Coverage of what is truly interesting in the film world
RSS Feeds:All posts by this author|All comments for this post

Deciphering Charlize Theron’s Role in ‘Hancock’ (Spoilers)

Christopher Campbell
By Christopher Campbell posted 1 month ago
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • StumbleUpon

It’s been almost two weeks and Hancock has grossed almost $350 million, so it’s time to start the academic discussions — with spoilers, of course (anyone who wants to avoid knowing the “twists” should discontinue reading now). Maybe it’s just the film scholar in me, but I have been desiring a good analysis of the film’s allegorical meaning since viewing the less-than-perfect superhero movie last week. While others may feel that the movie is hardly worth reading into (especially over-reading, as I’ve always felt my M.O. to be) or that it’s too obvious that the first half is really about the role of the U.S. as a superpower, I’m nevertheless eager to figure it out.

Basically, I’ve been wracking my brain trying to understand where the allegory goes, or was meant to go, once Charlize Theron’s character is introduced as Hancock’s super-powered wife. Does she somehow fit in with or in response to Hancock’s representation of America (the patriotic name, the eagle emblem on his uniform, etc.)? I’m still at a loss, but I’ve come up with 5 possibilities (some a lot less likely than others) for what screenwriters Vincent Ngo and Vince Gilligan intended for her character to be.

  1. The United Kingdom - So sue me if part of my reasoning is inspired by Theron’s role on Arrested Development, in which she also seemed to be harboring a secret from beau Jason Bateman (if only Hancock had stolen Jeffrey Tambor from Hellboy II, it could have been considered a reunion), but if Hancock represents America, then Mary (Theron) is some other superpower, right? I don’t recall any hints that she signifies the Soviet Union, so she must be a stand-in for the British. Is her desire to be a housewife representative of a desire by the British to no longer be a world-stomping empire? Is Mary’s defending of the French boy a nod to Britain-France relations in contrast to U.S.-France? But then is the movie also saying that the UK and the U.S. are less powerful when united together? History would say otherwise.
  2. Hillary Clinton - In at least two separate reviews, I’ve seen Will Smith/Hancock compared to Barack Obama. So, I guess that would mean Charlize Theron/Mary is Hillary Clinton, though of course the domesticated preferences don’t fit. Still, despite the fact that Hancock was mostly filmed before the heat of the Democratic race, I can see where the Hancock vs. Mary battle, after which both characters are weaker, could be a parallel for the Clinton-Obama fight for the nomination, which seemed to be harming the Democratic party overall. And I guess we should also assume that if Hillary is somehow chosen as Barack’s running mate, the team-up will be disastrous for them both.
  3. Womanhood - Like her African American counterpart, Mary represents the struggles of her kind throughout the world, throughout history. And whenever they were united, says their back story, they faced harsher discriminations. Of course, it’s a stretch that Mary is an allegorical representation of women’s rights, especially considering Hancock could barely be analyzed as representing civil rights. But there’s something there regarding the strengths of both race and femininity in time of political correctness, affirmative action, etc. And it also ties into the Clinton/Obama allegory since both candidates were so defined, respectively, by gender and race.
  4. White Womanhood - Margeaux Watson at Entertainment Weekly might not agree with the generality of #3, so just for her, here’s the specific. Because in the current issue of EW, Watson complains about the casting of Theron as yet another white love interest for a black leading man. Perhaps Watson would be okay with a Nia Long or Gabrielle Union being cast in the (hopefully) inevitable sequel, in which a black woman superhero/god/angel is discovered, and Hancock dates her until he discovers she’s the villain (which is what I had presumed Theron to be when going into Hancock).
  5. The Virgin Mary - Don’t you know that anytime a character is named Mary in a movie that she represents the mother of Jesus? Could a sequel reveal that Mary and Hancock have a child out there, one who is more superhuman than superhuman? Perhaps played by Keanu Reeves? I guess since the superduo are said to be 3,000 years old that they were around for at least a millennium before Mary, but Hollywood magic could always suggest that Mary was in fact around for a long time prior to her immaculate conception.

Add your comments

  • Liz said

    I’m very glad that I’m not the only one who likes to analyze movies that aren’t very good or deep in the first place.

