legends and allegories [movies]

i am legend

i am a brainless movie-goer

___________________________________________________

just a comparison i'd like to throw out there - i've heard a lot of people who praised the transformers movie going around town saying i am legend is awful. you people need to learn the difference between awful and mediocre.

'i am legend' isn't awful, it just suffers from the same fate that most modern movies do - nobody cared enough to make it a masterpiece. maybe its because they felt like they didn't have to and people would see it anyway, maybe they honestly thought they had created a masterpiece or maybe they were operating under the impression that the world wasn't ready for anything heavier, but most movies these days don't have enough put into them. there are several movies i use as a compass to judge all others by, they range from serious art house fare like 2046 to mainstream action romps like the terminator or die hard. some were considered great in their time, some were loathed, some were considered frivolous and mindless, some were simply forgotten, but regardless, in my mind there is a thread that unites all great films - care. i feel it's fairly evident when watching a movie whether or not the people making it actually gave a shit about what they were creating. as an artist and a lover of art i can tell the difference between someone's obsession and someone's paycheck. it's what differentiates blade runner from impostor. i know when the details of a movie have been labored over, even if the labor isn't apparent and that is one of the things i love discovering about movies.

'i am legend' doesn't lack detail, per say, but it definitely skimps a bit. was it as good as 'blade runner'? oh god, no. but was it as bad as 'impostor'? nah, that's a little harsh. visually it was alright, thematically it was alright (though a bit muddy in places), but it fell far short of its potential because hollywood is simply terrified of taking big risks and failing. the movie was "deep" there was substance to it, but it was very subtle and it seems like a lot of people looked right passed it because they came in half-expecting it to be meaningless hollywood garbage anyway. i mean, let's be honest, there are a lot of people in this world that wouldn't get the theme of a movie if it was right in front of them yanking their ball hairs out, but a lot of the negativity i've read regarding 'i am legend' being "terrible" seems to stem from viewers having only a superficial/completely literal understanding of what's transpiring. it appears to me that most people were too distracted by the questionable cgi choices and the ending to really give the film the amount of attention it deserved.

although i wasn't the biggest fan of 'i am legend' personally and don't feel any sort of obligation to defend it, this kind of thing really troubles me. the majority of movie viewers (even those that consider themselves discerning critics) are only able to see themes, symbolism, deeper meanings, etc. in a movie if they're made overly aware of the fact that its there by heavy-handed techniques or blabby philosophical dialogue. i suppose that's why i despise movies that rely on such methods to hold your hand through every emotion, thought and concept presented. it's my personal feeling that a movie should be entertaining first and foremost, but it should have more to it than a simple chain of events if you should choose to go looking for it. the meat is there in 'i am legend', but there isn't enough to really make it a great film.

one thing i've notice people complaining about was the ending. many compare it to the twist toward the end of signs. they say "out of nowhere this chick and kid show up for no reason and all of a sudden he discovers the cure, gets a crazy message from god, sacrifices himself and saves humanity". well...that's certainly one way to look at it, yea, but is that really what the film was trying to get across? as usual, i see things a bit differently.

robert neville (will smith) lived for 3 years on his own. he learned to survive on his own. in this case surviving involves more than just hunting food and finding shelter, he also had to learn how to exist in complete isolation and cope with the psychological impact of not only being the last human alive, but also of being partly responsible for what happened to his fellow humans. 3 years is a long time and the result of being isolated for so long is that he's become completely self sufficient. though he desires it, he no longer requires human contact and has developed ways to supplement it on his own. he has become so accustomed to existing without that when human relationships are reintroduced to him he can no longer maintain them. when anna and ethan show up, by all indicators, he should be happy, he should have a new found purpose and a skip in his step...it should have brought him hope. instead, he can only focus on how their arrival has impacted the routine he's established for himself ("i was saving that bacon"). the characters of anna and ethan are obviously meant to echo neville's wife and child and where most movies would have hammered that point home, director francis lawrence chooses a different approach. instead, neville hardly seems to be moved by their presence at all and aside from a brief caress, makes very little personal contact with either of them. the story isn't about them, after all, it is about robert neville, the legend, the allegory. it is about how his desire to survive and fulfill his duty led him on a journey away from his own humanity. with this in mind, i view the "signs" at the end of the movie less as messages from god than neville finally realizing that in his quest to survive he had turned his back on the very thing he was supposed to be protecting. in an instant he finally understood that anna and ethan weren't simple annoyances getting in the way of his work and ruining his set-up, they were human like his wife and child, they were what he was struggling to save.

i'm not trying to convince anyone that 'i am legend' was brilliant because it wasn't. it had its moments and i think in a decade or so when the cultural associations are not as fresh and we've got maybe an extended director's cut it will be looked at more positively. what i'm trying to say is, its not awful and if you have an open mind and a willingness to look past the surface of the movie there are some interesting moments, some great scenes and some introspective themes about isolation, survival and obsession, but if you go in expecting mindless drivel, you'll get just that out of it.

ps. i'm purposefully avoiding any discussion about how well the movie adapts the book because, quite frankly, this is not really a strict adaptation of the book. it's more an update of the omega man, a laughably bad, equally off the mark adaptation of 'i am legend' starring charlton heston and his machine gun. even though 'the omega man' was slightly more faithful to the source material, it completely missed the mark of what the true core of the story was, which i think 'i am legend' comes a bit closer to (even though the way they get there is much different). for the sake of this blog, i'm keeping movies removed from their source material unless the connections absolutely must be drawn.