PROMETHEUS: MOVIE REVIEW

To contact us Click HERE


Cast: Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender, Charlize Theron, IdrisElba, Guy Pearce, Logan Marshall-Green Director: Ridley ScottRuntime: 124 min. Verdict: Virtually a criticism of parent/child, i.e. Alien, and its methods. The underlyingmessage might be tad rehashed, but then there’s David. And it looks likemortality will be the dominant theme this year. Genre: Sci-fi, Thriller
                Much like thecore of science-fiction, the question is not about the whys, a sneakilymisleading interrogative pronoun that invariably makes us look outwards ratherthan inwards, reflecting a false sense of complete self-satisfaction and innerpeace that we need to meet the “external” device that’s responsible. Mr. Scott,instead, probably wants to inspire within us, a sense of what, so that we maylook inwards, and understand what we are. And maybe, all the answers to allthose cosmic questions are right here, amongst us. It greatly bothered me, theexistence of a cut every 4-5 seconds, not the spiritual/cosmic/metaphysicalaesthetic that’s caused by the-cut-as-an-event approach. Here, it is bluntharsh cutting coupled with classical composition, reducing emotion toinformation, and destroying any hope for cosmic rumination. What the aestheticrather inspires is the familiarity of the daily grind of life. As in, the industrial-reality/structural-philosophy of everyday existence as against the mythology of ourcosmic significance. As in, setting my expectations. As in, asking a “what”might lead to a behavior that might improve our ratings before our maker. Asin, meeting an extra-terrestrial being for the first time in the history ofhumanity is just about as shattering an experience as meeting a person fromanother country, and the endeavor ought to be truly meeting (understanding) ourown people.                    Considerthe opening moments, which do not present a patient temporality of the earthala 2001: A Space Odyssey, where theDarwinian nature, in all its forms, is primarily temporal over and abovespatial, and where it waits with limitless patience. As opposed to Mr. Kubrick,whose composition is from the nature’s perspective, Mr. Scott aligns himselfwith the aggressive instincts of the human, both in their quest for knowledgeand survival. He flies over mountains and valleys and rivers, and reachesjust-in-time to bear witness to the point in our genesis where a humanoiddrinks some black liquid from a vial and disintegrates and falls into river.Dear reader, I’d read of this moment prior to watching the film, and in myimaginations there was this great black image of molten lava where darknesspretty much filled the entirety of the image, and where a figure (for a frameof reference imagine the moment from Vfor Vendetta, where V walks out of the burning prison) merely jumps intothe waters. Of molten lava. It’s probably more metaphorical, this image ofmine, although metaphorical of what I don’t know, and Mr. Scott, with hismoment set in bright sunlight and deep composition, wants to have none of it.It is a blunt fact of life, though unhinged with respect to both space andtime. And although a great deal of the first hour is spent in the service oflofty ambitions – the very basic variety – the absolute de-mystification of thegenesis, at least for me, inspired only one question – what might be the blackliquid. And as it turns out, that remains the film’s central thread, and which,in many ways, shapes the question that’s at the heart of Prometheus – what are we?                No lessthan four living forms come in contact with that liquid, which includes the humanoidupfront, and the results are varying. I wouldn’t want to divulge what happenson each of these occasions, but for the sake of this discussion, let’s justkeep it to the fact that things disintegrate and when they integrate the basicproperties are significantly amplified. The liquid thus becomes a sort ofmirror, something like the ocean in Solaris,and Mr. Scott’s choice to keep almost all his characters mostly archetypical,symbolic figures described almost wholly by their traits, productive(thematically) and counter-productive (dramatically). Which brings us back tothe aesthetic of the opening moments, and the inherent aggression, and thequest is for survival and proliferation. And yes, there’s the inherentnarcissism. It’s doubtful whether the convenience of a few star-maps beingconstrued as an invitation is merely a plot device or self-criticism, but itdoes miss the opportunity for an awesome jump-cut, from a few aligning cells toa giant industrial spacecraft wanting to align with its maker. So yeah,considering that we’re merely a reflection of the humanoid, and consideringthat the old man here isn’t the virgin pure astronaut (Dave) but a man pursuinghis maker (oh yeah, it’s more than a nod to that ultra-white multi-dimensionalroom from 2001) to desire eternalsurvival, Mr. Scott basically has that pretty negative viewpoint of humanity.You know, the capitalism-is-greedy humanity-devours-everything viewpoint. Whichcan also be cause for any indulgence for the Alien-related psychosexual male-penetrationgender-politics-reversal blah-blah you can find anywhere, and for which I’velittle patience. It’s one of cinema’s most grating subjects, like Hitchcock andsub-text, or Spielberg is a genius, in the service of which a million essayshave already been spent on the internet. And counting. Let’s leave it there andchange a paragraph.                