Alien: Resurrection (Jean-Pierre Jeunet, 1997)

"My mommy always said there were no monsters. No real ones. But there are."

Introduction

In a similar way to Alien 3, Alien: Resurrection aspires to be so much more that what it is. Huge themes tackled before - capitalism and the maternal-connection Ripley has with the alien - are explored throughout the film shows how thought-through the project was. But I have a feeling the crazy idea about swimming-aliens was more a producer demanding more 'action' rather than considering the thematic-neccessity. Indeed, Ripley is literally 'one' with the alien (one-step up from merely holding the alien in her chest, a-la Alien 3), but this is not the Ripley we know - light-years from Lt Ellen Ripley. She is Number 8. Weyland-Yutani had 'created' her in order to clone the Alien Queen itself.

Harking back to Alien, instead of the Nostromo crew we meet space-pirates on board the ship 'Betty'. They are outsiders, akin to the low-paid workers in Alien, but they carry weapons and will happily use artillery much like those troopers in Aliens. But one member on board 'Betty' is clearly not as violent ... but she has a clear agenda and purpose. Call (Winona Ryder) has a different motive in coming face-to-face with Ripley Number 8.

Disability and Euthanasia

Rather than dissecting the film piece-by-piece, I shall aim to highlight themes which seemed to offer a very unique perspective to the alien universe. In Alien: Resurrection we are introduced early-on to the moral conflict regarding cloning - and whether it is ethical to create a human for the purposes of science. Brad Dourif portrays a creepy, sinister doctor who clearly holds corrupted ideals about life and science. He obsesses over the aliens and is fascinated by Ripley. We see how she is treated strangely, and indeed she acts strangely - has Ripley ever been so menacing? But of course, she is not Ripley - she is an Alien and Ripley mixed-up.

Combine this initial set-up, with the fascinating sequence when Ripley decides to destroy all the previous attempts at cloning. Ripley 1-7. It is a tragic scene as we see a human-creature struggling to breath and stay alive ... but, in a similar manner to The Fly, it begs to be killed. Ripley and the crew are in the uneviable position to eradicate the efforts. Though maybe the use of a flame-thrower was a little excessive. It even harks back to a scene in Alien 3, whereby Ripley asks Dillon to kill her.

Both the contrasting elements of creating and taking life - cloning and killing - also connect to that first crucial plot-point in Alien: "Crew Expendable". How much do we value life? Can we be in a society that prides itself on the creation of life, in terms of cloning, when we are also so proud that we dictate the death of someone else. These are huge questions that are tackled by Whedon's script - and which make the film so strong. Even Vriess (Dominique Pinon) is the first character in the franchise who is disabled - using his wheelchair throughout as he cannot use his legs. He is part of the outcast crew, grouped with the pirates, but the choice to have him disabled is clearly noting the value of life in a society that hints at creating 'superior' beings (Experimenting on aliens and combining them with humans) and places no value on the life of 'less-important' (E.g. The crew of the Nostromo). 

Feminity

One problem of Vasquez in Aliens is how she, in terms of femininity, is a 'male-version' of a woman opposed to strong-female, who is feminine in her manner and character. Alien: Resurrection on the other hand has many female characters. Amongst the pirate-crew, we have droid 'Call' who is understandably ambiguous - but feminine in her manner, whilst there is also Sabra (Kim Flowers), who is not only co-pilot on the ship, but she can clearly handle a fire-arm. Clearly she can handle herself but she is also romantically-involved with Elgyn (Michael Wincott), as we see in a very revealing scene. Though not explicit, there is a clear diversity in the characters onboard 'Betty', and a very clear opposition to the all-white crew who lead the scientific experiements on board the Auriga.

Flaws and Future?

Again, I point my finger firmly in the direction of Jimbo Cameron. In all honesty, the 'crew' seemed to be custom suited to have a connection to Alien and Aliens - whilst the multiple aliens on board the Auriga is creating an environment that has multiple threats to be tackled by a military group. Initially anyway, before they are 'evacuated'. This is all about the action--packed tone of Aliens - the same producers who wanted to hark back to Camerons sequel, probably suggested the swimming-aliens and flame-thrower elements. Could you even imagine a swimming-alien in Prometheus? chasing the crew through water? I think not.

