Forum Topic
dejan
MemberOvomorphJun-03-2012 4:11 PMFellow fans,
Although we have every right in the world to get angry at the makers for failing to deliver on the character/story development front...
...after my second viewing, I realized PROMETHEUS delivers in original ways that we can only appreciate if we dispense with the conventions of classic narration.
First off, its dream-like structure, in which characters are killed off or abandoned randomly, plot hooks and points mixed up, motifs rehashed and repeated, 3D combined with 2D, testifies less to the incompetence of the makers, than to a certain STYLE that is more invested in visual storytelling, than the use of more conventional (theatrical) methods such as you'd find in ALIEN.
For example: when Elisabeth Shaw's boyfriend is suddenly killed - without any narrative justification - I think the scriptwriters are more interested in drawing a parallel with the death of Shaw's father from ebola - than the emotional dimensions of the event, as you'd have it in a conventional melodrama. Since the scene is followed by a shot of Shaw waking up on a hospital bed, it could even be construed that the whole thing is her nightmare.
This is something you can either like or dislike - but in itself, it is not wrong.
Then take the film's central (Gothic) theme: DOUBLING (MIRRORING, REPRODUCTION, REFLECTION). It is carried through quite consistently throughout the film, despite the shoddy narrative construction. The title is displayed on top of an image showing the duplication of cells. The plot of the film is a doubling of ALIEN's plot. The two female characters (Shaw and Vickers) are obviously two versions of the same female personality, both of them plagued by a traumatic relationship to the loss of the Father figure/God, both trapped by a patriarchal system in which the medical facility is ''optimized for use by men''. The character of David represents two genders, two types of androids, two kinds of agendas, et cetera. It even goes down to the level of action: when the Engineer first caresses David's head before ripping it off, you are instantly reminded of the way one of the grunts caressed the alien snake before it attacked him. And so on and so forth.
Given that the film's horror is focused on fears related to reproduction, it seems that the central spiritual question it is posing has to do something with our narcissism; not just on the level of corporate individualism and competition, but also, as a deeper philosophic/religious question - are we able to really perceive the perspective of the other, the ALIEN VIEWPOINT. Because if we're not, than human history is merely repetition, and childbirth inevitably ends in Hell.
When David reads Elizabeth Shaw's dreams, what he sees is her puzzlement in front of the fact that many people believe in many different Gods. It is this question, rather than belief itself, that she confronts on the mission.
51 Replies
FirefighterUK
MemberOvomorphJun-03-2012 4:22 PMPhew dejan!!
Thats deep and makes for interesting reading.
When the Enginner strokes Davids head it came to me that it was in a way the Engineers regard Humans there creation but ripped his head off because of our arrogance in trying to replicate life and hence why they where returning to eradicate us for over stepping the mark. Linking it to the Prometheus legend. This make sense?
Slipp_Digby
MemberOvomorphJun-03-2012 4:22 PMThis sounds very much like the Goerge Lucas speech when he tries to pass of The Phantom Menace as being 'bold' and 'stylistic'.
rogerharris
MemberOvomorphJun-03-2012 4:36 PMsome of the first points could be you projecting too much depth on random part just put into fit, who knows, but the point on understanding "them" is a good one.
Its almost the peak of the film, the political competition of the entire situation is setup just for take me to your leader rights... as we see all futile. It seems a lot of people dont understand thats one of the major points at the end. We TRY to understand them, and sacrifice everything to try and do so, because of our awe, isolation and comparative lack of power. I don't really think a future United Nations would carry out such a mission like that, but this is about a private corp.
All the engineers we might have seen in Prometheus could just be employees of the other world military, messing around on a remote location for who knows what. The engineers (or their colleagues whatever) we met in this film look to be just the soldiers. So no of course they dont want to engage in a discussion with us (who may be another experiment) any more than one of our soldiers wants a discussion with civilians in Iraq who ask awkward questions.
Cameron-to-the-rescue
MemberOvomorphJun-03-2012 4:36 PMSomeone has been smoking what Fifield smoked I think...
alteredstate.
MemberOvomorphJun-03-2012 4:36 PMmmmmm like astrology you can read what you like into those. i'm a leo by the way lol anymore russell grants amongst us ?
