The Disease and its Role in the Movie

One of the noticeable differences between the movie version of I Am Legend and the book is that the movie version of the pandemic was caused directly by a human invention, the virus created by Dr. Alice Krippin to cure cancer, while the novel version doesn’t have a similarly explicit and known direct human cause.  Perhaps director Francis Lawrence made the change in an attempt to make a bigger statement about the unintended consequences of human progress.  Lawrence’s decision to change the disease’s cause to something manmade makes a statement similar to that of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein: that when we try to change nature we will inadvertently cause unforeseen negative consequences.  This theme is seen throughout Frankenstein as Victor’s attempt to “play God” obviously ended poorly, and is also seen in the movie version of I Am Legend when Dr. Krippin alters a virus to create a cancer cure that ultimately causes the death/transformation of everyone into vampire-like creatures.  Even a tiny change in plot from the novel to the movie can have a huge impact on the story’s message.

Every Little Thing Gonna be Alright

I enjoyed the end of the movie much more than the end of the book. The producers of the film definitely altered Matheson’s novel to fit the Hollywood movie mold in that I am Legend the film was a typical action/horror flick complete with a hero and a happy ending. Will Smith’s Robert Neville was much more of a hero in the end than the main character of the book. While both deaths were suicides, in the film Neville died to protect the cure that he had created. In doing so, he therefore ensured the hope of a future for mankind. In the novel, Neville simply took the pills Ruth had given him and gave up because there was no future for mankind. Granted, the circumstances surrounding the deaths were different, given that the Neville of the film died knowing he was protecting the human race, whereas the Neville of the novel died after the realization that there was no one left to protect. At the end of each story, the main characters are both deemed legends. The Neville of the film was declared a legend by the surviving humans he sacrificed himself for. However, in the novel, Neville declared himself a legend based on the notion that the vampire race now fears the idea of him similar to the way the human race used to fear the legend of the vampire. The end of the movie was also much more pleasant in that it provided viewers with the hope that there would be a future for mankind, whereas the end of the novel insinuated that mankind was no more. The recurrences of Bob Marley’s “Three Little Birds” in the film were appropriate and also served to foreshadow that everything was going to be alright for mankind.

Film: Giving Neville A Purpose

There were many significant differences between the novel and film adaptation of I Am Legend--the story was in modern day New York City, the nature of the vampires was more animalistic rather than vampire-like, and the "germ" was actually a mutation of a human-made virus. I thought that many of these changes made the whole story seem more intentional and less random. For one, the virus was generated as a cancer treatment that mutated into something dangerous. This puts the blame on us and makes the infection seem more of a "disease" than a mutation that could be a part of evolution. In the novel, the vampire germ is random and leads to a new dominant species that overthrows humankind. The film makes the virus unnatural and something to be "cured"--by the protagonist, Robert Neville. One of my main issues with the novel was that Neville didn't seem to have any goals or purpose; he spend day after day trying to survive with no real reason to. In the film, Neville is constantly trying to find a cure, which was his reason to have hope for the future. 

The living adults in the film, Neville and Anna, both had reasons to keep fighting to stay alive. While Neville looked for a way to bring the zombies/vampires/people back to humanity, or to "cure them", Anna sought a colony of other humans who were not infected. This, I think, made for a much more plausible story and made the characters much more relatable, and gave me something to root for as an audience member that I did not feel as a reader. 

Why the Movie had to Change

            Francis Lawrence, the director of I Am Legend, made his film significantly different than the novel by Richard Matheson (nothing like how Alex Proyas changed I, Robot though).  For example, the infected in the film were only similar to humans in form. They had turned into blood hungry monsters with increased strength, decreased brain function and no sense of society. The vampires in the book, however, create a new society and interact extensively with Robert Neville. Another major difference is the way in which Robert Neville is depicted. In the film, he is seen as a courageous man who desperately wants to cure the infected as to restore the human race – a strong, brave man of action. Matheson describes Robert Neville to be a much more flawed man. He struggles with depression and alcoholism. He only decides to look for a cure half way through the novel, rather than a man focused on his goal from the beginning. These changes were made because the film would not have been as attractive if the original version was used. Action is not only easy to create on film, it is also much more interesting to the viewers. While the first movie possessed intricate social dynamics, it lacked in action. By having the infected humans turn into monsters, it was easier to hate them. By making Robert Neville strong and courageous, he was easier to love. Simply put, the intricacies found in the book make it unique but would cause the film to be unsatisfactory. 

Was Lem writing about the American healthcare system?