Though, the final act does include a last attack from the 'alien-human' which quietly reminds us of the one-alien-on-a-ship dynamic in Alien, it has tried very hard to imitate the action-and-chase dynamic of Aliens. Much like Alien 3 though, I appreciate the depth and scope of this final act - it's not just an average film. Well, maybe it is. Maybe the depth and scope I enjoyed has been watered down so much with 'action-sequences' that it becomes too bland. Having said that, I know many people who would highlight Alien: Resurrection as the best of the sequels - not me. I would deem Aliens as the worst - and not just because of the flaws I found in the film itself. Aliens is the worst because it ruined the following two sequels - the success of the action-nature of Aliens meant that producers (by the sounds of things) constantly changed directors and writers intentions by forcing them to squeeze in action elements destroying what was intended. The conflicts prior to production of Alien 3 was no-doubt due to the expectation that the third film would continue Camerons story of action-and-guns, whilst Alien: Resurrection attempted to mangle the two concepts from the first two-films together... and sadly failed.

Alien 3 (David Fincher, 1992)

"Why? Why are the innocent punished? Why the sacrifice? Why the pain? There aren't any promises. Nothing certain. Only that some get called, some get saved."

Introduction

I love how this film starts. Acknowledgement of the past yet re-establishing Ripley as the lone wanderer, forever to drift through space - Weaver herself states that she believed Ripley is a "solitary person". The happy ending that finished Aliens is no more - Fincher (who would go to direct the ever-pessimistic Se7en, Fight Club and Zodiac) is behind the camera. Walter Hill and David Giler dictates that Newt and Hicks are dead - and Ripley is now (Its not a dream this time folks!) impregnanted by an alien - and she has the Queen Alien growing inside her. Alien 3 was famously a troubled production - possible stories considered included a plot whereby Ripley became a minor role and Michael Beihn's Cpl Hicks became our lead protaganist whilst another plot involved a planet made of wood and inhabited by Monks. Directors considered included a possible return for Ridley Scott and newcomers Renny Harlin and Vincent Ward. It really sounds like producers wanted to make a truly incredible film but simply couldn't trust a directors singular-vision to follow-through on. At the very least, you can tell from the outset that as flawed as Alien 3 is, it clearly harks back to the single-alien killing off humans one-by-one ... rather than an overblown, excessive 'action-war' movie. In addition, unlike Aliens, Alien 3 actively tries (and fails) to tackle bigger issues than simply survival - possible themes about disease and evil, faith and class, are all touched upon. The unevenness of the film, I believe, is an attempt at ensuring the film had a certan 'pace' and 'action' that imitated James Cameron's interpretation on the franchise. But Fincher's version was trying to honour Ridley Scotts vision - and so you have a flawed-film ... that aches to be so much more.

The Evil Inside

The story takes place on an industrial, lead-refinery whereby it is inhabited by a group of convicted criminals - effectively a maximum security prison. Ripley crashes down on the planet, Newt and Hicks are dead, and a face-hugger attacks a dog (an Ox in a 'Special Edition' version of the film). During a ceremony that cremates the bodies of Newt and Hicks, the alien is born of the canine and consequently begins to kill off the prisoners one-by-one and Ripley comes face-to-face with the alien but is not killed...

Ripley, with the Queen inside her, is immune to the alien ... but she knows the creature is growing and she knows that the other alien needs to be killed. The very nature of the story bears a constant theme about evil inside a human. Does such a thing exist? Interestingly, akin to the themes of Ang Lee's Hulk (Green, alien-creature inside a human), the film seems to constantly refer back to the idea about biological and hereditary evil. For example, the convicts have changed their perspectives through the religion they have adopted, but we question how true they are to their beliefs as Ripley is threatened and attacked by a small group. In another instance, the character of Clemens (Charles Dance) is shown as a character who has been rehabilitated - he committed a crime and is held accountable for it. Dillon (Charles S. Dutton) is equally held on account of being a "murderer and rapist of women" but he leads the prisoners on the inside and ultimately sacrifices himself for another.

