Ridley Scott Confuses Ambiguity with Meaningfulness in ‘Prometheus’
In Greek mythology, Prometheus was the titan who created the first men from clay and went on to steal fire from the gods for human use. His courageous act enabled mankind to progress and civilizations to rise but resulted in a terrible punishment for him: Being chained to a rock and having his insides devoured by an eagle day after day for the rest of eternity.
Enter Ridley Scott’s Prometheus, a prequel of sort to his 1979 seminal science-fiction classic, Alien. The film alludes to similar themes and motifs from the myth of Prometheus, proposing the idea that an advanced alien race gave birth to the human race. But does it fulfill all the promise of its extraordinarily fascinating premise and Fox’s excellent marketing campaign? Alas, I must say it all felt a bit underwhelming.
Set in the year 2093, the film centers on the 17-man crew of the title spaceship which is awakened from two years of hyper-sleep as they approach their destination, a distant planet known only as LV-223. Archaeologists Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green), with the help of aging billionaire industrialist Peter Weyland (Guy Pearce) funding the expedition, are hoping to uncover crucial clues to the origins of mankind and perhaps even literally meet their makers. What they find however is a lot more than they bargained for.
In some ways, one could compare Prometheus with Terrence Malick’s The Tree of Life. Both movies share stunning visuals and more significantly, rise ambitious questions about the origins and meaning of life. Both movies deserve lots of credit for overreaching and having too much going on. But while Malick managed to craft a movie so emotionally and thematically rich as to be nearly incoherent, Scott mistakes his own film’s lack of coherence for real depth and meaningfulness.
The result is an undercooked and muddled movie that, despite alluding to fascinating spiritual questions, waste its incredible potential with too many unanswered questions. Why is the “Engineer” in the opening sequence of the film giving birth to mankind? Why is Scott alluding to the death of Jesus Christ as a turning point after which the ‘Engineers’ decided to change their mind? What is android David (Michael Fassbender) up to when he poisons a major character with the black goo? It’s as if major chunks of the movie were edited out, leaving viewers to grasp for narrative strands that likely just weren’t well thought out to start with.
Not helping the film’s cause are its thinly drawn characters which are almost all completely extraneous and one-dimensional despite a talented cast of actors. Charlize Theron plays the stock no-nonsense corporate stand-in with some daddy issues while Idris Elba takes on the role of the likable cowboy pilot who sits in his cockpit for almost the entire length of the movie. Meanwhile, Sean Harris and Rafe Spall play two simpleton scientists who, one minute, are running away terrified by an unseen threat, only to try cuddling an obviously deadly alien creature the next.
Aside from Noomi Rapace’s main character, Michael Fassbender’s David is the sole character with some semblance of personality, which testifies of his talent given that he is playing a freaking android. David pins to be more human-like, leading to some strangely creepy interactions with the crew but we never get a full understanding of his potentially nefarious motives.
Don’t get me wrong, Prometheus can be a wildly entertaining film with some truly mesmerizing set pieces and a terrific atmosphere. Unlike most summer blockbusters, it has the verve to reach for something more than mindless explosions and jump-scares. There are interesting parallels to the motif of Prometheus, the creator of life with his insides open, such as an horrific scene in a surgery pod that no one will forget. The problem is that for all of Scott’s overreaching attempts to make you think about its big ideas, this a frustrating film that fails to follow up on any of it.
67 Comments
I think you’ve missed the boat on this one. I’m already tired of critics comparing this to films like “2001″ and by proxy, “Tree of Life”. Those films weren’t the first to explore human origins and won’t be the last. Though the character of “David” is probably a spiritual successor to “Hal”, I think that’s where the comparisons stop.
I do agree that a few of the peripheral characters were forgettable. That’s okay because they were destined to die from the beginning. The main characters carry the film adequately.
The meaning of the ambiguity is self-defining.Leaving us with more questions than answers allows bitchy film critics like you and I to discuss the film in a way that “The Avengers” could never do. Great movies don’t stop when the credits roll, they keep playing out in your head, allowing you to create different scenarios to appease our hunger for more. That’s exactly what I’ve been experiencing for the last week.
I think Prometheus will withstand the test of time. It may lack the fear-inducing squirminess of “Alien”, but I think it’s actually better in terms of science fiction. And as we all know, my opinion is more important than yours.
Just kiddin.
What I love about sci-fi is exactly what you describe: Being able to reflect on this imaginary world a long time after the credits roll. But that doesn’t necessarily the movie was great because of it. Actually, it has almost nothing to do with it.