Reading the first fifty pages of “The Futurological Congress,” I felt like I bit off more than I could chew because the storyline was difficult to follow. I felt more at ease reading after Tichy wakes up from his “slumber” many years later because the writing becomes more structured and easy to follow. The shift in writing reflects the loss of chaos in this utopian society that also presents us with a loss of the individual. People sedate themselves with drugs, repressing their real emotions and desires. The loss of the individual is reflected in Lem’s telling of Tichy because we do not get a good sense of him as a character. When I started reading, I kept wondering when I would learn about the protagonist and his inner thoughts, but the plot takes off in a million directions with riots and external chaos.

In this utopian society, there is a quick fix for everything, and nothing comes as a surprise, not even the weather. Lem writes, “Rainbows are possible without rain—there are other ways of producing them” (p. 71). Although it would be convenient to be able to control the seemingly uncontrollable, I don’t think it would be much fun because I like the variety and unpredictability of our natural world, but how natural is our natural world? Look at the American healthcare system, for example. We rely on unnatural drugs to cure our ailments both big and small, much like the people of this utopian society. Lem writes, “One should always use the drug appropriate to the occasion. It will assist, sustain, guide, improve, resolve” (p. 68). Drugs are a quick fix to larger mental health issues and do not always produce the best results for the patient. But doctors are paid more to prescribe drugs than talk to people to find a sustainable healthcare solution that fits their needs. In “The Futurological Congress,” society’s reliance on drugs diminishes human conflict, which we are not seeing today. In the text, society seems complacent with the way things are, but I’m not sure we should be. 

Butterfly in my stomach: I Am Legend's Alternate (and Original) Ending

Hope this displays correctly
<iframe src="http://www.movieweb.com/v/VIlvFoqpwWgxpl/embed_video" width="400" height="225" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe>

If that doesn't work, click here. http://www.movieweb.com/movie/i-am-legend/alternate-ending

This gives a whole new meaning to "the butterfly effect."

First, in the official ending that the studio producers decided to go with, the leader of the infected (I'm just going out on a limb here and call him Cortman. Poor thing didn't even get a name) smashed the glass so hard patterns of butterfly wings appeared. This triggered a piece of Neville's memory, specifically the one with his kid babbling about butterfly years ago in his car during evacuation. Ultimately the butterfly wings act as a premonition sign for Neville, telling him that there was indeed a God's plan. And in that plan, God sent Anna to Neville to get the cure and save the world.

While the official ending did manage to portray Neville, in my opinion, as a legend in the truest sense of the word (in my previous entry I talked about how Neville's talking to himself with big words and arguments undermined his legacy), what the film left out was perhaps the entire meat of the novel: the infected did show  humane and communal characteristics and they had in fact developed a society for themselves. What's even more odd is that even though these signs were hinted throughout the film too (the trap, for one, and that one time Cortman was so mad at Neville he practically bathed in the sun), the studio still wanted to have no blurred lines between the solo hero and brainless mob. And so for those who saw the film but didn't see the novel, poor old Cortman looked like a big angry man-child with absolutely zero moral and mental compass when someone stole his girl (if constant headbanging against the wall doesn't give off the mentally unstable vibe, I don't know what does).

So what about this alternate ending? Not only would Neville get to actually live, which is a major check plus compared to the novel for those who love him, he would still become a legend for both the injected and the human refugees. Also, this would leave God and superstition aside a bit, just like the novel. And to think that a few years down the road he and Cortman could look back at this and laugh ("Hey man remember that one time you kidnapped my girlfriend and used her to save the world?" "Yeah that was pretty rad"), I completely gave up on my hope to understand why the studio would say no to this ending. So I did some research and as it turned out, the studio dropped the N-bomb on this one because a certain test audience did not like it. So yes, money talked.

To enjoy and favor a brief moment of heroic martyrdom over the ceaseless reverberation, albeit less action-packed, of silent utilitarianism is one thing. But to be afraid of taking a chance to stay true to the novel (and perhaps to supersede it) both despite and because of money being the limiting factor is, I dare say, a sign of weakness in disguised. Facade, facade everywhere.

Reading between the lines

I read "IAL" as a stream of Matheson's consciousness, as I stated in class. The more I think about it, the more I appreciate Matheson's ability to write swiftly in a way that gives readers a sense of consciousness. He develops themes without hitting us over the head with them. The reader is left to develop themes from the text for him/herself. One theme that stands out for me is the theme of loneliness that percolates throughout all of the texts we have read this semester. Man is left alone at the time of an evolutionary turn, and we are left wondering, so what do we do with this? Loneliness is described, especially in Frankenstein, as a disease since Victor appears mentally disturbed at many points in the text. In analyzing Matheson's stream of consciousness in "IAL," one may find a suggestion for remedying human loneliness in the fact that Neville does not seek to find other humans outside his home and form a human community.