Cameron-to-the-rescue
MemberOvomorphJun-03-2012 4:38 PMIt could have been saved with just a few more scenes explaining a bit more I think. It is as if they just ran out of budget to film the scenes needed because of the 3D, sets and effects. That is my honest opinion.
Maiafay
MemberOvomorphJun-03-2012 4:39 PMI think your theories are thought provoking and not some desperate attempt to rationalize supposed plot holes as some here will insist. I'm personally waiting for Bughunter's multipage review. Reading what different people have taken from this movie is compelling - and shows that despite its flaws, Prometheus is making people think.
Newt
MemberOvomorphJun-03-2012 5:15 PMThe whole premise behind the title Prometheus is stealing fire from the gods etc. I'm wondering if this actually is in reference to the engineers shown on LV223 stealing technology, not us humans. Why? Well the engineers at the start of the film created life on Earth, why then would they want to wipe us out years later? It makes no sense, are we threatening to them? I doubt it, they are still way ahead in technological terms. Why were most of them killed presumably by xenos or cobraliens, didn't they know what dangerous lifeforms could be created? Surely they would be advanced enough to deal with this? LV223 also does not seem to be their home planet, was this a hideout? I'm guessing that there are at least two factions of engineer, the ones who created us who are peaceful and live elsewhere, another military, who stole the black goo to use as biological warfare not knowing its potential and accidentally leading to their death whilst hiding out? Only problem with this is why was LV223 pointed at in the cave paintings?
Of course this is all wild speculation and could be utter poo!!
Newt
MemberOvomorphJun-03-2012 5:23 PMAlso just had an additional thought, the ship at the start of the film appears more disk like, not the U shape we know and love which we see later. Is this because a different band of engineers seeded life?
dejan
MemberOvomorphJun-03-2012 5:26 PM ripped his head off because of our arrogance in trying to replicate life
That's an interesting question, Firefighter. Weyland previously designates David as his son, so this act of decapitation is surely also the dethroning of the King.
When Shaw later carries David's head into new adventures, I was made to think about Hamlet, actually. Shaw's refusal to give birth reminds me of the way Hamlet didn't want Ophelia to bear children as they would only end up unhappy in a corrupted world.
Thachicken
MemberOvomorphJun-03-2012 5:30 PMYeah, its so deep, I really think that is what they were going for, an art-house type movie for the masses that falls under a franchise that has always been on the forefront of making us think deeply.
One of my friends thinks that the Aliens movies are really just RS's homophobia and racism. The way he explained this is because face-huggers really are a form of face-rape aren't they. They jump on your face against your will and force something down your throat. Then all the Aliens burst from your chest representing the broken heart and shell left behind after such a traumatic rape experience. Then all of these creatures become giant black killing machines which is in itself racist since they already showed that the Aliens will change shape and behavior depending on the life form they manage to grow inside of.
What I'm really trying to say about your post is, you can find meaning where ever you want, even if its not there.
I like to follow the occam's razor. If the movie was bad, it was because the movie was bad, not because of some deep concepts.
If you want to analyse everything in incredible depth to try and find a small spark of goodness, then your looking to far but if that is what you need to do to come to terms with this movie, go for it, dig till you hit China, turn around and repeat as many times as you need to.
rogerharris
MemberOvomorphJun-03-2012 5:32 PM[quote]Phew dejan!!
Thats deep and makes for interesting reading.
When the Enginner strokes Davids head it came to me that it was in a way the Engineers regard Humans there creation but ripped his head off because of our arrogance in trying to replicate life and hence why they where returning to eradicate us for over stepping the mark. Linking it to the Prometheus legend. This make sense?[/quote]
no super-intelligent race would judge you for trying that. But they could reject an inferior offering of manufactured life, or bad negotiation strategy, or just misunderstand, especially if these engineers were just technically trained soldiers or employees we saw. In an advanced civilization an employed engineer could have domain over an entire planet, much like our current military employees can run entire area of land and major experimental projects but still be nobodies in the larger political scheme.
There is the moment when the action pauses as the engineer is observing Elizabeth Shaw trying to plead for deeper answers as if thats important, Then the action moves back to the rest of welands crew as they sweep aside shaws questions in what turns out to be a fruitless "take me to your leader, we have the important questions to ask" agenda. In any case we dont know that these are the engineers. They may just be the military division of a larger civilization.