What’scommendable here is that Mr. Scott strikes a balance between the morecommercial obligations of whetting the appetite for the Alien-universe and the political implications, where there isn’tthe excessive presence of the “symbolic” tangible manifestations leading to the“Other-fication” within the frame, and where the pre-baked drama is derivedmore about the dynamics between the team and the decisions they make. You know,like holding up a mirror. The humanoids are muscular overtly-masculine men, andI suspect Mr. Scott wants to tell us why he believes that humanity isinherently patriarchal in nature. As in, the patriarchy is within our DNA. Theold man favors his artificial son over his real daughter, and a surgery bed hasartificial procedures only for men. The gender equation leads to where, I’velittle idea now, and that there might be the extent of Prometheus’ thematic relevance/richness, and courtesy of thosearchetypes, Mr. Scott’s discourse doesn’t go much beyond the obvious. Hisscientific endeavor is merely a façade while he most purposefullypursues/presents his religious beliefs as absolute historical facts. As in,Christianity and mythology is real. Ms. Elizabeth Shaw (Ms. Rapace), the devoutChristian here, who mentions dates in terms of “Year of the Lord”, almost commits two sins – abortion (a particularlyamusing rendition of the Rosemary’s Babypredicament, and which she calls a Caesarean) and suicide – and both do notwork out, keeping her sanctity intact. There’s the mural of aPrometheus-inspired humanoid with his abdomen ripped open, and the birth of thecreature within the film coincides with the birth of Mr. Scott’s lord, akaJesus Christ. I mean, Mr. Scott contrasts the act of the humanoid dying tocreate us, with that of the selfishness of the old man, who looks more ancientthan old, the texture of the skin more fossilized then wrinkled. The humanoidhimself, gigantic and opaque, feels a product of the Biblical variety of angryGod than a product of Darwinian evolution. It’s all fine and dandy, but what bothersme is the white-man’s narcissism amongst all this. I might be guilty of gettinga little touchy here, but why does the humanoid have to be a pure white dude? Iknow, I might pose the other question had he been a little colorful, but then awhite muscular man jumping into a river in Africa after drinking a black liquid(inference by association) just simply strikes me the wrong way.                 But thenthere’s David, possibly our projection, and while he walks amidst the humanoidsabode, the idea of the little child walking amongst his grandparents ispalpable. It was unique emotion I felt in a film that was rampant with rehashedthemes, an idea that wasn’t critical or anything, but merely there, standing onits own. I still have no idea of what to make of it, but the purity of thecuriosity, not of the son who’s corrupted by his own agendas but of thegrandson who doesn’t have any such nonsense within him, and who represents,within a movie universe, a victory for HAL as far as first contact isconcerned. It’s a great performance from Mr. Fassbender, making him bothlikable and sinister, and making him a creation not limited by the absence oflimbs. He holds a projection of the earth in his hands, and I couldn't help butbe reminded of the star-child gazing at the earth. In a movie filled withelliptical information, David is the most enigmatic of beings, seemingly muchmore intelligent than his grandparents. In a strange way, he exhibits thetraits of everybody within the film – from seeking inspiration from the fatherto behaving the way the Ash described the xenomorph (that no remorse nomorality blah). And although the lofty questions posed by Prometheus lead only towards one way – that of a sequel – I wouldremain curious about David, and what’s beating within him. I sincerely hopehe’s one of cinema’s great creations.   
Note: First the 3-D glasseswere free. And then they sneaked in from somewhere a non-refundable charge of10 bucks. Within no time, it’s 20. That means, me and my wife paid 40 bucksover and above the ticket prices. It’s not the loss of money but the pridethat’s hurt when someone has managed to cheat you. So yeah, if a movie isn’treleased in 2-D I will not watch it. Mr. Scott has shot a 3-D film with zerointerference, so much so that I took off my glasses only to find thestereoscopic effect used for the different planes of view. As in, the frontplane is 2-D, and looks the same. If 3-D’s biggest success is that it resembles2-D, I guess it makes no sense to wear glasses on your glasses and pay 20 bucksfor it.