Prometheus
#1
Posted 08 June 2012 - 10:48 PM
It has taken 30 years, since 1982's Blade Runner, for Ridley Scott to return to the science fiction genre. Finally, one might add, for Prometheus represents a considerable rejuvenation of the 74 year old director after a long career spent doing polished, small-think popcorn movies only superficially more artistic than his brother Tony Scott's action flicks. Why did it take so long, and why did his genre return involve revisiting his most successful film? (It is a first for Scott, who has never directed a prequel or sequel prior to this.)
Prometheus began as a straight prequel to Alien, but during its development morphed into something else. Scott, who had a desire to revisit some of the unanswered questions of the first film, was reluctant to simply rehash the "xenomorph" in Alien. For good reason: the xenomorph itself was relatively uninteresting; despite its bizarre appearance and unique life cycle, the creature had no way of expressing intention and seemed to have only the most primitive motivations. Learning more about it had no emotional stakes, and even so the commercial franchise of Alien sequels had rendered this creature as stale and over-familiar as the Frankenstein monster: just another shambling horror cliche with bolts in its neck and a ratty blazer.
Curiously (or not, given the directors), none of the lame, lamer, lamest sequels had bothered answering any of the questions raised by the original film. The origins of both the xenomorph and the "space jockey" (the giant humanoid found in the same derelict spacecraft) had been left totally unexplored. This then became Prometheus' jumping-off point, and with Damon Lindelof revising Jon Spaihts' script to further de-emphasize the role of the xenomorph, the film became a prequel which despite existing under the shadow of Alien manages to launch into a very different, tantalizing direction.
As the marketing has suggested, Prometheus is concerned with the question of the origins of human life, as well as themes of evolutionary and generational succession ("A king has his reign, and then he dies. It's inevitable," remarks one character, poetically). Does the creator eventually come to destroy his creation, or be destroyed by it? There are theological implications here--not about evolution but about the nature of godhood. Is our relationship with the divine that of a creature which must kill its creator and replace him? That is to say, is it simply a fact of intelligent life to usurp?
In dealing with a much older, progenitor race, Prometheus finds itself deep in Lovecraftian territory--so much so in fact that Guillermo del Toro has scotched his plans to film Lovecraft's story At the Mountains of Madness, due to resemblances in setting and plot. In a way this is a more satisfying outcome, as the Giger-esque designs of Alien and Prometheus seem more evocative because they reflect perversions of humanity and sexuality, rather than Lovecraft's more wildly imaginative conical organisms with psychic powers.
It will be said that, like Alien, Prometheus refuses to answer most of its questions. I believe this conclusion is flawed, for the very ideas these movies concern themselves with are not questions and therefore have no real answers. Of course there are literal questions about, say, the origin of the space jockey race, but the answer to such a question can only be prosaic and uninformative. Are we any wiser about the mystery of human experience from knowing about evolution, brain function, the history of civilization, and so on? Such awareness can only be grasped existentially, artistically, religiously--it is not for reason to capture. And it is in this sense that Prometheus is a rewarding, captivating film: it never dares to reduce mystery to a mere riddle.
#2
Posted 09 June 2012 - 01:01 AM
#3
Posted 09 June 2012 - 02:33 AM
#4
Posted 09 June 2012 - 03:14 AM
Chad Buffington, on 09 June 2012 - 02:33 AM, said:
I don't think the film over-used CGI. Ridley is on record preferring practical effects. I found the pacing to be quite good and without seeing a longer cut of the movie I think it didn't damage the movie--but I am particularly turned off by slack pacing and character moments that don't serve the story. The one exception is that I thought the captain needed stronger motivation in the third act, and because his character was weak you have to take the movie's word for it that he would actually take that course of action.
A couple of shots in the trailer were not present, which I think reflects aggressive editing to get a desired running time. Probably the studio was nervous that with an R rating it was a bigger risk with a long running time. Surprisingly it held its own Friday against another one of those terrible cartoons.
Still it was a huge relief and welcome surprise after sitting through The Avengers, the epitome of junk food movies. Definitely worth a second viewing in my opinion.
#5
Posted 09 June 2012 - 10:14 AM
#6
Posted 09 June 2012 - 10:20 AM
#7
Posted 09 June 2012 - 11:13 AM
Spoilers follow.
