Recent Viewing Part IV

Yes, very much so. Almost in every nook and cranny of the story and mise-en-scene.

If you can run it through Google Translate, you can read more about my findings and interpretations in this Norwegian article:

http://montages.no/2017/05/hybrid-og-hy … -covenant/

I agree with Aidabaida. There are indeed tons of cultural references, some nice symbolism and alluring metaphors. Yet all this is accidental, it's not worked into the substance of the narrative. Basically this is a fine looking, if rather pointless remake of the original film. The Xenomorph Awakens.

Volker

Unless you've watched it already, Breaking Bad is a must !! Season 1 is great and by the time it reaches season 5 the series has become unforgettable.

The one thing that makes Alien the classic that it is and will be remembered for decades, unlike Alien: Covenant (even though I like the new film), is the tense atmosphere and the feeling of terror that is palpable throughout the film. I contribute a lot of that atmosphere to the genius of Goldsmith, something which the new film wisely attempted to integrate, but ultimately lacks in.

The Freudian inferences in the original Alien, however, are also heavily present in the script at least since one of the drafts. After writing the first draft they were wondering how to raise the fear factor, looked at each other and went "we're gonna fucking rape them".

The whole idea of the the facehugger performing oral rape and later a man is forced to give birth, essentially, the fact that the only survivor is actually female is quite subversive to this day. That said, I think that the visual expansion on these themes might have been more of a "collective subconscious" element to the design at least on Ridley's side (didn't Giger have to actually tone down the sexual undertones of his alien design?), to add Jung to the mix, because I'm pretty sure Ridley Scott hasn't really read Freud as he doesn't seem to be exactly the most philosophically educated director on the planet.

I'd actually love to see the art school curriculum from his time.

I agree with this. It seems hasty to attribute the tense atmosphere to "deep subconscious symbolism", when there are so many better explanations waiting; claustrophobic atmosphere, suffocating music, likable characters who we don't want to see die, keeping an enemy hidden, an enemy whose true power is unknown, a gruesome, bizarre method of reproduction.

I find Doctor Who's Weeping Angels to be easily among the most startlingly chilling creatures in recent memory but its not because of deep subconscious symbolism, its because a statue that only moves when you're not looking is scary.

Does Jaws have deep Freudian symbolism? Or is it just a well made movie.

I'd be interested in a study to see if "Freudian symbolism" has really any effect whatsoever on a viewer, especially given that, you know, most of Freud's theories have been completely discredited or shown to be un-provable.

It seems to my completely subjective, uneducated opinion, that filmmakers such as Scott pepper references to philosophy and culture and art not because these things add to the movie, but because they know film-scholars and critics will pick up on them and make much of them.

I enjoyed Alien: Covenant. I thought it was a perfectly tense, scary movie, but that's because it was well-made, well-paced, not because of deep subconcious symbolism. I thought it had some interesting ideas, but when they existed, they were demonstrated by the actions and words of the characters, not moody quoting of Shelley and references to Wagner. To put it sort of bluntly, characters sitting and talking about high-brow art isn't really the same as creating some good art yourself.

One of my favorite movies, "Pan's Labyrinth" contains plenty of artistic allusions and references to other movies, but these references are not accomplished by characters sitting and quoting poems to each other, they're accomplished by the design and make of the movie; the fact that Ophelia's dress is modeled off Alice's from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, the stack of red shoes in the Pale Man's lair calling to mind the Holocaust, they add to, rather interfere with, the story.

which references and subtext did you see communicated subtly in Covenant?

Did you read the whole article I posted? I know it's a hassle to use Google Translate, but I'd rather not re-type everything in English. "Subtle" is in the eye of the beholder (some are subtle, some are less subtle), but the point is that Scott doesn't only use dialogue to communicate these ideas. He also uses visuals and sound. And it all feels organic.

I think it does, yes, which I point out in the rest of the paragraph. Ramesses II is another representation of the basic hamartia (fatal mistake) or hubris wherein a powerful person lets his ambitions run away from him, thus ensuring the destruction of his civilization. Striving for divine perfection is a futile enterprise. Of course -- in this context -- it's telling that David erroneously credits the poem to Byron (as Walter points out), thus underlining his lack of this divine perfection; his ultimate self-delusion.

