Skip to main content

    I love this community, and what it has been able to do on occasion.  I realize the main thrust here has always been activism, but it has functioned as a community as well, and people bring what they can to it.  Sometimes, I bring activism in the form of my own diaries, suggestions and comments.  Right now, I'm actually working on that in real space.  Hopefully, more to come on that front.

     However, I want to start a new series here on dKos, sharing one of the other things I do in the real world.  I'm a psychiatrist by trade, and my hobby is psychodynamic analysis of characters and plots in speculative fiction (Sci-Fi, Superheroes, Fantasy).  I've lectured at a few Comic-Cons, and I've written down a lot more material than that.  Analyzing famous people you've never met is unethical in my trade, but assessing fiction and using it to illustrate points about human psychology has a long and honorable tradition.

     To be honest, I'm going where the eyeballs are, as I'm beginning to think writing these things just for my friends is not really satisfying.

     Here are a few thoughts on Prometheus, which I'll divide into two diaries.  Subsequent diaries will deal with other shows/books/comics, some present day and some from the recent past.  Spoilers ahead.

    There's been a lot of speculation around Prometheus, mainly over whether certain elements of the plot constitute sloppiness on the parts of Damon Lindelof and Ridley Scott, or whether they are intentional elements of a puzzle film.  In a way, the reception to the film is a lot like Blade Runner, and the film shares as much DNA with that Ridley Scott work as it does with Alien.  In fact, I could imagine the three pictures now representing three points on a single timeline of future human history.  Certainly, the interpretation of Phillip Dick's Replicants in Scott's Blade Runner and his portrayal of synthetic humans in Prometheus and Alien express certain misgivings over the nature of humanity and whether we are too immature to be creators of responsible entities.  They are related metaphors from a single author.

     The current brou-ha-ha in the web community is, of all things, "were the Engineers mad at humanity for killing Jesus?"  I'm going to leave this to theologians who like science fiction.  In short, this way-out-there question is based on the fact that parts of the facility in the film were about 2000 years old, and that Ridley Scott seems to have implied in a recent interview that he and Lindelof discussed whether Jesus was an Engineer sent to redirect humanity at the start of the Roman Empire.  Much like the "Is Deckard a Replicant?" question from Blade Runner, this will provide fans with decades of debate that is largely besides the point.  It is true that the film can be seen as a twisted spin on the New Testament, with wanderers arriving to an inhospitable desert sanctuary on Christmas Eve, an impossible birth announced by a sexless homunculus, isolation to a "manger" for an impossible delivery, an amoral potentate seeking miracles without redemptive faith, shattering of a "Temple Curtain," a resurrection of the Impossible Child from his tomb, and bodily assumption of the Mother into Heaven.  The designation of the moonbase, LV223, apparently leads to a verse in Leviticus (22:3) that has to do with defiling the Temple and angering the Israelite God.  But again, these are matters beyond my ability to discuss them above a cocktail party level.

     Instead, let's just deal with two main aspects of the film, and where psychiatric theories can give us insight and further appreciation of the narrative.  Both concern the filmmakers' ideas about empathy versus individualistic survivalism.  One thread runs through the relationship between the Engineers and Humanity, as illustrated by the puzzle in the film, the responses of different crew members to the Engineer trap being sprung, and Liz Shaw's story.  The other thread concerns the very odd familial triad of Weyland, his daughter Vickers, and most importantly, the inhuman "child" David.  I'll get back to this triad in the next diary, and touch back on Blade Runner and Alien in the process.

     At its simplest level, the conflict between empathy and individualistic survivalism is one of sacrifice versus self-preservation.  The latter has always seemed to be the evolutionary imperative, the "animal" nature of humanity, leaving empathy seemingly in the provenance of theology and certain secular philosophies.  Even the early psychoanalysts saw the "base impulses" of Id to be primary, consuming and reproducing as the animals did, and the "civilizing influences" of Superego to magically appear through the ministrations of parents and societal rules.  We are now just coming to challenge these notions in earnest, as we find brain circuits vital to a sense of feeling the pain of others, and realizing that they are highly overlapping with the social learning circuits that likely gave our hominid ancestors a literal "leg up" on the quadrapedal competition through the manufacture and instruction in tool making/use.  Cognitive neuroscientists like Jean Decety have found that self-reflection, painful remorse, identification with others, social responsiveness and autognosis (understanding one's own emotional/cognitive state) are all dependent on some of the same cortical real estate, and that learning from others is intimately tied into all of this on a basic wiring level.  Paleoanthropology has begun to debate to what extent our balance of individual autonomy and group dynamics gave us advantages over other primates, apes and hominids.  Richard Leakey succinctly expresses this as the idea that a bipedal creature will have great evolutionary pressure to cooperate, as an asocial biped with a broken leg will not be likely to survive.  It doesn't just take a village to raise a child, it takes a village to live long enough to conceive one.