Personally, I think the movie will go among the rest of Ridley Scott’s latest movies: Fun enough to watch but nothing overly memorable that we will still talk about them a year from now.
I liked that it left more questions than answers, too. My primary problem was that the film so overtly asked the questions (or, if you’ll allow me to blunt, punched us in the face with its questions). Tree of Life, on other hand, allowed the questions to organically emerge all on their own from the narrative and the structure.
Lol Srsly? If Prometheus’ questions punched us in the face, The Tree of Life’s question threw us on the ground and kicked in our ribs. Then they put us in a choke hold until the light slowly faded from our eyes. Then we died. When we woke in heaven, The Tree Of Life’s questions were waiting there to kick the ass of our spirit-form.
Wait, didn’t you +1 the guy who said Tree of Life never asked any questions? Well, at the very least then we can all agree the Tree of Life did ask questions.
Ha, I did indeed. I was really just reppin’ his thoughts in the first sentence. The Tree of Life definitely did present questions. “How long do I have sit through these weird colors before the movie starts?” “Why can that chick fly all of the sudden?” “WTF? A Dinosaur?”
Seriously though, I liked Tree of Life.I not only wrote about it on my blog and Randi.org. http://www.dustyonmovies.com/2011/07/tree-of-life-2011.html
I’m with Castor here.
Answers don’t need to be provided. Especially when the prominent questions is, where do we come from? We’ve been attempting to figure that out for all of time — so I can expect Ridley Scott to provide the answer.
But a film is worth very little if it merely asks questions, and doesn’t even attempt to form any semblance of an answer or a possibility – or conversation surrounding the question.
Visually the film is stunning — it almost demands a certain ambiguity and immediacy.
What terrifies me, personally, is that people truly believe that this some sort of rare gem of blockbuster filmmaking that infuses entertainment with intellect. If this is “intelligent” filmmaking, than we’re in some serious trouble.
To quote from a review “My friends and I often create plans to go to the movies with more sophistication and coherency than this trillion dollar operation”.
While that may be a bit hyperbolic, it rings mostly true. So much is left undeveloped — and many of the characters just act with utter stupidity that you wonder how they would ever get on this shoddy mission.
Which brings me to my last grievance — Charlize Theron. Her character is useless. She acts malicious and indifferent for the sake of being a nuisance, hindering the mission.
Overall, I didn’t quite care for Prometheus: Mostly laughable Sci-fi affair with rapturing aesthetics, and nada for narrative.
I liked it, but at the same time I recognize the flaws that hold this film back and make it very underwhelming for some people.
I’ve linked this a million times already, but the following is a must read for anybody who watches the movie, and it’s based somewhat off what Scott revealed in an interview.
http://cavalorn.livejournal.com/584135.html#cutid1
I like your honest review cas…but I am with Red here. As you know I like it a lot but I do understand all the flaw everyone, including you, have mentioned here. But still, I need more daring action movie like this, not just something for fun like most movies coming out lately.
Thank you for the link red…I will check it our
I agree Novia. I would watch this movie again even though it seems like I’m really harsh on it. It’s an interesting film but I just don’t feel like Scott accomplished what he set out to do here.
I don’t see the lingering questions in the film to be a fault. It spurs discussion. As for the comparison to Tree of Life, I could use some elaboration, because Tree of Life never asked any questions nor gave anything to ponder.
+1 this guy.
-100 from Mod.
+99 we’re even.
I haven’t seen Tree of Life yet but I agree with you, I don’t see the lingering question as a fault…instead as something I am looking forward to be solved in the sequel
You’re just hating, Colin
I thought about seeing this but the mixed reviews has made decide not to as I’ll wait for it on TV as I’m starting to get frustrated with Ridley Scott as a filmmaker as of late.
You are going to wait a long time lol
I wouldn’t recommend against seeing it. The movie has generated a surprisingly large amount of discussion all over the internet after all so it’s not like it’s a waste of time.
I haven’t seen this movie, but I’ve seen other reviewers voice similar opinions. It’s a shame since it seems like this premise had a lot of potential. Thank you for a sharp, intelligent, and articulate review. I think I’ll miss this movie.
Thanks Stephanie. As you can see in the comment, it’s a polarizing film so you should definitely make up your own mind
Well, on the subject of the David poisoning the guy, i think he was experimenting to see what the effect of it was and more importantly help fulfill his secret agenda.