How Strong is the Human Will To Survive?

In Richard Matheson’s I Am Legend, the question of what life actually is comes into question. For a while, I found his cause to be worthwhile and noble, but after more though, it seems as though it wasn’t much of a life at all. Immediately, I started considering R.U.R. and the will to live and to preserve humanity.

            Although I saw Neville’s life as meaningless without his wife, daughter, or any sort of companionship, I realized that he was indeed living for humanity rather than for himself.  This brought me to considering I, Robot as well. What is the point of living if robots do everything for you? I concluded that the humans in R.U.R. who fought for the human spirit had it right. Rather than attempting to make life easier and more ‘perfect’, like people tried to do in I, Robot, people should embrace what it means to be a person, and attempt to embrace and further humanity and the human spirit in a more organic fashion. Similarly, in I Am Legend, Neville finds a way to fight through his depression and hopelessness because he had an important and necessary purpose in life; to keep humanity alive.

            This made the ending of the story even more shocking and depressing for me. I would have thought that Neville would have fought to the bitter end in order to keep the hope of humanity’s survival alive.   

Sad

[SPOILER ALERT: The Walking Dead]

I Am Legend presents the existential crises that I have found in AMC’s The Walking Dead. In the first few seasons of The Walking Dead, it was interesting because the group’s motivation to survive was to find a cure, or at the very least, a sanctuary. I found that it became tiring to watch since after they realized there was no cure, the reasons they had left for surviving became murky. Every episode ended with a reminder that there is no hope – there is nothing left to find. The characters live for each other, but when tensions rise, I keep finding myself asking, “What’s the point?” Is living in this zombie-ridden truly worth it when there are no rewards to reap from a day-to-day struggle? In the case of I Am Legend, I find it even harder to create a reason for survival. In The Walking Dead, at least the characters keep each other company. Robert Neville is completely alone – all of his family and friends are dead and yet he still tries to find a cure. I believe he decides to cling to life for whatever meek reasons he has, like the characters in The Walking Dead do. In Neville’s story, after everyone he loves dies, his new raison d’être becomes learning more about the bacterium. He starts to view the disease not as an enemy that killed off his loved ones, but as a confusing puzzle: “You bastard, he thought, almost affectionately, watching the minuscule protoplasm fluttering on the slide. You dirty little bastard” (89). As his loneliness grows, Neville’s reasons to survive change. Is death really worse than this existence of loneliness (as experienced in these two story lines)?

Manliness is Not Original

Richard Matheson uses vampire myth and lore to create a story about manliness and sexuality which has inspired a new genre. Robert Neville consistently shows a calm, cool, collected demeanor in the face of blood-thirsty vampires.  Surely both men and women find his attitude both impressive and attractive.  His consistent jocular and satirical thoughts about the vampires he faces make his character increasingly attractive. Matheson makes lonely alcoholism desirable.  Neville maintains his commitment to his family even in their death. He maintains this commitment even with woman vampires tempting him.  Women want him and men want to be him. This clear focus on manliness is not original to vampire stories. And, neither is the relationship that Robert develops with Ruth.  It seems that Matheson simply took the character of Abraham Van Helsing and made him the last human on Earth. Even with characters such as Ruth and a deathly ending, Matheson has created a legendary character in Robert Neville by playing off of previous vampire literature, and in turn he has inspired an another genre.  

Why Use Flashbacks?

       The way in which a novel is written can have significant effects on how the reader perceives the story. At the most basic level, a story can be told from 1^st person or 3^rd person. The former puts the reader inside the brain of the characters and allows the author to convey thoughts and feelings as they happen. The latter – the point of view from which I Am Legend is written – employs a narrator to convey the story and creates a separation from the protagonist and the storyteller. Why would Richard Matheson choose to use flashbacks? What does this literary tool achieve? Flashbacks allow for the author to explain the backstory of the protagonist while excluding nonessential details. In the case of I Am Legend, Matheson is able to explain the horrors that Robert Neville endured when his wife and daughter became infected. He is also able to skip over superfluous information in the story and start directly focal point of the novel. The flashback can also be read as if the protagonist is recalling those memories at the specific moment in the story. In other words, the flashback can be used as a medium with which the narrator can discuss what is going on in Neville’s head. In this way, a flashback is a marriage of both 1^st person and 3^rd person writing.