In the echelon of history, there are few film franchises that have had quite the interesting trajectory of Alien (1979). While Star Wars (1977) may have been way more successful and presented a more accessible view of outer space, there is something to be said for what director Ridley Scott created around the same time. The initial film was billed as a haunted house movie in space. Every scene has an intensity and grossness that makes you feel uncomfortable watching it. It’s the film that gave us the Xenomorphs, presenting a world that definitely earned its R-Rating and made you see space in a totally different way.
One could argue that each subsequent entry qualifies as “different” in terms of vision. Without getting into them, each of the subsequent entries for the next few decades had a different filmmaker. They were all allowed to present the story of Ellen Ripley in such a manner that often displayed the shifting approach to action cinema. After all, how many other franchises can lay claim to featuring Ridley Scott, James Cameron, and David Fincher as primary directors? This world has been through an incredible transformation, and it’s strange to see it back in the hands of Scott after a near 40 years of letting others tack a crack at it.
This is of course the story of Scott, the filmmaker who popularized the director’s cut. Back in the time when DVD’s and Blu-Rays were a hot commodity, filmmakers would load the discs with special features that presented a more immersed understanding of the film. Alien alone remains a film so heavily discussed that it’s likely that a documentary just on the various technical achievements is floating around on YouTube somewhere. There are countless interviews piecing together aspects of the film that make you better appreciate the story.
That is what Scott knows how to do. If you go later into his career, Blade Runner (1985) is a film notorious for having multiple cuts. Many have spent years arguing over which version is the definitive take and whether five seconds of footage really makes all that much of a difference. There is so much to Scott’s vision that can be described as meticulous that it becomes captivating just to see how his vision differs from the studios, making a story far more lived-in and interesting than it was before. In cases like Kingdom of Heaven (2005), some have even argued that the director’s cut even enhances the story and makes it coherent.
Which makes Scott’s return to the Alien franchise particularly interesting. It is the one that he created, but it’s clearly far from what it started as. This isn’t through some random desecration. It’s just the product of a franchise being tossed around the studio, given to filmmakers with different takes on action and horror. Everyone looks at the stress signal being beamed into outer space and interprets it differently.
And yet, Ridley Scott couldn’t help going back out there.
With Prometheus (2012), Scott chose to explore a version of the story that hadn’t been seen before. It was an origin story of sorts. Its theme was about the disappointment of creation, and one that took brazen and sometimes incredibly maligned decisions that made many turn on the franchise, making some see Scott in a similar light to George Lucas and Star Wars. Why did they need this voice around giving depth to a story that clearly didn’t need it? Why not let things be at rest, especially since any crucial Alien iconography doesn’t necessarily appear until the third act.
Alien: Covenant (2017) fared much better with audiences, if just because it was more about the confrontational side of things. It was allowed to be the insane Xenomorph showdown that we had expected from the first. The promotional material featured the queen climbing aboard a space ship, rabid with drool pouring out of her mouth as she was ready to attack. This was definitely a bloodier version that didn’t pull any punches. Its philosophy was cushioned inside of the madness, and the results made for an intense ride that if nothing else felt like one of the most vital takes on the franchise since, if being generous, the 90s.
My issues don’t lie with Alien: Covenant itself. While I’m one of the rare few who admires the flawed nature of Prometheus, what bothers me most about the 2017 take is that it lacks a major sense of character. Maybe that is the point, where humanity is being destroyed so that a new species can be born. That’s fine, but if I’m being honest it makes all of the hard work towards presenting a story feel lacking.
Given that we’re not on board with Ripley, it’s difficult to use shorthand as a way to get us straight into the action. There needs to be some framework in place to make us care about whatever happens. Sure we may have the return of everyone’s favorite robot David once again providing his cool-headed philosophy, but it’s not enough. Nobody else that we knew from Prometheus is around and some of the film’s most major actors (notably James Franco) have been murdered off prior to the story even starting.
So… what gives?
What keeps Alien: Covenant from feeling essential is the lack of interesting characters. I want to be able to feel something when they wander into a dark planet. When something sideswipes them, I want to be able to feel like we just lost somebody full of meaning. This film has traces of that, but again I think that more is implied than understood.
 |
| Scene from Last Supper (not Alien: Covenant) |
Here’s the craziest part of Scott’s full vision: what you see isn’t all that you get. If you know how to navigate YouTube, there is a good chance that you’re able to find a series of “promotional” videos. I’m not talking about trailers or interviews that the crew did during press junkets. What I’ve found is something that still feels pretty rare. I think that I’ve only ever seen it done with Blade Runner 2049 (2017) since, but it was something that makes you question Scott, the man who should know the value of a scene, and those who assembled this movie.