Let's take the example of the biologist, who is established as a bit of a coward (he's eager to head back to the ship at the first sign of trouble). A mysterious and possibly dangerous alien creature appears, and his reaction is to get chummy with it? Why? It doesn't match the caution/cowardice established earlier, it doesn't match his established role as a scientist, it doesn't match with ordinary human suspicion of danger.
If the plot requires that the scientist get attacked, here's a better way they could have done it: the biologist gets intrigued by the creature, noting its similarity, say, to a worm or a cobra (particularly when it expands its "cowl" later in the encounter). Making analogies with known quantities is typical of scientific thinking. It would have been nice to see what an actual scientific approach to the unknown looks like, since so much of the movie is allegedly about man's questions about the world around him. In fact, he could have exposed himself to danger because his scientific curiosity overrode his natural instinct to be afraid - and the fact that he was doing so could have been heightened by the geologist (who, as he made clear earlier, is only interested in "rocks" and "making money") not sharing his particular curiosity.
But what happens? He grins like a dipshit and tempts fate like the village idiot. Where does that get us? The audience doesn't understand or sympathize with his response, he's just a fool - and our reaction to him getting killed is far less than it might otherwise be because in the end a fool gets what he deserves.
And this is what most of the movie was like for me. The real mystery is why these people all act like idiots. (What? A geologist gets lost in a fairly simple cave?) If this is the point, that human beings are essentially idiot children in the face of ultimate questions, then the shooting and score (which attempt to evoke wonder and suspense) seem disjointed from that point emotionally.
I may need to see it again, given that others have had such a distinctly different experience - maybe my expectations colored my response too much.
#8
Posted 09 June 2012 - 12:28 PM
That being said, I don't think that this lack of supporting-role character development took away too much from the overall experience. I really enjoyed the characterization of David, and Elizabeth was a well-rounded protagonist. There were no obnoxious female heroine stereotypes, for the most part, which was refreshing. The cinematography was engrossing, CGI wasn't overdone, and the more intense scenes were always purposeful, never just shockingly grotesque for the sake of itself.
I read a review somewhere which compared "Prometheus" to "2010", which I thought was really unfair. Prometheus does a great job at being what it is, which is an indirect Alien prequel with intentions of expanding far beyond the realm of Alien. Of course, you'll never please everyone, but as someone who had little idea what to expect from Prometheus, I was very happy with the film as a whole.
#9
Posted 09 June 2012 - 12:46 PM
Blarg, on 09 June 2012 - 10:20 AM, said:
Otherwise I think I've described what appealed to me in this movie, such as its ruminations on the creator and the created. But it isn't the first movie, and fans of Alien expecting a redo are going to be disappointed and confused by what they get. It doesn't have Alien's omninous pacing, its intimate focus on the crew, or the atmosphere of panicked survival, because that's not what this movie is. You have to un-expect those things to enjoy Prometheus. And it's not for everyone.
It's worth nothing that many sci fi movies have had mixed receptions but gone on to become established classics--I can't be completely sure, but I think Prometheus will be one of these. I think it will hold up as more than a few arresting images and a good trailer, just as 2001 held up despite reaction against its opening sequence and the ostentatiously surreal ending. Blade Runner got lots of negative criticism and confused/irritated audience reaction from people who were expecting something other than a film noir Star Wars (I think the film delivers even less than that). The Shining bothered King fans who didn't know what to make of Jack Nicholson's arch acting or Kubrick's wicked sense of humor (and who missed the themes of civilizational collapse).
Science fiction so rarely aims for anything interesting, that I'll take what Prometheus offers, flaws and all.
#10
Posted 09 June 2012 - 01:13 PM
Itty Bitty Kitty, on 09 June 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:
#11
Posted 09 June 2012 - 02:01 PM
#12
Posted 09 June 2012 - 04:11 PM
Side note: Was anybody able to figure out why they had a bunch of homeless minorities crewing a starship? Occupational therapy maybe? Affirmative action?
#13
Posted 09 June 2012 - 05:11 PM
#14
Posted 09 June 2012 - 05:17 PM
Bixxy: E Pluribus Tantrum, on 09 June 2012 - 04:11 PM, said:
Side note: Was anybody able to figure out why they had a bunch of homeless minorities crewing a starship? Occupational therapy maybe? Affirmative action?
