I am Legend! I am Atheist! (spoilers)
Jan. 7th, 2008 02:56 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackOmega Man
I didn't realise until after, that the story I Am Legend was adapted from, was the same as Omega Man was. What's interesting, is that they seem different. Contrary to what people on message boards say, it seems like they're based on it in different ways, and differ somewhat, as opposed to most remakes which seem to be copied from the most recent film, exaggerating the most iconic aspects. (I may be wrong, it could be adapted from Omega Man.)
Religion
I didn't consider it before, but I might as well. Everything was near the end of the film, it wasn't mentioned in the first two hours. The references I recall in the film were:
* The woman says God got her to hear his radio message
* And to go to Virginia (or somewhere)
* Will Smith says God can't have, he can't have let most of the world's population be killed and still be guiding people.
I don't know what it was intended to say, if anything, but it worked for me, against my cultural background.
* Will Smith's observation seemed pretty cogent. As you know, I already disbelief God's intervention, partly for similar reasons, *before* a global apocalypse.
* On the other hand, if you take the bible literally, there *was* the flood.
* It was a little surprising to have the woman be so certain, and be right
* But it was uplifting that she *was*. Even secular stories have their own sorts of miracles, and they are good to experience.
But it seems some people think the film was actually saying:
* Will Smith tragically lost his faith when he couldn't cope with what happened
* But he was wrong because the woman had faith and it turned out all right.
I guess it could be. I think it depends what background you expect to come from. If you live in a culture of expecting God's active minute-to-minute physical intervention, and some people doubt, it sounds like it is in support of that.
On the other hand, it seems likely the woman's experience was less revelatory than she thought -- eg. she was prompted to listen to *another* message on the radio about the sanctuary.
In which case, nothing impossible happened. But she found a path laid for her, which she faithfully followed to salvation. In which case, the film just seems a stark reflection of a question in real life -- in real life bad things happen, and some people are spared, but not all.
Of course, another view is that Smith hallucinated the ending. That could support pretty much any view.
I didn't realise until after, that the story I Am Legend was adapted from, was the same as Omega Man was. What's interesting, is that they seem different. Contrary to what people on message boards say, it seems like they're based on it in different ways, and differ somewhat, as opposed to most remakes which seem to be copied from the most recent film, exaggerating the most iconic aspects. (I may be wrong, it could be adapted from Omega Man.)
Religion
I didn't consider it before, but I might as well. Everything was near the end of the film, it wasn't mentioned in the first two hours. The references I recall in the film were:
* The woman says God got her to hear his radio message
* And to go to Virginia (or somewhere)
* Will Smith says God can't have, he can't have let most of the world's population be killed and still be guiding people.
I don't know what it was intended to say, if anything, but it worked for me, against my cultural background.
* Will Smith's observation seemed pretty cogent. As you know, I already disbelief God's intervention, partly for similar reasons, *before* a global apocalypse.
* On the other hand, if you take the bible literally, there *was* the flood.
* It was a little surprising to have the woman be so certain, and be right
* But it was uplifting that she *was*. Even secular stories have their own sorts of miracles, and they are good to experience.
But it seems some people think the film was actually saying:
* Will Smith tragically lost his faith when he couldn't cope with what happened
* But he was wrong because the woman had faith and it turned out all right.
I guess it could be. I think it depends what background you expect to come from. If you live in a culture of expecting God's active minute-to-minute physical intervention, and some people doubt, it sounds like it is in support of that.
On the other hand, it seems likely the woman's experience was less revelatory than she thought -- eg. she was prompted to listen to *another* message on the radio about the sanctuary.
In which case, nothing impossible happened. But she found a path laid for her, which she faithfully followed to salvation. In which case, the film just seems a stark reflection of a question in real life -- in real life bad things happen, and some people are spared, but not all.
Of course, another view is that Smith hallucinated the ending. That could support pretty much any view.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-07 05:05 pm (UTC)Strange. I'm completely atheist, from a basically godless background, but felt the film was pushing the usual American religious message (which slightly spoilt an otherwise excellent film for me). Those aren't the only religious references or hints - Smith's wife prays over him with a cross on a chain just before the helicopter takes off, asking God to protect Smith, IIRC (which he does, until Smith miraculously discovers the cure). Also, there is a very obvious church spire in the middle of the Vermont? sanctuary at the end. And Smith says to Anna just before he shuts her in the safe that this must have been why God sent her to find him - so that he could give her the cure. Even the starting scene, where the (English!) doctor Krippin talks about her GM-viral cure for cancer, seems to be parodying a particular media stereotype of scientists "playing God" (with obvious dire consequences).
On the other hand, it seems likely the woman's experience was less revelatory than she thought -- eg. she was prompted to listen to *another* message on the radio about the sanctuary.
If this had been the case, surely when Smith asked her, "How do you know it's there?" she would have said she heard a radio broadcast, if only to give more weight to a view she acknowledges "sounds crazy", and thus persuade Smith to come with her.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-07 05:35 pm (UTC)Are, I see what you mean. I think I was reacting to people who felt it was pushing a religious message *more* so than a film from a culture with religious background. (Though I'm not sure what's typical -- Hollywood is in America, but also California...) I don't know if those mentions were gratuitous, or just reflecting a natural importance.
But I'm sufficiently unused to those that I always see them, not as a statement of normality, but as a bit of background colour. And the more fundamental, "God will save us" thing, I see as in interesting and unusual twist, rather than as evidence of increasing fundamentalism, because I'm just not used to thinking in terms of a christian background.
For instance, the "playing god" interpretation didn't occur to me, though it seems an obviously possible/likely one in retrospect, because my natural reaction is "Not enough testing! Not enough planning! They need more science!" rather than the reverse, and I always forget many people will see it differently.
she would have said she heard a radio broadcast, if only to give more weight to a view she acknowledges "sounds crazy"
Yeah, you'd think, wouldn't you?
In fact, it seems almost inconceivable she didn't have *something* more to say -- maybe hearing people were going to shelter there[1] and trusting they succeeded, or hearing a garbled message, or even that she had a specific dream. But whatever it was, she never had a chance.
Possibly she was so convinced by her own certainty she forgot anything corroborative (even slightly) might have been useful to Smith[2].
Or maybe the director made a similar assumption, that it was supposed to be clear she'd heard a radio message, and showing us her telling him that would be gratuitous, forgetting it'd be unclear to us. Or maybe it was deliberately ambiguous?
[1] Whilst Orson Scott Card can be a scary Mormon in some respects in his online presence, his books about Mormons (as opposed to books about metaphors about Mormons, which are screwy), are good and sympathetic. The bit I'm thinking of is after a moderate apocalypse of some sort, Mormon refugees head to Utah, certain some civilisation will have survived there, bolstered by other Mormon refugees -- and they're right.
[2] Should I start calling him Robert or Neville? But calling him Smith makes it clear we're referring to this character, inspired by, but different to, the ones in the book and previous films. I think the character is different. In I, Robot, and others, (although Smith didn't play a specific character there), his presence is sort of representative of adding action to portray parts of an original story, generally quite well, but differently.`