I admit my opinions can be, on occasion, outre - for instance I believe the first Hulk movie is superior to the second and I continue to champion CATWOMAN. That said, like the hieroglyphics Hancock absently scribbles on the wall of his prison cell, there is something intelligent going on in this movie.
Take the Philadelphia Eagles' ski cap Hancock wears before his transformation. This assessory could be dismissed as capricious and arbitrary - perhaps Mr. Smith is an Eagles fan or perhaps it is an homage to Donovan McNabb, another often maligned brother handling his business - but, as the story evolves, it becomes clear the Eagles cap is a foreshadowing, a buried memory if you will, of Hancock's true, authentic self. The eagle was a symbol born by men of action, occupied with high and weighty affairs. It was given to those of lofty spirit, ingenuity, speed in comprehension, and discrimination in matters of ambiguity. The wings signify protection, and the gripping talons symbolize ruin to evildoers. The eagle is held to represent a noble nature from its strength and aristocratic appearance, as well as its association with the ancient kings of Persia, Babylon and the Roman legions, having been the official ensign of those empires. Since then, other empires and nations have also adopted the eagle as their symbol, such as the German third reich and the empire conquered by Napoleon. The eagle is also associated with the sun. As a Christian symbol, the eagle represents salvation, redemption and resurrection. An interesting form of the eagle is the alerion, which is drawn without the beak or the legs. It is thought to represent a formerly great warrior who was seriously injured in combat and is no longer able to fight. Because it soars upward, the eagle is a symbol of the resurrection or ascension of Christ. By extension, the eagle symbolizes baptized Christians, who have symbolically died and risen with Christ. And, how many among us have been "reborn" under the loving gaze of a blond, blue-eyed Jesus? When Hancock achieves his true, authentic self his new uniform is enblazoned with an eagle motif and by film's end he even has a majestic eagle as a companion. Further, regarding Hancock's incarceration: how many great leaders have found their moral compass and blossomed in prison? Mandela? Malcolm? I'm just sayin. HANCOCK is fine as it is. ~rave! --- In [email protected], "Tracey de Morsella" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is It Too Early to Remake 'Hancock'? > > The answer is no, that is if you were wondering > > Unlike some who feel every remake amounts to a personal affront on their > gentleman's honor, I've gone on record saying remakes rarely irk me.* So I > say, why not remake <http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/movie/hancock> Hancock? > How about now? Leave the "too soon" charges for those joking about your > recently deceased goldfish. Strike while the passion's hot. My friend, the > sex therapist, said that once, and wisdom like that goes for things other > than when the Viagra takes hold. > > I'm not saying a Gus Van Sant frame-by-frame remake. Now that'd be madness. > I'm thinking something along the lines of Batman Begins or The Incredible > Hulk. So a reboot, reworking, reimagining, or whatever word you want to use > with "re" as a prefix.** Just because Hancock didn't spring from the comic > pages doesn't mean it isn't a viable candidate for a redoing. > > The current incarnation of Hancock is a frustrating mess, a fascinating > failure of schizophrenic filmmaking: one part brilliant (the concept and > first act are pretty darn good); one part mediocre (the whole middle of the > film); and one part pure shit (who was the genius behind the James Carville > impersonating villain?). And while I'm well aware that an R-rated version > exists with a statutory rape subplot and a super-powered jizz shot, I doubt > any director's cut can fix that last act. > > Nor am I proposing that the redoing goes back to Vincent Ngo's original > script, Tonight, He Comes. I read it recently. The rumors are true. Other > than containing a smoking, hard-drinking superhero named Hancock, a > father-mother-son family that befriends Hancock, and a bank robbery scene > (occurring much earlier), Tonight, He Comes has nothing in common with the > Will Smith vehicle showing at a theater near everyone. > > In Ngo's version Hancock mumbles rehearsed platitudes and comes off more as > a force of nature that an actual character. No big plot twists are to be > found. And the story is much darker (e.g., Hancock slaughters a whole > precinct of cops during the climax). Some have labeled the original > screenplay as brilliant, while others have tagged it as pure drivel. It's > neither. Pretty good, but definitely flawed. > > So I say take the fantastic concept (an asshole, sort of a superhero whose > heroics and powers have real-world consequences on the tax-paying public) > and rewrite the rest. The idea lends itself to several interesting themes > and allegories ranging from American foreign policies (several reviews for > Hancock touch on this symbolism) to the suggestion of a God, who contrary to > popular belief, does not like us. The possibilities are endless. You only > need a writer/filmmaker with the talent and focus to lasso these notions > together and funnel them into a smooth, singular vision. That also means you > need a filmmaker with enough clout to keep the studio from breaking out the > editing scissors. Could somebody get Peter Jackson on the phone? > > Now, I know comic books have explored this territory for two decades now. > But I've yet to see a superhero film that grabs onto the genre's subversive > tentacles and really crack things open and flip them inside out- although if > <http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/movie/watchmen> Watchmen lives up to its > source material, then it will have done just that. Hancock teased us with > that possibility, but failed miserably. However, I'm willing to give the > character another chance.*** It's the American way. > > *Okay, Death Race irks me a tad, but that's only because I despise the taint > of Paul W.S. Anderson. > **My vote: a redoing. > ***But not as sequel. Without the booze, wouldn't a Hancock sequel just be > Will Smith flying around in a reject costume from the X-Men films? The > answer is yes. > > http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/is_it_too_early_to_remake_hancock / > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
