“Big things have small beginnings”
Introduction
My issue with Aliens is how James Cameron changed what the Alien-story is about. Ridley Scott, in Alien, shows that it is about bigger issues than simply creatures-chased-in-hallways. It is about what it is to be human, issues about class and expectations of life – and what we all desperately seek: answers to profound and philosophical questions regarding faith. Prometheus takes us down the road that Ridley wanted to take us down – no wall-to-wall, “get-away-from-her-you-bitch!”, guns-and-gore sequences here. This is epic in scale, personal and creepy with you left wanting more. You ask more questions than you get answers. And this is what Ridley Scott does best with Science-Fiction – both Blade Runner and Alien leave you thinking about the questions raised, rather than simply cramming the film in action.
A Visual Masterpiece
Ridley Scott knows how to frame a shot. Think about the overhead-shots in Mogadishu in Black Hawk Dawn or the awe-inspiring scale of the Colosseum in Gladiator. Scott shoots this film knowing that we anticipate his return to Sci-Fi with baited breath. Every shot, still, is breath-taking. The opening sequence portrays robot David (Michael Fassbender) wander around the spaceship ‘Prometheus’ as all humans are in hyper-sleep. Camera fixed to shoot symmetrical-doors and rooms alongside exceptionally advanced equipment. Screens that dominate entire-walls. On the one hand, we know the similar aesthetics are akin to the ‘Nostromo’ – the shape of the doors, the logos and layout of computers. On the other hand, it is a ship of the highest-quality and provides first-class service from Weyland Industries. This is the most important financial-project Weyland has committed to – costing three trillion dollars, according to Vickers (Charlize Theron), our manager of the crew.
Small nods to Alien are littered all over the place – from the meal-time introduction of the crew, through to the planet we visit and the ‘space-jockey’ reveal. Storms on the planet provide ample opportunity to show the scale of the planet – much-like the 1979 original – and we see the small size of the humans in correlation to what they discover. Like the original, every shot could be freeze-framed and hung on a wall.
Humans and Faith
From the introduction of Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace), we know that faith is important to her. Despite her huge interest in seeking answers to questions that are found in the farthest reaches of space, and exploring historic sites that existed thousands of years before Jesus, she still wears a cross with pride. This is human – faith and belief is human. We believe in these things because, whether we seek it on earth or in death, we desperately want something more than our small-stay on this planet.
Shaw and Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) have differing outlooks that represent their gender. Holloway is stubborn and impulsive, Shaw is maternal and emotional. In one sequence, Shaw shows Holloway how humans are directly connected to the “Engineers” through a DNA sample – it is shot in a way that implies the two are sharing, and observing a positive pregnancy-test.
Being impulsive and passionate, holding onto faith and personally craving a child all connect to our human traits. The two doctors are at odds with David and Vickers – they have different belief systems. Some believe in seeking answers for the sake of understanding mortality, others seeks answers to control mortality and gain immortality.
Death and All His Friends
The overarching theme – from the very first scene – is Death. Almost every character shows a different attitude towards death. There are those like FiField (Sean Harris) and Millburn (Rafe Spall) who fear their death. It is something they do not understand and are not willing to accept. There are those who fear it – but accept it. Shaw specifically has experienced both her parents death – but she accepts this is a part of life. Others understand what it is to sacrifice their life, whilst others want to extend life, and achieve immortality.
Like the quadrilogy, the theme of capitalism and greed does come up, but it is not the same as what we have seen before. Does anyone have the right to control life? That is the bigger question. Wealth and money is merely a means to an end. Aliens manages to deeply explore how greed and money are what fuel the future but, the same capitalist attitude will be what destroys us. Prometheus merely uses this idea as a backdrop – because one thing everyone connects to – and will experience – is the end of life. Power, wealth and control cannot and will not give life.