     On its surface, of course, Prometheus is a Von Danikenesque story that steals back the holiness of empathy from these scholars of human brains, development and evolution.  We have these impulses because our creators were the kinds of beings who would kill themselves in order to seed new worlds.  They were also white and blue eyed, but let's not get too far off track now.  The thing is, the film never conclusively establishes that they made us.  The mythos hints at their visiting periodically and influencing cultures, as well as having a change of heart sometime in the early Roman Imperial period (although the root cause may have been in Asia or Africa or America or everywhere at once).  It also states clearly that they are related to us genetically, and by extension, to Bonobos and Chimps.  The thing is, the mythos is open-ended enough that it doesn't negate what we know scientifically, and several characters raise the incongruity of Shaw's interpretation with known biology.  She sees the DNA match as validating her theories, but it only establishes a common lineage.  The Engineers may have been a culture of humans so far advanced that they left Earth tens of millennia prior.  Ridley Scott states that the opening sequence is meant to establish the Engineers' psychology, rather than it showing what happened on Earth.  They are seeding many worlds, and they have an aim for the hominids here on Earth.  More than that we do not find out.

   Thus, Von Danikenesque or not, the story is one of humanity falling short of loftier goals that involve the denial of self-preservation.  This isn't just the Prometheus crew, or us chimps down here on Terra, but the Engineers of the LV223 installation.  The first we see them on LV223, in a holo-playback, they are fleeing something.  This something leads to widespread death and bodily defilement.  It is the interaction of the bioactive muck with them that has led to this something.  However, we know that the muck can do different things to different beings.  It may have mutated some of the worms on the planet into body rending serpents.  It turns the craven geologist into a rampaging wendigo gone amok.  On the Engineer head with the panic center (locus ceruleus) activated, it is literally explosive, a dark mirror image to the gradual dissolve at the start of the film.  And mixed with reproductive cells in humans, it leads to a rapidly gestating Xenomorph face hugger.  At least one Xenomorph has already been unleashed by this process before the Prometheus gets there, as it is in a wall mural in the storage room, and this may have been the Something that hunted down the Engineers.  But this is ostensibly the same (or similar) muck to the stuff at the start of the film, which is harsh but ultimately benevolent in result.  Is the muck different, or does its effect depend on the user?  What if the fear in the LV223 Engineers is what weaponized the substance?  And conversely, what if the subtle effects of the substance on the Engineers made their motivations darker than that of their brethren?  If they were as willing to die as their kinsperson at the beginning of the film, they could have launched a suicide mission, loaded up with the goop in their own bodies, and unleashed it upon landing and coming out of stasis.  That isn't their plan.  And that mural of the Xenomorph doesn't look like a warning.  It looks like a shrine.  Something is different about the psychology of these Engineers.

     I wouldn't be a Science Fiction fan without my own pet theory.  What if they never turned on us per se?  What if they had some of this muck in select locations, away from most people's view, in various places on Earth?  Then, whatever we did that was so messed up, whether it was unseating the Roman Republic, crucifying Jesus, destroying the Holy of Holies in Jerusalem (that's a good place to hide bioactive muck), having Russell Crowe fight Joaquin Phoenix, or some Dynastic Coup in China ... whatever it was polluted the goop with hostile intentions, and the Engineers took it to the LV223 "Human-Engineer Visitor's Center" to see if they could fix it.  This makes more sense than setting up a weapons facility on the moon to which they gave directions already. The Earth Embassy was retconned into a decontamination site for the Earth biomuck. This failed.  It unleashed nightmarish biotech, but also changed the Engineers on the moon itself.  At some point, the muck changed the thinking of the Engineers on that world, hence the mural deifying the Xenomorph and the stockpiling of the muck to unleash (or perhaps to venerate).

    The best evidence for this failure of empathy on LV223 is that one of the Engineers finally decides: "Screw this.  I'm safe in this ship, so I'm going into stasis."  When he comes out, he is not a high-minded angel.  He is disappointed at Weyland, and responds by using the human's creation (David) as a blunt weapon.  Now, he doesn't owe Weyland any more of an explanation than Dr Tyrell did for Roy Batty, when Roy had the same wish to look upon his creator and ask for more life.  But when Tyrell hems and haws and refuses to try, we are supposed to see it as a flawed human move, and we almost sympathize with Batty's extreme reaction.  Here, the clearly flawed being is the Engineer, and Shaw merely asks what went wrong.  The Engineer believes itself to be above its creations, above its dead comrades, and above reproach.  When it is stopped by an act of sacrifice by the Prometheus flight crew, it does not question its judgment of the little humans.  It goes on a rampage to kill the human who questioned it.  There is a lot of dialogue devoted to the flawed nature of David's creation and tutelage, but the implied narrative about creation is that our "guides" are also a decidedly mortal/flawed lot.  David is the only character to explicitly state this, but the behavior of the Engineers, as much as it can be deciphered, is one of seemingly condemning behavior that they themselves are prone to carrying out.  In a pinch, or under the effects of bad bioactive muck, or both, they opt for saving their own skins and lashing back at any and all who would threaten it.