I am also aware of an interpretation whereby the 'evil inside' represents cancer or AIDS? The imagery within the film depicts bodies with little hair whilst the Queen inside Ripley constantly seems to eat away at her and cause her to become worse and worse throughout the film. Akin to these diseases, you cannot fight it and it preys on anybody- weak or strong. The AIDS parallel continues further as the main setting is amongst men who are isolated from society - potentially highlighting the gay-community in the 1980's and early 1990's. Society discriminates them and hides the prisoners from view. The prisoners look for answers too and turn to celibacy and faith - even adopting 'routines' but it is still not enough - the alien will still reach them.

This interpretation can be supported further as the 'birth' of the 'disease'/alien is juxtaposed with the cremation of the Hicks and Newt - the two characters who made the family unit. Dillon, a prisoner says:

Why? Why are the innocent punished? Why the sacrifice? Why the pain? There aren't any promises. Nothing certain. Only that some get called, some get saved...

Crisis of Faith?

Briefly, the adoption of faith by the convicts is equally interesting. Does it highlight how people trapped and isolated develop faith while Ripley, unlike the convicts (except Dillon perhaps?) accepts death gladly and gives her own life for the future and life of others. Opposed to dying for a spiritual cause, Ripley dies for a human and earthly cause. Unfortunately, I have not seen Dreyer's Passion of Joan of Arc, but I understand that this film is an inspiration for Alien 3. At any rate, like Ripley, Joan of Arc was a martyr - so the martyrdom of a woman of faith is contrasted nicely with Ripley - a martyr of no-faith ... except her constant-faith in humanity.

The Capitalist Underbelly

The one thing that constantly challenges Ripleys faith in humanity is our favourite company - Weyland-Yutani.Weyland-Yutani, equally representing capitalism and the authority of those in power, portrays a very sinister attitude towards that small sentiment within Alien. "Crew Expendable". What is the value of an employee in comparison to the value of a businesses financial wealth. What is the value of a soldiers-life - have they not accepted the 'risk' of death and gambled their chances? And finally, what is the value of a convicted-felon? A murderer ... a rapist ... can we place a value on their life? Interestingly, I have only watched Werner Herzog's three-part series Deathrow about the very question about the state taking a life - and the nature of capital punishment. Alien 3 tackles it in allegory and within the concept of a more sinister evil at work - not the alien - but the power and control of others.

The underlying tension regarding a Medical-Evacuation crew due to 'save' the convicts is revealed to save the alien instead. The trust Ripley had for Bishop at the end of Aliens is destroyed as Bishop II is sent to comfort Ripley ... revealed as a liar, sent to save the alien. Where is the human element? Where is love for one another? What is the future of the world if these are who control it?

David Thomson writes how the "prison is Dickensian: the inmates are shabby, eccentric, startling characters who share in a type of subdued, oppressed state". The capitalist-stance manages to control these archaic and traditional attitudes to life - and erases the history that humans have created.

Fincher's Vision

David Fincher was brought to the project late-in-the-day. Much of the story was adapted and changed throughout production. Fincher does not discuss the film much, but he spoke to MTV and stated the following:

My notion was that the third movie would be Ripley's acceptance of the notion of sacrifice. She'd had the Me Decade of the first movie. She'd come from the periphery of the story. Anybody could be the commander as long as they stuck to their guns and had a moral compass. And then the second movie she found a maternal instinct. And then I wanted the third one to be that she realizes that it's not about her generation. It's really about the future. The notion was to put the monster among the wretched. She was going to galvanize the wretched to self-sacrifice. Giving up their lives to save people who had banished them and should have been outside their scope of interest and that they would find some value in dying for the right reasons.

One thing that Fincher's film did reveal is Ripley's first name: Ellen. The name she was given at her birth - the name her admirers and family would refer to her by. Lt Ripley is her professional, company name - but Ellen is her personal and human name.

