Is Hancock 2008 about the tragedy of rejection?
👁 7
https://blenderdumbass.org/do_login : 👁 1
https://blenderdumbass.org/reviews/is_hancock_2008_about_the_tragedy_of_rejection_ : 👁 1
![[avatar]](/pictures/favicon.png)
by Blender Dumbass
Aka: J.Y. Amihud. A Jewish by blood, multifaceted artist with experience in film-making, visual effects, programming, game development, music and more. A philosopher at heart. An activist for freedom and privacy. Anti-Paternalist. A user of Libre Software. Speaking at least 3 human languages. The writer and director of the 2023 film "Moria's Race" and the lead developer of it's game sequel "Dani's Race".
Mary Embrey, the blonde woman played by Charlize Theron in the 2008 Peter Berg film Hancock, is surprisingly good looking. For the few people who read through the psycho-sexual analysis of me, you may know that for me in general, the name Mary, or the Latin version of it Maria, or the Russian version of it Masha, especially connected to a blonde, good looking woman, is very important. And yet, back when I saw Hancock for the first time. I didn't quite realize how important it is. ↩ Reply
Peter Berg's direction feels like he stole it from Michael Bay and Tony Scott in the same time. The film's box office success ( being number 4 in 2008 ) could be attributed to it. Berg goes for some rather good imitation of Bayhem!. And he uses a nice, soothing, kind of, serious looking, hend-held camera work on the dramatic moments, kind of like what we see in the latest films of Tony Scott. He even later directed a movie called Battleship which is based on toys from Hasbro ( like Transformers ) and is trying to be more of a Michael Bay film. And in both of those films, he does not quite pull off the signature Michael Bay rotating camera shot. In Hancock he comes very close a few times, but all of them lack something rather essential to make it truly Baylike. ↩ Reply
People tend to separate the film into two separate parts. And yes, watching it, not knowing where the story leads, may feel that way. I certainly felt that way when I saw it for the first time. We have the first half, which is about this asshole superman character John Hancock played by Will Smith and that public relations person Ray Embrey ( Jason Bateman ) who is trying to help Hancock improve his public image. And then we have the second half of the film, about Mary and how, spoiler alert, she is actually a superwoman that was Hancock's wife 80 years ago ( they don't age ). ↩ Reply
Yet re-watching it, you may notice that Berg's direction already includes a hell of a lot of clues for people about the Mary character. The film rewards you for seeing it again. Some of the scenes and some of the interactions take on a different meaning when you know the twist of the film. If you can call it a twist, of course. The so called "Twist" happens half way through the film. ↩ Reply
In a way, watching it, knowing how it turns out, makes the movie feel like a whole. It makes the movie no longer feel like the two pieces that people often think of when thinking of this movie. It makes the movie better, in a way. ↩ Reply
So Hancock is being a misunderstood hero of sorts. He is an asshole. And he is fucking up a lot of property when trying to do his superhero-shit. But then we have the Ray guy, who is also a misunderstood hero. He wants to try to convince an American pharmaceutical company to release their highly needed, highly advanced drugs to people for free, in exchange with a heart logo. ↩ Reply
![[embedded image]](/pictures/user_upload/blenderdumbass/allheart.png "All heart logo")
They obviously laugh him off, because 1 ) nobody ever heard about this logo, so why bother investing in it and 2 ) because releasing stuff for free goes against their mentality. ↩ Reply
And then he meets Hancock, helps him with his public image, and everybody wants to work with Ray, for at the very least, some soft of connection with the superhero. Yet there is a complication: his wife is Hancock's ex-wife. And both his wife and Hancock's powers are tied to them not being together. The magical magic stops magicing when they are close by. ↩ Reply
The fact that the logo is a heart, could be just lazy design on the part of the film-makers, or could be tied to some thematic bullshit, when it comes to the plot of the film. The film ends with Hancock drawing the logo on the moon, so everybody would see it. But right before that, Hancock, who is apparently still in-love with Mary ( even though he has amnesia about what happened before 80 years ago ) needs to decide to leave her alone, in order to save both of them. He wants the love, she wants the love. But to make them both strong ( and survive through an encounter with bad guys ) they have to separate. They have to reject one another. This is some highly emotional, profound bullshit. ↩ Reply
I believe the logo being a heart ties into this profound bullshit. I still don't know how exactly. Or why the writers wrote what the writers wrote. But it seems like it is important. And it seems like more people should look at it and examine the meaning of it. c:0 ↩ Reply
Happy Hacking!!! ↩ Reply
Find this post on Mastodon
![[avatar]](/pictures/user_upload/Troler/55NKGQKE7IRKMLHV.png)
Troler
c:0 January 29, 2026 I believe the logo being a heart ties into this profound bullshit. I still don't know how exactly. Or why the writers wrote what the writers wrote. But it seems like it is important.
⤴ ViewOr... there is nothing deeper. Not saying there is not, I haven't seen the film, it just may be a heart.
![[thumbnail]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0c/Black_hawk_down_ver1.jpg/250px-Black_hawk_down_ver1.jpg)
![[thumbnail]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6e/Battleship_Poster.jpg)