{"id":139,"date":"2018-11-24T17:55:03","date_gmt":"2018-11-24T09:55:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/digitalpatmos.com\/vol3issue2\/?p=139"},"modified":"2019-05-07T17:00:27","modified_gmt":"2019-05-07T09:00:27","slug":"iamlegend","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/digitalpatmos.com\/vol3issue2\/2018\/11\/24\/iamlegend\/","title":{"rendered":"I Am Legend<\/em> (Book versus Movie): A Reflection of Society across Time"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
The blockbuster film I Am Legend<\/em> (2007), adapted from the 1954 novel with the same name, limns the main storyline of a global pandemic outbreak that transforms infected people into bloodthirsty vampires (which I will refer to as the Infected hereafter). The texts chronicle Robert Neville\u2019s attempts to find a cure that reverses the effects of the infection while struggling to survive in a desolate, vampire-infested world as the last man ostensibly alive and uninfected. Although the 2007 film is the reincarnation of the 1954 novel, the plot elements of both texts are distinctly dissimilar. However, the critical notion of alterity is still a mainstay in both texts in spite of the five-decade interval between the book and the film. Yet given the passage of time between the 1950s and the 21st century and the fact that many conventional and traditional ideas of yesteryears have been gradually subverted in the same span, why has the concept of alterity withstood the erosion of time? How do we account for the enduring perception of Otherness in relation to the varied storylines of both texts and the changing real-world context? To which, I argue in this essay, that the inconsistencies between the plots of both texts is a result of pertinent real-world events that arouses mutable yet perennial perceptions of alterity\u2013African-Americans in the book and Muslims in the film\u2013 through the manifestation of public sentiments and anxieties in the pre-1950s and post-9\/11 eras respectively. In this article, I will discuss the respective texts\u2019 allusion to different forms of Otherness in connection with relevant real-world events, and address the divergence of the film from the book in relation to the portrayal of the Infected as well as the denouements to elucidate the underlying socio-political subtexts.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\"\"
Richard Mattheson’s Infected featured on the book cover<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Metaphorically, an Infected is allegorical for an abject Other who is used to define the notion of majority and normalcy. The context of a pandemic, which engenders the rise of a new vampire-like species in both texts, employs a microbiological lens to distinguish the humans from the Infected. This distinct disparity between the two groups in both texts connotes a perception of Otherness, and portrays the Infected as a divorce from the norm and the marginalized ones who are hunted down mercilessly. Building on this, the concept of alterity is thus a reflection of the fear in the potential of the unfamiliar Other to undermine the majority\u2019s authority which compels their need to marginalize so as to safeguard their power. Or as encapsulated succinctly from the novel: \u201cThe keynote of minority prejudice is this: They are loathed because they are feared\u201d (Matheson, 1954, p. 14).\u00a0Nonetheless, despite the similarity in the embodiment of societal fears in the form of the Infected, the novel and the film deviate on the covert socio-political subtexts that are critically illustrated through the marked allusions to different marginalized groups in society.<\/span><\/p>\n

“The keynote of minority prejudice is this: They are loathed because they are feared.”<\/p><\/blockquote><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In the 1954 novel that was written shortly before the inception of the Civil Rights Movement in America, the Infected alludes to African-Americans who are regarded as the Other trying to undermine the power of the incumbent, which resonates with the anxieties of a white America in the 1950s. The clearest reference of the Infected as African-Americans in the book is when he addresses the Infected as \u201cblack bastards\u201d, \u201cblack unholy animal\u201d or \u201csomething black and of the night\u201d. The feud between Neville and the Infected is hence reflective of the racial tensions in America of the 1950s where Neville, a quintessential white American man with \u201clank blond hair\u201d and \u201cbright blue\u201d eyes, embodies white authority while the Infected, representing African-Americans, are viewed as the threat to white hegemony. The period between 1954 and 2007 is characterized by advancements in equality between groups primarily in areas such as race, gender and sexuality. As such, the once jarring black- white racial dichotomy that was central to the perception of Otherness in the 1950s has been increasingly overshadowed by more pertinent forms of discrimination against other groups due to the influence of present-day events. This is seen in the casting of Will Smith, an African-American, as Robert Neville in the movie despite the original novel\u2019s description of Neville as a white male \u201cborn of English-German stock\u201d. While the choice of reverse-casting can be viewed in a nuanced angle whereby the black identity and singular character of Neville is accentuated against the \u201cwhiteness\u201d of the hordes of pale Infected to reflect the racial segregation against the Black minority in America, I contend that the concatenation of counterterrorism efforts following the 9\/11 attacks begets a more palpable affiliation of Muslims with the Others. The multifold 9\/11 imagery featured is also testament to the religious Otherness in the movie: Firstly, the storyline is set in New York instead of Los Angeles as in the novel, which evokes memories of the terrorist attacks on September 11, especially when scenes of the deserted, rubble-filled streets bear striking resemblance to the aftermath of the attacks. In addition, the allusion to 9\/11 is further strengthened by Neville\u2019s repeated references of \u201cGround Zero\u201d to the city: \u201cThis is Ground Zero. This is my site. I can fix this.\u201d Invocation of \u201cGround Zero\u201d and graphic 9\/11 imagery thus builds a persuasive association between the Manhattan targeted by terrorists and the Manhattan invaded by the Infected. No doubt only Muslims who take on radical views of Islam are potentially dangerous, however, the lack of knowledge on the complexities of Islam has led to the conflation of Muslims with terrorists in America. This amalgamation of separate credos based on their common religion has led to Muslims being perceived as an abject entity in contemporary America. In summary, the Infected in the 1954 book is analogous to African- Americans while the Infected in the 2007 film is analogous to Muslims.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n

