There are few films released in the last few years that generated such a polarized response as Ridley Scott's Prometheus. A few months ago, Josh (an avid fan of the film) was contacted by Kevin Murray, a listener of the podcast that had a much different response. He suggested an email exchange to debate the merits and failings of this divisive film. If you have thoughts or would like to contribute to the debate, let us know. - Dietrich Stogner
Before I get to your specific comments and thoughts about Prometheus, I thought it might be helpful to set out my feelings about the movie in general. To movie, Prometheus is a story in which God exists, and He hates us. In many ways, it’s a parallel to the Garden of Eden story, in which Mankind desires knowledge, and finally attains that knowledge at the cost of angering God. In Prometheus, Mankind hungers for answers and freedom from death, but finds only horrors as a result of that quest.
With that in mind, to me, a lot of the weaknesses of the people on this quest begin to make a stronger thematic sense. This is a story about people’s essential weakness, fallibility, and corruption, and as such, it only makes sense that humanity here is inept and foolish, especially if you would imagine that we are looking at them much as the Engineers do. Humanity is weak and knows nothing of the nature of the world and universe, and falters horribly in the face of such knowledge.
Sometimes, such as the case of the foolish biologist, that can end up seeming ridiculous. From what I’m told, there’s a cut scene from the film that somewhat justifies the biologist’s actions, but to me, if it’s not in the film, it doesn’t count. I feel like we tend to read our own knowledge onto the film during that scene. Of course, we know that only death results from these organisms, but the characters in the film don’t realize this. Should the biologist be more careful and cautious? Without a doubt. But perhaps through arrogance (a running theme of the film) or simple overconfidence, he feels that the creature offers him no threat. Really, he’s hardly much different than the late Crocodile Hunter in that case, isn’t he? Are his actions stupid? Without a doubt. But I don’t find that to be a dealbreaker for the film. Rather, that plays into the general perceptions of humanity as arrogant, cavalier, and foolish, so it’s a thematic choice.
With that in mind, to me, a lot of the weaknesses of the people on this quest begin to make a stronger thematic sense. This is a story about people’s essential weakness, fallibility, and corruption, and as such, it only makes sense that humanity here is inept and foolish, especially if you would imagine that we are looking at them much as the Engineers do. Humanity is weak and knows nothing of the nature of the world and universe, and falters horribly in the face of such knowledge.
Sometimes, such as the case of the foolish biologist, that can end up seeming ridiculous. From what I’m told, there’s a cut scene from the film that somewhat justifies the biologist’s actions, but to me, if it’s not in the film, it doesn’t count. I feel like we tend to read our own knowledge onto the film during that scene. Of course, we know that only death results from these organisms, but the characters in the film don’t realize this. Should the biologist be more careful and cautious? Without a doubt. But perhaps through arrogance (a running theme of the film) or simple overconfidence, he feels that the creature offers him no threat. Really, he’s hardly much different than the late Crocodile Hunter in that case, isn’t he? Are his actions stupid? Without a doubt. But I don’t find that to be a dealbreaker for the film. Rather, that plays into the general perceptions of humanity as arrogant, cavalier, and foolish, so it’s a thematic choice.
Humanity is weak and knows nothing of the nature of the world and universe, and falters horribly in the face of such knowledge.
Fifield’s return is, to be sure, an odd moment, but it’s inexplicability is, it seems to me, intentional and not accidental. We know that the black fluid in the compound seems to alter living material in unclear ways. What it does, precisely, is never specified, so I’m okay with Fifield coming back in a somewhat zombie-fied form and attacking. Is he attacking through pure aggression and luck, or is it some part of guiding intelligence? I don’t think we’re meant to know.
See, again and again I see people attacking the film for leaving so much unclear, and oddly, that was a lot of the appeal of the film to me. I loved the ambiguities and the way it presented the audience with massive questions and then refused to give answers. That’s the nature of some quests, and I was okay with leaving them unanswered. It reminded me of many of H.P. Lovecraft’s stories, where the best we can hope for is to comprehend what we are experiencing, and to presume to understand the motives of beings such as those is far beyond us. (It’s not surprising, really, that Guillermo del Toro cited Prometheus as his reason for not making At the Mountains of Madness. While I would have loved to have seen that movie, he’s right that there’s a huge amount of overlap between those two stories.)