     Maybe, then, the Engineers are the stand-in for the innate capacity for great acts in either direction.  They are not the past, so much as what we could become.  They are what we know instinctually is "in us."  We can elect to take an inclusive view that sees all our acts, creations and neighbors as carrying pieces of us, and that leads to a wide net of preservation that may motivate us to act in a fashion that does not prioritize our own immediate interests or even our immediate safety.  Or we can focus on threats, excluding others, attacking others, and seeing legacy in a very narrow light.  As Pinker points out in "Better Angels of Our Nature," you can't take the group minded view if everyone around you is slashing their sword, so neither is automatically more adaptive.  The flexibility to go back and forth is adaptive, so long as the overall trend among all people is towards the broader view.  This is also not purely partisan, for those keeping score at home, although it is political.  Here, most people would say, "Oh, we're progressives, so we take the altruistic view."  Not when we focus on the threat from conservatives, and from my POV, rightly so.  In fact, the "pearl clutchers" vs. "red meat progressive" arguments here are between the empathic vs. survivalist viewpoints.  And I myself have alternated camps, depending on the item being debated.

     But back to Prometheus, and how the crew of tiny people is as variable as the Engineers.  With the exception of three members, the crew is representative of a humanity without mythos.  Here at DailyKos, we might see this as a good thing, an Earth clear-eyed and unbound from ancient superstition.  However, mythology is a good thing.  As first articulated by Henry James and later by Carl Jung, myth provides metaphors for the unfathomable, and allows people to cope with capriciousness in life.  Not everything can be known in one person's lifetime, and this will confound the person who lacks stories to root his or her experience.  Failure to have a sense of one's own story at the end of life is associated with despair or desperate actions, as per Erikson, and this task is difficult to achieve without a broader cultural story.  Carrying myths is not the same as substituting belief for knowledge, as secular individuals who avidly read speculative fiction have a cosmic mythos without any degree of faith in it.  Prometheus' crew, for the most part, are not these kinds of secular individuals.  They speak in terms of money, sex, power, and discoverable fact.  Even Weyland, who has some degree of unscientific belief, does not want a cosmic framework for his life, only cosmic powers; he has not achieved Eriksonian ego integrity at the end, serving as an Ozymandias figure placed into space opera.  It is really Shaw and her partner who strive to rediscover a mythos, and neither utilizes it to allow for mystery.  They must have a personal relationship with the Engineers, which places them on equal footing.  Given that the Engineers are not gods, this is logically reasonable, but in so far as they are inscrutable this is not a recipe for success.  Perhaps we could even go so far as to say that the rise of personal-level theology and the decline of mystery about 2000 years ago is what caused the catastrophe with/among the Engineers.    

     Many of the crew have been locked in by a lifetime of exposure to corporate materialism.  The geologist is so set on his job that he is more frightened of the mission expanding into archeo-biomedicine than he is at the sight of the dead bodies or malevolent biotech, although the latter disturb him plenty.  He has become overly specialized.  The biologist is almost a parody of how fundamentalists see many of us here, unwilling to challenge past theory and implicitly trusting of fauna that clearly looks sinister to us.  Neither of them can see well anymore, nor critically examine information outside their training.  No wonder we witness signal glitches and errant static and broken visors do them in: outside data is increasingly meaningless to their thought processes.  And the LV223 trap plays on their flawed singular-mindedness when it transforms them.  The more motivated biologist is hollowed out by the creatures he wishes to study.  The greedier geologist is transformed into a singular minded killing machine, mowing down anything living in his path.  Even the doctor, who does not meet a bitter end, merely acts as a functionary.  Eventually, unquestioning of her directives, she is a willing pawn in David's side projects.  She has become slave to a machine, less creative than a robot.  There is no meaning left in any of these professionals' lives, a lack which is merely made explicit as the Prometheus mission goes off the rails.  The corporation has hollowed out and stripped much of the empathic thinking from these people.  More tragically, their survivalism is no longer individualistic, having been utilized by Weyland Corporation as a subversive means of control.  Slavoj Zizek, a popular psychoanalyst and philosopher in Slovenia, has written volumes on the lack created by the modern materialist imperative to continually consume in the pursuit of individual enjoyment.  I await his response to this element of the film, as I am pretty sure he will carry out an even more detailed analysis of it.

