Hancock: Racist, a Metaphor for Racism, or Just Dumb?

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

mojo-photo-hancock.jpgWill Smith’s new movie Hancock may have knocked little Wall-E off the box office top spot, pulling in $62 million in its first weekend, but some are finding evidence of an unsettling subtext behind the drunk-superhero shtick. Hip-hop web site SOHH.com recently posted a blog entry calling the film, well, racist:

It’s just a coincidence that the first “superhero” depicted on the silver screen as a criminal, alcoholic, lazy, foul mouthed, not giving a you know what bum, living in a broken down trailer, who everybody hates including the people he saves, *just happens* to *be black.* Right? And, it’s just a coincidence the one man who loves Hancock, has faith in him and truly cares about him as a person, is an idealistic white man who wants to save the entire planet. Let’s call him the Anti-Bush. Oh and I can’t forget his adorable little son is the only character, besides his loving father, that doesn’t refer to Hancock as an a**hole… And, is it just a coincidence that Hancock only maintains his super powers if he stays away from a “beautiful” white woman who is *technically* his wife …

But, everything changes for friendless Hancock when he saves a white man with a heart of gold and an angel of a son who wants to help Hancock with his “image”. (Because of course America won’t accept an always drinking and cursing black man with a rap sheet, I mean who does he think he is Lil Wayne?) In a matter of minutes he convinces Hancock to turn himself in and go to jail. He even writes his press conference speech for him!

Mr. Save the World then proceeds to “civilize” the savage Hancock by convincing him to stop drinking, shave, wear a hero uniform, treat other people with kindness and consideration, and even how to land without ruining public property.

Jeez, when you put it that way. Our conspiracy-minded blogger goes on to point out that recent Hollywood superheroes played by white actors include “millionare genius scientist Iron Man” and “millionaire playboy martial art expert Batman,” although I will point out that both of them are “troubled.” In general, though, it’s easy to see where he’s coming from: as a viewer of recent queer cinema, I will say I’m getting a little sick of the homo getting brutally murdered in even the most critically-lauded films and TV shows. (Boy, that was depressing). Hollywood may have a rep for being tawdry, but they’ll always follow the money.

As far as Hancock goes, I haven’t seen it (I’m sorry, but Werner Hertzog gets my $10 before Will Smith does), but a commenter on the SOHH post points out there have actually been other recent black cinematic superheroes who aren’t drunk: Blade, for one, and Storm from X-Men, both complex and fully-realized characters. Plus, the slovenly anti-hero isn’t always black: John McClane from Die Hard, for instance. On top of everything, perhaps the film is portraying racism metaphorically, rather than evidencing it itself? Yeah, I’ve always been unclear on the difference there too, and the whole thing about “cleaning up the savage” really gives me the creeps. So, at the risk of blowing up the Riff, I ask you, commenters: is Hancock racist, or are bloggers just paranoid? Or, ultimately, is it hypocritical and pointless to judge works of art by our idealistic political standards?


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend