Shaw: Parallels with Eve?

[quote=DippyBird][i]Sukkal - It's all interesting to me! The fact that we, as fans, can have a civilised chat about this sort of thing in the context of the film, I find wonderful[/i][/quote] It is wonderful when it happens. I have to say that some of us here are better at it than others and I'm not giving myself top marks, mind you. ;•) The parallels with Mary or perhaps even her COUSIN might be even closer, though in a much more twisted fashion. Keep in mind that Shaw's first name is [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_(biblical_figure)]Elizabeth[/url]. We don't know what Cuddles’ role is in the plot yet. Is s/he John the Baptist? Is the Engineer Goliath and is there a very different outcome for this David than that one?

Tiamat is a fascinating example. All a matter of perspective. How would we look back on Shaw as a race if she gave birth to our doom, regardless of her original intentions

Exactly my point Myrddin, perhaps that would be a better perspective to take, rather than a comparison with Eve or her ilk - but again this is all conjecture!

@artyoh — The Nazis collectively were an abomination. Hitler was clearly quite disturbed and lots of others around him were willing for his insanity to take the blame for their truly evil agenda(s). But, for all the atrocities there are always the stories of redemption within the ranks too. So, yes, lots of complexity. But for me, only by digging into it, the nasty, awful, smelly guts of it can we really understand how it was allowed to happen. The US was complicit for far too long. We interned Japanese-American citizens here and took away their homes, and futures too. I just look at these cultural phenomena (like films based even in fiction) as opportunities to get people THINKING. I hope that this movie will have its fair share of "Unicorns" too.

I believe John the Baptist and Jesus are benevolent characters who wish to better mankind and his relationship with God. It's cognitively difficult and emotionally unpleasant for me to equate them with what is wriggling after it's cut from Shaw's defiled womb.

Agreed Myrddin... I have problems with that one myself, as a woman...

There may not be any deliberate scriptural parallels in this movie......at least, I hope not. The most interesting questions are universal; not limited to any particular faith or scriptural tradition.

@Myrddin365 I agree with you 100%. But, all I'm saying is that we still don't know what the ultimate meaning of "We were so wrong" is IN THIS FILM. I'm sure that Ridley would not take offense at someone saying of the film it was "cognitively difficult and emotionally unpleasant" for me to experience. I doubt seriously that the the elements of the backstory are as "upside down" as Cuddles representing John the Baptist in some twisted fashion, but I don't know. As soon as an aesthetic like Giger's is introduced and so heavily relied upon and the entire premise of the film is diametrically opposed to traditional religious narratives (by that I mean "contemporary and mainstream"), I have no idea where the symbology is coming from and what happened to it on its way to the screen.

I get that artyoh, I kind of hope that as well. I was merely pointing out an observation that I had made, it's almost a subversion of those traditions IMO

Agreed sukkal, it's just interesting to have a wee 'noodle' and see what we can come up with! I certainly think it's been an intriguing discussion so far!

The film is designed to be shocking and controversial. The same is true of [i]The Da Vinci Code[/i].

Exactly... I hope it can inspire similar debate, especially with regards to the big questions of "Why are we here?" and "How did we get here?"

@Sukkal It seems to take from the darker sides of religious thought in most cases, Demons, Titans, Giants, Dragons. There haven't been any obvious depictions of something good becoming awful. Like Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale, that scandinavian horror movie about Santa Claus being an ancient, demonic monster. @Dippybird I think that the most insidious thing is that Shaw is not punished for an evil decision she made. She is punished for expressing love, however misguided she may be in her choice of the object of her affection. This is assuming that sex with infected Holloway causes mr. wriggly to happen. I think that is the worst kind of evil, corruption because of a human's better nature and removing free will. Philip K. Dick does a lot of this kind of thing.

The chestburster "birth" as the result of "oral rape" were the taboos in the original film. The "vessel" happened to be male. That was pretty damn shocking at the time. But it was something to terrify MALES. The nature of "taboo-ing it up" has gotten a lot more hard core over the last 30+ years. They (FOX) know that males will come see this film. The hook to get females in will be Elizabeth's journey. I don't think Fassy alone is going to pull that off.

@DippyBird It wasn't directed at you specifically, I was just kinda throwing it out there. I [i]do[/i] think that we would view any beings which treated us like lab-rats or a resource, as [i]inherently[/i] evil. Nevermind what "larger purpose" they might think they were serving.

Myrddin... that was my thinking after our earlier discussion as well, it's far more likely she's being punished for something concerning someone else and her expressing love to the wrong person may indeed be correct. Sukkal, I cannot comment on what those elements must be like for a man to witness, but it is something primally terrifying for a female. It's hard-wired into us! The fact that the original alien was somewhat aesexual in its design (despite the overall phallic motif, there were also feminine qualities) I think is something that made it UNIVERSALLY terrifying.

@Myrddin365 I missed that Santa flick (thank goodness). I agree with you that most of the imagery is very in line with our traditional breakdowns of "good vs. evil". The Engineer is the spitting image (visually) of Frankenstein's monster, but if we peel back the surface of the monster in that story (by a woman), the monster is not quite so monstrous. And dragons are good guys in Asia. I don't know what Ridley's religious beliefs are, and if there is sacrilegious stuff in the subtext, we may never know what it is precisely. But, it is precisely the fact that Elizabeth is "sinless" and ends up with Cuddles inside of her that is so taboo. (Of course, why can't she see that Holloway is so inferior?? Why is she sleeping with him in the first place? What's the symbolism THERE? Layer after layer...)

[quote=artyoh][i]I do think that we would view any beings which treated us like lab-rats or a resource, as inherently evil. Nevermind what "larger purpose" they might think they were serving.[/i][/quote] BUT, there is still room in the story for them (the Engineers) to view us as "children" and not lab rats. WE. DON’T. KNOW. YET. Humanity is not universally EVIL. Why would ALL of the Engineers necessarily have to be EVIL? LV 223 could be the Auschwitz of the Engineer empire. Thanks goodness again that I've been on this board as long as I have without knowing (= "accidentally learning") that level of detail about the story!! LOL! :•D

@Sukkal lol at Holloway rant. The imagery is more of a race manipulating mankind for their own uses, whatever those may be. That is, in and of itself, evil. But if plants had sentience, farmers would be just as evil. If the engineers cultivated us as a necessity for their survival, is that evil if it's the only way? That's where the complexity comes in.

[quote=Myrddin365]If the engineers cultivated us as a necessity for their survival, is that evil if it's the only way? That's where the complexity comes in.[/quote] I hope that's where the complexity ONLY BEGINS...

that could be the tip of the Iceberg. Why wouldn't there be "pacifist" engineers who advocate hibernation in order to avoid "killing" sentient beings in order to continue their survival?

@sukkal My earlier comment about the nazis, was intended to point out the irrelevancy of moral relativism, if [i]you[/i] are the lab-rat. People who actually use lab-rats in medical research don't do it out of cruelty, but for a "greater good" which the rats are incapable of even conceiving. The same might be true of The Engineers. They have to have a plan; otherwise, their actions will seem capricious and/or random. We don't need to know specific details of the plan in depth, [i]only that there is one.[/i] In fact, knowing [i]exactly[/i] what they've been up to and why, might be giving away too much. Could even one Engineer be the equivalent of a benevolent sky-daddy? Sure...but would that really make sense in an "Alien" universe, where it already seems to have been established, that survival is about the best you can hope for?

@Myrddin 365 An implacably [i]hostile[/i] universe, yes. You can add depth to that idea, but not to the point where you dilute it, IMO.