The Thing vs Alien

A subforum to discuss film culture and criticism.
Message
Author
User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

#26 Post by Mr Sausage » Sat Jan 06, 2007 12:53 am

Robotron wrote:I've always felt irritation for Alien in the form of the "split-up syndrome" that permeates the movie and keeps the characters unsympathetic throughout. The Thing is one of the few slasher films, that I've seen anyway, that attempted to provide a passable reason as to why the characters would be willing to leave each other while under such an intense assault from a monster (and strangely enough, Roger Ebert criticized The Thing for that very syndrome and later put Alien on his great movies list).
That's very queer, since I'm of the completely opposite opinion. When the characters split up at the end of The Thing, there is no real reason for them be acting so tactically lazy. It devolves into: "bump in the night? I should go off and investigate by myself."

Alien, on the other hand, maintains a strict logic concerning every character isolation. Let's take Brett first. He's isolated because he is sent off to get the cat. This might sound ludicrous, but think about it: no one wants to go chasing after a cat when it's on the loose, it's a tedious job; the laziness of the other two and their desire to fob the dull task off on Brett is understandable. Of course, there is an alien loose on the ship, but again if you think about it, the creature was about the size of a cat and had no arms and legs the last time anyone saw it. It's hardly something you'd be afraid of coming out and killing you (if it even could kill you at that size). At the very least, you'd be less concerned about running into it by yourself, especially if your friends are just a couple of compartments away. Thus Brett's death occurs because of a crucial lack of information, not merely because it is required that he die and the plot sets him up to do so in an illogical fashion; on the contrary, there is a good deal of logic to it.

Dallas' death occurs because there is an odd number of people and the only feasible plan requires one of them to be isolated. Since the people watching the monitors at the end of the pipes probably shouldn't be alone, naturally the person going in to flush the beast out is alone. They actually discuss this very isolation; Parker, who is pretty gung-ho in addition to being upset by Brett's death naturally volunteers to be the one in the pipes; but Dallas, being the captain and making that very conventional captain decision of "I wouldn't put my men through anything I'm unwilling to do myself," makes the decision to be the one. Thus his isolation comes out of character rather than arbitrary plot necessity. And, anyway, the scene is redeemed merely by that moment where Dallas realizes this plan was stupid and tries to run out of the pipes.

The final "split" actually takes a turn you wouldn't expect, and the person who is alone, Ripley, is not the one attacked: it is the group of two who have stuck together, and whose regard for the other the alien uses, setting itself between them to prevent being fired upon.

Anyway, all of that seems more thought-out than the pretty conventional group-splits that occur in The Thing, where people wander off by themselves for no real reason.

User avatar
Robotron
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 5:18 pm
Location: Portland, OR

#27 Post by Robotron » Sat Jan 06, 2007 2:27 am

When the group left to give Wilford Brimley the blood test, leaving Childs behind wasn't a logical fallacy because at that point they believed Brimley was trapped in the shed. As for the rest of the group falling when planting the dynamite; it is admittedly the weakest part of the movie, but still works, in my opinion. They split up, but only minimally, and Nauls is still within Kurt Russel's line of site when he gets jumped.

In regards to Alien, I'll concur with Brett's death (although in his case it's more the direction of the scene than the logic behind it that irritates me), but Dallas' I find the most problematic. Facing the creature alone (unless you're the last one alive, it would seem) is stupid, but getting so close to the creature and turning around to run is probably the worst decision he could have made under the circumstances, and something that I think few people in real life (armed with that firepower) would ever really do.

The single greatest scare in the movie for me came not from anything the alien did (or rather I should say, the victims did) but in the revelation of Ash being a robot. It's unexpected, masterfully directed, and it's one of the few dangerous encounters the protagonists don't instigate.

User avatar
Polybius
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:57 pm
Location: Rollin' down Highway 41

#28 Post by Polybius » Sat Jan 06, 2007 2:46 am

Fletch F. Fletch wrote: Big Trouble in Little China (I used to know all the dialogue from that one).
I still do 8-)

Personally, I would classify Bill's role in One False Move as his best.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

