Skip to main content

You're going out there to destroy them, right? Not to study. Not to bring back. But to wipe them out.

Aliens
(1986)

(SPOILERS) Aliens immediately became my favourite movie when I first saw it. It was a heart stopping roller coaster ride, and I didn't want to get off. So much so, when it was over I instantly rewound the video tape and watched it again. James Cameron transformed the slow-burn atmospherics of Ridley Scott’s haunting original into an all-out attack/slaughter by/of xenomorphs; as the tagline announced, “This Time It’s War”. I can’t really apologise for having preferred it to Alien; it was simply a more accessible, adrenalised, edge-of-the-seat, air-punching experience. Time, hindsight and repeat viewings can change a lot; while I still see the movie I was initially floored by in Aliens, it no longer comes close to that insurmountable pinnacle of science fiction (or action) moviemaking.


It isn’t as if I was alone in my rapturous response. Aliens was that rare non-Spielberg science fiction spectacle that even garnered Oscar attention in non-technical categories; seven nominations, including a crucial one for Sigourney Weaver (it won two, Sound Effects Editing and Visual Effects). For genre work at the time, such acknowledgement was tantamount to being proclaimed a Best Picture winner. 



There was, and there remained for a good few years, the suggestion it might even have surpassed Scott’s film in terms of quality. Kim Newman (who didn’t much care for Alien) offered that it “surprisingly caps the original”, comparing it to the work of Sam Fuller and commending it as “an optimistic, individualist rereading of the genre”. Pauline Kael could be relied upon as a relative lone voice of dissent, noting Cameron’s recent script for Stallone and concluding that Weaver, loaded up and ready for affray, was “no more than a smart Rambo”.



Which is sort of is what she is. Cameron is an unfinessed writer and a literal director, and you can see that kind of crude, functional mechanism reflected in his fascination with hardware and weaponry. It’s little wonder he had a such longstanding rep as a tyrant on set, martialling his troops like a general and frequently incurring the undying resentment of those unwilling to step in line and become his sheep.



As a consequence, particularly in the Special Edition (“This is the ride that we intended you should take” he surmised on its release), the nuts and bolts processes by which he designs his screenplays are in-your-face for all to see. Ripley, 57 years in hypersleep, has lost a daughter to old age in the interim. Unable to get a job, she operates power loaders on a shipping dock. Hicks gives her a tracking device just in case (she gets lost). And wouldn’t you know it, later in the proceedings she meets a surrogate daughter (and a potential mate, and a funny uncle), those power loading skills come in particularly handy, and she fortuitously gives said surrogate daughter the very bracelet she will need to track her down (when she gets lost).



Because Cameron is a “serious” filmmaker, mainly in the once derided science fiction arena, he warrants scrutiny other genre contenders might not. And because he is an auteur, writer-director-producer, the spotlight falls on him even more starkly. There’s no question of his technical acumen as a moviemaker, but his writing skills are as indelicate as his tact with actors. Which means, depending on the scene and what he’s aiming for, the results can be supremely satisfying or hideously mawkish/clichéd/unsubtle/corny.



Whatever the pros and cons, there’s no mistaking what we have here for the verisimilitude Scott brought to the original, an original that still shines twice as brightly as its successors. Aliens, with its cartoon-machismo military and slimy corporate suits, could never be mistaken for anything other than heightened (Cameron attempted to dig deeper with The Abyss, but was only partially successful).



Added to which, on the gripe front, its fashions are determinedly stuck in the decade of its making, from the haircuts to designer-wear, while its aliens lack any of their former exotic terror/allure, very much men in suits. Compared to Alien too, the sequel is quite a cheap-looking picture, sporadically blighted by very obvious back projection and model work. It hasn’t aged well, in other words. Which must be particularly irksome for its director, given his rigorously demanding and exacting process, and that Alien was his favourite science fiction film.



