Prometheus

Directed by: Ridley Scott

Written by: Jon Spaihts, Damon Lindelof










The debate surrounding the different interpretations of "Prometheus" can be very simply summed up:

Thinker or stinker?

I've gone back and forth between both sides, and am now firmly in the "thinker" camp.

There are many reasons why.  One, put very well by a friend whose opinion on films I take very seriously, is that the reviews that hail "Prometheus" as great tend to be very well thought out essays while the reviews that dismiss it tend to be very poorly written.  Granted, this is not a very scientific analysis, but it does reveal something significant.  Those viewers with very analytical minds were able to find a lot to appreciate in the movie, while those who were looking for a cheap thrill on a big screen were sorely disappointed.

And I initially understood their disappointment.  I felt it myself.  Watching the trailers, I was hoping for a full-on "Alien" reboot with lots of chests exploding and people blowing things up.  When those things weren't there (actually they were, but more on that in a minute), I was left shaking and scratching my  head.  I had a bitter taste in my mouth, and spent some time wondering why I didn't see all the awesome things I was hoping to see.  Then it hit me: those things I wanted to see were there, but I hadn't seen them because they weren't quite what I had anticipated.

Take, for example, the chest explosions that the original "Alien" movies made famous.  There was really only one (maybe two?) of those in "Prometheus."  But, stepping back, the essence of the chest explosions - life bursting forth mysteriously from something else - is littered throughout "Prometheus."  It happens several times, (the alien squid baby being the most notable and memorable for reasons obvious to anyone who has seen the film).  Numerous times something or someone thought dead, lifeless, devoid is revealed to be much more than they appear.  It happens over and over again, but most of us weren't able to see it.

The biggest key to the movie is to stop thinking of it as part of the "Alien" series of films.  Its connection to that series is significant, but incredibly thin.  I've found the best way to think of it is as an episode of "Lost" (where writer Damon Lindelof made his fame).  In "Prometheus" as in "Lost" there are clues, references, fleeting moments which point to something larger.  Themes, images, symbols are repeated but never explained, leaving the viewer to ponder their meaning, if any (which, in turn, has led to some absolutely wonderful discussions).  The film's ambiguity - its unwillingness to even hint at answers to its biggest questions - is what makes it a movie worth discussing.

Does the movie have some flaws?  Sure.  Some big ones, too.  Characters do things that don't make any sense.  Contradictions, like the planet being totally habitable except for those massive storms which will rip humans to shreds, are plenty.

But ultimately, the fact that there are so many discussions - and heated ones - tells me that there's something to "Prometheus" which makes it more than B-level sci-fi fodder.  See it, ponder on it, reflect on it, and tell me how anyone can argue it isn't a "thinker."

The Road

There's no reason for me to summarize the plot for "The Road" because I've already covered it on this blog.

Honestly, I need to stand up to all the critics who characterized the movie as a flop. This film was an honest adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's masterpiece. Was it as elegant or artistic or original as the novel? Of course not! But John Hillcoat's film was faithful to the heart and soul of the book. Of course, the result of working so closely with the source work is that the film is bleak and depressing, leaving the viewer to ponder the ultimate fate of humanity for an hour or two after finishing it.

Of course, to stay true to the meaning of the text, the film did have to stray from a literal page-by-page duplication of the book - which led to some unfortunate cuts. For example, although the whole scene was less than a minute, the encounter with the dying man who had been hit by lightning was cut (although it can be found in the "Deleted Scenes" on the DVD). This cut was made - I presume - because The Man and The Boy (portrayed wonderfully by Viggo Mortensen and Kodi Smit-McPhee) are supposed to live in a world nearly devoid of people. Yet, the most comprehensible sequences in the film are when they encounter others like them. So, to balance the need for human interaction to move the film's narrative forward with the need to convey the fact that only a few humans are still alive, many cuts were made.

The setting of the film is pretty well exactly how I imagined the gray post-disaster landscape that McCarthy outlined, although I did not quite imagine so many abandoned cars for some reason (but I put that fault on myself and my inability to imagine anything not made explicit in the text). The art and set direction kept everything gray and covered in ash. This bland background made the flashback sequences with the Woman (Charlize Theron) more powerful, with pastel colors giving a sense of life before the world decayed beyond repair.

I cannot say enough about how impressed I am with Viggo Mortensen's portrayal of the Man. Although his acting is not over-the-top in this movie, it is perfect for the role he plays. And for a movie that spends ninety percent of its time focused on two characters, the minor characters were critical for making this film great. Robert Duvall's portrayal of the Old Man is heartbreakingly beautiful, tears welling in his eyes as he recalls the ultimate fate of his absent son. Guy Pearce expertly suggests his trustworthiness with subtleness but clarity.

The biggest problem this movie had was the narrative structure - the fact that it had a clear one. In the book, McCarthy was able to convey a sense of timelessness, or, rather, a lack of time. Every gray day blends into one another, and there is no way of distinguishing each. There's no sense of order to the days. Yet, because of the linear nature of a movie, this movie takes on a timeline that the book does not have. This is the film's biggest artistic departure from the book.

I highly recommend this movie. Everyone should read the novel first, of course. My only warning is that you need to be prepared to suffer through a pretty deep, depressed mood for a while after the end (even though it ends on a hopeful note).