Dec 19, 2007
Last night I jumped out to catch a film with a friend after we put our kids to bed. Many times an experience at the movies can be shallow, trivial and a disappointment. You leave feeling - why on earth did I spend time and money on this? Last night was not one of those occasions. For those who have not seen the new Will Smith film, I am Legend should cease reading now if you have intentions to do so. There will be spoilers so hope off now. To be honest, it was one of the better films I have seen in some time.
Plot Summary
The film is based on Richard Matheson's 1954 science fiction novel of the same name. This film adaptation takes place in a post apocalyptic Manhattan where a viral 'cure for cancer' has gone horribly wrong. Most of the human population of the world has died, a small amount were immune, another portion turned into vampire like creatures known as dark-seekers. In this world military virologist Robert Neville (Smith's character) is alone in Manhattan seeking to find a cure for what humanity has wrought upon itself. What follows is a thick, tense ride of man's fight and hope for survival and redemption for what is a catastrophic situation. The ending is somewhat optimistic and seems the only portion of the movie which has received some criticism. The film was almost unbearably tense and dealt with themes much too disturbing for any kid to take in. In fact, it will be too much for those who are sensitive at the movies. The use of sound (use of silence without much score) and visuals was fantastic and the movie is one tense moment after another for almost the entire 1:40 run time. Surprisingly the writers and director deal with some themes which only find their sense in a biblical worldview and the religious themes are a bit penetrating. What follows are some of the themes which I particularly found interesting and insightful.
Hubris/Pride
The film begins with an optimistic interview of a medical researcher who has harnessed the ferocity of the virus to do man's bidding and eradicate cancer. The clinical trials were 100% effective and the interviewer asks the scientist a point blank question: So you cured cancer? The answer is hollow and clear: Yes. There is no time for optimism as the director makes a harsh cut directly to 3 years later into an empty Manhattan island where Neville is hunting in the midst of the overgrown and desolate city. The pride of humanity's attempt to cure one of our most horrendous diseases by using a virus, a self-replicating system prone to unpredictability and mutation comes through loud and clear. It gives much pause to the possibility of overconfident biotechnological reaches which have unseen outcomes. Now I don't think we are going to turn people into rabid, zombie like vampires, but there are great risks to human life and the environment in the brave new worlds of bio and nano technology. Pride comes before a fall...true.
Despair, Guilt and Quixotic Dedication
Smith's character carries a certain guilt and responsibility to remedy the situation as we see from well timed flash backs that he was the military scientist attempting to find a cure for this pandemic. He was unable to find it in time and the director uses the pre-apocalypse story to build his character's fixation with finishing his work. After everyone is gone, Neville, who has an immunity to the virus, has only his dog and his work left to keep him sane. He is frantically trying to both stay alive and find the cure he sought before everything unraveled. He unrelentingly says "I have to fix it" - his sense is that he simply has to redeem humanity's mistake. He echoes that "God didn't do this, we did" and you sense that he feels the burden of a savior though his work looks hopeless. He has almost a quixotic quest to get the job done. So much that he sends his family away so that he can stay at ground zero and work. Additionally, towards the end, he again wants to stay and cure the disease rather than go northward in search of a "survivor colony" he hears about. The director relieves this tension at the end as his work is allowed to succeed - though without him making it through to that future. Our own kicking against our mortality is felt strongly and Smith's performance only added to this hope/despair paradox of being human.
Friendship
Being one of the last people alive is a lonely affair so how Neville copes with his isolation is an interesting facet of the film. In this movie, man's best friend is better than a volleyball. Neville's dog actually has survived with him and they do everything together. Eat together, work out together, hunt together, etc. I never bought into Tom Hank's friendship with a volleyball to keep his sanity in Castaway. Here we have the family dog as the constant companion. This is quite believable and will certainly grab the hearts of those who love their doggies. The tragedy of the circumstances is brought home through the dog's character as well. It was touching and real - dog owners will cry in this movie. Do not mock them. There is also so goofy stuff with mannequins which seems to work pretty well especially when the zombies start messing with him.
Providence/Destiny
The film also wrestles a bit with the themes of God's providence and destiny. Did God have anything to do with this disaster or is man alone and the victim of his sins alone. Does the hope for the future lie in some form of providence, or is it human ingenuity which must right its own wrongs alone? The end of the movie almost becomes cheesy when another immune human (a young woman named Anna played by Alice Braga) shows up on the scene and says "God told me to come to you." At first it was like they were going to make this character out to be a religious wacko of sorts but it quickly moves through that feeling into an intense exchange about God's existence and involvement in their nightmare. The scene survives the early cheesy moment to the point where it can be seen as genuine. The movie resolves a little too nicely but at least it is nicely hopeful. The cynical would probably prefer a different ending, but the current fare--though not great, was not that bad in my opinion.