     This control is not absolute, however, as the flight crew manages to break out of it.  For much of the film, they speak flippantly about bets and sex and collector's items they have bought.  They retaliate impotently against their female boss by using objectifying language, brought to a head by Idris Elba's captain challenging her humanity by daring her to have sex with him.  If she can satisfy lust, then she's not a machine, recapitulating the erroneous thinking of the humans in Blade Runner.  Even his devil-may-care warbling of "Love the One You're With," which elicited a chuckle from the audience, has a darker undertone that the sexual revolution has reached a flaccidly unsatisfying and meaningless hedonistic conclusion.  To touch back to Freud, there is only Id craving other things, with atrophied Egos that cannot generate complete senses of autonomous selves.  Yet, faced with the destruction of the planet, these men find something else to prize on it.  We never know their individual motivations in detail, although the Captain speaks for a time on the imperative that the rest of humanity be able to go on.  They will not receive things or even recognition for this.  They will not collect on their bets with each other.  It does not seem that they anticipate heavenly reward either, although they allude vaguely to "the other side."  Instead, the idea that they share enough basic humanity with those back home is sufficient to trigger the "other circuitry" that acts in opposition to consuming and persisting.  Even unrecognized, something of themselves will remain in distant and close relatives who will live to see another day.  They cannot articulate it, but their bravery speaks it.  And it is instinctual, whereas the other impulses have been reinforced by the civilization, in concert with more recent psychological theory that does not see one or the other impulse as more innate.

     Let's finish by looking a bit at Shaw.  She has been turned into an outsider by her own life circumstances.  She has serially lost both parents as a child and has discovered she is infertile.  Thus, she is cut off from the most immediate level of the biological thread early on.  Her deeply held theories on human development are not widely accepted, as she must rely on an eccentric billionaire for funding (although the state of governmental grants is unclear in this world's backstory).  Her talents do not readily bring her acclaim or power.  There is nothing driving her other than personal satisfaction.  She wants to be proven right, but since she already believes she is correct, data is always spun into confirming her narrative.  There is very little narcissistic weakness for the world of 2089 to play off of and manipulate.  That said, she is hardly concerned with humanity as a whole, except as a study piece.  She and her partner form a pair walled off to some extent from others, and she herself seems largely walled off from instinct.  The drive present is one to know.  In some fashion, she is the character most alike to David, rather than Vickers.

     According to Jeffrey Arnett, who formulated the concept of Emerging Adulthood about 20 years ago, the transition from adolescence to full adulthood in the modern age is one of determining where to live, what to do, and who to love.  His ideas are an expansion on concepts of adult identity first articulated by the first generation of Freudians, as well as the young adult conflict of Intimacy vs. Isolation postulated by Erikson.  This phase of development is supposed to be marked by repeated failure, as well as multiple breaks and rapproachment with the elder generation.  Inability to have a solid sense of answers to the three lifestyle questions by the mid-30s is often associated with continued immaturity in interpersonal interactions and/or a midlife crisis.  Shaw, who has been robbed of an elder generation and does not appear to have replacement proxies, has followed the example of her widowed father.  There has never been a chance for rebellion.  She sees her life's work as primary, which determines her partner and her world-traversing lifestyle.  She enters her mid-30s without a hint of crisis, but also without much ability to interact with people outside her work.  This is not the careerism present in the other crew, as she can think critically about a wide range of topics, but her social development seems frozen.  She relies upon her partner as the spokesperson and interlocutor for much of the first half of the film.  In fact, until the crisis reaches its climax, she almost appears to have a less rich emotional inner life than David (who as we will discuss in the next diary, is likely hiding his responses).

     This changes as her partner is ripped from her.  This not only challenges her assumptions about the benevolence of the Engineers, but strips her of her intermediary.  She is exposed to the hostile world for the first time since the death of her father, making David's touch back to this event all the more cruel.  Having opted for one clearly intimate relationship, she can choose total Isolation or find a way to rely on others.  As she is betrayed by David, by the medical crew, by Vickers and Weyland, and by the Engineer, she relies more and more on her life's mission.  Her quest for answers, never at odds with whatever the details of her Christian faith are, becomes even more central.  And her Christian faith cannot be that of the literalist, even if she believes that Jesus and the Engineers are one and the same, as she has ideas clearly divergent from the account in Genesis.  Pursuing that mission first takes her on a survivalist path, and then shifts to a more inclusive view.