Alien: Covenant released a series of “prologue” shorts including Last Supper. Directed by Luke Scott, this short gave a bigger sense of character. This was done by showing the crew together prior to the mission, finding comfort in each other’s company, and reflecting dynamics that make you excited to go on this adventure with them. For starters, its’ where the whole “Random James Franco Cameo” actually makes sense. There’s a gay couple whose dynamic is totally erased in the film because this scene is missing. It may not be a lot, but it’s evidence that this isn’t wanting to be a story about humanity, just really cool alien violence set to Michael Fassbender quoting pop-philosophy.
In total there are seven, and in different ways are meant to give you excitement for what lies ahead. These scenes, I guess, don’t forward the story but present an atmosphere without having to rely on footage you’ve seen a million times in trailers. In that way, I can understand how it’s clever and maybe even innovative. We don’t need prologues like Meet Walter, where we meet an additional character of note, because it would be redundant to his introduction in the narrative. In that regard, it makes sense to leave things on the cutting room floor.
Among the more noteworthy shorts was The Crossing, which also pieces together events from Prometheus. Protagonist Elizabeth Shaw ended the last film as a survivor and was on her journey home. With this three minute short, she encounters David once again and things go awry, putting to rest anyone who was confused about why she wasn’t in this story.
 |
| Scene from The Crossing (not Alien: Covenant) |
In some respects, these are cool. They enhance the story in ways that make marketing into an art form. With that said, it’s interesting how Last Supper and The Crossing could’ve been incorporated into the film and added something of substance to what the narrative was saying. Sure, Meet Walter, She Won’t Go Quietly, and Advent may not fit within the structured narrative, but there is the sense that we could’ve gotten a more interesting and human experience with all of this. It could’ve felt much more substantial.
With all of this said, I am not aware of the remaining Alien: Covenant special features. There are a reported 18 minutes of deleted scenes on the Blu-Ray release that could only enhance the story in ways that make everything that I’ve mentioned a moot point.
However, I want to say that there is a great difference between how Alien: Covenant uses its prologues and how Blade Runner 2049 does the exact same thing. In both cases, it introduces characters and world-building that entice us to see their film. They raise our interest in ways reflective of good marketing, giving scenes that aren’t in the film.
What makes Blade Runner 2049 different is that the world it has created has enough substance to compensate. The story that it’s telling has room for vagueness that is lost from not having these prologues smashed in somewhere. All they do is explain holes that exist between the 1985 film and now. It’s great world-building and finds small ways to make us care about minor characters.
Then again, it could all just be that Blade Runner 2049 is a more accomplished vision of its intent. It’s allowed to be sprawling and strange because the world is alien to us in ways that the viewer can enjoy trying to figure out. With Alien: Covenant, it’s clear that Scott is just as obsessed with giving us answers, wanting us to figure out what this world looks like and how it connects to his original franchise. Maybe if this was just some random new alien franchise it wouldn’t be so bothersome, but in its current form, it is still trying to find a purpose within the bigger picture.
Am I for these prologues? In a broad sense, yes. There is value in having these random scenes to introduce audiences to an atmospheric component of the story. However, the worst you can do is run into issues that faced films like The Matrix Revolutions (2003) and The Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) where aspects of their story are lost because audiences had to do additional work. In the case of The Matrix Revolutions, it was to play a video game that held answers to supporting characters. For Age of Ultron, you had to watch Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. the week before to get what that opening meant. That is arguably reaching too far out of the cinematic landscape to appreciate the story. After all, who is going to stop The Matrix Revolutions to play a game for a few hours? They exist to appeal to two wildly different markets. Also, since the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. connection is never directly expressed in the film, where’s the motivation for that?
I suppose the issue with Alien: Covenant is that I watched those prologues in order to gain any appreciation for its characters. These were the figures who we were dedicating the next two hours of our time to, and at points it was hard to care. Sure, you can read this as a story about humanity’s lack of worth, but I argue that some of the peril loses any meaning if we don’t give a substantial base to build from. We have enough that Alien: Covenant isn’t a bad movie and Katharine Waterston’s character is interesting in spurts, but as a whole, it feels like a world vision that is incomplete. We need a director’s cut to give us the whole picture, not a random video online that most people watching the movie probably never have heard of or will ever see.
Comments
Post a Comment