir­u­lently racist piece in the mode of “Birth of a Nation’—as it hap­pens, the pic­ture’s per­spect­ive is entirely lib­er­al, as it WANTS Hancock to func­tion and be use­ful with­in society—but the sub­text is cer­tainly there.

  • Dan says:

    My stand­ard on it is A) was the role writ­ten spe­cific­ally for an act­or of that eth­ni­city and B) if so, why is that required? I just don’t see that in Hancock. Even the French kid is, well, just kind of ran­dom; it’s not like the movie knows or cares any­where oth­er than New York or LA exists.
    I don’t mean to be obnox­ious, I just dis­like spe­cif­ic movies catch­ing fal­lout for industry prob­lems, which is what I view as the prob­lem here.