Whatever elements of this I acknowledged subconsciously, they didn’t matter at the time. I was an adherent to all things Cameron, and lapped up news, interviews, making-ofs and articles, including the tantalising prospect of an extended cut, which duly materialised in 1990. Is it essential? Since the scenes I most wanted to see from the novelisation weren’t there (Ripley finding a cocooned Burke, Bishop encountering an alien in the pipe), one might say not; they ill-advisedly over-emphasise (read: ladle on with a trowel) Ripley’s connection to Newt and her mothering instinct (the conversation regarding where babies come from), and the Hicks romance (“Don’t be gone long, Ellen” goes that step too far, where “It doesn’t mean we’re engaged or anything” is the perfect shorthand, albeit Hicks wooing Ripley via armaments training sounds like something autobiographical on its director-writer’s part). But mostly they’re fine, and I wouldn’t go back to watching the original. Like Alien, this takes the best part of an hour to really get moving, the difference being, there it was “What’s going to happen?” and here it’s “When’s it going to happen?”



With regard to the ‘Ripley as Rambo’ aspect, Weaver was uncomfortable enough in retrospect that she fully embraced the guns-free zone of Alien 3 (it needed some kind of response, undoubtedly; I recall rumours at one point that Arnie would be appearing in the film, which was exactly the avenue the series didn't need to go down). Ripley becomes a death-dealing, gun-toting mean mutha, because that’s how Cameron likes his hot pieces of ass.


Cameron in the movie is at once undermining the military (vis-à-vis the Viet Cong-esque xenomorphs) but also wholly enamoured of it, something running through most of his pictures, and especially Avatar. You tend to get the sense with Jimbo that the values he espouses only go as far as not getting in the way of what he wants personally (save the planet, as long as it doesn’t interfere with making my movie; warfare is bad, just as long as you don’t try and stop me playing with guns or treating my set like a military campaign).



And, while he has an innate facility for pushing an audience’s buttons, his delivery system is far from finely hewn. Aliens makes some curiously leaden gender substitutions, now characterising the aliens as worker ant males led by a queen, and setting up an opposition of (mostly) worker male marines led by a natural queen, leading to the ultimate cat fight (“Get away from her, you bitch!”) The line, and subsequent clash, are masterfully conceived and executed, but very much evidence a mind who thinks his comic book conjurings have real depth and substance.



Aliens mostly continues to deliver, mostly. But it surfs a layer of cheesiness that can no longer be ignored, because Cameron deals in such exaggerated, superficial, sugar-rush plays of emotion, while the other entries in the series either avoid such pitfalls or pick their battles. He even has the effrontery to have Newt proclaim “Mommy!” at the end, such is the neat bow wrapped around Ripley’s post-nuclear family; I can’t say I was fully on board with anything about the execution of Alien 3, but Cameron’s going there is more than enough to forgive Fincher his heartless slaying of Hicks and Newt. Making Aliens all about family not only softens the series’ edges, it neuters the uncanny, the sheer otherness of the original. Aliens, for all the skill of its manufacture, is just another monster movie, which its predecessor wasn’t and isn’t.



While Cameron’s kinetic action technique is undeniable, I’ve been distracted by just how horribly overlit Aliens is the last couple of times I’ve revisited it. I can’t say it ever bothered me the many times I watched it during the late ‘80s and early ‘90s; perhaps it was simply the benefit of crappy VHS tapes adding a layer of murk/fuzz/atmosphere. Particularly impaired in this regard is the crucial scene where the marines follow the colonists’ tracking chips to the atmosphere processing station, but it’s generally the case that we can see much, much too much.



It can’t dent certain scenes; the med lab attack is still a masterpiece of sustained terror, and the “inside the perimeter”, culminating in Hicks looking aloft, is likewise inspired. On occasion, the brightness adds something (Ripley and Hicks reaching the lift, their surroundings almost agoraphobic, before one of the uglies appears from nowhere at the door), but it’s very strange thing to behold in what is intended to be a fearful, unnerving movie. And given that Adrian Biddle was brought in because the original DP was over-lighting the nest set, it’s a mystery what Cameron was thinking.



Aliens is very much, as Kael noted, “a comic book for adults”, and that’s evident in the characterisations. It’s comes back to the same point as the cheesiness factor. These characters work, mainly thanks to a fine assembled cast, but they’re broad brush caricatures, played as such. Weaver brings complete commitment, but that’s despite, not because of, Cameron’s dialogue (for all that Titanic swept the board at the Oscars, it didn’t even merit a nomination for screenplay, which is very telling).



