Hancock's 'Homo' Blunder
Will Smith + July 4th weekend = box office success. Unfortunately, the millions of audience members who take their family to see Smith’s Hancock will have to hear the obnoxious, drunk anti-hero utter an anti-gay slur. At approximately 24 minutes into the film, while Jason Bateman’s PR whiz works to rehabilitate the superhero’s tarnished image, he shows Hancock three comic book images in an effort to inspire him. But Hancock rejects the traditional image of costumed superheroes as he responds to each one: “Homo. Homo in red. Norwegian homo.”
The audience is prompted to laugh and there is no response to or retribution for Hancock’s remarks. Bateman’s character, the father of a young son, could have easily spoken up instead of giving Hancock a pass
Better yet, would it have changed the story if that brief interaction had been left on the cutting room floor? No one would have missed the line if it wasn’t there, but an unfortunate choice was made to go for the cheap gay joke. In that moment, young gay people in the movie’s audience are put in the position of being ridiculed by a character they are expected to regard as a hero. People go to films to escape reality — or schoolyard taunts — not to pay ten bucks and be ridiculed some more, especially not by someone the Los Angeles Times calls “the most likable actor in the world.”
Rated PG-13, Hancock is being marketed to families, teens and young adults. This film certainly presents an opportunity for parents to explain to their kids that the usually entertaining character of Hancock is not modeling good behavior. But let’s get real: Hancock’s use of the slur sends a problematic message that it’s okay to discriminate using such hateful words. Every day, people — both gay and straight — are taunted and verbally harassed in their schools and in their communities with these kinds of words, creating an environment that’s hostile, uncomfortable, and often unsafe. To have a heroic character — and by extension actor Will Smith — use, and by implication approve of, this kind of language is simply unacceptable.
GLAAD understands that sometimes anti-gay language shows up in dramatic narrative to reveal a character’s true colors, or to convey a message. But there’s a big difference between using it to highlight a character’s anti-gay attitudes and making a cheap, unfunny shot at gay people.
2 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Hancock's 'Homo' Blunder.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://glaadorg.nexcess.net/blog/mt-tb.cgi/381
» Platform Heels from Platform Heels
31 Comments
Leave a comment
Network Responsibility Index
GLAAD Entertainment
Our Mission
Maybe the director/producer/Will Smith sould get a Razzie type awward at the nexr Glaad awards.
That's very offensive to the gay community...and it's even worse that it is said as a joke.
Inexcusable.
Boycott the movie.
Hancock looks like interesting spin on the latest craze for superhero movies... at least Will Smith tends to be pretty funny
That's funny stuff...
People, slow down!
Isn’t Smiths character the “anti-hero”?
If he is an obnoxious unlikable character, then aren’t the creators of the film saying that homophobes are obnoxious unlikable people? Isn’t this a bit like wanting to boycott ‘All In The Family” because the lead character, Archie, is a bigot?
Context people, get your heads together! your embarrassing your selves!
If GLAAD continues to invent "offenses" for the gay community you're going to lose all credibility - it's like PETA boycotting J-Lo because she eats a KFC (really happened). It's a movie where he's playing an a**hole. OMG - get a clue.
Humor like this sends mixed and complex messages to young minds. Even if this is just one brush stroke of the protagonist's whole character, audiences probably won't decipher that subtle nuance, but will absorb it simply as "It's cool to make fun of a guy by calling him homo."
Hurray for gay rights! If this is the most important issue you are confronted with, we live in a heaven of tolerance... I am gay too, but fail to see the terrible offense in this remark... get over it!
'Hancock' got his name because of a very nasty and literally deadly part of American history............ and you're upset that 'Hancock's character showed just how broken and mistrusting he'd become by using 'homo'?
get real.
It’s all about the context here. And in this case, young teenage boys will see this and reinforce their prejudice about gays.
This line was completely unnecessary and filmmakers and people like Will Smith have some kind of responsibility to not slam gays for the sake of a joke.
Doesn't sound like you've seen the movie 'I can't believe this' because that's not the origin of Hancock's name (spoiler alert: It came from a nurse in 1930s Miami).