    While I don’t actually believe that any of these would have been intentional by the filmmakers, it’s pretty funny to imagine.

  • Christopher Campbell said

    Likewise, Liz, I’m glad you’re here, too.

  • Aaron said

    I don’t think any reading of the film is complete without considering the original title: TONIGHT, HE COMES.

  • George Love said

    I went to see this movie only because I read a review by Biko Agozino, prof of sociology. Prof. Agozino had problems with the depiction of a black superhero. Specifically his bum alcoholism, going to prison and playing basketball. that was just an invention to suck you into the real story. The promo looked stupid and i had no desire to spend time or money on stupid. That being said, will smith is smart and picks good movies to star in.

    Before I watched I also read several reviews by the white media. They all said the movie started great but took a wrong turn midpoint and could not recover. I thought the movie was supposed to be a comedy about a super hero, like my Super Ex-girlfriend.

    Well the reviewers were expecting a movie about a superhero. They were misled. The movie was about Love and Will Smith’s character was not black. He represented everyman.
    Dear Biko sees color as do most people. But Hancock is not black. if Hancock was a black man then he would have used his superpowers to stop/fight racism. So Hancock is not black. Will smith is not black either. Will smith’s star status places him as identifiable with everyman.

    Hancock represents being unappreciated like most fathers and men rejected by wives and lovers. Whatever heroic acts men do they cannot please their wife/lover. Hancock becomes a slob/bum/alcoholic which is what most men become gradually. They become addicted to tv sports, gambling, beer and stop caring about themselves by dressing like a slob/bum. But in their minds they are superheroes.

    Hancock meets his soul mate/twin flame in Mary (Charlize Theron). Together they are self-destructive. They lose their power when they spend too much time together or are too close.
    When they share their love with others they have super powers. But when their love is focused on each other they fuss fight and hurt each other.

    So the end of the movie that is most violent shows
    #1 Love will bring back the dead - undying love
    #2 Love will live forever - Immortal Love
    #3 Love hurts
    #4 Love conquers all
    #5 Appreciation builds confidence which builds competence
    #6 Unconditional Love increases your power

    So Professor, If you loved yourself you would not see color, but the content of character.

  • Honore said

    I too did not expect Theron to be a love interest of Smith’s, and the inclusion of such a triangle seemed to me to unnecessarily–and ineptly–complicate the plot. Having said that, I don’t think people should focus on the fact that Mary and Hancock were an interracial couple for the past 3000 years. In the world within the film, “race” would only have been a problem for them recently, with the advent of modern day slavery and its consequences. Their marital strife goes back way further than that.

    After Theron’s reveal, I expected there to be some further insight into who these two could be to each other. I figure they must be, among other famous married gods, Zeus and Hera. Zeus’ symbol was the eagle, he was originally a weather god (though it seems like the bad weather in the film is a result of Mary’s anger, not Hancock’s), and he and Hera had the ultimate love/hate relationship. And they also happened to be brother and sister (which is exactly how Mary first describes their relationship to Hancock).

    Hera was known for her foul temper and resentment of her husband, who cheated on her a lot. It does make sense that Hera, goddess of marriage and childbirth, would find contentment with a stable guy/loving husband and help him raise his child.

    Since Zeus constantly leaves Hera to be with other women, but always comes back, her anger is justified. I expected more of this to come out in the fight scene between them, and she did berate him for going away and coming back to make her miserable, but it didn’t really give enough details (of Mary’s past) for me to be sure. After all, she could represent any number of goddesses that Zeus seduced.

    I don’t know if this helps with your deeper analysis of the film. I felt that with the revelation that Mary was Hancock’s super-powered ex-wife, the film became completely predictable after that, but perhaps there is some more complex point. I hope you find it.

  • Argyre said

    The possible allegories of Hancock can go so many ways. Some of the allegories contributed I have already speculated. As with Zeus and Hera, that hit me broadside - it fits too perfectly!

    Having that said, any of the comments by the viewers of this site can be right. To the ordinary viewer however, meaning will come only if there exists strife that reflects some part of the story - as with any movie. This I would like to hear.

    Whether it be personal struggle or relationship problems, would further enhance the discussion of Hancock.