From the corrupted script Fincher was handed, he gave the third film a warmth of colour. The idea of fire and heat, throughout the film almost gave the impression we were in hell. When the filmis edited together and, I would assume the CGI was incomplete, Fincher showed long sequences from the perspective of the alien itself - chasing the convicts around the wide-corridors and sewers of the complex. Yes, I prefer Alien 3 to Aliens - not because it is consistent or perfectly made; it is not. But Aliens aspired to be an action movie - a balls-to-the-wall shoot-em-up. It lacked substance and depth. Alien 3 tried so hard to be something more meaningful and with a depth that rivalled the first film - and that ambition alone, combined with such hard work from Fincher on his debut feature film, cannot be ignored. Personally, if I think about an iconic shot from the alien franchise, it is from Alien 3. I don't think about Ripley suited-up for me to quote "Get away from her, you bitch!" and if I was to choose a sequence I would obviously choose Kane's chest-bursting in Alien - but I don't think I could choose a single shot from that sequence that effectively represents the bloody on Lamberts face and the alien looking-around. I choose the moment the alien holds its face next to Ripley - saliva dripping from its mouth, the inner-mouth millimetres away from Ripleys face as she holds a scream in. That single shot - the tone, the fear, the look-of-Ripley, are all down to David Fincher and the team on Alien 3.

Aliens (James Cameron, 1986)

"These people are here to protect you. They're soldiers"

Introduction

I will set out my objective clearly: To strip Aliens of all of its credability. I want to reveal how fatally flawed it is. How it is appalling that so many viewers argue Aliens as the strongest in the franchise, when if we really analyse it and compare it to Alien or The Terminator, both are superior and offer unique and profound points, whilst Aliens is a rehash of previous Cameron topics - dare I say it, is Aliens a dry-run for Terminator 2: Judgement Day? Whilst, in terms of what Ridley Scott set-out in Alien, Cameron completely ripped up the rule-book and ran off on a tangent that took the franchise the wrong direction. I think Alien 3 and Alien: Resurrection are both attempting to claw back the credability of the first film ... but their hands are tied behind their backs as they always try to make the film more 'action-packed' like the second film. In this months Empire magazine, Ridley Scott notes how he was always fascinated that none of the sequels explored the space-jockey starting-point he had set-up. A wealth of material (which he intends to use in Prometheus) was waiting for a filmmaker to capitalise on, but none of them did. It took Scott to really get back to the true starting point of the franchise. James Cameron thought "right, a sequel - we need more aliens, more guns and more military ... stuff".

Moral Compass

A clearly controversial (and debatable) starting point ... and maybe a little unfair. It was unfair, I can appreciate James Cameron. I think what Aliens does clarify - and expand upon - is the clear anti-capitalist argument that was touched upon in Alien. Alien touches upon the nature of the term "crew expendable", but this time it is about the importance of family. In fact, the very nature of a maternal role in Ripley is set-up in the very first act, as Ripley gives birth to an alien ... before waking up. It is a dream. Then we are told in no uncertain terms that a substantial amount of families have lost contact ... they are all dead. The aliens are destroying families and it is Ripley who needs to restore and create the family-unit. And she successfully does this by establishing a relationship with Cpl Dwayne Hicks (Michael Beihn), and becoming a maternal figure to Newt (Carrie Henn).

Carter Burke (Paul Reiser) is the 'Ash' of this film. Not that Burke is a robot, but he is very much detached from his human emotions. It is established early on that Burke is not to be trusted and we find out, as the film progresses, that as Ash was happy to break quarantine rules in Alien, Burke will actively release a face-hugger in the hope that it can be transported home and further experimented on. In contrast, the robot Bishop (Lance Henriksen) is played as untrustful but we see as the film progresses that his heart is in the right place. Or, a better way to put it, his circuits are running properly [insert robot-version of the phrase here].