And you can't dismiss this as Will Smith being just an actor reading what the script says. That excuse might fly with a day player hungry for work, but he's the biggest star in the world, the producer of this film, and he doesn't have to say anything he doesn't want to. You can bet that if a racial epithet had been on the page he would’ve thought twice about it and probably decided against it.
Just read the story and all the comments - I'm clutching my pearls for dear life!
J-Lo ate KFC? Archie Bunker is really a bigot? And a super anti-hero said "homo" three times in a row without clicking his heels?
Oh my stars and garters! I'll be on the therapist's couch for another ten years!
Puh-leeze stop peppering us with "popcorn atrocities"!
I saw a screening of the Will Smith movie "Hancock" last evening.
I was disgusted to have to hear the main protagonist proclaim not once but THREE times, when shown superheroes in colorful costumes that they were "homos".
It's derogatory and insulting. Not once in the movie did I hear Will Smith referred to himself as a, "nigga" so why do I have to be polluted with these disgusting words. Please take action against this film opening to an estimated $115 million box office.
wow, so i actually watched this movie unlike most of you. first of all it was kind of funny (referring to the particular scene in question). second, no it was not offensive. and third, his character is specifically suppose to be an 'asshole', that was the whole point.
we have much bigger fish to fry, this isnt even a minnow in my book. if you want to scream boycott at the drop of a hat you lose all power in doing so. it become reactionary and not intellectual. at least watch the scene if not the whole movie before you claim to be offended.
i am offended by shit that comes out of the mouths of the GOP on a daily basis. id rather spend time boycotting the whole republican party.
I can understand why Smith's use of ''homo'' could be used to show what a jerk Hancock is. But when it goes unchallenged, there are those (especially kids) who get the idea that it's a perfectly fine insult, especially since it's spoken by the film's hero (an anti-hero, yes, but still the film's here).
Hancock evolves in how he treats women, children and the bottle, but there is no evolution to show that he is enlightened in how he treats gays. This was just a careless, clumsy move by a writer(s) going for an easy laugh.
Even if Will Smith's character is supposed to be unlikable early on, it's still WILL SMITH saying it.
So unless Jason Bateman's character is gay, or there is some kind of gay positive moment that comes later in the film, the effect will still be anti-gay.
The audience hoots it up when these lines are said. Will Smith's fans aren't seeing this as an unlikeable character saying it--they're laughing at us not with us.
I think you guys are getting a little hung up on this. The movie was not targeting the homosexual population. Hancock was supposed to be an obnoxious and offensive character. He was supposed to be offensive. It's Hollywood, don't take it personally.
Happy late 4th of July
Obnoxious. Offensive. But still a hero to the young. Yes, it's Hollywood, and it's Hollywood where kids learn the words and slogans that they take back to school and use with their friends, or in this case, with people they want to put down. Without this line, the story would still be the same. With the line, it's just one more piece of ammunition kids have when teasing and belittling those they feel are different. Why give this a pass when it's the small stuff like this that causes problems?
I had completely forgotten about that scene. Maybe by calling it out, we are drawing more attention to it. Sometimes it's best to just let things fade from memory. Don't get me wrong, it was a kinda lame joke in a kinda lame movie (why did the whole thing have to be filmed in extreme close-ups???), but crying "boycott" over this could backfire.
GLAAD is a royal pain in the butt. You people are such a hypocritcal self righteous group that have lost all relevancy. It's a movie people. Remember the scene shows his callous nature and slowly over time he evolves. You nitpick at everything everyone says in the media. Always calling for boycotting. Exactly how is that going for you? GLAAD is just this side of being a communist organization. Only one opinion is presented and no one dare have any opposing opinion. Thank God the American public still practice free speech and can make up their minds without having any group form it for them.
Suzie i'm not sure what you're reading (into) but there is no call for a boycott here. And even though it's 'just a movie', it's movies like this where kids pick up behaviors and language that are harmful to others. You can't deny that. So while there is no boycott called for, it's important to point out to Hollywood writers that what they say matters.
Alexander, while the initial release from GLAAD didn't specifically call for a boycott, if you read through the thread boycotts were indeed called for.