One can turn a blind eye to much of the convenience here, as one is swept along (it’s fairly unlikely that “in twenty years, no one found” the alien derelict, and it's very useful to the race against the clock that the venting should start blowing when it does. Once Ripley is off chasing after Newt, the picture has accelerated into a prototype computer game, complete with platform levels; on the other hand, that the marines should reach the processing station, all set for a rescue, and then be told they can’t blow shit up seems like exactly the sort of thing that would happen).



So I’ve griped about how Aliens has lost something of its lustre, but that’s merely to underline that I no longer see it as an unparalleled classic; it’s still a very good movie of its type. And, as noted, the cast are splendid. Especially the Terminator trio of Bill Paxton’s impossible-to-go-over-the-top Hudson (“How do I get out of this chicken shit outfit?”), Michael Biehn underplaying as Hicks (“I say we take off and nuke the sight from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure”) and Lance Henriksen being necessarily inscrutable as Bishop (I love the moment where Jeanette Goldstein’s Vasquez hands him a handgun as he climbs into the pipe; there’s the briefest beat of examining this foreign object before he passes it back to Ripley).



Paul Reiser’s performance as Burke is accomplished, but it’s standard corporate duplicity that ultimately goes beyond the bounds of common-sense when there are aliens on his ass and he’s still concocting ruses. Carrie Henn’s Newt has taken a hit in later years, partly thanks to some well-aimed South Park piss-taking, but its difficult to argue she doesn’t serve her purpose effectively as the moppet in peril.



Burke again goes to the recognition that the price of bringing Cameron into the franchise is the sacrifice of any possibility of nuance. His badmouthing corporations comes because it had become fashionable in the ‘80s, and because it serves him to do so in this case. There’s no real resonance to it other than that he’s an apt trope to slot into the plot, as the company man waxes lyrical about substantial dollar values and being set up for life.



Other elements display pervading professionalism, but without that something more. James Horner’s score, while owing a lot to his work on Star Trek II, is mostly exactly what the movie needs, mostly, but it still occasionally shows its hand too soon. Horner plies the action bombast with the dream chestburster scene, which should be freaky, not dynamic spectacle; it would have far better been left until the mayhem in the nest. The Alien queen is an artless creation (although, sat next to the hybrid from Alien Resurrection, she’s becomes a borderline phenomenal piece of design), reflecting that Cameron’s aptitude does not extend to weird sexual undercurrents or violations (you almost sense he was reluctant to even include a chest burst). But then, balance this against the pure pleasure of Hicks putting a shotgun in an alien’s jaws and firing, signing-off with “EAT THIS!”; there’s no way you can’t applaud.



Which is a way of saying Aliens has probably exerted more influence on the methods and beats of movie making than Alien. Aliens doesn’t copy Alien in form, but it has been copied thus ad infinitum by other moviemakers, mechanically so. Which is probably right, as even the picture’s emotional content is very calculated, very packaged. And, despite its problems, this is still the second best in the franchise; it’s just no longer possible to nurse the illusion of it being in the same ball park as Alien (as Pete Travers said at the time, “So much for the theory sequels never equal the original”). It would probably be better to simply be grateful that Aliens is as good as it is, rather than complain that it isn’t as good as its predecessor.










Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

  1. Why not add a complete bibliography of your work at the end of this article ? Could help some of us who wants to dig this wonderfull movie !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Geneviève, it's a fair comment. Links are usually highlighted in grey text. The Kim Newman quotes come from Nightmare Movies (1988 edition, Bloomsbury) and Pauline Kael ones from Hooked: Film Writings 1985-1988 (Marion Boyars)

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

I am so sick of Scotland!