James Cameron-isms

Cameron ups-the-ante, by utilising the various alien-features to great action-effect. The acid-blood becomes a huge danger - especially for the military unit attempting to kill the aliens. The face-hugger is not just a creature that leaps on a face - we now see the tentacles flailing and slapping around, whilst we see a facehugger held back as the penetrating tube that slips down the throat is desperately trying to find its way into a humans neck. This exploration of the creatures really builds on what we know - never had we seen the creatures become so fast and dangerous. Alien is very-much about a creature killing off a crew tactically, one-by-one, whilst in Aliens it is brute force and relentless attacking. As much as I may appreciate these elements, it is very-much the old sequel-story - more aliens, more attacks, more close-ups, etc. The beauty in Alien was how we didn't see these things - we knew about them, and were shown a dead facehugger as Ash delicately operated on it, but we didn't see it leap around much or show-off its features. Thats not to say there was no place for it, but imagine if we had a similar small-scale story to Alien second-time round and the horror-element still played a part (opposed to turning it into action), you could still see a sequence whereby we saw a little bit more about the movement and skills of the creature - but this sequence alongside the relentless attacking of the aliens themselves just makes it a part of a mass-army attack opposed to a unique element to a subtle exploration of the aliens. Fascinating as it is, the film as a whole is built upon the idea of excess - which is completely against the subtlety of Ridley Scott's original. Remember, all the interesting aspects of the alien itself were set-up in the original - the only 'new' aspect was the Queen. Who simply looks like a queen-bee. How original.

Even James Cameron didn't bring much new to the table. The Terminator was only two years prior and had many similar concepts and designs. In The Terminator we have Skynet and in Aliens we have Weyland-Yutani - the corporation in a futuristic environment against the common working woman - Sarah Connor and Ellen Ripley respectively. Even the designs of the machines in the military-team in Aliens would not look out-of-place on the barren landscape in the post-apocalyptic 2029 that begins The Terminator. The excessive use of guns and miltary-grade machinery is akin to the excessive use of force the T-800 applies when tracking down Sarah Connor. Even the finale of both films almost imitate each other as they are both set in industrial environments, across multiple levels and heights, with blue-and-white lights shining through unneccessary but 'looks-cool' gas in a nightime-setting. When Ripley ascends in the never-ending lift, you almost expect her to come face-to-face with Arnie, instead she becomes The Terminator and dresses up in her mechanical-outfit to take on the queen alien. Maybe Cameron looked at Ripley-as-Robot and thought: "What about The Terminator as a good guy?"...

Simply Not Good Enough

Consider at this point how you are realising how Aliens is clearly repeating everything Cameron himself created in The Terminator. Add to this the standard of the acting - specifically, the child-actress in Newt (Carrie Henn). This is the heart to the film and you can see, clear as day, how she is reading and acting off simple direction. She hides and is mute initially and very slowly opens up as the film goes on to reveal a very 2D character. Then, to make matters worse, in terms of 2D characters, lets consider the entire military unit. "Loose-cannon" Hudson (Bill Paxton) with his popular imitate-me lines: "I say we grease this rat-fuck son-of-a-bitch right now." or "We're on an express elevator to hell; going down!". Then we have Sgt Apone (Al Matthews) who constantly refers to the unit as "sweethearts".  Butch Pvt Vasquez (Jenette Goldstein) with her huge guns and destructive attitude - we all think "Wow, what a strong woman! Could she [*shock*] be stronger than a man?". To top it off we have the Lt Gorman (William Hope) as the under-experienced but more-senior positioned character - we all think "how can he be leading this team!?". An incarnation harking back to many World War II films as senior leaders do not understand the role of the regular soldier. These characters are flat and 2D - there is nothing more to them. Family? Loved Ones? Previous relationships? Previous missions that changed them? Understanding of aliens? Understanding of earth? Nothing - they are set-up for one purpose: to become meat for the aliens to chew on. They mean nothing. (oh, and we can endlessly quote them)

Influential

But, as a fan of Jurassic Park, I cannot help but see the clear comparison. The conflict of interest regarding company morals and ethics; is it right to experiement on creatures and play with science - and act as God (again, a theme due to come up in Prometheus). Even visually, when the aliens are at the door and when Hudson dies - both have a striking similarity to Jurassic Park. Hell, even the offices look like the Ingen company offices whilst Burkes clothing seems to be from the same shop as Dr Alan Grant.