Fascinating
I write this following a viewing at an IMAX. It is my first viewing. Still, I want to know more. The final few scenes raise more questions about the future of the franchise. But it seems that Ridley Scott has ensured that the franchise is back on course – it can now explore the galaxy further to ask the questions we seek ourselves. Cinema can be mesmerising and, the fact that this film does not have big guns (indeed, flame-throwers and pistols are the only weapons we see – whilst Shaw clearly states how “this is a science expedition” and weaponry shouldn’t be required) and relies purely on a magnificent artist wielding the camera, alongside brilliant actors in front of the camera, mean that this film will last the test of time. David states at one-point how “Big things have small beginnings”. The beginning of the Alien saga, in Prometheus, has an epic-scale asking ginormous questions – it is bigger than any film in the franchise.
A great reboot that simply reaffirms how great a filmmaker Ridley Scott truly is. Re-establishes what is great about Alien and, at the same time, manages to modernise it with an outstanding cast. But, if you like the Alien series because of Aliens then be a little cautious going in – this isn’t shoot-em-up, guns-blasting territory.
Andrew (8)
Wayne (8)
John (6)
Josh (6)
Justin (5)
Lauren (5)
Steve (5)
Dave Enkosky (4)
Jessica (4)
Sir Phobos (4)
Twitter: agracru
June 6, 2012 5:35 pm
Oh thank fucking god, someone else who liked this as much as me.
I’ll expand on that later, but for now, top drawer stuff Simon.
Thanks Andrew. Like I said in my review – if only ALL the ALIEN films stuck to the more philosophical depth of ALIEN rather than turning it into chase-and-shoot-movies
Twitter: manilovefilms
June 8, 2012 10:39 pm
I’m with you both. It was fantastic and I can’t wait to see it again and discuss it a whole lot more. Probably my favorite film in the franchise, which is remarkable not just due to the quality of what came before it but simply for the fact that it’s a 30+ years later prequel. Does its existence justify the existence of something like Crystal Skull? Ponder that one…
Twitter: joelburman
June 10, 2012 2:17 am
Well you haven’t seen the extended cut of Alien3 so I wouldn’t be so fast on the gun declaring Prometheus as the best in the franchise… =)
Yes you knew I was going down that route.
Dylan hasn’t seen ALIEN 3???
Twitter: joelburman
June 10, 2012 5:53 am
He’s seen the butchered up theatrical cut of it…
Well, it will be interesting if they make any more. I know for me, it has reinvigorated my interest in the alien series – it seems that they CAN go further with the story. Imagine if Jim Cameron made PROMETHEUS’S, and Fincher made PROMETHEUS 3… Jeanet makes PROMETHEUS: REURRECTION. That would be mental. Im sure fincher wants to write the wrongs of ALIEN 3
Twitter: joelburman
June 10, 2012 2:16 am
I actually enjoy your review of it more than the film itself. My main hick-ups is that I think Scott should have made the bond with Alien clearer and more concrete while still having this more low-key approach to the story.
they can expand upon it in the future. as a world to revisit and character to meet again – i so want to go back to planet LV22?
Twitter: joelburman
June 10, 2012 5:54 am
That was what I was hoping for all along and it would have made such more sense that way.
Twitter: agracru
June 11, 2012 1:03 pm
So, here’s where I’m at now.
Prometheus should be seen as flawed. This is just to get the bad stuff out of the way; there’s a lot of good on display here, but this is a solid film that could have been outstanding had it come with a better script. But the script is bad. I think part of that comes from two writers handling one document– I know people like dog-piling on Lindelof, but I don’t think he’s the culprit behind the film’s problems– and I think part of that comes from Scott himself. He has primary authorship here, and he went through four drafts from his screenwriters without taking out the more egregious stuff. It’ll end up on Scott in the end no matter what, so I’ll just say that on the script level, Prometheus is a narrative disaster.
