Back in 1979, when dinosaurs still roamed the Earth, a young director named Ridley Scott gave birth to a horror the world was ill-prepared for. Since then, the infamous xenomorph has laid its eggs in the chest cavity of pop culture and the beloved Alien series has become a quintessential franchise of Sci-Fi horror. Later, in 1987, the Schwarzenegger blockbuster Predator introduced us to the eponymous character, also with great success. However, there is a third franchise in this universe that seems to have been left on the orphanage doorstep, or whispered about amongst fans in back alleys to save public ridicule. It is, of course (those with a sensitive disposition brace yourselves now) the Alien Vs Predator series.
One might think that (as the producers surely did), combining two successful franchises is sure to only make a bigger success, but unfortunately, according to reviews, the value isn’t the sum of its parts. The sequel Alien Vs Predator: Requiem (2007) was the worst received, scoring a measly 12% rating on rotten tomatoes; many critics noting the ironic name, claiming that this film made sure that two franchises “are surely now dead”.
Upon rewatching this film, I felt this criticism was rather harsh. One critic called the film a “mindless distraction” but I see a brave story structure, some great situational writing, rich intertextuality and unique blending of genres.
The multiple character story line, as was famously done by Pulp Fiction (1994), is quite daring versus the tried-and-true crowd-pleaser, single protagonist three act structure. The story was handled skillfully with character’s paths converging and diverging cleverly at dramatic moments in the film.
The filmmakers were clearly cinephiles as they pay homage to other great movies. Some of the cinematography reminded me of E.T. The Extra Terrestrial (1982) and 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). There were some great writing choices such as having characters go to a swimming pool to allow a Jaws-esque (1975) moment with the alien, and unleashing the aliens in a hospital where people are most vulnerable and extinguishing all hope of emergency services helping any unfortunate victims. The ending is also beautifully tragic as it poses the question, who should you trust, the authorities or your friends?
The unique blend of genres is interesting; as was Ridley Scott’s key to success back in 1979; this film blends action, horror, Sci-Fi, detective and has an almost old-school B-movie horror feel to it with the new ‘predalien’ it introduces. Freud might suggest this new threat is representative of the new threat of terrorism after the 9/11 attacks and is a way for audiences to safely live out their latent and repressed fears to experience some kind of catharsis.
Why then, is this film so hated? Well, it comes down to a couple of reasons. Firstly, it is not being judged for what it is, but compared to what has come before, as reviewers say that it “never managed to catch the appeal of the originals” (Watson). This is not Ridley Scott’s spine-chilling psychological, Sci-Fi horror and it is not a Schwarzenegger blockbuster. Do we judge Nolan’s Dark Knight (2008) trilogy for not being as camp as the Adam West Batman? Or closer to home, do we judge James Cameron’s sequel Aliens (1986) for not being a slow burning horror like the original? It is natural for us to judge this film on what we have experienced before, especially in a franchise, but this film is a standalone amalgamation of genres, and its merit, of which it does have more than most reviewers claim, should be judged as such.
When Ridley Scott himself was asked whether he had seen this film, he replied “No, I couldn’t do that” , and we should ask, why not? The answer is what sociologist Pierre Bourdieu called distinction, “for Bourdieu, taste is always interested - in fact, self-interested – and those interests are social” . Scott is a highly respected and successful filmmaker (part of the bourgeois if we listen to Marx) and as such has a reputation to uphold.
Scott tries to make films with significant artistic validity and serious thematic content, as such he cannot be seen watching such low brow action monster flicks as Alien Vs Predator: Requiem particularly when it is built off his own hard work. Here, we see Bourdieu’s idea of distinction at play; where taste is ”an array of symbolic associations we use to set us apart from those whose social ranking is beneath us.
Philosopher David Hume would suggest that this film can only be judged by rare “true critics” , saying “few are qualified to give judgement on any work of art” . To qualify, these critics should have “strong sense, united to delicate sentiment, improved by practice, perfected by comparison, and cleared of all prejudice”.
Hume might be quite distraught these days at the commonly available, open battlefield that is online review sites, but these reviewers, qualified or not, have pride that they understand and appreciate films, and in order to maintain their cultural capital, they condemn such low brow entertainment that relies on gore and crass remarks in favour of the more artistic original. Didn’t you hear? They watched it before it was cool.
Comments