A lot of these references -- both in dialogue (as in this case) or in visuals -- probably fly by most of the audience's head. Most of them are probably in it just for the "slasher in space". But that's OK. The fact that they are THERE, and are inserted with such elegance, allows for more layers to discover for those that are on the lookout for them. They're not really needed either, to get enjoyment from the picture -- the film works perfectly well on a 'surface level' too. Just as 'hybrid' is a theme of the movie, so too is the narrative shaped like a hybrid between the previous films and PROMETHEUS.

Well, the point is that Ozymandias -- as featured in Shelley's poem -- is the Greek name for Ramesses II, and in Scott's version of that particular story, his foils and ambitions very much overlap with David's in this movie. Not saying that it's necessarily a reference to his own movie, but it's obviously a reference to his interpretation of the biblical character in question.

It's also very telling that David only quotes the part of the poem that is 'celebratory'. He neglects the second part which describes the downfall of such ambitions. In other words, he says:

And on the pedestal these words appear:
‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!’

...but neglects the second, crucial part:

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

I'm so glad that I just enjoy a film relatively superficially, enjoying a story for its own sake and without all the sometimes-forced 'meaning.'

It can be quite problematic at times, as it really seems that anything goes in terms of film studies (admitting that as I'm doing my PhD in film now), but meaning itself is not and should not be forced. A good adage comes from Tom Clancy:

The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction must make sense.

i actually completely agree with this, which is why it annoys me when people draw more meaning from a movie than seems actually rational, because it sends the message that 'film experience' or 'film analysis' is about making sure you've memorized the entire literary and philosophical canon.

i wouldn't be surprised if the over-analysis and focus on nebulous 'symbolism' is a huge factor in why young people dislike classic literature. if they were just given the basics on the author's life and the themes in the book, they might have the freedom to construct meaning from the book themselves.



Thomas Pynchon would like a word with you.

With Tom Clancy, not me.

What you are discussing though is the problem with canon and setting up a school curriculum (granted, right now I don't think that Alien is obligatory viewing in, say, primary school ) with things being taught a certain way.

I mean, OK, the Freudian interpretation of the first Alien film is essentially an academic consensus right now. People agree that it is Freudian in terms of the corridor thing that Thor mentioned, even the writers admit to thinking of "male rape" as the source of the primal fear of the audience and so on. You could actually also discuss Mother and her "betrayal" of the crew.

An underappreciated and potentially relevant motif is, I guess, the Joseph Conrad connection, with the ship being called Nostromo, which is a Conrad novel title and Ridley Scott taking up Alien right after directing The Duellists (without the?) which is a Conrad short story adaptation. This particular connection is actually followed up in Aliens, where another ship bears a name taken from this author's work, this time the Sulaco. Whether it does have some kind of meaning or it is just a subtle homage to Scott, I have no idea. The theatrical cut got rid of all the visual references to the original film (the introduction of Newt on LV-426 is something Cameron admits was something "Ridley did better" with him saying his action scenes were better; there's also the introduction of Sulaco that reeks of the introduction of Nostromo in the Scott film; what Cameron also made stronger were the 2001 homages in the beginning film. That's why Horner quotes the Khachaturian Adagio right there). But except using the concept of mother and emphasizing on that aspect of insects and of course making Ripley a mother herself (to Newt and the loss of her daughter in the beginning)... that's where it goes.

Interpretation-wise, yes, we are force-fed certain meanings. Even in the 1930s one of our major writers ridiculed in a scene where discussing one of our major (canonical!) Romantic poets he waxes on how he touches us all, how his emotions rise, etc. And tell me please why is it so?!

Then the "best student" rises: "Because a great poet he was!"
"YEEEEES"

Essentially, that's what we are forced. But then again most of people don't really want to interpret much of art on their own. They just read for enjoyment. That's OK, but there has to be a certain canon of knowledge. Questions may of course always be loaded or leading to a certain conclusion the teacher wants. It's different on the university where on 20th century literature at the end of a class my teacher (and actually a guy I did know earlier) laughed about how we came to the conclusion that (according to a novel) it's better to be a prostitute than a wife, because a prostitute gets paid for sex and a wife still has to make lunch and other chores (the author was female, most of the classmates were female as well, as Polish studies here are 80% female statistically). He was surprised, but well, that's where we got.

Whether there's a compromise to be made... the question is how many people would actually read the classics on their own now? It's the same with music, art and films (with Netflix not even featuring many classic films, reportedly), sadly.