Discussion:
alien 3 excellent
(too old to reply)
Adam Cameron
2005-08-28 23:35:01 UTC
Permalink
I spotted this on rec.arts.movies.current-films. It's worth repeating
here.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films,rec.arts.movies.past-films,rec.arts.sf.movies,alt.cult-movies
Subject: alien 3 excellent
Date: 28 Aug 2005 15:06:46 -0700
alien 3 is a near great sci-fi movie. maybe it's great, i dunno.
directed by david fincher, the orson welles among today's younger
directors. fincher is the master of the low angle shot, a masterful
architect of space, gifted with a genuine film sense. he can make
small things look epic and make big things look orderly and neat. he
has mastered both the macrocosmic and the microcosmic aspects of
filmmaking. most filmmakers are lucky if they can master one. william
wyler or david lean, for example, was mostly a director of grandness,
even intimate material rendered on a monumental scale. some directors
work best on small subjects and small scale, sensitively aware of the
subtleties and nuances. but, there have been directors like orson
welles, who demonstrated in films like magnificent ambersons and chimes
at midnight, the seemingly effortless ability to juggle the grandiose
bird's eye view with the world of the flea circus. there's a scene in
mr. arkadin where a flea circus master's eye looms large thru a
magnifying glass. that was welles, the ability to gaze from afar and
stare up close simultaneously. we may also recall the character of
harry lime in the third man, a fascinating fellow who's seemingly
charismatic and warm yet also pathologically detached, seeing people as
ants.
david fincher maybe has the potential to be as great as welles.
but then, maybe not. there was more to welles than technique and
perhaps that's all fincher has. i haven't really liked any of his
movies--except alien 3--, and i especially hated the ugly mugly Se7en.
but, there's no doubting fincher's absolute brilliance as a visual
artist. in alien 3, his control over the medium is both classic and
modern(in film terms of course). unlike so many new directors who rely
on whooshing cameras, constant motion, close-ups(LOR movies being the
worst offenders), and other cheap trickery, fincher has the patience
to shape scenes with the assured confidence of a master carver or brain
surgeon. instead of relying on the main tools of visual grammar in
today's cinema--constant camera motion, looming close ups, obvious and
exaggerated lighting--, fincher relies mainly on a dying if not already
dead art in the genre of science fiction; he goes for carefully
arranged compositions. though the setting is dank and grubby, the
details are exquisite. also, the framing of every shot is a bull's
eye, and every shot is jointed with the next at just the right angles.
the visual construct matches the physqiue of that maze-like prison,
soon to become a deathtrap.
of course, fincher is also versed in the modern filmmaking technique,
so when necessary the film goes into hyperdrive, fullspeed ahead.
but, even here, fincher's approach is more careful and elaborate than
usual. unlike so many action movies which abandon all sense of what's
happening and leave the audience nothing to focus on except action and
violence, fincher maintains a sense of purpose and design when the
inmates try to lure the alien creature into a compartment for
extermination. fincher conveys both the sense of panic and confusion
and the sense of overarching purpose.
alien 3 is closer to the first alien movie than alien 2, which typified
what passes for sci-fi today. alien 2 was rambo in space, almost all
action. its mood was created by action, violence, and the usual scare
tactics. when things were not happening, nothing was happening. in
alien 1 and 3, action is relatively secondary. set-up is far more
important, and our main fascination is with the scenario and the
setting than the action. the first alien movie drew us in by
presenting a strange fascinating world. alien 2 was just happy to
blow things up. in alien 3, we are again situated in a very strange
world, one interesting enough to hold our attention without bursts of
violence. ripley is standed on a prison colony with 25 inmates who are
all male, all psychotic, and all devoutly religious, if only
superficially and for no other choice. even if the movie didn't have
the alien monster, it would be interesting for the social and
psychological dynamic triggered by ripley amongst these men.
like in the first alien movie and blade runner, the setting holds our
attention as much as the story, characters, and action. it's almost
hard to believe that a studio okayed alien 3 after the huge success of
alien 2, rambo, indiana jones films, terminator film, and their ilk.
alien 3 is a sci-fi art film. it has only ONE monster, as opposed to
hordes of them in part 2. there are no superweapons, and its
characters have nothing to rely on but wit, courage, and unity. this
is, relatively, a rather brainy movie. it's like a cross between john
carpenter's the thing and orwell's 1984.
the screenwriters have also done something weird with this material.
you can read things into the first two movies but it really gets pretty
far-out in part 3. part one could be read as a war between two
imperialist powers, that between the human empire and the alien empire.
part 2 could be read as the war between mother instincts, that of the
the human vs. that of the alien.
part 3 seems to take its cue from the genesis. like adam, the men on
the prison colony are one with god and with no chance of sexual
mischief. but, a woman drops in amongst them and causes rifts and
tensions among them. the ruffians are kept in order, physically and
spiritually, by a big fat charles dutton of the noble redemptive
hollywood negro school--even so, dutton comes across as a plausible and
complex character.
ripley arrives on the colony along with the alien, which reminds us of
the partnership between eve and the serpent. ripley later finds out
that she herself is infected or impregnated with the alien monster.
female sexuality is associated with serpentine destructiveness, a
reiteration of the fears expressed in the bible. women equal--or
inspire--temptation, lust, violence, and disunity. since women cause
those destructive feelings, women has been scapegoated by men as the
cause of downfall of civilization.
alien 3 plays with this notion, with ripley playing the role of both
the corrupter and the savior of men. her arrival--especially with the
alien(also female)--on the colony sets off a chain reaction of violence
and mayhem. but, she is also the fighting angel, the figure that
inspires men to go out on their limbs to prove their manhood against
the dark forces. she has the power to turn men into demons or into
knights in shining armor.
with her head and pubes shaved to stave off lice--mini alien critters,
in a way--what results is a kind of asexual world where what it finally
comes down to is humankind vs alienkind. when it comes to the survival
of the human species, there is no man or woman, black or white.
indeed, ripley may have caused even greater psychologicial havoc if she
didn't bring the alien creature with her. it's the alien monster that
pulls everyone together, even if in death.
if i have one major problem with the movie, it's when the alien
survives being dumped with a ton of hot molten lead. i know sci-fi
isn't scientific but the idea of any creature surviving that kind of
ordeal is nuts.
anyway, among the final image is that of ripley sacrificing herself by
leaping into the vat of molten metal. she's impregnated with the alien
critter and wants to sacrifice herself ala terminator in part 2;
furthermore, she fears that corporations back on earth will keep the
critter alive in order use it for military experiments. the image of
ripley falling into the vat reminds us of witchburning, the sacrificing
of the women as the source of wickedness in the world. but, it's also
a christ image. ripley is like mary but impregnated with a demon
child. she must sacrifice herself along with her alien kid for the
good of mankind. what's truly striking and even moving is how ripley
holds the creature that emerges from her chest near and dear to her
bosom as she falls toward molten metal. it's a great sublime moment in
sci-fi, an image of murderous hate and motherly love, mortal enemies
united in body and in death.. perhaps even in soul.
alien 3 is really a winner.
John Redman
2005-08-29 21:24:41 UTC
Permalink
directed by david fincher, the orson welles among today's younger
directors. fincher is the master of the low angle shot, a masterful
architect of space, gifted with a genuine film sense.
but, there's no doubting fincher's absolute brilliance as a visual
artist.
fincher relies mainly on a dying if not already
dead art in the genre of science fiction; he goes for carefully
arranged compositions.
like in the first alien movie and blade runner, the setting holds our
attention as much as the story, characters, and action.
alien 3 is a sci-fi art film. it has only ONE monster, as opposed to
hordes of them in part 2.
part 3 seems to take its cue from the genesis. like adam, the men on
the prison colony are one with god and with no chance of sexual
mischief.
ripley arrives on the colony along with the alien, which reminds us of
the partnership between eve and the serpent.
female sexuality is associated with serpentine destructiveness, a
reiteration of the fears expressed in the bible.
the image of
ripley falling into the vat reminds us of witchburning, the sacrificing
of the women as the source of wickedness in the world.
Well, no. Ripley falling into the vat reminds many of us rather more of
Arnie falling into the vat in Terminator 2 the year before. That's the
problem with shite movies: you can always spot what they ripped off.

