Different Worlds
Spoilers herein.
I've just rewatched `Alien,' `Aliens' and `Alien Resurrection.' Considered simply as films, each is a fine film but they come from worlds that are more different from each other than the normative world of now is to the world of any of them. Just viewing them is a course in filmmaking.
Ridley Scott's `Alien' is the most impressive, knowing that it was only his second film, that every effect is physical, and that the budget was so low the spacecraft is cobbled together from used aircraft parts. Even at this early point, Scott has the ability to create a unique look and has the mastery of craft to coordinate every element (acting, score, movement) to reinforce that look. That he chose Giger to base the look on was brilliant. Organic darkness -- evil embodied in living things. The alien ship, though only briefly shown, is a sequence that will live way past the time that the monsters of the series are forgotten; that blending of beast, environment and narrative is unique in all filmdom. Really amazing that the sequels didn't go back to that ship. Scott has grown to be one of our best and most original filmmakers -- Alien and `Blade Runner' (with `Forbidden Planet') are the very best `real' scifi films we have, meaning films that are not just adventure films.
Where `Alien' is scifi in the service of horror, `Aliens' is scifi in the service of action. Aliens is a war film, and equally impressive as one of Cameron's earliest. Movement and conflict. More emphasis on the familiar is necessary for this approach, so we see the sets and costumes less adventuresome. This is a thrill which uses the trappings of scifi only as another thing with which to impress. The mood created is projected not into the image as with Scott, but into the theater as something to amaze. Cameron hasn't evolved at all from this film, only been given ever bigger effects with which to amaze. So one might consider this his most `genuine' film.
`Resurrection' seems to not be as admired by the fan base. But I think it every bit the equal of the other two. In this case, we also have a new director, a European with two fantasy tales under his belt. But those set a tone that is strikingly weird: the tone not in the setting, but in the psychological space in the story. And that's what we have here. In Cameron's film, every character is a stereotype. Here, every character is an anti-stereotype: the black guy isn't jive; the cripple is the toughest; the sex kitten is a robot... even the hero isn't really. This is also the most cinematic use of the camera, using the psychological eye. Scott dwells, Cameron moves, Jeunet examines. He doesn't mind annotating the past films (rather like Van Sant's `Psycho' annotates Hitchcock's).
The only negative thing I note in the sequels is that Weaver isn't adaptable enough to understand and get behind these diverse visions. She understands Scott. Cameron doesn't really care, but she is outclassed by Jeunet.
Seeing any one of these enhances the appreciation for the other two.
Spoilers herein.
I've just rewatched `Alien,' `Aliens' and `Alien Resurrection.' Considered simply as films, each is a fine film but they come from worlds that are more different from each other than the normative world of now is to the world of any of them. Just viewing them is a course in filmmaking.
Ridley Scott's `Alien' is the most impressive, knowing that it was only his second film, that every effect is physical, and that the budget was so low the spacecraft is cobbled together from used aircraft parts. Even at this early point, Scott has the ability to create a unique look and has the mastery of craft to coordinate every element (acting, score, movement) to reinforce that look. That he chose Giger to base the look on was brilliant. Organic darkness -- evil embodied in living things. The alien ship, though only briefly shown, is a sequence that will live way past the time that the monsters of the series are forgotten; that blending of beast, environment and narrative is unique in all filmdom. Really amazing that the sequels didn't go back to that ship. Scott has grown to be one of our best and most original filmmakers -- Alien and `Blade Runner' (with `Forbidden Planet') are the very best `real' scifi films we have, meaning films that are not just adventure films.
Where `Alien' is scifi in the service of horror, `Aliens' is scifi in the service of action. Aliens is a war film, and equally impressive as one of Cameron's earliest. Movement and conflict. More emphasis on the familiar is necessary for this approach, so we see the sets and costumes less adventuresome. This is a thrill which uses the trappings of scifi only as another thing with which to impress. The mood created is projected not into the image as with Scott, but into the theater as something to amaze. Cameron hasn't evolved at all from this film, only been given ever bigger effects with which to amaze. So one might consider this his most `genuine' film.
`Resurrection' seems to not be as admired by the fan base. But I think it every bit the equal of the other two. In this case, we also have a new director, a European with two fantasy tales under his belt. But those set a tone that is strikingly weird: the tone not in the setting, but in the psychological space in the story. And that's what we have here. In Cameron's film, every character is a stereotype. Here, every character is an anti-stereotype: the black guy isn't jive; the cripple is the toughest; the sex kitten is a robot... even the hero isn't really. This is also the most cinematic use of the camera, using the psychological eye. Scott dwells, Cameron moves, Jeunet examines. He doesn't mind annotating the past films (rather like Van Sant's `Psycho' annotates Hitchcock's).
The only negative thing I note in the sequels is that Weaver isn't adaptable enough to understand and get behind these diverse visions. She understands Scott. Cameron doesn't really care, but she is outclassed by Jeunet.
Seeing any one of these enhances the appreciation for the other two.