Furthermore, I think films like Aliens are what must have created and directly-inspired games such as Quake and Doom. So often we see from the point-of-view of the soldiers - often through the cameras on their heads. The relevant data appearing on the left and right, as the guns lead into the centre of the frame. Throw in the industrial and alien environment and we find ourselves in the territory of alien-shoot-em-ups Doom, Quake and - after Goldeneye - Perfect Dark. Maybe James Cameron should be in gaming-industry instead.

Alien Tangent

There is one obvious echo and link to Alien when the characters run through the halls with alarms ringing out, it reminds you of the final act with Ripley in the first installment. But you can simply see how James Cameron simply took the film and franchise in a completely different direction. Even the planet LV-426, whereby the colonies live, is nothing like the spectacular, artistic creation by H.R. Giger in Alien, and I wouldn't be suprised if this Giger-world is what Ridley Scott loved about the franchise - not the action-and-guns that became a staple of the franchise in Aliens and Alien: Resurrection. Think about Blade Runner - despite some great action-sequences, it is very much about the look of a world combined with profound and fascinating talking-points that established the film as a Sci-Fi classic. Alien, equally holds its own as it is an environment which had never been seen before combined with a creepy, horror-take of the Sci-Fi genre ... the action was not important, but it became important because Jim Cameron made it so in Aliens.

Alien (Ridley Scott, 1979)

"This is Ripley, last survivor of the Nostromo, signing off"

Introduction

The LAMBcast recently discussed the Alien Franchise and the conversation clung to two 'views' on the franchise. The one perspective supports Aliens as the stronger film - a stronger arc for Ripley creating her 'alien' family, with more aliens and more guns. The other perspective, which I stand-by, is supporting Alien as the strongest entry in the franchise. Everything that stregthened the franchise began in Alien. Ripley and her relationship with the creatures, crucially began in this film. The designs for the creatures began with H.R. Giger's involvment on this film. Even the world inhabited by all the crews, within a capitalist world, was created and controlled by Weyland-Yutani (featuring in the Viral campaign for Prometheus) began in this film. Like a flower, it blossomed and with each following film, the world expanded and, for better or worse, the franchise as a whole cannot be ignored.

John Carpenter's Dark Star

Setting the Stage for the Alien

August 1970. Dan O'Bannon and John Carpenter created a student film - that is packaged and sold on - and named Dark Star. This film, about four astronauts on a spaceship explores lonliness and features an alien killed by a character named Pinback (played by O'Bannon himself). The lack of credit O'Bannon receives on the film prompts him to write his own script ... which sits on the shelf for many years until a little film called Star Wars comes along. 20th Century Fox, owing to the success of Star Wars is keen to release any Sci-Fi alternative, knowing that a huge audience has an appetite for space. Indeed, the Nostromo, throughout the reveal of the city-like surface in the films opening clearly imitates the Death Star. Even before Dark Star, in 1969, the art-house 2001: A Space Odyssey proved that a Sci-Fi film does not have to adhere to the guns-and-goo nature of a B-Movie and so the stars had aligned and Alien had been green-lit.

Features from 2001: A Space Odyssey littered the Alien story - a sinister character in 'MU-TH-UR' and the design of the white-walled interiors of the ship. Though, akin to the rebels in Star Wars, this was not clean and completely well-lit. Maybe the sleeping-chamber had a cleanliness and white-ness that evoked Kubrick, but the truckers-nature and the well-worn clothing of characters such as Parker (Yaphet Kotto) and Brett (Harry Dean Stanton) clearly imitated the rebel Han Solo in the bar on Tatooine.

The script originally depicted a group of men which then changed to include two female characters - Lambert (veronica Cartwright) and Ripley (Sigourney Weaver). The range of characters gave the impression that this was a world whereby your gender and race did not factor into your job - Weaver noted how she "imagined" Ripley had a child and Husband at home, but her glances toward Dallas (Tom Skeritt) gave the impression that a little flirting was not amiss. Only the carefully-dressed Ash (Ian Holm) seemed out-of-place - well-spoken, dressed smartly, his almost-affluent nature could be the threat - and we are clearly not expected to trust him.

