By: Peter Lawler

Peter Lawler — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:06:20 +0000

Well, John and David have convinced me to see it. I promise to be all over the searching and seeking, if they’re really there in P.

By: Ramsey

Ramsey — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 22:23:56 +0000

It is of course debatable whether Prometheus merits much careful thought or attention, and screenwriter Lindelof certainly seems more comfortable pointing in the direction of universal principles found in all world religions (see the final episode of Lost) than in the unique insights of Christian revelation, and yet I think you’re probably right to point to the high tone set by Scott. Why not try and take the film seriously? At any rate, I’ve certainly found myself thinking about the film since seeing it last week, so…
Here are two points on which I take issue with your reading of the film:
(SPOILER ALERT)
1) it’s not so clear to me that the engineers are unequivocally malevolent. we see two. one seems bent on destroying all human life in the mode of the earlier Alien films. But the first few minutes of the film show us a second engineer, on what seems to be an uninhabited and roughly earth-like planet, waving or gesturing to a ship, then drinking a substance which causes him to sort of disintegrate before our eyes. As the credits roll, we go on a fantastic voyage, watch his DNA torn apart, then watch new cells begin to form. Is the implication that this act of self-destruction is the creation of life on earth? at any rate, the claim that the engineers are “downright malevolent toward the existence of human kind” seems unwarranted, and i’d propose that the film embraces a sort of dualism (not in any fancy Cartesian sense, but more in the sense of insisting that the truth may not be open to man as something whole, one, complete, etc.) and invites consideration of this ambiguity. there are two engineers. they do not speak. and their actions may very well point in different directions. but even more importantly, as Dr. Shaw the cross-wearer reminds us, the question still remains at the end of the film–where do these engineers come from?
2) as you note, only Dr. Shaw the believer and David the robot remain at the end of the film. and david is broken by the mean engineer. though both Dr. Shaw and David will carry scars by which to remember their encounters with the aliens, only Dr. Shaw will remain whole. David is shown to be little more than a disembodied head–perhaps here some comparison to Descartes IS relevant.
David has modeled himself on the Lawrence of Mr. O’Toole, and quotes a line from the film at an important point: “there is nothing in the desert, and no man needs nothing.” david gives voice to the fear that the truth awaiting the seeker at the end of her quest is that of nihilism. shortly thereafter david’s creator is killed by the mean engineer and david’s head is torn from its body. David’s head apologizes to its creator, who dies, it would seem, having his worst fears about human origins confirmed. If the film ended there it would be a very different film indeed, and your claim that “the whole movie intends to show the ultimate insignificance of human beings no matter how much they may demonstrate individual heroic virtue” might hold more water. But you neglect to mention the shared sense of purpose of the captain, the two co-pilots, and Dr. Shaw. The first three die to prevent the malevolent engineer from reaching earth, and behave just as you’d expect from good Darwinian species fodder–death is fine if it will ensure perpetuation of the species. But the only human left standing on this foreign planet is Dr. Shaw, our seeker. I’ll be the first one to admit that the writing doesn’t do much to explain where this desire to know, this faith in an answer to the question of human origin more complete than that of Mr. Darwin, comes from. But couldn’t this be a conscious decision of the writers?–the desire manifested in Dr. Shaw is natural. there’s nothing so unique or special about it–it’s as plain as her looks. the character portrayed throughout most of the film as otherwise superior-in-every-way (i realize this is debatable)–David–cannot understand why she would choose to seek out the origins of the engineers, rather than return home. and the film leaves us with those two facts: the survival of the seeker and the continuation of the search. not a bad moral for a summer blockbuster, i’d say, though one could always hope for more.

Anyway, thanks for helping me to begin thinking these things through. Perhaps other regular readers of pomocon have thoughts on the film?

By: Much Ballyhooed Summer Movies Featuring the Great Peter O'Toole … : The Fuse LA

Sat, 09 Jun 2012 17:16:28 +0000

[...] the original here: Much Ballyhooed Summer Movies Featuring the Great Peter O'Toole … « Yanni At The Academy Of Music « CBS Philly Just Another Blog (From L.A.)™: Mood [...]

By: Robert Cheeks

Robert Cheeks — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 14:22:48 +0000

Outstanding reviews, though I thought you could have been more clever with the ‘spoiler alerts.’ And, i disagree with “President Obama is far from President Calles. Mexico—after the Revolution and Cristero War—had (and has) a much different understanding of “church and state” relations as laicite/laiciudad than does the U.S. with its Puritan separatist foundations.” Again, I think you underestimate the potential/actual evil inherent in Barry’s life/purpose, though I can understand your desire for harmony and your hope for the future.

By: Much Ballyhooed Summer Movies » Postmodern Conservative | A … : The Fuse LA

Sat, 09 Jun 2012 12:59:18 +0000

[...] More: Much Ballyhooed Summer Movies » Postmodern Conservative | A … « Yanni At The Academy Of Music « CBS Philly Just Another Blog (From L.A.)™: Mood [...]

Comments on: Much Ballyhooed Summer Movies Featuring the Great Peter O’Toole

By: Peter Lawler

By: Ramsey

By: Much Ballyhooed Summer Movies Featuring the Great Peter O'Toole … : The Fuse LA

By: Robert Cheeks

By: Much Ballyhooed Summer Movies » Postmodern Conservative | A … : The Fuse LA