Just a reminder about Will Smith: Right after his TV series Fresh Prince, he was cast in the movie version of the hit play Six Degrees of Separation. The play concerned a poor young black man passing as a rich kid and worming his way into rich white families. A crucial scene in the play (and the movie) called for Smith's character to kiss another young male. The kiss was not gratuitous. It was rather critical to the intent of the playwright and his plot.
Smith refused to do the kiss. Flatly refused. It was in the script, it had been expected, it had been a well-known scene in the play. But he couldn't bring himself to plant a fake kiss on another male actor.
He's not only a homophobe, he's unprofessional.
You know to an extent I think that if you look more closely at the movie you may even see a bit of "me think thou protests to much" Honestly here we a lead character who is very preoccupied with the word asshole, trying his best to look like a stereotypical macho man (and jerk), fighting against looking like a homosexual, make poor "gay" jokes like not turning the other cheek (while slapping a male character's butt). Not to mention his strange fixation with shoving heads up butts. He even offered to put someone's head up his own. I originally thought it was a joke for effect until he proved that he could actually push someone's head up a butt. Which makes me wonder how much practice Handcock has had with this kind of activity.
Then as the movie goes along not only does his view of tight uniforms change the movie even has the totally unnecessary line where Bateman say he got tucked in by handcock with a huge smile on his face like it is the greatest thing he ever achieved.
Quite frankly I think the movie could even be seen as a Down Lowish film.
Just as I was beginning to like the super anti-hero, I was startled by the homo hits. Then I wondered why the insult needed to be a triple play. And I wondered why his new handler did not set the action man straight about the insults along with the other bad habits. I am sure that there are other insults that could have been used, but not allowed. Wonder why the actor and the studio let these fly by. The unchecked insults let the air out of my enthusiasm for an otherwise sorta-fun movie.
Ok, here's the deal. Can you name three homosexual superheroes without having to refer to wikipedia? Doubtful. I am soooooo over the top done with everyone who screams offensive. Lets get real shall we? Do we complain when rap songs use Nigar (is that how you spell it, can't really check that word now can I)? Do we complain when movies use words like cracker, or make fun of women, blondes, men, old people, special needs people, christians, athiests? Part of our inability to make it all not matter - skin color, weight, gender, religion,and so on - is our overwhelming need to over react to silly things like that. The first thing I thought after he said that was "HAZAAAHHH I just got my new halloween costume....thanks HANDJOB..errr..cock..yeah, handcock!"
The real punch line comes later after he has been rehabilitated and, guess what, now he's a "costumed superhero."
Charles said:
Humor like this sends mixed and complex messages to young minds. Even if this is just one brush stroke of the protagonist's whole character, audiences probably won't decipher that subtle nuance, but will absorb it simply as "It's cool to make fun of a guy by calling him homo."
After reading the following comments, I thought an earlier comment beared repeating. I'm quite shocked that the studio and the writer let this by. It has no place in a PG-13 film! It deserves to be boycotted on that fact alone. Kids do NOT need to hear more of this crap from anywhere, especially from movies about super heroes or anti-heroes or whatever. I've worked with kids and had the worst time you can imagine trying to get this nonsense out of them.
The people who tend to think that this isn't a 'big deal' or that we shouldn't get too offended about everything little thing seem more inclined to take insults in stride, to turn derogatory remarks around into humorous takes on mainstream society, or to interpret the remark as part of the main character's personality. That's fine. But we're talking about a movie that millions of kids are going to see. They do NOT need to hear another person using a homophobic insult. They get enough of that already in this society. We have to make a 'big deal' out of this so that using this kind of language indiscriminately (I still can't believe this remark got into a PG-13 film!) doesn't become increasingly acceptable to Hollywood writers and studios in the future.
Not only is the joke homophobic, it's cheap! What a sorry state of affairs. It's still funny to heteros to spit on us. That's what this means when it comes down to it. It's awful.
Its a damn joke ... I have nothing against gays but i have someting agaist people that are completely void of all humor!
For the first half hour Hancock is a bastard and everyone hates him for it. When he utters the so called hate comments about gays he is that character .. he has not turned "good" yet. Doesent that mean that the general public does not aprove of this ?
Have fat people complained because he calles someone Thickness? or people with glasses because he calles someone Goggles?
Get over yourselves! and enjoy the film... and whatever you do DO NOT blame this on Will .. he is a freaking actor ffs!