I hope so. its bad scriptwriting to portray other advanced civilizations (that can create us) as lacking in emotional /intellectual depth, agency etc and just darwinistic autonomous like the aliens. but then it does make for a good anthropocentric drama to make out thats how it might be in some parts of the universe and we are "specially" emotional (yawn)..
Perhaps thats really all there is that keeps us drawn into aliens and maintaining that fascination awe with the godlike slightly psychopathic power is all thats going to keep running this line of fiction. Certainly is disappointing if thats the case. I am hoping the next movie adds a whack more depth than that.
rogerharris
MemberOvomorphJun-03-2012 5:39 PM[quote]If you want to analyse everything in incredible depth to try and find a small spark of goodness, then your looking to far but if that is what you need to do to come to terms with this movie, go for it, dig till you hit China, turn around and repeat as many times as you need to.[/quote]
There is under as well as overpercieving depth you know ?
Did you get all the clearly obvious references to Kubriks 2001 ? or what about how 3d visualization and graphics was pushed further than any other director to pave the way for new directors ? Or even the old multi-level themes of the politics of power group vs unempowered group and the role of individual honour, intelligent judgement and courage that interplays in that (in a lot of ridleys films).
dejan
MemberOvomorphJun-03-2012 5:40 PMWhat I'm really trying to say about your post is, you can find meaning where ever you want, even if its not there
Thachicken, I don't really understand the anti-intellectual bias behind this remark. I wasn't even trying to find meaning, it came to me of its own accord by means of highly suggestive symbolic images that the film is loaded with, and which draw in equal measure from popular culture (Star Wars, Odyssey, Close Encounters) and Shakespeare.
Somebody mentioned George Lucas and STAR WARS. Even a cursory glance at the genesis of STAR WARS shows how deeply and thoroughly Lucas studied literature and mythology before he wrote what must appear to you as completely ''meaningless'' popcorn entertainment.
dejan
MemberOvomorphJun-03-2012 5:59 PMSo no of course they dont want to engage in a discussion with us (who may be another experiment) any more than one of our soldiers wants a discussion with civilians in Iraq who ask awkward questions.
And this made me think that while you can read the black captain's decision to ram the Prometheus into the alien ship as heroic sacrifice, you can also read it as a terrorist suicide attack. This is a wonderful ambiguity because so many horrible acts of destruction have been perpetrated in the name of Christian sacrifice.
rogerharris
MemberOvomorphJun-03-2012 6:02 PM[quote]When David reads Elizabeth Shaw's dreams, what he sees is her puzzlement in front of the fact that many people believe in many different Gods. It is this question, rather than belief itself, that she confronts on the mission.[/quote]
But he is also puzzled at the end that she would risk all to go hell bent on the quest to ask the engineers what exactly is their problem. So maybe its just a way to introduce his growing childlike curiosity in a star trek data manner. Also notice the movies visual pause as the engineer watches her ask this question and the others reject her, as if this is important to him to observe and plays a role in his subsequent actions. i.e. He views her colleagues as ******es, then takes one look at David and decides they are all a waste of space.
Remember at the start of the movie an engineer commits suicide so we are wondering on the emotional depth/sensitivity of this act. This starts the entire theme on what is the depth of this race/species.
Anyway clearly what the "engineer" beef is with humans will be a central theme in the next movie if there is one.
But im not sure about all this stuff about mirroring and doubling. Making bigger structures from duplicating and adapting a parts bin, is an essential component of every self adapting system thats existed or is planned for whether Ai or nano-tech and previous DNA based life, purely because once you design something once re-copying it is a cheap way to make a lot of stuff happen.
dejan
MemberOvomorphJun-03-2012 5:47 PMWe TRY to understand them, and sacrifice everything to try and do so, because of our awe, isolation and comparative lack of power.
That's an excellent point, Roger, and I think the politics of this film deserves so much more consideration than simple reminiscences of the (unremarkable) work of Erich von Danichen.
When you sad that I was thinking of the Occupy! protesters of late who demand something from the ''Big Brother'' (read the stone sculpture in the ampule room) but don't really know what they're asking since they don't have a replacement for global capitalism. Obviously, it's not that the film doesn't WANT to provide answers to its many questions, it's rather that it wants us to consider why we're asking them in the first place.