And for me, i mostly liked it. The two things that annoyed me was the trying to be cuddly with alien scene you mentioned, and later in the film when a certain character keeps running straight instead of moving to the side/rolling out of the way of the falling thing near the end. Those two incidents seemed like obvious plot induced stupidity. And the Engineers reaction to the goo in the opening scene starts to not make sense after learning about the Engineers.
Ahah yea hilarious death by said character at the end. What do you mean the engineer’s reaction to the black goo didn’t make sense?
The Engineer seemed surprised, but in the end i thought it was either said or implied the Enginners created the goo.
Ah yea, I just loved how Idris Elba suddenly comes to the conclusion that the jugs of black goo are weapons of mass destruction and how it turned against the engineers. Could it possibly get more expository than that?
That’s not a sudden reveal. Originally, the crew believed the jugs to be vessels for life, after being attacked, it’s clear that the engineers want us dead. It’s a change in perception.
Hey, glad to see you reviewing this Castor. I finally saw it last night and I think I won’t be as generous as my friend Phil who gave it 4 out 5. I enjoyed it more than you but yeah, there are soooo many questions I don’t even know where to begin! The ones you mentioned here, especially the ‘Engineer’ in the opening sequence (what the heck did he eat??) and the significance of the cross Dr. Shaw is wearing and why she believes in that (I presume Christianity) yet also believes she was created by an Alien being??? That’s just mind-boggling and actually makes me laugh, some ‘maker’ these people believe in, eh? I guess you can chug it to ‘that’s what I choose to believe’ but as a scientist that just doesn’t make sense to believe in something with no real evidence she could grasp onto. It works as a sci-fi thriller though, and the basic questions all of us grapple with: why are we here, where are we from, etc. are explored well, just don’t expect to find answers here. Just like most humans ‘trying to be God,’ it’s futile.
Well, I think Shaw was really set on going to LV-223 to see if she could literally meet God himself. Obviously, she didn’t know about the ‘Engineers’ until they got there.
Looking forward to your review Ruth!
Have you seen this Castor? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x1YuvUQFJ0
One question I have, and haven’t seen addressed, is why haven’t these aliens had a single technological advance in thousands of years. Assuming the planet we see at the beginning of the movie is earth, that would be (possibly) millions of years. It seems they’re kind of stuck in a rut as far as advancements go.
Haven’t seen it yet but will do in a second. What I have been wondering is why the Engineers didn’t destroy human civilization in the 2000 years since their first attempt failed? Is it explained at any time??
Your question is more pressing, but that was a question intended to be created. I think the technology thing is mostly just a oversight. Even in Star Trek the technology changes along the timeline, and its not exactly known for stellar continuity. (Yeah I said stellar)
The other question would be why do they look so different if they share the same DNA. Also, where the hell do they work out? There must be some awesome gym aboard those ships that was never discovered.
Obviously, science through Hollywood movies isn’t going to make sense to anyone who managed to get through high school
I love you’re post on the Tree of Life. It’s a fine line when dealing with how much you leave to be interpreted by the audience. One of the best films that did this http://www.metropolismovie.co.uk What do you think? I’m pretty convinced we wouldn’t be watching Prometheus without this one.
Ouch a C+. I see your points but in spite of these flaws, I liked the film. I gave it 3.5 out of 5 stars. I think it had a weight of expectations that have made us really pick the film apart. Shoddy science is a standard sci-fi flaws.
My boy Rafe Spall takes the cake. His actions were so daft they were hee-larious!
Yea it’s one of those movies that is weighted down by the huge amount of anticipation built up for it. I’m fairly sure I will enjoy the movie more once I see it again on DVD but as of now, that’s how I feel.
Good points Castor. I found enough to like in the story to come back for more but ultimately it was a disappointment.
Thanks Dan. Not a bad movie but the fact that it’s not remotely close to its potential for greatness was really disappointing.
I didn’t mind the questions personally. Sure there were a lot of things left unanswered and said but I don’t mind going out there and figuring things out or heck, making up answers for myself. Like a lot of people have said, it keeps the discussion going.
I remember feeling somewhat disappointed immediately after seeing it, but given a day, I looked back and changed my mind vastly.
Leaving things open ended isn’t a bad thing but the way Prometheus did was terrible. One moment, the movie tries to allude to bigger things while simultaneously hitting you in the face with totally simplistic and unsubtle plot developments.
I agree with your written assessment, Cap, definitely. It was more than a little shaky.
But the visuals and the action plus the lofty aim of the movie wound me up giving it a much higher grade…
I still thought it was a really solid, enjoyable flick.