But that’s where we get into what speaks to the film’s credit. Scott might ultimately own responsibility for the script, but he also sat behind the camera and ran the show, and in the process proved what a master filmmaker he is. None of the flaws, save for the third-act reveal of (SPOILER SPOILER) Weyland being alive on the ship– which feels like a Lindelof contribution, honestly–(END SPOILERS really announce themselves in the viewing of the film. That’s, in my opinion, great filmmaking, the sort that engages you so powerfully that its poor script decisions never become obvious until after the movie finishes. Prometheus kept me gripped. It kept me rapt. And I loved almost every second of it while watching it.
I wish it held up better under scrutiny after the fact, but it remains a strong effort from Scott– just one that will only be remembered for its technical merits.
Personally, I love the creator/creation relationships that crop up all over the place here: the Engineers and humanity, the sterile Shaw and her “miracle” pregnancy, Weyland and David/Vickers. Hell, think about the fact that someone had to design the ship itself and also things like the APC and Fifield’s “pups”. Why do we create? I don’t think Prometheus needed to spell out the intentions of the Engineers whatsoever; it just needed to examine why Weyland created David, or why Shaw’s sterility troubled her so much, and so on. Which it does, and so on that level, I think it’s a success.
I’m cutting myself off so this comment doesn’t become an article unto itself, but I’ll leave you with this: Fassbendericious.
Twitter: kaiderman
June 12, 2012 12:39 pm
Ridley Scott has always been able to shoot a good looking movie but, I agree, this film is a visual masterpiece. Arguably the best looking film he has ever made.
I think I would give it a 4 strictly from the standpoint of a theatrical experience. It was hella-fun to watch and is a great example of modern Sci-Fi. Still, I think the script is riddled with problems so I have to knock some off for that.
I do have a couple of questions for you.
(1) I don’t understand all these deeper themes you get from the original Alien. Quite honestly that film is 15 minutes of a ship landing and a crew waking up, 10 minutes on the planet and an hour and a half of people running from/ fighting an Alien. There some dialogue in there to establish the blue collar nature of the characters but I’m not sure how much social commentary is there.
(2) Did the maternal aspects of Prometheus bother you? I know they did in Aliens but at least there, they tie Ripley’s bond to Newt into the fact that Ripley had slept through her own daughter’s life. In Prometheus, it seemed very shoe-horned in. They basically say “Hey, Elizabeth is barren. No wait! She’s pregnant” Didn’t it feel forced to you?
I realised I never responded!
1) Check out my analysis:
E.g.-”Theories abound about how, serving the four-films as they stand, the romance – in a corrupted way – is between Ripley and the Alien. The Alien is dominant, dangerous and representing, in Giger’s designs, the phallus and the man. Whilst Ripley, has clear feminine traits in her responsibilities in looking after Jonesy (a maternal “expectation”?) and her supportive and secondary role on the ship.”
http://manilovefilms.com/reviews/2012/03/classic-columb-alien-1979/
2) To be honest, since writing the review, the script issues and problems have been rammed home again and again. I think it highlights the issue but I read somewhere that to look at the film literally is foolish as it is metaphorical – so judging this maternal theme in a metaphorical sense would be wiser: A Virgin Birth? An event 2000 years ago which made the engineers hate us …
Twitter: OKKXgXHnFekqTJpo
November 19, 2012 9:31 pm
Thanks for making these toturials easy to understand, intresting and fun. I am a beginner and only have photoshop elements 8 but can do all of the thingsmentioned.Do you have a link to buy your software online.Thanks.Cornel
while I enjoyed the visual spectacle and the general themes of the film this film is flawed. The use of stupidity as a plot device by Lidelof is hackish. I am really not surprise after his meh conclusion of Lost and subsequent screwing up of Cowboys and Aliens.
Not that I don’t think people should see the film and in IMAX 3D if possible. It’s just that this could have been a film for the ages rather than just good.
I did not even go into the gigantic plot holes as I am sure everyone is already familiar with them.
there are many facsinating ideas which are in the film which could be Lindelof’s idea. Its definately not as bad as everyone makes out and the discussions it has created can only be a good thing!