Another significant departure of the film from the novel is the portrayal of the Infected which conveys stark contrasting public sentiments about the socio-political climate in the differing time periods. In the 1954 novel, the infected are described to have evolved into a new race of intelligent, sentient beings and the acknowledgement of their sentience by Neville is significant in that it represents optimistic attitudes towards quelling racial Otherness. The novel portrays the Infected to have more human-like characteristics and retain the same mental faculties they had when they were still uninfected. Consequently, the differentiation between humans and the Infected is tapered when the initial portrayal of the Infected as the source of contamination is disintegrated such that both entities belong to equal echelons despite their differences. This transition is critically representative of an ameliorating shift in perception towards the issue of racial divide. Just as the Infected are no longer viewed as mutated creatures who are beneath humans, African-Americans should also be emancipated from the social construct of White Supremacy. Contrary to the hopeful note of the Infected, Neville is portrayed to spend his time in isolation in his guarded home, which is suggestive of the impenetrable mindset of the White American majority towards unfamiliar ideas. Overall, although the ambivalence in public sentiments is shown through White anxiety juxtaposed with the optimistic notions on the inevitability of change in the status quo, the novel presents a general promising outlook on the progress of racial equality that is evident from Neville\u2019s momentous change in perception of the Infected.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"
Neville facing off the Infected Alpha male<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

In the 2007 movie, however, the downplay of the Infected as sentient beings with emotional capacity serves to show a strong stance against terror and consequently, against Muslims from the state\u2019s perspective. Although the Infected are revealed to be sentient towards the end of the film, for the most part, they are depicted as monstrous vampires whose main motivations are based on feeding. When Neville captures the Infected Alpha female for clinical trials and the Infected Alpha male risks his life to attack him, Neville muses that the Infected have \u201cno higher brain function\u201d and typecasts the action as a form of \u201csocial devolution\u201d to a primitive state. The graphic dehumanization and reductive evolutionary representation of the Infected as inhuman bestial creatures, stemming from anti-terror sentiments, relegates them to an abject entity of the state where they are unworthy of compassion, thereby rendering the Muslim Other as the absolute evil. The reifying of the military as the stronghold against the war on terror, depicted via Neville\u2019s occupation as a military doctor and the heavy emphasis on guns as his choice of weapon, stresses the precedence of the state\u2019s interests. As a result, the strengthening of Neville\u2019s hostility towards the Infected shows the state\u2019s intensified (and self-justified) enmity towards Muslims in general, which can be seen in the change in stance of America following the tragedy of 9\/11 in becoming the aggressor of the protracted Iraq war as well as the increasing incidence of Islamophobic episodes in America. With the lack of ambiguity in the protagonist-antagonist dichotomy and hence the good-evil dichotomy based on religion, the film postulates an unsparing societal undertone where the regard and respect for the Other as fellow human beings is insignificant before the top priority of securing the safety of the state.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n

“The subsequent purge of his character, who represents the only semblance of a resistance and last remaining vestige of humanity, paves the way for the establishment of a new social structure …”<\/p><\/blockquote><\/div><\/span><\/p>\n