#29 Post by Mr Sausage » Sat Jan 06, 2007 3:00 am

In regards to Alien, I'll concur with Brett's death (although in his case it's more the direction of the scene than the logic behind it that irritates me), but Dallas' I find the most problematic. Facing the creature alone (unless you're the last one alive, it would seem) is stupid, but getting so close to the creature and turning around to run is probably the worst decision he could have made under the circumstances, and something that I think few people in real life (armed with that firepower) would ever really do.
I think the problem wasn't that he was getting too close to the creature, but that it was getting too close to him and moving with a chilling purpose. Dallas seemed to realize he had no upper hand, that it was the creature that was stalking him, and, considering everyone else was telling him to get out of there, it made sense to me for Dallas to move off of the plane everyone assumed the Alien was on. That he ran right into the creature seemed less like stupidity on his part and more like cunning on the creature's. I'll be honest, I never for a moment suffered any disbelief at Dallas' actions under those circumstances. And I resist the temptation to make "I would have done otherwise" statements since I have numerable advantages over the characters and cannot rightly consider the scene without said advantages.

As for facing it alone, yeah, not a great solution. I think they got cocky. With the flamethrower (guns make people feel safe) and the fact that they figured they could track its movements and get the upper hand, they thought the plan less foolhardy than it was.

To sum up: you can reasonably debate all of the choices the characters make in Alien. You cannot, however, defend most of those same kinds of decisions in The Thing. They are quite clearly genre-old plot devices; even Carpenter admits this on his commentary track. I still love the movie, don't get me wrong. I merely criticize in order to show that I am aware of its flaws, and so do not love it blindly.

User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#30 Post by Fletch F. Fletch » Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:13 am

Robotron wrote:When the group left to give Wilford Brimley the blood test, leaving Childs behind wasn't a logical fallacy because at that point they believed Brimley was trapped in the shed. As for the rest of the group falling when planting the dynamite; it is admittedly the weakest part of the movie, but still works, in my opinion. They split up, but only minimally, and Nauls is still within Kurt Russel's line of site when he gets jumped.
I always felt that the splintering of the group in The Thing was as a result of the intense fear and paranoia everyone was experiencing. Nobody knew who was the "the thing" and who wasn't. Not to mention they set up Childs and MacReady as kind of cowboy types who like to be on their own.

User avatar
Polybius
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:57 pm
Location: Rollin' down Highway 41

#31 Post by Polybius » Tue Jan 09, 2007 4:10 am

In spite of the shared hardship, none of those guys appeared too tight. Masur liked his dogs more than anybody else. Several of them seemed to actively dislike each other even before things started getting dicey.

The Nostromo crew, on the other hand, were rather close (the exception being the late addition, Ash.) Even the ribbing of Brent and Parker was more wryly affectionate than anything else. You had a real feeling of camaraderie from them, as if they had worked together frequently and for a good while.

Napoleon
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:55 am

#32 Post by Napoleon » Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:35 am

Commander Shears wrote:The Thing - Kurt Russell in an unexplained giant hat.
Alien - no Kurt. no unexplained giant hat.

Carpenter wins by default.
Isn't McReady is a Vietnam vet?

The evidence supports this: Alcoholism, doesn't panic, bad temper/angry at the world, 'copter pilot, about the right age.

I think the hat is a momento from his time in the jungle.

And of course The Thing is a better film than Alien because The Thing is the best film ever made.

Commander Shears
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:17 pm

#33 Post by Commander Shears » Wed Jan 10, 2007 12:45 pm

Nothing says guerilla warfare in Southeast Asia quite like a big-ass sombrero.
If we're wearing them again in Iraq, I think we've located the problem.

Napoleon
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:55 am

#34 Post by Napoleon » Thu Jan 11, 2007 5:58 am

Commander Shears wrote:Nothing says guerilla warfare in Southeast Asia quite like a big-ass sombrero.
Well it isn't a big-ass sombrero, more a cowboy hat (quite close to Kilgore's but minus the badges), but you are right, it's a stretch to link it to McReady being a Viet Vet. This got me thinking where I get this linkage from, and I 'think' that it's either on the commentary, in the DVD documentary or posted by someone at Outpost31

Either way McReady IS a Vietnam veteran and the hat is his memento, That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

User avatar
Robotron
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 5:18 pm
Location: Portland, OR

#35 Post by Robotron » Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:18 pm

While on the subject of lesser known John Carpenter films that are superior to similar well-regarded blockbusters, I just recently saw They Live, and must say it bears many similarities to The Matrix (although I doubt that film will receive anything close to the defense Alien has on this board), the primary difference being that They Live is phenomenally entertaining and cheesy in contrast to The Matrix's dead serious devotion to a supposedly still radical 40 year old political ideology.