Yea I know you gave it a much higher grade. It’s an entertaining movie and to be honest, I feel like I will probably enjoy it more on a second watch but the script is terribly disappointing and that was a big downer for me.
Finally got around to seeing Prometheus (and Alien before it – for the first time at that!) this weekend. I actually VERY much enjoyed the film, from the striking visuals to the posed questions, the action scenes, the whole nine yards. Just really enjoyed it! Sorry you didn’t as much, Castor.
Also, I guess I just never made the connection between it and the Tree of Life. I know both films pose questions about how we got here and such, but perhaps I appreciated the more linear approach of Prometheus. Tree of Life just wasn’t my cup of tea
Glad you liked it Kristin. One thing you can’t deny, this movie really gets people talking and that’s a great thing!
On ambiguity:
Look, ambiguity is great. As film writers and lovers and critics, we all generally like ambiguity because when employed properly, it’s just a bridge we have to cross to get to the answers contained within the text itself. It’s when ambiguity forces us to look outside the text that it becomes a problem; we’re no longer talking about clever, artistic wit at that point, but sloppy storytelling.
And Prometheus straddles that line.
I liked this movie. Quite a bit, in fact, enough that I hit the ground running on release day with a 3-out-of-4 review over at GST. But it’s a deeply flawed movie, and much of that has to do with how unwilling it is to answer its own questions in any way shape or form. Being blunt, providing an answer to Shaw’s and Holloway’s questions about why we’re here and why the Engineers made us is a gamble; when everyone on this planet wonders the same thing (and most of us do, I imagine), seeing someone else answer the question themselves can prove disappointing.
That’s because most of us who ask that question have our own ideas about why we’re here in the first place. So I understand skirting around the answer. And honestly, I don’t know if it’s important to have a definitive answer in the first place, because I’d argue that the journey to get there is the worthier part, but it’s that journey where Prometheus truly stumbles. The script is a mess; it’s one of 2012′s worst. It’s hampered by bad plot logic, bad character decisions, and one of the most idiotic 3rd act reveals I can think of in recent cinema canon. (If Lindelof can’t be blamed for the whole script, which he can’t, I am CONFIDENT that that twist is all his.)
I’m mostly just shocked Scott let the script go as it was. After four drafts I would have thought the stupider aspects would have been trimmed. But they weren’t, and they wind up hamstringing the film in big, specific ways. (SPOILER) The Weyland reveal in particular stunts the development of the plot and slows down the movie at a key point when it needs to be riding the momentum from Shaw’s cesarean all the way to the climax, but more than that it takes away one of the keys to answering the question of “why” that dogs the whole film. Weyland “made” Vickers (he contributed at least, in the way men do), and he made David; he’s a creator in his own right. And that big twist winds up diluting the tension between the three of them, which I think could have gone a long way toward supposing why the Engineers made us in the first place.
Anyways. Long-winded, yes, but I get like that. It’s beautiful to look at, it has some interesting ideas on its mind, and it’s well-acted, but man does that script just drag it down.
This guy.
Don’t even read my review, just read that comment!!!!
I agree with some of the specific points, but I disagree on a fundamental level with your opening statement. I don’t see how looking outside the text of a film depreciates a film in any way. In fact, the best sci-fi movies leave their answers to the audience. Which I believe makes the film a personal experience for each individual.
This is true 2001, Tree of Life, The Fountain, Moon, Plan 9 from Outerspace. Okay, maybe not the last one. I understand that Prometheus doesn’t operate on such a deep level as those sci-fi greats, but it operates on some of the same principles. One thing to keep in mind, this is not just a sci-fi film, but a horror film. It’s quite the balancing act to approach life’s bigger questions while also aiming to make your audience squirm. I thought Scott pulled it off brilliantly.
I do agree that the Weyland reveal was silly. I think it was a failed attempt to force us once again to consider Theron as an android. There were also plenty of plot holes, but that could be said of any movie. For me, the pros outweigh the cons so much that I still must call Prometheus a great movie. Anyone who disagrees is, of course, wrong. I don’t state opinions folks, only facts.
J/K
That’s supposed to read, “This is true *of 2001…”
Weyland hiding in his own ship was just plain silly. The guy is a billionaire funding the entire expedition and owning the place. There was absolutely no reason for him to hide in the first place except to have a BS twist at the end.
He hid so the audience wouldn’t have to see his wrinkles for the entire runtime. You should be thankful.