     The medical bay Caesarean is a survivalist action in some ways but not others.  On one level, she is the archetypal female action heroine, socking out anyone standing between her and the med bay.  She endures pain and injury to live another day.  However, here, it is an unearthly child that threatens to kill her.  Her child, in a sense, as it shares some genetic material with her, or at the very least with that of her partner.  But Shaw is uniquely qualified to recognize that this creature is an invader rather than part of a continuing biological thread, as she already sees herself as outside that ongoing chain.  Since this is not reproduction, there is no primal level gain in sacrificing herself for it.  I am shocked that the Fundamentalists have not seized on this scene as a grotesque of the Virgin Birth, but more surprised still that either side in the Culture Wars has not seen how this is a reflection of the zeitgeist as we confront questions of delivering or terminating pregnancies with foreknowledge of congenital/genetic malformations.  The dedicated modern woman, with an adult existence centered outside of home and hearth, who elects to live another day rather than bring something she does not recognize as hers into this world.  This is not to boil down difficult questions to simple science fiction struggles for life and death: no potential mother (or her partner) can see any real world pregnancy as merely an alien invader.  Nonetheless, uncanny narrative threads in horror or gothic or any speculative story where reality's rules are suspended ends up reflecting that which cannot be spoken of comfortably in the real world.  This is what Freud called Unheimlich, which means both Uncanny and "The Un-Hidden."  This pregnancy, both enabled and poisoned by the Man of Technology (who is also a Corporate Man!), is only a terrible choice thrust upon her.  And she must rely upon yet more corporate technology to save her, which she must both appropriate forcibly and then convince/reprogram to do the job.  Is this not the impossible nightmare our moral arguments and advanced knowledge have thrust upon every woman, the seemingly barren and the fertile alike?  Even now, do we not hear the Corporatist funded scolds redirecting women and their physicians to always choose measures to bring every pregnancy to delivery, like David and his effortless take-over of the Weyland med crew?  Even in nations where access is not an issue and pollution is being addressed, is the foreknowledge we can now have not the genesis of such nightmares, made all the more scary by the fact that the developing fetus is part of our biological chain?  This is survivalism turned in on itself.

     Having made the terrible choice to rip a creature from her womb, Shaw is now met with almost preternatural calm by David, Vickers and Weyland.  She is not taken back to the cryo-beds, nor arrested, or even reprimanded.  Weyland is more concerned with her accompanying them on his quest for more life.  The corporation and its godhead must persist.  The implied option is: "If you will not bear a child for the corporation, will you nurture the corporation itself?  If you will not act solely for yourself, can you broaden your worldview to support me?"  However, these are purchases, not empathic pleas.  Weyland does not come as the weary senescent in need of help.  He announces that this has been his plan, that he is in control.  Having just come from one crisis of modern feminism, are we now not smack dab in the middle of the other?  If you will not bear a child, then you must be a company man.  This is also the crisis of our aging population, where so much of the work is now in health care and elder care.  Vickers and David are along for the ride, both for their own ends, and we will return to this in the next installment.  But neither accompanies Weyland entirely because they want to take care of him, even though David has followed his programming and been attentive.  They have farmed this work out to others: the scientists, the crew, the technology, the medics, and the Engineer.  People who take "pink collar" jobs in our world may often start off entirely fueled by empathy and purpose, but can quickly get drawn into much more materialistic and unempathic motivations.  This is survivalism masquerading as an empathic plea.  Shaw does not take the bait, agreeing to go along but beginning to remember her core motivations.

     Everything changes when she witnesses the battle between the Engineer and Weyland.  Denied his individualist/survivalist aims, Weyland is struck down by the Engineer, who is unimpressed with the narcissistic achievement of arriving to wake him up.  Nevertheless, the Engineer is no less driven by the same instincts, refusing to engage in a discussion about actions/morals and simply maneuvering to continue his own existence.  False gods abound in this room of mere mortals.  Remembering her discussion with the Captain, and how his motivations are already in the process of change, she takes a chance and reaches out to another for help.  She asks him to make a sacrifice that only he can, on behalf of countless people that neither of them will see again.  And then, she takes an even bigger risk, providing David with a chance to help her and offering to help him.  It is at this point that she regains her cross, lost when she was first infected with the growing invader within her.  She has begun to participate in a genuine dialogue with others, offering assistance that may not be reciprocated and making requests that may not be fulfilled.  She trusts not just in her life's mission, but in others that she is not intimate with, others who have betrayed her before.  She does this because it is the only way to allow for Earth to survive, and as it turns out, her bet pays off for herself and for Earth.  Ironically, the purely survivalist Xenomorph Facehugger acts as the Deus Ex Machina, bringing the corrupted Engineer to his end in the same way he had denied Weyland further existence.  But it acts in its singular minded way, as it has no empathic instincts.  

     In the end, Shaw's growth and reconnecting to her full human nature allows David to learn the benefit of an empathic sense.  The Immortal Man made Invalid, he is now the homunculus with broken legs, dependent on another person to help him along.  Without him, Shaw cannot achieve her more intellectual mission; without her, David has life without further experience.  We have seen the theoretical dawn of human empathy reborn, its survival advantage spelled out for us.  This recapitulates the pre-denoument of Blade Runner with Deckard and Batty, but with a happier resolution for both actors, and stands in contrast to Alien where Ripley is left alone.  In the next diary, we will go back and review the unhappy family of Vickers, Weyland and David, and speak of narcissism and malignant narcissism in more detail.  In the process, we will see how such persons (corporate and human) that lack a full capacity for a sense of the other loom large as chief antagonists in Prometheus and our own world.