Whoever wrote that lot reminds me of people I knew at university. They
enjoyed abusing movies to showcase how magnificently developed their
artistic sensibility and critical faculties were. They didn't actually like
films that much though.

David Fincher makes movies for art-house movie pseuds who like to impress
other art-house movie pseuds. He's the Talking Heads of film.
Vigil
2005-08-31 23:40:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Cameron
I spotted this on rec.arts.movies.current-films. It's worth repeating
here.
Too much to read. Sum in 16 words or less, please.
--
.
John Redman
2005-09-01 00:29:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vigil
Post by Adam Cameron
I spotted this on rec.arts.movies.current-films. It's worth repeating
here.
Too much to read. Sum in 16 words or less, please.
"A3 did not treat us like arses, despite overwhelming consensus to the
contrary. Fincher = Orson Welles."
w***@yahoo.com
2005-09-01 12:19:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Redman
"A3 did not treat us like arses, despite overwhelming consensus to the
contrary.
well, I suppose the producers did at least
Tracy
2005-09-02 23:41:37 UTC
Permalink
I cant believe I actually *did* read it all! He had lots to say - to
say the least!
John Redman
2005-09-03 22:42:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tracy
I cant believe I actually *did* read it all! He had lots to say - to
say the least!
You reckon? I thought he talked a lot without saying anything.
ROBERT LAWFORD
2005-09-10 11:57:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Redman
Post by Tracy
I cant believe I actually *did* read it all! He had lots to say - to
say the least!
You reckon? I thought he talked a lot without saying anything.
Just like most people that go to university then :P

Loading...