Is Hancock sending mixed messages?

I suspect there will be a lot of upset and confused viewers walking out of theatres on June 2.
Hancock

When I saw the first bits for Will Smith’s upcoming superhero film, Hancock, I wasn’t terribly impressed. While the premise — there’s a superhero whose more of a public nuisance/danger to society than any sort of real savior — was promising, and it starred the always great Jason Bateman, Smith’s performance just killed it for me.

But the more I saw of the film, the more it grew on me. The latest trailer certainly had me laughing at moments. And as much as I love a good superhero film, the idea of a subversive counterpart giving the superhero genre a good tweak on the nose struck me as full of potential.

But now I’m starting to have second thoughts again. First up is this New York Times article, which reveals that Hancock might not be the superhero film that we see in the trailers.

The film has already been rated “R” twice by the ratings board, though the filmmakers are shooting for a “PG-13” rating. While some of the scenes that garnered the “R” rating, including one of statuatory rape, have apparently been removed, the film will still be pretty intense:

The film, [director Peter Berg] said, remained surprisingly sexual, violent and true in spirit to an original script that was viewed as brilliant but unmakable when its creator, Vincent Ngo, first circulated it more than a decade ago under the title “Tonight, He Comes.”

Keeping it that way became what Mr. Berg called “an epic game of chicken.” The filmmakers, for instance, long ago conceded that their hero should not get drunk with a 12-year-old. But their concession was a bargaining chip, aimed at keeping a similar situation with a 17-year-old in the final version, which was still weeks from being locked as Mr. Berg spoke in April. Another touchy area, Mr. Berg said, involved flying, never mind driving, under the influence.

Asked about the process, Amy Pascal, Sony’s co-chairwoman, took a chipper view. “Will Smith playing a superhero in a movie that’s funny and has tons of action, that’s not so hard,” she said in a telephone interview.

Pressed a bit, however, Ms. Pascal acknowledged that “Hancock” does break some ground. “It’s scary in that it goes farther than we’ve gone before,” she said.

But perhaps even more distressing than the more violent and sexual content is that the film simply doesn’t know what do with it. At least, that’s what this spoiler-filled review over at AICN claims, calling the film an unmitigated mess:

…what really infuriates me is that with all the resources at their disposal, no one knew what film they were making. This film is the equivalent of being tone deaf. Don’t get me wrong, I think Will Smith is an entertaning actor but this film, as is, does not work. Hence, the panic I was reading on the executives faces after the screening. This film is not as dark as it thinks it is and not as funny as it thinks it is. It’s right down the middle and that’s a dangerous place to be.

Of course, you don’t get a sense of any of the above things in the teasers and trailers that have come out so far. Misleading promotional materials are nothing new in Hollywood, but it’s still infuriating. If you’re aiming for a sexual and violent film, than stop being a pansy about it: free yourself from the shackles of “PG-13,” go for the hard “R,” advertise it as such, and be done with it. On the other hand, if you’re marketing a “PG-13” blockbuster action/comedy, than why not make sure that’s what you’re delivering?

If the film is at all true to Berg’s artistic vision, or true to the spirit of Ngo’s script, then I suspect there will be a lot of upset and confused viewers walking out of theatres on June 2.

Enjoy reading Opus? Want to support my writing? Become a subscriber for just $5/month or $50/year.
Subscribe Today
Return to the Opus homepage