Outlaw/King (2018)
(SPOILERS) Proof that it isn't enough just to want to make a historical epic, you have to have some level of vision for it as well. Say what you like about Mel's Braveheart – and it isn't a very good film – it's got sensibility in spades. He knew what he was setting out to achieve, and the audience duly responded. What does David Mackenzie want from Outlaw/King (it's shown with a forward slash on the titles, so I'm going with it)? Ostensibly, and unsurprisingly, to restore the stature of Robert the Bruce after it was rather tarnished by Braveheart, but he has singularly failed to do so. More than that, it isn’t an "idea", something you can recognise or get behind even if you don’t care about the guy. You’ll never forget Mel's Wallace, for better or worse, but the most singular aspect of Chris Pine's Bruce hasn’t been his rousing speeches or heroic valour. No, it's been his kingly winky.

If this is not a place for a priest, Miles, then this is exactly where the Lord wants me.

Bad Times at the El Royale (2018)
(SPOILERS) Sometimes a movie comes along where you instantly know you’re safe in the hands of a master of the craft, someone who knows exactly the story they want to tell and precisely how to achieve it. All you have to do is sit back and exult in the joyful dexterity on display. Bad Times at the El Royale is such a movie, and Drew Goddard has outdone himself. From the first scene, set ten years prior to the main action, he has constructed a dizzyingly deft piece of work, stuffed with indelible characters portrayed by perfectly chosen performers, delirious twists and game-changing flashbacks, the package sealed by an accompanying frequently diegetic soundtrack, playing in as it does to the essential plot beats of the whole. If there's a better movie this year, it will be a pretty damn good one.

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

It was one of the most desolate looking places in the world.

They Shall Not Grow Old (2018)
Peter Jackson's They Shall Not Grow Old, broadcast by the BBC on the centenary of Armistice Day, is "sold" on the attraction and curiosity value of restored, colourised and frame rate-enhanced footage. On that level, this World War I documentary, utilising a misquote from Laurence Binyon's poem for its title, is frequently an eye-opener, transforming the stuttering, blurry visuals that have hitherto informed subsequent generations' relationship with the War. However, that's only half the story; the other is the use of archive interviews with veterans to provide a narrative, exerting an effect often more impacting for what isn't said than for what is.

You kind of look like a slutty Ebola virus.

Crazy Rich Asians (2018)
(SPOILERS) The phenomenal success of Crazy Rich Asians – in the US at any rate, thus far – might lead one to think it's some kind of startling original, but the truth is, whatever its core demographic appeal, this adaptation of Kevin Kwan's novel taps into universally accepted romantic comedy DNA and readily recognisable tropes of family and class, regardless of cultural background. It emerges a smoothly professional product, ticking the expected boxes in those areas – the heroine's highs, lows, rejections, proposals, accompanied by whacky scene-stealing best friend – even if the writing is sometimes a little on the clunky side.

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.

Prepare the Heathen’s Stand! By order of purification!

Apostle (2018)
(SPOILERS) Another week, another undercooked Netflix flick from an undeniably talented director. What’s up with their quality control? Do they have any? Are they so set on attracting an embarrassment of creatives, they give them carte blanche, to hell with whether the results are any good or not? Apostle's an ungainly folk-horror mashup of The Wicker Man (most obviously, but without the remotest trace of that screenplay's finesse) and any cult-centric Brit horror movie you’d care to think of (including Ben Wheatley's, himself an exponent of similar influences-on-sleeve filmmaking with Kill List), taking in tropes from Hammer, torture porn, and pagan lore but revealing nothing much that's different or original beyond them.

It seemed as if I had missed something.

Room 237 (2012)
Stanley Kubrick’s meticulous, obsessive approach towards filmmaking was renowned, so perhaps it should be no surprise to find comparable traits reflected in a section of his worshippers. Legends about the director have taken root (some of them with a factual basis, others bunkum), while the air of secrecy that enshrouded his life and work has duly fostered a range of conspiracy theories. A few of these are aired in Rodney Ascher’s documentary, which indulges five variably coherent advocates of five variably tenuous theories relating to just what The Shining is really all about. Beyond Jack Nicholson turning the crazy up to 11, that is. Ascher has hit on a fascinating subject, one that exposes our capacity to interpret any given information wildly differently according to our disposition. But his execution, which both underlines and undermines the theses of these devotees, leaves something to be desired.

Part of the problem is simply one of production values. The audio tra…