Commander Shears
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:17 pm

#36 Post by Commander Shears » Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:10 am

I've come to this board to do two things: Defend John Carpenter and chew bubblegum. And I'm all out of bubblegum. Anyone who can't at least appreciate the epic near-full-reel fight scene from They Live isn't anybody I want to know. (If only someone would film a ten minute fight between Keith David and David Keith. Then I would be in heaven.)

On topic, how sad is it that the only title from the director of The Thing and the writer of Alien is Dark Star? Fun as it is, it's a real shame that Carpenter and O'Bannon didn't work together again with some Hollywood cash.

Roger_Thornhill
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:35 pm

#37 Post by Roger_Thornhill » Sat Jan 27, 2007 10:48 pm

Commander Shears wrote:I've come to this board to do two things: Defend John Carpenter and chew bubblegum. And I'm all out of bubblegum.
Are you willing to defend Escape From LA? I've never seen it and was thinking of blind buying it for 6.99US at Best Buy, but a fellow film buff friend talked me out of it. However, after leaving the store I remembered that my friend doesn't even appreiciate Big Trouble In Little China or They Live. So, are there are fans of Escape From LA who'd be willing to talk about it? I remember missing it in 1996 and for some reason I never got around to renting it, possibly because of the overwhelming bad reviews. But doesn't every Carpenter film get bad reviews anyways? Certainly The Thing did in '82.

It can't be that bad, it does have a Bruce Campbell cameo from what I heard.:wink:

Escape From LA and his remake of The Village are the only two Carpenter films I haven't seen.

EDIT: Oops, it seems I was thinking of M. Night's The Village instead of Carpenter's Village of the Damned.
Last edited by Roger_Thornhill on Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

Commander Shears
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:17 pm

#38 Post by Commander Shears » Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:44 pm

Roger_Thornhill wrote:Are you willing to defend Escape From LA?
Unfortunately, no I am not. Having seen it a few times, I still cannot figure out what exactly they were trying to do. While Bruce is great as always, the villain isn't interesting, it has several cringe-worthy moments, and just does not seem to have settled on a tone. Still watchable, though.

After Assault on Precinct 13, you can basically judge a Carpenter movie by its proximity to Dean Cundey. If Dean was DP (Halloween, The Fog, Escape from New York, The Thing, Big Trouble in Little China) - you're looking at a masterpiece. If it was shot by someone else, but close enough for some residual Cundey to be sticking to JC (Christine, Starman, Prince of Darkness, They Live) - there's no need to worry. After that, you're in for a world of hurt. The nineties were not kind to Mr. Carpenter.

Which leads us to Village of the Damned. You're going to want to avoid this one at all costs. I mean like you avoid plague, in-laws, and Uwe Boll movies. That and Ghosts of Mars are the absolute bottom of the barrel and here's hoping he has sought help. (Which is weird, because I would have expected Village to be a perfect fit for Carpenter.)

User avatar
Polybius
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:57 pm
Location: Rollin' down Highway 41

#39 Post by Polybius » Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:58 pm

Commander Shears wrote:Still watchable, though.
And definitely worth $6.99. Bruce plays a renegade plastic surgeon called The Surgeon General :lol: Michelle Forbes is in it, too, so that puts it over the top, for me.

Roger_Thornhill
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:35 pm

#40 Post by Roger_Thornhill » Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:41 am

Commander Shears wrote:
Roger_Thornhill wrote:Are you willing to defend Escape From LA?
After Assault on Precinct 13, you can basically judge a Carpenter movie by its proximity to Dean Cundey. If Dean was DP (Halloween, The Fog, Escape from New York, The Thing, Big Trouble in Little China) - you're looking at a masterpiece. If it was shot by someone else, but close enough for some residual Cundey to be sticking to JC (Christine, Starman, Prince of Darkness, They Live) - there's no need to worry. After that, you're in for a world of hurt. The nineties were not kind to Mr. Carpenter.
That sounds like a good rule of thumb considering how good the Carpenter films shot by Cundey are. Carpenter's career did seem to take a nose dive after They Live, although I rather liked In The Mouth of Madness and Vampires, flawed as both of those may be. I saw his first Masters of Horror episode and found it surprisingly bland for him, with a horribly miscast Normon Reedus searching for a print of Le Fin Absolue du Monde. But to it's credit it does have Udo Kier running his intestines through a projector at the end, which was very amusing. I haven't seen his latest MoC episode, Pro-Life, which I understand was written by same writer (AICN's Drew McWeeny) of his first episode. It'd be nice if he made another feature one of these days, he doesn't look like the healthiest man in the world.
Polybius wrote:
Commander Shears wrote:Still watchable, though.
And definitely worth $6.99.
Thanks Polybius I think I will go pick it up and give it a go. Unfortunately it doesn't have a commentary track with Russell and Carpenter, their commentary track on Big Trouble In Little China is great fun with Russell's voice slurring a bit from all the beer they'd been drinking. :D