Weyland-Yutani

As the franchise progresses, the Alien quartet explores capitalism further, and the subtlety in the first film is not to be ignored. Talk of the difference in pay between employees and, towards the final act, the expendable nature of the crew, clearly depicts a capitalist-economy. Ripley is the one employee, happy to state "negative quarantine" with regard to Kane's (John Hurt) accident outside the ship - but it is Ash who overruns her authority and opens the door. A central-point of Joel Bakan's documentary The Corporation reveals how modern-business practices show a "callous disregard for the feelings of other people, the incapacity to maintain human relationships, reckless disregard for the safety of others, deceitfulness, the incapacity to experience guilt, and the failure to conform to social norms and respect the law.". You could very easily look at Ash, who is representative of Weyland-Yutani's business practices, and apply the same logic.

Feminity

I think the fact that Ripley, originally a role that a male-actor would play, was converted into a female role means that the only analysis to the film regarding feminity would be post-structural and specifically considering Sigourney Weaver's incredible depiction of the feminine and strong character we have all grown to know and love. Theories abound about how, serving the four-films as they stand, the romance - in a corrupted way - is between Ripley and the Alien. The Alien is dominant, dangerous and representing, in Giger's designs, the phallus and the man. Whilst Ripley, has clear feminine traits in her responsibilities in looking after Jonesy (a maternal "expectation"?) and her supportive and secondary role on the ship. Dallas is the Captain of the ship and, even when Dallas is off-ship and she is in the most senior-position, it is Ash who still supercedes her in opening the door despite her instructions to keep Kane quarantined. The irony, is in how Ripley defeats the Alien and how all the men lose their lives in the film - a comment perhaps on how this sexism is a destrauctive attitude in society?

Then again, it is worth noting the generic-twist that Alien adheres to. Quite definitively, the themes of aliens and spaceships would almost exclusively dictate the genre to remain Sci-Fi in it's nature - but I would even argue that the film adheres to the generic codes and conventions of a horror film. John Carpenter's Halloween uses shadows and crampt spaces effectively to hide the killer - and in the same way as Jamie Lee Curtis becomes the sole female figure to survive, Sigourney Weaver equally survives the 'killings' onboard the Nostromo. Add to this how both films end with the final 'scare', following a reveal of female nudity. Again, the true credit for the themes and stories written by Dan O'Bannon and John Carpenter is unclear.

So Much More...

You could explore this film further, and this is a very brief way of highlighting the many facets to the masterpiece Ridley Scott created. Some other huge points could be raised - the war-like hand-held footage as Ripley runs through the corridors with Blitz-like sounding alarms and the controverisal rape-sequence as we can vividly see the Alien's tail between Lambert's legs before the most horrific scream is heard by Ripley. So much more could be discussed, analysed and researched ...

The film has gone on to influence so many more films too - off the top of my head, Sunshine and Moon clearly owes much of their spaceship designs to Alien. Sunshine specifically has a character named Pinbacker - maybe a nod in the direction of John Carpenter and Dan O'Bannon's Dark Star, whereby O'Bannons role was a character named Pinback? In terms of the alien itself, the 1980's provided a wealth of films which imitated the organic and horrific look of the creature - notably Galaxy of Terror and Creature. I am sure that Man I Love Films very-own Jason Soto is well aware of the influx of Alien-inspired films in the early 1980's.

As viewers, we know that no life is expendable - especially Jonesy the Cat. We also know how corrupt businesses can be in the modern-world. Alien remains a work of art that can be deconstructured and reconstructured in a number of ways to bring out different results. Artists of the world look in awe at the visual feast on the abandoned spacecraft holding a space-jockey. Story-tellers plunder the depths that discuss profound, global issues such as capitalism and gender within an exciting horror story. Film viewers and film fans simply watch and rewatch the film that spawned a franchise that we hope can always be explored further - much like space itself. I await with baited breath for Prometheus...

NB - Back in 2003, I was inspired by Alien myself by starring and joint-directing a little feature...