Going to the dogs: Hollywood and the lost art of the screenplay

Rating: 3/10 (22 December 2007)

I did not go into "I am Legend" expecting much. I liked the Charleton Heston version and there was also one other I have not seen. To be fair, there was some good stuff in the movie, here and there: the numerous shots of NYC devoid of people are impressive and though one soon feels the profusion of such shots is unnecessary (only the dimmest would not have gotten the point early on), it was understandable that the producers are eager to share their accomplishment. The movie must have cost a bundle. Better use it all.
Moreover, Will Smith has a few effective scenes, and it was not his fault that he was upstaged by his canine co-star, who deserves some kind of animal Oscar (I believe there actually is such a thing). Finally, the myth of "I Am Legend" is a powerful one. It's a strong story, the kind of story it would take considerable effort to mess up. Who has not felt at times that he is among the last of humanity, struggling to survive while surrounded by vampires (figurative vampires) -- perhaps at a family gathering or company picnic? Yet the movie can be barely said to work. It is one of those films in which any given scene is either good, but we've seen it before, many times before, or bad, and we really don't want to see it now at all. A film in which drama is repeatedly sacrificed to special effects and big scenes. One leaves the film not so much hating it, but wondering what was the point? To the screen writers of this travesty here is a clue: without drama, there can be no point. This is terribly lazy screen writing. For example, the credits reference the work of both prior screenplays. Did the currently screen writers somehow find the original source material weak and insufficient? If so, why even make the movie? This is what we call a bad sign.
Here is an example of how bad it is, one of many. Since nothing substantive follows from the scene, I think I can describe it without spoiling anything.
The scene is a flashback. It shows a huge, panicking crowd trying to escape. People are being given eye scans to see if they have contracted the virus (what the virus turns the infected into will be noted shortly.) A soldier who is doing the scanning, first gets a bad (positive) reading on the hero's wife. Now remember, Smith's character is a medical doctor. One of the Army's highest ranking in fact. Here's what happens. Smith starts yelling at the soldier, screaming out his rank and demanding the man scan his wife again. The soldier complies (why would he be reluctant to give a second scan?). This time the reading is negative. End of scene.
What is wrong here? For one thing, a real doctor would know at once that either the instrument is defective or the soldier does not know how to use it. Since the procedure is quite simple, the latter possibility can be ignored. There's not much time. The first, however, cannot. There is a grave risk that the instrument is defective. Which means infected people have likely been allowed through. His wife may be now become of them. Remember, Smith is a top ranking military doctor. He must be aware of that risk. He must be aware of his responsibilities. What to do? What a real doctor would do is stop everything, use another detector, and perform the scan again.
The situation now is quite tense. If his wife passes this scan, at least we can be confident that she is free of the disease. But if she fails He tests her again. Either way, the danger of infected people having gotten through is considerable. The terror on Smith's face should show the decisions he has to make and at once.
This alternative scene would also, btw, tie directly with a later scene, the best in the film, so the audience would be prepared for it.
But the variant scene, the one with that thing we call drama, is not in the movie. Instead we get explosions, helicopters spinning out of control, and a chance for Smith to bawl out a white guy for no reason whatever. The whole screen play is like that.
It gets worse. Smith talks along with an entire sequence in Shrek (I) to tell us how much he loves that movie? Why? What does this add? He gives us a lecture on how much he likes Bob Marley's music. I like it too, but why are these scenes here? What is the point? (I suspect, cynically no doubt, the company that made "I Am Legend" has financial interests in both).
There is also something vaguely racist about the whole business. If you imagine a movie about a white doctor being besieged Well, this film piles it on. New York is perhaps the most diverse city on earth. Why, when the plague hits does it turn the victims into incredibly buff, twenty-something, white people (who would be killers on a basketball court)? Smith really hates them. One long action scene demonstrates the full degree of that hatred -- but they are his patients, for god's sake! Why in that scene would he risk throwing his life away for the sheer joy of killing them? And wouldn't you think that Smith, who is himself is immune to the plague, as a doctor would find that fact an incredibly important clue? Nope. He does nothing with it.
Ebert has written about the offensive stranger on the bus. The smelly, boring, crude, and obnoxious individual, always too close for comfort and who is impossible to ignore. Now imagine a two hour bus ride with that individual. That is what this movie and its screen play is like.
For shame on all concerned.
Except, Sam the dog.