Also, the whole suggestion of biological weapons of mass destruction is fascinating. The very idea that we come from a civilization that dabbles in colonization is very subversive politically.
dejan
MemberOvomorphJun-03-2012 5:51 PMAlso just had an additional thought, the ship at the start of the film appears more disk like, not the U shape we know and love which we see later. Is this because a different band of engineers seeded life?
Newt, I found myself wondering why the alien ship is actually shaped like a BOOMERANG, but I have to look a bit deeper into ABoriginal cultures to understand how this might be connected with the film's overall idea.
Thachicken
MemberOvomorphJun-03-2012 6:18 PMWow, just wow at some of the things you say.
Newt, I found myself wondering why the alien ship is actually shaped like a BOOMERANG, but I have to look a bit deeper into ABoriginal cultures to understand how this might be connected with the film's overall idea.
Here is an idea, the artistic director created a ship based on something he was interested in, perhaps he took a rather large crap in the toilet and looked down at it and went, that looks like a perfect spaceship for a movie. You make a great deal of comparisons without meaning and take meaning in places that none exists.
I'm not saying its a bad thing that you are seeing things that other people don't see, I'm just saying you are seeing what you want to see. Movies tend to have an underlying theme. They tend to have symbolism and metaphors. If you want to pound your chest and raise your ego and try and sound clever about seeing these things, go ahead. I bet that 99% of the stuff you say is complete rubbish that you are simply saying because you think that everything you say is pure gold and when it all gets looked at, you hold on to that 1% and forget the other 99%.
Why don't you make a simple analysis and break down that first scene of everything, then we can have somebody else do it and guess what, it could be 100% different. You know how I know this, its cause while I was making a snack a while ago, I was thinking about that scene and its left so open to interpretation that it has no meaning left in it, other than the meaning we assign to it ourselves.
Also, this movie is considered main stream, which means the entertainment and continuity of the film for the audience should come first and foremost, it failed there. Having totally and utterly meaningless things happen is a style not by RS but by the writers. Watch Alien 1-4 again. There are story lines that can be understood and it all fits together. There are underlying themes and can give a response to it. Not everything is a reference to something else.
rogerharris
MemberOvomorphJun-03-2012 6:10 PM[quote]When you sad that I was thinking of the Occupy! protesters of late who demand something from the ''Big Brother'' (read the stone sculpture in the ampule room) but don't really know what they're asking since they don't have a replacement for global capitalism. Obviously, it's not that the film doesn't WANT to provide answers to its many questions, it's rather that it wants us to consider why we're asking them in the first place.
Also, the whole suggestion of biological weapons of mass destruction is fascinating. The very idea that we come from a civilization that dabbles in colonization is very subversive politically.[/quote]
I was cringing a bit at that point, as I didnt like Ridley making such james cameron like obvious points which pertain to current times in a SF film.
But overall Ridley has a common habit of picking movies where there is the dynamics of pigheaded large groups being inhumane (comparatively) to under-empowered groups and what individuals are forced to do to struggle and survive in that. Some align with the power, others not. Instead of Alien vs predator he should do Liberals vs Conservative :)
Seriously even in the Duelists that is a theme, obviously very clear in gladiator, but less so in blade runner its still part of it. The theme of the empath vs the non empath in all of these films, but in a way thats standard drama fare for most, except Ridley goes all out for it as a major theme and keeps doing it. I guess he must have a permanent conflict/issue about this.
dejan
MemberOvomorphJun-03-2012 6:16 PMHe views her colleagues as ******es, then takes one look at David and decides they are all a waste of space.
I really think that whole thread is a reference to HAMLET. When David first encounters the living ENgineer, he is in hypersleep and David listens to his heartbeat (in the play, poison is poured in the ear of Hamlet's father while he's sleeping). I liked very much how Elizabeth Shaw (Ophelia) takes the role of Hamlet, asking TO BE OR NOT TO BE in the midst of mayhem - it was implicit criticism of the partiarchal system behind the corporation, which still observes women as unworthy of reasoning.
