First, Moreman refers repeatedly to the film’s main character, Robert Morgan (played by Will Smith), as a Christ-figure. Why, we might ask? Because he attempts to save humanity from the devastation of the virus that has killed the bulk of humanity and turned most of the few remaining survivors into something akin to vampire-zombie hybrids. This sounds like a pretty slim reason to view Morgan as a Christ-figure. Some kind of savior (in non-religious terms) maybe, but more specifically, a Christ-figure? I need more convincing. Moreman does not hesitate to provide further reasons, claiming that Morgan’s character depicts a “balant Christ-figuration” by “raising the hero to the status of nearly divine savior. Will Smith (displaying the cruciform position in behind-the-neck pull-ups) saves humanity through his blood and sacrifice, allowing not only those who are already free from disease to survive, but providing the hope that those who are ill might themselves be saved and restored to humanity from their horrific, bestial state.” I’m afraid I’m still unimpressed. Smith’s pull ups appear to be little more than physical exercise for a human being desperately trying to maintain a routine and kill time as the supposedly lone survivor of a viral apocalypse. And this is hardly a “cruciform position,” unless of course you read such symbolism into the film. In my view, Moreman’s review provides yet another example of the unfortunate tendency of many film critics (professional and otherwise) to uncritically read Christ-figures into films, a phenomenon discussed by Christopher Deacy in The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture.

As Moreman concludes his review he echoes sentiments expressed by many on the relationship between the film and the Matheson novel upon which it is based. This leads to my second area of disagreement with him that he also connects to the area discussed above. Moreman writes:

“In short, I Am Legend does not put forth a faithful representation of its literary namesake, either in plot detail or underlying themes. Rather, the film follows on from other film versions in providing an increasingly hopeful ending. In this latest case, the religious (Christian) symbolism is blatantly transparent.”

I’ve already commented on the alleged Christian symbolism in I Am Legend, and whatever else might be said about it it is hardly “blatantly transparent.” Beyond that, while I have the greatest respect and appreciation for Matheson’s novel, and I would love to see a screen adaptation that is completely faithful to it to add to the cinematic depictions of this great story, I think it is a mistake to connect the success or failure of a movie on how closely it does or does not follow its source material. Most films do not closely follow their literary source material, so why should I Am Legend be considered sub-par because it does what most films do?

Please don’t mistake my disagreements and grumbling for a lack of appreciation for this publication, or a diversity of opinions on film interpretation. I respect both and I thought I’d provide my two cents by way of response.

“An adequate dialogue between theology and popular culture thus requires what Michael Dyson has refered to as an ‘ethical patience,’ in which the theologian does not make hasty judgments about what they find tasteful or distasteful, or try to impose pre-existing concepts on to popular culture. One example of the latter are books and articles that attempt to identify ‘Christ-figures’ in contemporary film. To suggest, however, that Edward Scissorhands or the Preacher in Pale Rider are ‘Christ-figures,’ though is to impose Christian symbolism on to these movies in a way that fails to hear what these movies are saying on their own terms. Serious theological reflection on popular culture goes beyond te superficial identification of religious themes and symbolism within it to a more substantial dialogue between cultural texts and practices and wider theological questions and resources” (p. 38).

“Instead of concluding that a film is, or is not, theologically significant because of the perceived presence, or absence, of a Christ-figure motif, the theologian should be much more open to the possibility that a film does not require explicit or overt religious ideas or imagery in order to be amenable to religious or theological interpretations.”