I don’t see how looking outside the text of a film depreciates a film in any way. In fact, the best sci-fi movies leave their answers to the audience. Which I believe makes the film a personal experience for each individual.
It’s a tricky line to walk. Ambiguity can be a powerful thing that lends rich meaning to a film, or it can just be a hallmark of bad storytelling. In the case of Prometheus, while I don’t especially mind not getting answers about the Engineers and their motives– because I largely think that they’re besides the point– I think that some of the lengths people are going to to “answer” those mysteries are nutty. One guy basically argued, admittedly based off a quote from Scott himself, that Jesus was an Engineer, we crucified him, and the mission we see almost carried out at the end was meant to be our comeuppance. Really.
That’s the sort of bending over backwards I think should be avoided in using ambiguity. More than anything what I hate is supplementary material that becomes required viewing/reading in order to understand the film. That’s really lazy. And greedy. But that’s not what happened here, so anyways…
I think looking outside of the text can be rewarding, but I don’t think it should be required to understand a movie. If a movie cannot be understood on its own terms, it’s failed. I’m not above, say, applying Jungian thought to explain the Bride of Frankenstein’s horrified reaction at meeting the Monster in Bride of Frankenstein. But I shouldn’t have to know Jung in order for that scene to work. It should work on its own. Similarly, I shouldn’t have to consult any number of sources to understand what the Engineers are or how the black ooze works; that should be evident based on reading the text.
But like I said, it’s tricky.
http://www.anomalousmaterial.com/ is the best website on the internet!!!
It’s nice to see Castor and I are getting the same spam on our blogs. Makes me feel like I’m part of something.
edited
Aww, I deleted mine. I shoulda thought of that!
Prometheus was the first time I ever saw an Alien-related film. And I enjoyed it. But I wonder how it’ll fare later on my ranking of 2012 films. Because it had really great stuff going for it, but at the same time had other weak bits too.
Yea, hopefully it won’t make my top 10… Or it will be a really sad year lol
…the rumour mill is going into overdrive – there’s talk of this becoming a trilogy with the third film featuring the alien we all know and love!
Well, i think its obvious Ridley wants to make a franchise out of this considering how it ended
Nice to see you reviewing again, Castor! Bummer to hear you were disappointed with this one. I agree that it was a flawed movie, but I still had a lot of fun with it and thought it raised some interesting questions.
Thanks Eric. It’s always nice to review a movie every now and then (especially when we get this amount of discussion going on
). Glad you enjoyed the movie for what it was! I’m not saying it was dull or anything, just missing the mark as far as what Scott was trying to accomplish.
And how do you know what he was trying to accomplish? 73% of pro critics think it hit the mark pretty well. I wonder why you and your readers all tend to be on the shallow end of the stats?
We are the 1%.
How does one become a pro critic?Is there a form i need to fill out here, or an i just bribe my way into it
I need to know these things
One makes money. Enough to need an extra tax form. I was just going by the Rotten Tomatoes numbers because they have certain readership qualifications that need to be met.
Your credibility just ran out the window Dusty.
I know many “pro” critics that are poor writers – but simply write hyperbolic reviews that sound nice but mean nothing.
73% of critics like something. So what? Castor (among others) have clearly defined why they dislike the film. Not sure what’s unclear.
And I’m with Julian … where can I fill out this pro critic form? Intrigued!
I think my brother may have summed it up best when he described the crew of the Prometheus as the outer space version of McHale’s Navy. Damon Lindelof’s decision to consistantly use the stupidity of the crew as a device to advance the plot is unexcuseable.
Lindelof, screwed up Lost, penned the terrible Cowboys and Aliens, screwed up Prometheus and now I hear that he has been brought in to fix World War Z
…
A C+? Really?? “Prometheus” is far better than that. What you point out as major flaws are more minor than that. It is a movie that gets you talking and thinking. Sure, some questions could have been answered, but perhaps that is where the sequel is going. Without giving too much away, the motives of David become more clear when you stop to think about them. His one-sided conversations with his creator are a good place to start.
I understand viewers puzzling response though; many I spoke with couldn’t decide if they liked the movie or not. However, on reflection and discussion with other viewers their opinion became more clear.
For me, “Prometheus” failed only in the “is it or isn’t it a sequel to ‘Alien’” dilema. If you focus on it as a stand alone movie, it stands fairly tall. Fans of “Alien” and “Aliens” will find moments and scenes that excite them. Unlike the “Alien” franchise, this film is far more a fantasy/sci-fi epic than a horror film. I wonder, if it were scarier would you have liked it more?
Trackbacks