I can’t speak to the editing of the scene you’re commenting on – when I get to my re-watch, I’ll definitely watch for it to try to tell you what I thought. But I will address the side comment about everyone’s deadpan reaction to Shaw. Why wouldn’t they react that way? For one thing, I would assume that David probably told them what was going on; for another, they literally could not care less about Shaw at this point. At this point, the nature of the mission has shifted in favor of getting Weyland the answers that he wants, and the rest of the crew is useless. The only one who displays a modicum of concern is David, of course, which plays into his fascination with Shaw over the course of the film. One of the best things about Fassbinder’s performance is the way it underlines so much of what’s going on with the movie. Much like the human characters in the film, David is acutely aware of the fact that he is a created being, but while Shaw and the others are hoping for answers that give their lives meaning, David is already aware of his creators, and finds them sorely wanting. They are foolish, selfish, petty, unimaginative, and insignificant, especially in the grand scheme of the universe. (In some ways, David reminds me of Marvin from Hitchhiker’s Guide as he complains about having an intellect that can compute the grand questions of the universe but is instead being used to make coffee.) And yet, David finds something compelling about Shaw – her dreams, her hopefulness for something more, her interest in looking beyond human creation. She is the only one he finds interesting, for whatever reason. As for Vickers and Weyland? Shaw is useless to them, and thus their concern is pretty minimal.
See, again and again I see people attacking the film for leaving so much unclear, and oddly, that was a lot of the appeal of the film to me. I loved the ambiguities and the way it presented the audience with massive questions and then refused to give answers. That’s the nature of some quests, and I was okay with leaving them unanswered. It reminded me of many of H.P. Lovecraft’s stories, where the best we can hope for is to comprehend what we are experiencing, and to presume to understand the motives of beings such as those is far beyond us. (It’s not surprising, really, that Guillermo del Toro cited Prometheus as his reason for not making At the Mountains of Madness. While I would have loved to have seen that movie, he’s right that there’s a huge amount of overlap between those two stories.)
I can’t speak to the editing of the scene you’re commenting on – when I get to my re-watch, I’ll definitely watch for it to try to tell you what I thought. But I will address the side comment about everyone’s deadpan reaction to Shaw. Why wouldn’t they react that way? For one thing, I would assume that David probably told them what was going on; for another, they literally could not care less about Shaw at this point. At this point, the nature of the mission has shifted in favor of getting Weyland the answers that he wants, and the rest of the crew is useless. The only one who displays a modicum of concern is David, of course, which plays into his fascination with Shaw over the course of the film. One of the best things about Fassbinder’s performance is the way it underlines so much of what’s going on with the movie. Much like the human characters in the film, David is acutely aware of the fact that he is a created being, but while Shaw and the others are hoping for answers that give their lives meaning, David is already aware of his creators, and finds them sorely wanting. They are foolish, selfish, petty, unimaginative, and insignificant, especially in the grand scheme of the universe. (In some ways, David reminds me of Marvin from Hitchhiker’s Guide as he complains about having an intellect that can compute the grand questions of the universe but is instead being used to make coffee.) And yet, David finds something compelling about Shaw – her dreams, her hopefulness for something more, her interest in looking beyond human creation. She is the only one he finds interesting, for whatever reason. As for Vickers and Weyland? Shaw is useless to them, and thus their concern is pretty minimal.
It reminded me of many of H.P. Lovecraft’s stories, where the best we can hope for is to comprehend what we are experiencing, and to presume to understand the motives of beings such as those is far beyond us.
In the closing, you mention the surgery, which I found to be one of the most effective and horrifying sequences in the film. What was wrong with it? You can get into all the themes and ideas that come as a result (really, an abortion in a film about confronting God is an amazing choice; or you can look at the way that even in the distant future, males are still given first dibs on medical breakthroughs and women have to force their way in; or, more to the main ideas of the film, the way that creators give birth to creatures with no respect or appreciation for their creators). or you can just look at the body horror of the whole thing. Is your issue with it the fact that she’s up and walking afterward? Because to me, once you’ve got a technology that automatically extracts foreign bodies and presumably does more for human recovery time, and then factor in adrenaline and fear, I’ve got no issue with Shaw being up and moving after the surgery.
I’ll wrap up with this: I won’t deny that the film has some flaws. But none of them were enough to detract from the complex themes and ideas at work. From a thematic perspective, I feel like a lot of the “foolish” choices made by the human characters make sense in terms of the bigger picture. It seems like you’re in the opposite camp. Did the film’s ideas not work for you at all? Or did you simply feel that the story used to explore them wasn’t sufficiently compelling?
- Josh Mauthe
I’ll wrap up with this: I won’t deny that the film has some flaws. But none of them were enough to detract from the complex themes and ideas at work. From a thematic perspective, I feel like a lot of the “foolish” choices made by the human characters make sense in terms of the bigger picture. It seems like you’re in the opposite camp. Did the film’s ideas not work for you at all? Or did you simply feel that the story used to explore them wasn’t sufficiently compelling?
- Josh Mauthe