Surely the sequel will explain what exactly was being hinted at, but I;m already p[leased with the direction it's taking.
rogerharris
MemberOvomorphJun-03-2012 6:22 PMWhat im hoping is that when elizabeth and dave (nice name for a couple) reach the engineers homeworld, it will be run in a more colourful like michael moorcock "dancers at the end of time"... or star trek type government, and all that alien stuff. Well that was just that damn experiment some of our workers had to keep on the boil in case the shit hits the fan with the universe expanding and all that"
[i]"oh, well you seem to have turned out quite reasonable and balanced mrs Shaw, perhaps we had made an error in our idea that we had to wipe you out after all, but could you do us a favour and let us have one of your continents for some of our boys down your way thanks ?"[/i]
maybe, if they get george lucas to team up with david lynch !
dejan
MemberOvomorphJun-03-2012 6:23 PMI was cringing a bit at that point, as I didnt like Ridley making such james cameron like obvious points which pertain to current times in a SF film.
But truly great SF has always been a comment on the present, rather than the future.
Anyhow I found it quite pleasingly ironic that the crew are staring right in the face of Big Brother and expecting answers from Him. Just look at all the millions of Christian believers and Islamic fundamentalist fanatics today who would rather have their destiny decided by a God, than take that destiny in their hands, to improve their living conditions.
Thachicken
MemberOvomorphJun-03-2012 6:33 PMI would also like to point out that at the start of the movie the ship that people have been debating makes a huge difference in how you would need to look at the Engineers.
Are they Engineers or other Aliens?
What planet are they currently on?
Do the Aliens/Engineers on the ship know what the Engineer at the water fall is doing?
Does the Engineer at the waterfall know the effects of what he is drinking?
What was the intended result of the drink he drank?
For example, lets say this is the Engineer home world, that ship in the background is an alien race that has defeated the Engineers. The Engineer in the foreground is undertaking Seppuku - a ritualistic suicide to retain his honor.
Or lets go the other way. They are all Engineers, all with the same ideas, faction or whatever you want to call it. He is killing himself in a ritualistic way to seed life on a new world.
Now of course, considering how the DNA strands were being totally and utterly destroyed by this thing, I would not really consider this an effective method of seeding life but ooh well.
Anyways, depending on how you interpreted that opening scene, the entire movie has a new underlying thing now doesn't it.
For example, the Engineers that survived fled to this new planet where they were trying to alter or create a new biologic weapon to fight the Aliens that had wiped them out.
Then again, if they were seeding life, then somehow along the way we had displeased them to such an extent that they lost all hope for us and decided to wipe us out and were going to unleash a weapon on us that somehow backfired.
If the entire theme of the movie and underlying context of everything can be changed by how you interpreted the opening scene, then much of the symbolism can be thrown right out the window and instead leaves this movie not as an expression of set factors but instead as an open ended debate on the human condition - expression, experience, life, love, hope, honor, friendship, comradeship and a million other cliches.
I just think that as with occum's razor would suggest, your looking too deep. The most obvious answer is usually the right one and that is that RS and Lindelof don't work well together and it shows in the quality of the movie.
dejan
MemberOvomorphJun-03-2012 6:35 PMMovies tend to have an underlying theme. They tend to have symbolism and metaphors. If you want to pound your chest and raise your ego and try and sound clever about seeing these things, go ahead.
I've no clue where I showed that I wanted to ''sound clever''. This is something you read into my text. I'm simply motivated by curiosity and wonder.
Of course you're right when you say that a metaphor or a symbol can have multiple readings. A work of art is never just one thing. My ambition is not to find ''the right meaning'' of Prometheus but to consider the many possible meanings, dominant themes, and styles.
On the other hand a work of art that only exists to entertain, or that is only meaningful as a self-contained system, is no work of art. Art is something that happens in the encounter between the maker and the audience. So it's completely foolish to imply that Prometheus has no political, social, psychological, etc, relevance beyond entertaining.