Originally posted to Ptolemy on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:56 AM PDT.

Also republished by DKOMA.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (14+ / 0-)

    For those of you who prefer Bartlett to Obama, re-watch the West Wing. For those who prefer Clinton, re-watch old news videos.

    by Ptolemy on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:56:45 AM PDT

  •  The Engineers (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Intrigued me and I would like to see how a sequel would play out. Given the time frames and the number of ships that looked to be on the planet I wondered if there was a bigger plan with worlds seeded. I don't think Earth was the only one.

    Its been a few weeks since I saw the movie, but I do wonder the extent that the goo interacted with DNA to create life.

    Fascinating diary!

    The Spice must Flow!

    by Texdude50 on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 11:20:08 AM PDT

  •  Here's my take (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Scott made this movie to mess with the heads of Sci-fi fans. It leaves a million questions unanswered. In fact the one question it does answer (whether or not this was a prequel to Alien) is probably the one thing that should have been left ambiguous. It wouldn't surprise me if they make sequels to be released simultaneously given how many loose threads this movie left.

    I'm no philosopher, I am no poet, I'm just trying to help you out - Gomez (from the song Hamoa Beach)

    by jhecht on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 11:23:30 AM PDT

  •  I never even thought about the allusions to (0+ / 0-)

    the New Testament.... I just thought it was a good movie. :)

    This gives me a lot more to think about. Especially, your 'pet theory' part. I thought it was kind of weird that the one guy (it's been a few days since I saw it) said 'it's a military installation!' and everybody just said, 'oh....ok'. They never touched back on that, so it's entirely possible that was just his own preconceived notions.

    Good job and I can't wait for 'Part 2'.

    Whose interest does ignorance serve? - Carl Sagan

    by spgilbert on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 11:24:11 AM PDT

  •  Interesting analysis. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    terrypinder, 207wickedgood

    If I can expand this to the meta- level, I'd say that the parts of your diary I found least convincing are those where you analyze the characters' motivations as if they (the characters) were human beings... But the main failing of the film (I felt) is that the writers treated their characters as if they were objects to be move around rather than fully-realized (or even plausible) human beings.  In other words, the writers are guilty of the non-empathetic myopia you ascribe to the characters.

    Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

    by pico on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 11:36:07 AM PDT

    •  Now that's an interesting take (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pico, terrypinder, 207wickedgood

      Trapped in the materialist vision of corporate Hollywood.

      I'm no fan of Lindelof.  I'd like to say I stopped watching Lost because I knew it was a shaggy dog story after Season 1, but I didn't really know that.

      I'm not quite as critical of the film as you, obviously, but I agree that some of the dialogue was wooden.

      The reason that Blade Runner doesn't look the same way is because Ridley Scott and the script writers had better starting material (Phillip K Dick).

      For those of you who prefer Bartlett to Obama, re-watch the West Wing. For those who prefer Clinton, re-watch old news videos.

      by Ptolemy on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 11:57:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Without knowing for sure, my sense is that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Lindelof was responsible for a lot of the biggest problems in the film.  In interviews discussing Scott's vision and his own, he keeps coming off as the guy who made the bad choices in an otherwise interesting concept.  But that's just my impression, and there's some evidence to the contrary.*

        To give you a concrete example of what I was talking about above, take the biologist.  It's hard to discuss anything he does from the perspective of interior motivation: you describe him as "almost a parody", and indeed it's hard to explain him as a character rather than as a function of some moral critique.  But this is a problem: in a realistic film** if I don't believe in the character first and foremost, it's hard to extend any generosity to a deeper interpretation of his role.  Instead he feels like a mechanical being inserted by the writers to fulfill a thematic function, plausibility be damned.  Likewise the geologist/mapper who (wtf?) gets lost for no particular reason.  Likewise a certain character getting crushed by a falling spaceship instead of a quick jump perpendicular to its trajectory.   So many times the characters are acting not out of (what seems to be) an interior motivation, but an exterior programming.  It's as if the entire film is populated by Davids, really.  

        Which in itself is an interesting idea, but I don't think it's what Lindelof et al. intended.

        * - evidence to the contrary: the geologist/biologist shtick reminded me of the lost soldiers in Scott's Black Hawk Down, where in the middle of a tense and violent suspense film we have slapstick comic interludes with the least competent elite soldiers imaginable.  So this very well might be a (bad) Scott decision.

        ** - "realistic" in the verisimilitude sense.  In other words the characters/events are meant to be taken as "real" within the context of the film rather than abstract, purely symbolic, etc.

        Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

        by pico on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:17:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They should have had Vickers say (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pico, 207wickedgood, Lilith

          "Time to Die"

          But it would have been seen as hysterical.

          I agree that this was clumsiness.  I suspect that they are going to try to explain at some point that she does find a way to make it back to Earth.  Even if that makes ZERO sense.

          Is she the evil genius behind the Nostromo being sent out toward another crashed Engineer craft?

          For those of you who prefer Bartlett to Obama, re-watch the West Wing. For those who prefer Clinton, re-watch old news videos.

          by Ptolemy on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:26:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  My guess is that the Company back home (0+ / 0-)

            has seen/will see some of the recorded feeds and will send the Nostromo out to bring back the sample?  I guess it depends on how and whether the second film (if it gets made) moves the story forward.

            Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

            by pico on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:31:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The Nostromo ends up on LV4-something or other (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              So there's another Engineer vessel with Xenomorph stuff on another outpost.

              And that LV designation actually goes to a verse in Leviticus as to how sin offerings at the Temple must be burnt fully.  Which is what Ripley does when she returns with the Marines in Aliens, detonating the colony's reactor.

              For those of you who prefer Bartlett to Obama, re-watch the West Wing. For those who prefer Clinton, re-watch old news videos.

              by Ptolemy on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:48:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I always loved how writers put in small details (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                us film and art folks will only ever get.

                Its like car enthusiasts, they know the specifications of an engine down to every number where average Joe just wants it to be a fun ride.

                --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

                by idbecrazyif on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:57:16 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  By the way, I actually did enjoy the film (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            a lot more than I'm coming off here.  There was a lot to like about it.  It's just that its problems are so near the surface, and baffling in the context of such giant ambition.

            Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

            by pico on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:32:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I can't stand smart characters doing stupid things (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pico, Lilith

          That's what I loathed about the behavior of the biologist and Fairchild: these are supposed to be smart professionals chosen for a trillion dollar mission.

          But just like every other idiotic victim in a teen slasher movie, they get off'd doing some incredibly stupid things. I can't stand that.

          Please, if you're going to spend $50 million making a big sci fi movie, let's see some characters who act as smart as they're supposed to be.

    •  I agree with you on that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Everything felt like chess pieces being moved around a board and by the end of the movie we were only half way into the game before we were forced to get up from the table.

      --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

      by idbecrazyif on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:09:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Umm... Some art is bad. (3+ / 0-)

    I'm pretty sure there's been more thought into character motivation in this comment thread than they put into that whole movie.

    I wanted it to be great, too- Alien and Bladerunner are truely great films. ( I don't own a TV, so I've managed to skip Ridley's latest work.)

    Prometheus is schlock. I understand it was originally supposed to be two movies... maybe that's where it all went wrong.

    I felt like I was watching a very expensive episode of South Park- very expensive two dimensional characters moving in front of a very expensive two dimensional static background. South Park, however, has richer dialogue.

    •  You might want to skip the multi-part exegesis (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Of Heroes that is coming up in future weeks.

      Some schlock is amusing.
      Some schlock is schlock.
      Some schlock still has some interesting ideas, even if the execution sucks.

      For those of you who prefer Bartlett to Obama, re-watch the West Wing. For those who prefer Clinton, re-watch old news videos.

      by Ptolemy on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:23:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It went through two rewrites while production was (0+ / 0-)

      in planning.

      Your never going to get a good product when that happens.

      --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

      by idbecrazyif on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:54:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I concluded the Engineers wanted perfection (0+ / 0-)

    Humanity is a failure because we're not Engineers: we're smaller, dumber, less aesthetic, etc.  It's the only explanation for the both the decision to wipe us out (rather than just ignoring us) - the Engineers would have to be pissed off about our mere existence - and the surviving Engineer's determination to carry it out the extermination despite everything.  I somehow interpreted the prologue as a ritual suicide, and later on concluded that that Engineer's crime was a failure to be perfect.  Perfection - physical perfection, as well as purity of purpose (survival, reproduction, and predation) - is a theme in both the Alien franchise as well as in "Species": H. R. Giger's other contribution to body horror.  The titular species is incapable of reproducing except inside genetically perfect humans, and in both movies, the hybrids are played by models.

    The other idea I had draws on the motivation for Weyland-Yutani to want to exploit the Xenomorphs in later movies: humanity was intended by the Engineers to be inferior disposable breeding vessels for their bioweapon army, logically against either an enemy on their own level or against imperfect/deviant members of their own species.

    To those who say the New Deal didn't work: WWII was also government spending

    by Visceral on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:22:48 PM PDT

    •  Or we were the bioweapon (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I had originally considered that if both potentialities of the Engineers are potentialities in us, that we might have been the bioweapons lab, and that the Engineers would unleash us against enemies they were now constitutionally incapable of fighting.  The problems with this hypothesis are manifold, and there are similar issues with us always being primed for Xenomorph food.

