AlienDirector: Ridley ScottGenre: Science Fiction / Fantasy Publisher: 20th Century Fox Released: 1979 MPAA Rating: R Cast: Tom Skerritt, Sigourney Weaver, Harry Dean Stanton, John Hurt, Ian Holm |
A Review by John Nesbit
05/07/2001
Story Elements
While the art direction effectively establishes the dark universe of Alien, Jerry Goldsmith’s haunting score reinforces the bleak emptiness. Like Star Wars and 2001, the special effects hold up surprisingly well over 20 years later. These effects are all we see for the first several minutes as the camera pans over the vast spaceship that looks like it could have served as a freighter for either Kubrick or Lucas. As the camera moves inside, we are visually introduced to Mother, Alien’s version of HAL. There is no dialogue, and we do not even see any humans for several minutes.
Then we are brought into a white room (reminiscent of Kubrick) where the crew of seven is hibernating. They come to life before we lose all interest, and we are quickly introduced during the first breakfast they’ve had for months. But we never get to know them very well, which is one of the greatest weaknesses of the film.
The two mechanics are more concerned about getting their shares than anything, and Brett’s conversation consists of one word most of the time—“right!” I suppose that is meant as a touch of humor, but it comes across very flat. In fact none of the crew members is especially likable, and I blame the screenplay for that. It does so little to humanize them, and we don’t even see a lot of competence on their part for even being on a mission. The only thing the mechanics have in common with a character like Star Trek’s Scotty is knowing how to ask for more time to fix a problem than is necessary.
Perhaps that is the vision of the future that director Scott has in mind. Is this a future where any Joe Schmoe goes off into space without training to work for a living? If so, Scott should communicate this more. I could theorize that this 1979 film foretells the values of the coming decade, with its essentially empty values and materialism, but that’s stretching it.
Shortly we do learn that Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) is the only one with any common sense—at least she knows all the proper procedures. Still, we never get to know much more about Ripley—but we eventually realize that she is the most competent and steady person on the crew. Since the others ignore her wisdom, they seal their fate, and we’re almost relieved when some of them become an alien lunch.
Lambert (Veronica Cartwright) is a chronic complainer who folds under pressure, while Kane (John Hurt) plays a doofus who sticks his hands where he shouldn’t. Dallas (Tom Skerritt) is the leader who does give some commands, but goes against Ripley’s wisdom in the wrong places, a blunt way of establishing some socially relevant women’s issues in the film. Science officer Ash (Ian Holm) is no Spock. He demonstrates little scientific knowledge, and mostly establishes himself as a real jerk and adversary to Ripley.
As the ship is proceeding, we need some excuse to pick up another life form. Back in 1979 we had seen the pre-film publicity, so we knew that an evil alien had to come into play—one that was so hideous that it would change and grow and get more deadly … but that’s getting a little ahead of the story.
We do get that necessary excuse in the form of an unidentifiable transmission. Of course, Ripley correctly reminds them that this is “not our system,” but she is ignored—naturally! Curiosity rules. The crew sets the ship down on a hostile, windy, lava-based planet and promptly damages the ship. This is no big deal since the down time gives an opportunity for three of the crew to silently explore the mysterious dark planet.
It also gives us another chance to briefly glimpse the conflict between Ripley and Ash, as Ripley disputes the science officer’s claim that the transmission may be an “S.O.S.” Ripley believes that it looks more like a warning. By now, we suspect that Ripley is right but also realize that she must be ignored for the plot to continue in predictable fashion.
Without the alien aboard we wouldn’t have much of a movie plot going, so doofus boy Kane gets himself and the crew into a fine mess by exploring a number of eggs lying beneath a misty layer and ending up with an octopus-like creature all over his face. Of course Ripley is overruled once again, and Kane is admitted inside for medical treatment. Actually, a better way to phrase this: Kane serves as a guinea pig for pseudoscientific observation purposes.
Now that the enemy has boarded the ship, we can proceed with the real plot. From the prerelease publicity back in 1979, we already knew that the alien would mutate into a larger and stronger creature, would have acid for blood, and would be virtually unstoppable—the perfect organism.
From that premise, we can pretty much figure the essentials, as the storyline follows the classic teen-slasher formula coupled with the typical science fiction ending. One of the crew will survive while the rest will be wiped out, and the eventual means will end up being very simple. Who this hero will be is easily predictable even if you are clueless about any of the sequels. I must give Ridley Scott some credit because there are a couple of interesting surprises within this structure—one involving the identity and motives of one of the crew members and the other taking place in a classic dinner scene.
With Scott, it’s a matter of technique
I also must credit Scott for creating a memorable landscape that sets up a good series of science fiction stories. He certainly knows how to create a dark, gothic atmosphere and make us feel a sense of foreboding throughout the film. Scott’s visual artistry has turned out to be the strongest part of many of his movies, including Blade Runner and Gladiator. Technically, Scott has consistently demonstrated that he ranks among the best popular film artists.
Unfortunately, Scott’s film doesn’t work for me as well in other areas. In a science fiction genre I like films that develop a character that I can care about, and films that make me think and stretch my imagination. Alien doesn’t do either for me. At least not on its own. *note: due to the sequel Aliens, I found that I was more sympathetic towards the one character who survives.
As far as thinking goes, the alien doesn’t show any superior creative thinking skills, nor do the humans. The best the crew can come up with to combat the unstoppable enemy rests with the cave man approach of using fire to scare the creature. Meanwhile the alien just creeps around the air ducts and chomps down victims at will. That’s about as subtle as WWF wrestling, but much less involving because I didn’t care that much for any of the characters anyway.
I feel that the screenplay and the director are primarily responsible for the weaknesses of Alien. The screenplay is largely vacant, and we are given little information to make us bond with any of the characters. Since Ridley Scott makes the final decisions on putting the film together, he must take responsibility for the character vacuum.
It’s certainly not the actors’ faults that the film comes across so sterile. After all, Weaver, Skerritt, Holm, and Hurt have all demonstrated superior acting talent over the years. It’s a shame that these actors were given such weak material to work with in Alien, and no special director’s commentary on the latest DVD disc can justify the weaknesses in the script. Scott has shown a tendency to create movies with great visual quality but underdeveloped characters whenever he deals with science fiction or the epic genre—Blade Runner and Gladiator being notable examples.
Fortunately, Scott’s Alien landscape did leave a lot of alien eggs out there in the silence of space, and enough people did scream so that sufficient money was made to justify a sequel that works much better (but that is another review).
Besides the visual eye candy and a couple of interesting plot twists, what I can admire about Alien is similar to what Ash admires about the alien: “its sense of survival; unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality.”
© Copyright ToxicUniverse.com 05/07/2001