#15
Posted 09 June 2012 - 05:47 PM
I thought what Lindelof said about their choices on this movie was interesting:
Quote
And I know it’s horribly obnoxious to say “You need to see the movie a couple of times in order to truly appreciate it”, but I do feel like it was designed that way and there are little things that seem like a throw-away on first viewing.
For example, when they do the carbon dating on the dead engineer and realise he has been dead for 2000 years then you wonder about when, 2000 years ago, the Engineers decided to wipe us out. What happened 2000 years ago? Is there any correlation with what happened on the earth 2000 years ago and this decision that was already in motion? Could a sequel start in that time period and contextualize what we did to piss these beings off?
I think it’s a very interesting question to leave dangling. Is it a loose end? Yeah, probably. But it’s probably what sends you to the pub after the movie and has you arguing with your friends as to what you think it might mean.
I can definitely tell you that if a lot of people go to see this movie and there is a critical sense of people wanting there to be another one, the second movie would clearly answer the question of “what did we do to deserve this?”
#16
Posted 09 June 2012 - 07:33 PM
#17
Posted 09 June 2012 - 08:28 PM
Imagine it. Metallic security guards, propelled by deathless power cells, crunching and gliding over a rotting graveyard planet. I can think of no more fitting legacy.
#18
Posted 09 June 2012 - 09:30 PM
PLEASUREMAN, on 09 June 2012 - 05:47 PM, said:
I thought what Lindelof said about their choices on this movie was interesting:
Quote
And I know it’s horribly obnoxious to say “You need to see the movie a couple of times in order to truly appreciate it”, but I do feel like it was designed that way and there are little things that seem like a throw-away on first viewing.
For example, when they do the carbon dating on the dead engineer and realise he has been dead for 2000 years then you wonder about when, 2000 years ago, the Engineers decided to wipe us out. What happened 2000 years ago? Is there any correlation with what happened on the earth 2000 years ago and this decision that was already in motion? Could a sequel start in that time period and contextualize what we did to piss these beings off?
I think it’s a very interesting question to leave dangling. Is it a loose end? Yeah, probably. But it’s probably what sends you to the pub after the movie and has you arguing with your friends as to what you think it might mean.
I can definitely tell you that if a lot of people go to see this movie and there is a critical sense of people wanting there to be another one, the second movie would clearly answer the question of “what did we do to deserve this?”
Interesting.
As a preliminary matter, just that I'm still thinking about the movie several hours after walking out of the theatre puts it miles ahead of the majority of movies.
Also, the important part that I keep mulling or wondering about --and I think that wondering is a good thing, was the Cross and the potential Christian themes. So, a big thank you to the heads up on the 2000 year thing; I missed it.
That said, I think you are underestimating how jarring some of the implausibilities (pacing, characterizations, etc.) were. For instance, I was thrown off early when, after a journey of more than 2 years, across a vast distance to another solar system --at vast expense, they immediately go to 'tree-top' level to explore the moon/planet and, within moments, find what they're looking for thanks to the naked eyeballing of the young male scientisty guy --"there, that's it; nature doesn't draw with straight lines." Really? Later it occurred to me that they might have been in a bit of a rush because the old man really running the show was at death's door. But... and then nothing. It doesn't seem like this was a plot-point that was meant to be a mystery so much as laziness in telling the story. Sometimes a riddle is just a riddle, and should be solved or dealt with. You didn't feel like the fly-in smacked of Team America? They couldn't orbit and surveil the place? They wouldn't?
Edit: I did not lift this from Steve Sailer's review. Really, the non-orbit surveillance bothered me because of what I'd read in Neal Stephenson's Anathem.
Edited by Legs: Budding and Meaningful Dammit!, 10 June 2012 - 09:27 AM.
#19
Posted 09 June 2012 - 10:17 PM
#20
Posted 09 June 2012 - 10:45 PM
Its also pretty strange that the scaredy cat biologist came right up to some alien species when just 5 minutes earlier they were trying to stay away from lifeforms.
What made them want to blow us up 2000 years ago? The jews being mean to jesus?