      However, it would explain the directions given to the humans.  It was always meant as a trap.

      For those of you who prefer Bartlett to Obama, re-watch the West Wing. For those who prefer Clinton, re-watch old news videos.

      by Ptolemy on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:34:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well then, maybe (0+ / 0-)

    the Engineers realized they had become degenerates, had unleashed pure horrors with their weapons experiment, and that all those seeds they had spread would lead, sooner or later, to something much like them.

    I don't know.

    I never could figure out what the opening scene was about. Where the Engineer takes the transforming stuff and falls in the water. How that related to the rest of the film.

    The Internet is just the tail of the Corporate Media dog.

    by Jim P on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:23:57 PM PDT

  •  i'm not much fun to go to the movies with (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan, pico, 207wickedgood

    I poke holes in all the narratives and people apparently hate that. Meh.

    Prometheus was terrible. Visually appealing, but did very little otherwise. Caused no higher-level brain activity.

    The Engineers made no sense. They seeded life on Earth (and that scene oddly, had plants and stuff. What?). And then, assuming they did seed life on earth, they waited over a billion years to send an emmisary back to Earth? And said seed managed to take humanoid form? That's a plot ripped out of Star Trek (literally. It was a season 6 episode titled "The Chase").

    (Panspermia is indeed a real concept, and I suspect the writer heard of the concept in passing and then dropped it into his film. But they didn't quite do it right.)

    And ancient people were apparently aware of all of this? How?

    So much of the film was just "wow, really?" and "you have to be kidding me" and "oh, for fuck's sake!" The only character I was interested in was the robot. I can suspend my belief easily--I read science fiction and write science fiction that has wormholes and genetic engineering and a form of faster-than-light. But I still expect that science-fiction to have a bit more accuracy than just a thin veneer. Then you might as well just give everyone a light-saber and talk about midichorlians.

    (I like this series, btw, I hope you keep it up.)

    I'm struck by how the meanest, cruelest, nastiest people brag about how they live in a Christian nation. It's rather telling.

    by terrypinder on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:28:09 PM PDT

    •  It needed a tag out of Monty Python: (0+ / 0-)


      I'm still not convinced that Shaw is correct.  They might have been seeding worlds thousands of years ago, but their interest/hatred here might have been analogous to ours regarding bonobos.  Their relationship to us might not be creators, but as a different branch of the family tree that hightailed it out of here.  The "directions" from 3000-32,000 years prior might have been when they were indicating the local office where they could be reached after they left.  It might have been from when they were leaving.

      The narrative is too vague to know, and I'm not all that concerned with it.

      For those of you who prefer Bartlett to Obama, re-watch the West Wing. For those who prefer Clinton, re-watch old news videos.

      by Ptolemy on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:40:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  word of god (0+ / 0-)

        says it is Earth (word of god, in this case, being the writers).

        i mean they really could have made him Y-Chromosome Adam (the Engineer who seeded Earth/Possible Other Planet). The science would still be rather wrong, but hey, Battlestar Galactica did it with Mitochondrial Eve. And it'd fit the time frame for random cave drawings of various star maps.

        if it's not Earth, much of my criticism obviously will go away.

        I'm struck by how the meanest, cruelest, nastiest people brag about how they live in a Christian nation. It's rather telling.

        by terrypinder on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:55:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Scott has said it isn't, or it doesn't matter. (0+ / 0-)

          I'm not sure about the writers, though.  I mentioned above that there seems to be some conflict between what Scott imagined he was doing and what the writers did.   Which is weird, but it's how he works, sometimes.

          And your criticisms are still apt, because we still get that 'our DNA matches!' scene in the middle of the film.

          Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

          by pico on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:19:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Caused negative higher-level brain activity (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Watching this movie actively makes you dumber.

      Why were the Engineers providing all the different primitive societies on Earth with a star map to a weapons factory whose sole apparent purpose was to make weapons to kill said humans thousands of years later?

      My personal favorite: David's head is ripped off and left lying on the floor of the alien spaceship. Then the spaceship takes off, is rammed, crashes, and rolls. And David's head is lying in exactly the same spot.

      The movie is just a big f-you to the audience. "You'll pay to see my pretty pictures; nothing else matters." Seriously, just release the thing without a sound-track and it immediately gains in quality. As an art gallery showing, it's pretty cool; as a piece of fiction, it's criminally stupid.

  •  i think he ruined the dying (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Alien franchise.

    -You want to change the system, run for office.

    by Deep Texan on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:56:09 PM PDT

  •  I have to come back and read this again (0+ / 0-)

    to comment in any way that has substance.  Thank you for posting this.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site