User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#41 Post by Fletch F. Fletch » Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:24 am

Roger_Thornhill wrote:Are you willing to defend Escape From LA? I've never seen it and was thinking of blind buying it for 6.99US at Best Buy, but a fellow film buff friend talked me out of it. However, after leaving the store I remembered that my friend doesn't even appreiciate Big Trouble In Little China or They Live. So, are there are fans of Escape From LA who'd be willing to talk about it? I remember missing it in 1996 and for some reason I never got around to renting it, possibly because of the overwhelming bad reviews.
It has its moments but overall is a mess of a movie. I appreciate what Carpenter and Russell were trying to do... a remake/sequel sort of along the lines of Evil Dead 2 and Desperado but it just did not work. The script is weak (sorely missing Nick Castle's input who brought a lot of the great dark humor to the original) with some really embarrassingly awful dialogue basically turning a cool character like Snake Plissken into kind of a joke, at times. And what an interesting cast of characters to waste! Steve Buscemi, Bruce Campbell, Pam Grier, Peter Fonda?!!

At times, it was almost like they were trying to parody the idea of a big summer blockbuster action flick and then also trying to celebrate them as well and it just seems like a very confused movie.

As for They Live, I always thought of it like if Sam Fuller decided to make a science fiction film -- two-fisted action B-movie but also with social commentary. Great stuff. Has anyone listened to the commentary track on the region 2 DVD with Carpenter and Roddy Piper?

Harvey Domino
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 6:18 am
Contact:

#42 Post by Harvey Domino » Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:52 pm

I like both films a lot, and think it's very interesting to compare the two. I do have to say I find The Thing much more enduring than Alien for several reasons.

I think Alien is essentially Jaws in outer space; the menacing creature is largely unseen until the end of the movie, the creature is blown up as a climax, and that's the end of the film. It's a good ride but I'm not left with much.

The Thing, though, has a more interesting and ambiguous premise: The threat is not only external, but internal as well. Identity is the key theme of the film. And at the end of the film, there is still no resolution. Trust is still "hard to come by" after the obligatory climactic explosions. The menace is still there -- outside and inside of the characters.

Alien could have been a little more thematically interesting, I think, if they had emphasized the mechanical appearance and aspects of the creature -- it's obvious the designers (Giger, Moebius, Cobb, etc.) were attempting to blend the biological with the technological... but Scott really didn't seem interested in exploring that idea. The film might've been more potent and disturbing if it seemed as if the ships and environments themselves were attacking the crew.

I will admit I like Carpenter much more than Scott. I think Carpeneter might be tha least real American genre director alive and working, and he seems unapologetic - even proud - about it. Totally unpretentious. Scott's work is all about surfaces... but not even in an interesting Michael Mann way, instead just an empty style derived from his years of commercial making.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

#43 Post by Mr Sausage » Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:18 pm

love me do wrote: the menacing creature is largely unseen until the end of the movie, the creature is blown up as a climax,
To be fair, the creature isn't actually blown up, just shot out the hatch.

The story is very derivative indeed, and is derivative of movies well beyond even Jaws (like It: The Terror From Beyond Space). I think the point of the movie is not the originality of the concept but its stunning and effective execution. In that, its achievement is comparable to Carpenter's own Halloween, which distinguishes itself by its remarkable execution rather than by the originality or strangeness of its concept.
love me do wrote:The threat is not only external, but internal as well.
I'll pass over the obvious irony and say that there is an internal element in the way in which a member of their crew, Ash, is a planted agent for the company (those in whom employees are meant to trust) and has been working against them. Not to mention the various dislikes of certain crew members for each other and the resulting tension.

But overall, yes, The Thing contains a far more internalized threat, especially considering just about every physical incarnation of the thing as a thing has been rather ineffective in combat.
love me do wrote:The film might've been more potent and disturbing if it seemed as if the ships and environments themselves were attacking the crew.
Again, to be fair, there is that one moment where Ripley is getting undressed in the space shuttle, preparing for hypersleep, and the Alien suddenly bursts from a control panel, revealing how well its mechanically-styled body can merge with the ship.