Theological Angst
There is also much angst surrounding God in Smith's character. The director does several things throughout the film to bring his humanity and its struggle with God to the foreground. In an early flashback his family prays together as wife and daughter board a helicopter to leave the island. Later Neville's lines about his disbelief in God, or the fact that God had allowed this to happen come strongly to the center of his personal redemption. There is a moment where he seems to realize that the hand of providence was indeed involved in the redemption of a broken world and this gives him courage to face the end of of his own life...which though a tad full of bravado, does have a sacrificial element to it. The man who felt so compelled to "fix it" - eventually does...and gives his life in protecting the new found cure. Fans of Bob Marley will certainly enjoy the placement of his music and his story in the film. In fact, towards the end Neville seems to urge action in the world in order to "light up the darkness" - something he grabs from Marley. There are crosses which hang from a rear view mirror, signs in the city saying "God still loves us" and even a church at the center of the new human colony featured at the end of the film. The spiritual imagery and wrestle with God is evident throughout but not obnoxious or invasive.
Conclusion
I personally enjoyed the film and it shook me as intensely as any--especially in the first parts of the movie. I could not help but think of the realities of the film and how it aligns so much with my own theological vision.
- Man sins greatly - and feels his immense responsibility
- Yet providence deems redemption to be a worthy path which ultimately is controlled from a power greater than ourselves.
- There is hope of new life and healing in a future yet to appear
In thinking of our quests in hope amidst a world of despair, the old poem The Gate of the Year by Minnie Haskins comes to mind. The poem was made famous by King George VI's quotation in his 1939 Christmas address.
I said to the man who stood at the gate of the year 'Give me a light that I may tread safely into the unknown.'
And he replied, 'Go into the darkness and put your hand into the hand of God...That shall be to you better than light and safer than a known way!'
I am Legend reminded me of our constant struggle with sin, survival, hope and despair. In the hand of God lies redemption - even amidst our greatest sins. It is one of the most thematically spiritual movies I have seen and sets these motifs firmly in the 21st century. Highly recommended.
Here are a few reviews and links:
- The New York Times
- Hollywood Jesus
- Rotten Tomatoes - 62% Fresh as of 12/19/07
- The Boston Globe - 3/4 stars
- Ebert and Roeper (video review) - Two Thumbs Up
- MovieGuide - 4 stars, extreme caution for children and sensitive movie goers.
- Rolling Stone (video review) - 3 of 4 stars
Comments
Great review, Reid! (If you don't mind, I'll link your review to my blog since we share many of the same thoughts).
[As Reid said, stop reading if you haven't seen this film...]
Kim and I went to see it on opening night. We used the same word to describe it: intense! Will Smith is one of my favorite actors (thought "Pursuit of Happyness" was a little disappointing for me). I'm really glad that they didn't add any typical Will Smith comic relief during the intense scenes. He has such range in acting... but from his previous work, one almost expected him to be cracking jokes as he is blasting aliens (or "night-seekers"). I'm glad they didn't go that route. In fact, some of those scenes were so ramped up, I could have used a little humor. But, reflecting on it after watching the film, it was such a relief that they left the audience digging their nails into the armrest.
On the theological side of things, I know he was borrowing some lines from Marley, but I couldn't help but have John 1 ringing in my mind as I left the theatre. The light/darkness language, mixed with the sacrificial imagery, is unmistakable.
Another thing I enjoyed was that God was shown to be TRUE. I'm not just talking about someone losing their faith and then regaining it like we've seen in countless other movies. Rather in Legend, God was shown to be demonstrably true. What Anna said God "told her" was a reality. They don't draw this point out too much, but it was neat to see more than a mere nod to the fact that faith is good for you if you choose to believe there is a God. There was a deeper reality and the admission of a God who is there and not silent. Beautiful.
Posted by: Jason Seville | December 19, 2007 03:12 PM
Jason,
To be honest, in one of the early scenes (where we could have used a joke) - I totally punked out and returned a text message to break the tension. Crazy stuff - I agree with your assessment...and let us not think that Bob Marley had not been exposed to the Scriptures. His songs are soaked with biblical imagery (also with weed imagery, but that isn't so good.)