And for everything I said I tried to provide a visual reference, concretely, to what you actually see in the film.
rogerharris
MemberOvomorphJun-03-2012 6:37 PM[quote]I really think that whole thread is a reference to HAMLET. When David first encounters the living ENgineer, he is in hypersleep and David listens to his heartbeat (in the play, poison is poured in the ear of Hamlet's father while he's sleeping). I liked very much how Elizabeth Shaw (Ophelia) takes the role of Hamlet, asking TO BE OR NOT TO BE in the midst of mayhem - it was implicit criticism of the partiarchal system behind the corporation, which still observes women as unworthy of reasoning.[/quote]
She not exactly asking to be or not to be, its more like, look WTF is the problem here, presumably to be followed by " but look theres a spirtual dualism emotional struggle in some humans type blah "..which is a clear central theme of the film. Patriarchy doesn't think women unworthy of reasoning, but that they are not capable of taking reasoning to logical and extreme conclusions. Remember all the WMD, wars etc are the result of human reasoning and one side baiting another side to make a move first so they can claim reason (moral high ground). Reason is a misused term nowadays, as if its the wonder of everything.
It is David who does the poisoning (still not clear why exactly except playful morbid curiosity, or that he liked being alone on the ship). Maybe its as simple as the engineer just takes one look at David and sees the humans (as the conclusion of reason) have created psychopaths as their higher form of engineering, which affirms his ideas (orders ?) that they humans have to be gotten rid of for reasons A,B and C (take your pick).
rogerharris
MemberOvomorphJun-03-2012 6:45 PMor maybe it was just visual. Knock Daves head off made for good cinema, subsequent scenes visually and also kept consistency with the previous treatment to robots in aliens movies.
Ridley scott isnt that deep as in the George lucas sense of mythology.
Hes more a mans man type of thinker, everyday thinks more like a working class hero. A lot of his movies are about strong characters and how they respond, maintain integrity, compassion etc when constrained within tight and oppressive systems OR how they step up to the plate as individuals when big brothers groupthink sheeptank F**S things up.
dejan
MemberOvomorphJun-03-2012 6:45 PMor star trek type government, and all that alien stuff.
I was thinking of STAR TREK more in relation to David himself, although the relationship is highly ambiguous (DOUBLE) as are most other things in the film. David has Spock's rationality and sense of wonder, but that is quickly undermined as in the ''star map'' scene where the magnificent map suddenly turns off and you're left with darkness. Suddenly it seems there is no system, no grand purpose, no big design - just the lonely empty universe.
AGain, I think this resonates with the situation we face today, in the late stages of capitalism, where we feel like we've reached the end of history on the one hand, but have the gnawing sense that the Apocalypse could be just around the corner what with all the environmental destruction and economic malaise.
The plot with Elisabeth and the Engineer reminded me of Kubrick's SHINING, especially because she's carrying an ax (like the Shelley Duvall character in Kubrick's film). It's basically the Daddy/Father figure/King coming back to stalk her. That the father is then fucked in the mouth by the hydra/facehugger is in line with the ALIEN's neatly subversive attack on the patriarchal system, the ''male rape motif''.
dejan
MemberOvomorphJun-03-2012 6:53 PMHes more a mans man type of thinker, everyday thinks more like a working class hero.
Don't get me wrong, I never for a second in my life thought Ridley Scott was the world's greatest director - he is an excellent craftsman, and a very good industrial designer, hence the incredible look of most of his movies. ALIEN is incredible as a piece of visual design, but that's not in Scott's direction, which is just conventional advertising direction actually. But I think credit in Prometheus as a film is much more to Dan O'Bannon, Walter Hill and the much-maligned David Lindeloff, who I think is a very talented writer.
dejan
MemberOvomorphJun-03-2012 7:07 PMIt is David who does the poisoning (still not clear why exactly except playful morbid curiosity, or that he liked being alone on the ship).
Well David is also QUEER (I underline queer, because I don't mean that he is a homosexual, rather, that he is gender-ambiguous) and in this sense subversive to the ruling patriarchal order of the King and of the Weyland Corporation. It makes sense that he would want to kill the father.
But I agree that he doesn't do it out of evil or malice, more out of philosophical type curiosity; like Hamlet, he wants answers to existence.
But what I aim at more generally is that all this ambiguity is what is actually WELCOME. The complaint of the large majority of fans (and critics) that things are not well-rounded, coherent, explained, I see as the strength of the film. And I think by having such a strong reaction to this chaos, the fans are showing that the film activated them even when they didn't like it.
Add A Reply
