2008 was a landmark year for the superhero genre. That summer saw the release of Iron Man, starting the Marvel Cinematic Universe, as well as The Dark Knight, cementing Christopher Nolan’s status of one of the greatest modern filmmakers. That summer also saw a rare superhero film not based on existing intellectual property, Hancock.
The film follows the titular superpowered alcoholic (Will Smith) as he strives to improve his public image. The film made enough money to be considered a hit, even when lined up against Smith’s filmography to that point, but it’s mostly remembered as a fun concept with wasted potential. The most common criticism is the film’s mid-point plot twist comes out of the blue and turns the second half into an entirely different story.
While the moment itself has received the large share of blame for the films problems, I feel the it's a brilliant way to add depth to the character and build on the films themes. The main issue is it comes too late in the story, depriving the idea of its potential.
At the start of the film, Hancock has an established internal and external struggle. Externally, he wants to be accepted in some form of community instead of his life of isolation. Internally, he’s afraid he just isn’t worthy of someone’s personal connection. Early on, both of these struggles are attached to the goal of gaining a high public approval rating as he interacts and forms a bond with Ray (Jason Bateman) and Mary (Charlize Theron).
Thematically, Hancock questions whether or not someone’s past actions or outsider status can make them unworthy of that acceptance. He mostly deals with that in silence as he doesn’t open up to those around him out of fear of rejection.
With Ray’s help, he builds his public image, gains a high approval rating, and becomes close to the whole family. His bond to the family is solidified when he reveals the truth about his past. With everything that signified his change being accomplished, that would be the logical end to the story. However, a big revelation comes soon after.
Immediately following the dinner scene, Mary reveals she has the same powers as Hancock and, in scenes after, explains the two of them are cosmically connected. While the fallout of this distances him from the family, he’s still loved by the public and more comfortable around people which was the goal all along. He does suffer as he becomes more physically vulnerable due to his proximity to Mary (when he becomes more emotionally vulnerable). That double-edged sword could be a fun way to play with the themes but comes at the very end, leaving no time to reflect.
To the films credit, Mary’s character did set up the reveal fairly well through her role in his development and the way Theron portrays her instinct to be stand-offish around Hancock. It feels planned out up to that point, but doesn’t get a chance to affect the major conflicts of the film. Let’s imagine what could have been if that twist came earlier in the story.
The beginning of the film is very well done and straight forward. The external and internal conflict are established, Hancock meets Ray and Mary, and the inciting incident of Ray volunteering to help him happens very succinctly. The first major shift in the story comes when Hancock goes to jail. With their main leverage for public approval being that the city needs him for protection, he forces everyone to live without him.
The section of the film where he’s in jail tests his character the most. He’s forced to trust Ray’s idea and vision, and has nothing to do but self-reflect. There’s even a smart moment where he jumps the fence to grab a basketball which reminds the audience he can leave any time he wants. He experiences a lot of growth there but doesn’t reach his goals yet. Imagine if that’s when he learns he might be replaceable.
If Mary can go around and save the day, why should people like him more? Why continue opening up when he has a reason to believe he shouldn’t? Why continue Ray’s plan and stay in jail? Should he confront her? This raises the stakes, adds obstacles, and gives the protagonist many tough choices which are great for characters and adds more complexity to their arc. It would also make the second half more unpredictable yet engaging to the audience as they’re forced to answer these existential questions along with him.
It could’ve fanned the flames of doubt he had of whether he’s capable of receiving affection since he discovers the only person who knew him chose to stay away. It would make his struggle more difficult since that doubt is what fuels his erratic behavior. Mary’s self-isolation could be a foil to Hancock’s forced isolation. Knowing their past lives sets a proper goal for what he wants, and the film has more time to flesh out the lore it merely skimmed the surface of.
Furthermore, it could have provided a solution to the film’s villain problem. The first half of the film doesn’t have an antagonist in a single character but rather the city of Los Angeles. This works for the story since the external goal is public approval. In his big unveiling that earns that approval, he thwarts bank robbers led by a man named Red (Eddie Marsan). The rest of the film focuses on Red as the villain leading up to a climatic battle between him and Hancock even though there's no connection between his character and anything Hancock stands for or wants.
At this point, I’ll admit this film is a guilty pleasure of mine. I personally enjoy the extra depth this added to his character, but not all the lore added up and I understand people’s issues with the shift in story and tone. The big revelation is blamed for a lot of the films shortcomings, but the change in dynamics added complexity to a character that could’ve easily been a joke. Regardless of how it landed, the midpoint-plot twist was a worthy risk which is something that should be encouraged across all art.