Appreciate you brother
Posted by: Reid Monaghan | December 19, 2007 03:24 PM
I think the allusions are even stronger than you do :-)
One interesting theme in the film relates to the zombies directly. *spoilers ahead*
Neville captures the female zombie, and the male runs out into the light, which Neville later attributes it to hunger.
I am not 100% confident, but I believe the zombie with the dogs, and the leader at the end was the same one that lept into the light.
If that's so, then in each case, it seems clear that, even though Smith states that there is no humanity left in the zombies, at least one particular zombie is behaving the way he is because he has some attachment to the female zombie. The manipulation of the mannequin also alludes to this (the zombie learned from Neville).
It appears that the zombies still retain some vestige of their humanity, even though their wills have been overborne by the virus.
I think the biggest allusion, at least to Christianity, is the allusion to salvation, because in the end, the broken are made whole by the cure (presumably).
Neville's sacrifice seems patently to be an invocation of Christ's death on the cross.
Posted by: John Jenkins | December 19, 2007 06:15 PM
John, you are very right about the alpha zombie. He is the one whose "bride?" was taken by Smith. I could not agree with your post more and to be honest, your insight edified me my friend.
CS Lewis once said we did not need more "Christian" books. What we did need was more good books with their Christianity latent throughout. I think this is true of the film. It is in no way preachy - but deeply felt to be true...I think people of various worldviews will experience this through the film. I think you understand the gospel well...especially in this line:
It appears that the zombies still retain some vestige of their humanity, even though their wills have been overborne by the virus.
Neville still felt them worth saving, even to the last moment when they were trying to bust through the glass. Ultimately he and they were to die, but others (as you said presumably) will live. Now whether or not it is right for the zombies to be "cured" against their "zombie wills" we will have to save for another discussion, for therein lies another theological tension.
On another note - I'm just glad the CG zombies seemed a bit over the top at the end - it was much less scary :)
Posted by: Reid Monaghan | December 19, 2007 06:50 PM
whether or not it is right for the zombies to be "cured" against their "zombie wills" we will have to save for another discussion, for therein lies another theological tension
In the context of the film, I think the answer is that it is clearly right, because their zombieness is the direct result of an involuntary infection (e.g. none of them sought out their current condition).
Now, approaching this from a Christian standpoint, it seems that one possible interpretation is that it is an allegory for man's sinful nature, this is how you are, and only through Jesus (represented by Neville, here) can you be redeemed. But, even in this base nature, still some shadow of goodness remains (e.g, devotion to one's spouse).
Now, this movie deviates very far from the book (of the same name) on which it was based (see also "The Last Man on Earth" and "The Omega Man"), and I don't think these themes are apparent in the book (the plot is VERY different, ).
The other allegorical point is the small enclave of humans. Throughout the film, Neville refers to what he is making, not as an anti-viral (e.g. not a cure), but rather as a vaccine. A vaccine is a preventative, not a cure.
Now, suppose that this was intentional and not bad science (as some have thought). In that case, it may not really be intended for the zombies across the glass. It may be intended for the people in that enclave. Again, the symbolism is that Neville is Jesus, and he cannot save those who do not wish to be saved, the zombies, but only those who seek him out (the enclave, Anna and the boy).
We cannot really decide here, because the movie doesn't tell us much about the resolution. I tend to think that the "vaccine" does function as a cure, because if it didn't, then there would be no need for an enclave made up of entirely of (presumably) immune people to receive a vaccine in order to begin exterminating the zombies. If everyone at the enclave was not immune, however, you can get around that.
Another level is that Neville says in the movie that "nothing went according to plan." That is clearly colored by what happened to his family at the pier. In reality, except for his small part of "the plan" it appears that people did get away, get isolated, and manage to barricade themselves in places like the enclave. On that level, it serves as an allegory for divine providence. After all, it turns out the plan for the good of everyone DID happen, just not the way Neville thought it should have.
Neville's suffering is consistent with this take, since it is entirely possible, were he to have gotten on that helicopter or escaped with his family intact, the cure/vaccine would not have happened, so what appeared to be bad was in fact good. [This is deeply tainted with utilitarianism, however, since we have the (unwilling) suffering of one for the benefit of others.]
Posted by: John Jenkins | December 19, 2007 08:19 PM
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie as well. At all levels of production the film was done well. Thank goodness this wasn't a Michael Bay of Bruckhiemer hack job.