The key distinction of the novel from the film is in the ending of the storyline and consequently, what messages these nuances entail. The ending of the 1954 book challenges the notion of normalcy and racial dichotomy through the inversion of the old social order in reflection of positive public sentiments. Towards the end of the novel, Neville is imprisoned by the Infected when he is informed of the establishment of a new civilization consisting of the now-dominant race of the Infected who have managed to surpass the limitations of the disease with newly-developed medication. Neville\u2019s aforementioned acknowledgement of the Infected as sentient beings leads to his realization that he is an anathema to the new race because of his massacre of their kind, just as they used to be monsters in his eyes (Abbott, 2016). As the last human and legendary anachronism to the new world order (hence the title \u2018I Am Legend\u2019), Neville becomes the minority, the abnormal, and the Other who is hated because he is feared (Schuller, 2009). The turning of a biological transformation into an event of extinction is pivotal in that it allows readers of the novel in the 1950s to envisage a future where Otherness is reversed, which is particularly pertinent, considering the escalating conflicts of the Civil Rights Movement during that period. The subsequent purge of his character, who represents the only semblance of a resistance and last remaining vestige of humanity, paves the way for the establishment of a new social structure by symbolizing the definitive end to a bygone era with Neville\u2019s suicide as the resolution to the story. Extrapolation from this view reflects the anticipation of development in racial reconciliation and suggests a sense of sanguineness among African-Americans in that period who were hopeful for the idea of diminishing racial subjugation.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\"\"
Butterfly-shaped cracks in the glass sparked an epiphany in Neville<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The 2007 film exhibits conflicting American societal attitudes on the issue of religious alterity that is delineated through the aporia between the theatrical and alternate endings (available on the DVD edition). Whereas Neville\u2019s selfless sacrifice ensures the preservation of humanity in the former, he reaches a mutual agreement with the Infected in the latter. The diplomatic rapprochement established in the alternate ending implies the peaceful co- existence of both species that can be achieved with containment of alterity through mutual understanding. The theatrical ending, in contrast, amplified Neville\u2019s heroism by hailing him as the glorious savior of humanity because he sacrifices himself in a teleological suicide attack to kill the Infected who have invaded his house so that the other survivors can deliver the cure to Bethel (a Christian survivors\u2019 community which can be seen from the steeple of the white church in the closing scene). Considering that the theatrical ending was well-received by the test audiences as compared to the alternate ending, it can be inferred that the former is more popular with the public as it resonates with their sentiments that the state will win the war on terror. To elucidate the evil of the Other, the theatrical version is imbued with religious symbolism to allow the strong Christian overtones embedded in the movie to serve as a premise against the Muslim Other, given how Christianity (i.e. religion of the American majority) and Islam are antithetical in their doctrines of God.\u00a0Firstly, the film was released during Christmas season, a holiday celebrated by Christians. Secondly, because the epidemic occurred during Christmas season, post-apocalyptic New York is frozen in an eternal Yuletide setting. Thirdly, the salient use of butterfly imagery, symbolic of resurrection in Christianity, undergirds the film\u2019s haphazard Christian allusions, for instance the butterfly spray-painted on a \u201cGod Still Loves Us\u201d poster and the butterfly-shaped cracks in the glass that strikes an epiphany in Neville where he realizes his role in God\u2019s plan at the end.\u00a0<\/span>The film thus shows that it is God\u2019s will for the Infected (allegorical for the \u2018terrorists\u2019) to ultimately perish because of the cure obtained from Neville\u2019s Christ-like sacrifice, thereby proclaiming that Christianity is the \u2018cure\u2019 for terrorism. The appropriation of Christianity to sanctify the state thereby signifies the confidence of Americans in the state\u2019s competencies. With Neville\u2019s dual representation as the state and Christ, the promising finale of the posterity of humanity in the movie sets a religious and nationalistic adjuration for Americans of all races to unite against a common foe.<\/span><\/p>\n

In general, although both texts share the common underlying subtext of alterity, the various societal inclinations implicated are a result of different real-world events that spurred a change in the perception of Otherness. As an overview, the book paints an underlying tone of hope and optimism for marginalized African-Americans even in the ethos of chaos and despair of the 1950s, while the film is more pessimistic about the idea of inclusivity of Muslims and instead more favorable towards self-seeking interests. Implicitly, alterity is not a static concept, as seen from the succession of racial to religious Otherness, but rather a variable notion that can be quashed by invoking a more threatening Other, as in the Muslims in the post-9\/11 era.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

REFERENCES<\/span><\/p>\n

Abbott, S. (2016).\u00a0Undead Apocalyse: Vampires and Zombies in the 21st Century<\/i>. Edinburgh:\u00a0 Edinburgh University Press.<\/span><\/p>\n

Mattheson, R. (1954). I Am Legend.<\/em> New York: Fawcett Publications.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
Lawrence, F. (Director). (2007).\u00a0I am Legend<\/i>\u00a0[Motion picture]. Los Angeles: Warner Brothers.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
<\/div>\n
Boyle, K. (2009). Children of Men<\/em> and I am Legend<\/em>: the disaster-capitalism complex hits Hollywood.\u00a0 Jump Cut.\u00a0<\/em>Retrieved from\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 https:\/\/www.ejumpcut.org\/archive\/jc51.2009\/ChildrenMenLegend\/text.html<\/a> .<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Schuller, D. (2009). ‘Something black and of the night’: Vampirism, monstrosity, and negotiations of race in Richard Matheson’s I am Legend.<\/em>\u00a0In D. Petzold (Ed.), Der Vampir: Von der D\u00e4mmerung der Gothic Novel bis zum Morgen-Grauen des Teenieromans<\/em>\u00a0(pp. 78-94).<\/em>\u00a0Moers: Brendow.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Author: Bethany Leong<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":298,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-139","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/digitalpatmos.com\/vol3issue2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/139","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/digitalpatmos.com\/vol3issue2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/digitalpatmos.com\/vol3issue2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/digitalpatmos.com\/vol3issue2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/digitalpatmos.com\/vol3issue2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=139"}],"version-history":[{"count":31,"href":"https:\/\/digitalpatmos.com\/vol3issue2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/139\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":379,"href":"https:\/\/digitalpatmos.com\/vol3issue2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/139\/revisions\/379"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/digitalpatmos.com\/vol3issue2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/298"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/digitalpatmos.com\/vol3issue2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=139"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/digitalpatmos.com\/vol3issue2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=139"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/digitalpatmos.com\/vol3issue2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=139"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}