I love it when you can walk away from a movie that brings up so many questions and possibilities. I personally found it appropriately disturbing to think of the risks of humanity's pride and faith in science and the continuing movement towards making it our God.
Great review.
Posted by: Josh Stevenson | December 20, 2007 12:11 AM
John - can you teach theology to church folk for us :)
Utilitarianism is tainted in the hands of human beings because they can in no way calculate "the greater good" and need ethical principles to guide in real circumstances. However, if someone were to have complete knowledge of all outcomes then greatest good can be calculated and known. Utilitarianism is flawed as a human ethical system, but for God it might be OK.
As far as I know most of our suffering is not "willful" though at times it could be used for some greater good for both our lives and the designs of providence.
Nice to see you added a pic to your facebook page. Good to see you again :)
Posted by: Reid Monaghan | December 20, 2007 09:53 AM
Josh - I agree - movies that provoke questions, feeling, thinking and conversation are well worth our time. Plus, when they are entertaining and scare the hell out of you (without being wicked or gratuitous) - all the better.
Posted by: Reid Monaghan | December 20, 2007 09:57 AM
I think I am fundamentally disqualified from teaching theology ;-)
I'm not certain that utilitarianism is not flawed, even with perfect knowledge.
God's acts would seem to me to be more deontologically good, rather than good by utility.
Posted by: John Jenkins | December 20, 2007 10:08 AM
God's action's would be essentially good in themselves and have utility in that he would be "working all things together for the good of those who love God and are called according to his purpose" Romans 8:28.
He is working out the bottom line "good" (defined of course by his acts as you helpfully clarified - I see what you mean)
Plus, I think "utility" is just a cowards way out of saying "good" and having to necessarily define it. What is utility? The most good for the most people. I don't think we gain ground with that.
Of course sometimes the word "pleasure" is smuggled in...there are all sorts of presuppositions in utilitarianism that are simply ungrounded without knowing what the summum bonum really is.
I'll just teach your theological insight on your behalf. That is until God finally gets you :) I still pray for that - I know I am a foolish man.
Posted by: Reid Monaghan | December 20, 2007 10:40 AM
I saw this film last night with Scott and was totally freaked out and LOVED it all at the same time! The whole make New York City a desolate ghost town was really cool to me. I loved his relationship with Sam (the dog) since I'm a huge dog lover. For me the strongest spiritual picture was the helpless depravity and aggression of the dark seekers. Even calling them "dark seekers" is a killer spiritual analogy. The darkness hates the light and these zombies hate light and only seek darkness- wow. Also the power that the light had over the darkness was a strong message. Their violence against Will Smith is an amazing picture of our typical response to God- confident in our mis perception that He really doesn't have our best in mind.
I'd NEVER want my wife or children to see this film but for me it was a nice refreshing reminder of the spiritual realities of our world.
Thanks for the recommendation Reid!
-Chris
Posted by: Chris Wheeler | December 21, 2007 01:39 PM
Awesome wheels...I knew dog folks would love that aspect of the film...great insight on the "dark" seekers...thankful to a gracious and pursuing God. Have a great Christmas!
Posted by: Reid | December 21, 2007 09:36 PM
One more thing I noticed in seeing the movie with my Father-in-law. The scene where Smith wakes up after being saved by the Brazilian lady he grabs a gun and stumbles into the kitchen. Before putting the gun down the camera lights on Smith's hand/wrist...oddly there was a wound on his wrist.
There is more story that could be told after the abrupt ending of the movie...but would a sequel without Smith be worth the time?
Posted by: Reid Monaghan | December 27, 2007 06:50 PM
Entertaining movie but not believable. I recommend reading All of Yesterdays Tomorrows. The readers are posed with many moral questions.
Posted by: RoninC | February 1, 2008 08:52 PM
Thanks Ronin
Posted by: Reid | February 2, 2008 09:04 AM
hi ya! i found the use of 'bob marley" in the move ODD due to the fact that he died from cancer. plus in a museum full of images, the choice to steal the "stary night" painting symbolism eludes me.
Posted by: charlie | March 3, 2008 02:25 PM
Charlie,
Yes, good questions - but I'm not sure if I have any answers. The Marley connection is interesting in a movie which features a "cure" for the disease that ended his life. Perhaps the cure we need is hinted at more in Bob Marley's songs and existential longings rather than simply curing the disease which only kills the body?
Thanks for the comment
Posted by: Reid | March 3, 2008 03:10 PM