Overall, the biomechanical aspects are more there to enhance the mood than to contribute to themes, ect. It's not a high concept movie to be sure; it is a remarkably effective one, tho'.

User avatar
exte
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: NJ

#44 Post by exte » Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:52 pm

love me do wrote:Scott's work is all about surfaces... but not even in an interesting Michael Mann way, instead just an empty style derived from his years of commercial making.
I totally disagree. His years of making commercials lead to three impressive films in a row: The Duellists, Alien, and Blade Runner. Say what you want about his later work, and I'll probably agree, but I believe these films couldn't have been made by any other director. Blade Runner is testament to "surfaces". I just read news that it will be released in September of this year on HD-DVD and nearly shit myself. That film is the very definition of ambience, and has never been equaled. It's because of the fluency he gained in the world of commercials that he was able to execute such massive detail and excellence in each film, the next always outdoing the last. I can't say the same for his brother, who I feel is far more deserving of your disapproval.

jackson_browne
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 4:26 pm

#45 Post by jackson_browne » Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:14 pm

love me do wrote:I like both films a lot, and think it's very interesting to compare the two. I do have to say I find The Thing much more enduring than Alien for several reasons.

I think Alien is essentially Jaws in outer space; the menacing creature is largely unseen until the end of the movie, the creature is blown up as a climax, and that's the end of the film. It's a good ride but I'm not left with much.

The Thing, though, has a more interesting and ambiguous premise: The threat is not only external, but internal as well. Identity is the key theme of the film. And at the end of the film, there is still no resolution. Trust is still "hard to come by" after the obligatory climactic explosions. The menace is still there -- outside and inside of the characters.

Alien could have been a little more thematically interesting, I think, if they had emphasized the mechanical appearance and aspects of the creature -- it's obvious the designers (Giger, Moebius, Cobb, etc.) were attempting to blend the biological with the technological... but Scott really didn't seem interested in exploring that idea. The film might've been more potent and disturbing if it seemed as if the ships and environments themselves were attacking the crew.

I will admit I like Carpenter much more than Scott. I think Carpeneter might be tha least real American genre director alive and working, and he seems unapologetic - even proud - about it. Totally unpretentious. Scott's work is all about surfaces... but not even in an interesting Michael Mann way, instead just an empty style derived from his years of commercial making.
These are the kinds of films where I feel like you just have to put aside all of the philosophical thematic analysis crap and just enjoy the movie. Turn off your mind and escape for a couple of hours. Not every great movie has to offer insight into the human condition or anything like that. I think life is too short to only watch films like that (or only mindless films too for that matter).

User avatar
tavernier
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 7:18 pm

#46 Post by tavernier » Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:32 pm

Good point, Jackson (BTW, I love "Late for the Sky").

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

#47 Post by Mr Sausage » Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:39 pm

jackson_browne wrote:Turn off your mind and escape for a couple of hours.
I don't know if you have to turn off your mind, fun as that sometimes is. You can keep it on and be analytical for these types of films; the problem lies in what you are analytical about. With a film like Alien or The Thing, a thematic or psychological analysis is, I agree, fruitless and frankly a waste. What is not a waste, however, and what I think one can reasonably do to a film one likes, is to ask: "what effect is this movie having on me and how is it doing it?"

A satisfying and enlightening analysis of a film can occur merely by observing in detail how that film is working and why it seeks those ends. This does not require plumbing to significant mental depths and judging a movie by how deep one thinks it is. All it requires is a keen sense of perception, of one's own sensations, and finally having an ever increasing grasp of the medium. Indeed, this can offer a far more satisfying outcome than the other "big thoughts" type of analysis.

Harvey Domino
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 6:18 am
Contact:

#48 Post by Harvey Domino » Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:03 pm

exte wrote:
love me do wrote:Scott's work is all about surfaces... but not even in an interesting Michael Mann way, instead just an empty style derived from his years of commercial making.
I totally disagree. His years of making commercials lead to three impressive films in a row: The Duellists, Alien, and Blade Runner. Say what you want about his later work, and I'll probably agree, but I believe these films couldn't have been made by any other director. Blade Runner is testament to "surfaces". I just read news that it will be released in September of this year on HD-DVD and nearly shit myself. That film is the very definition of ambience, and has never been equaled. It's because of the fluency he gained in the world of commercials that he was able to execute such massive detail and excellence in each film, the next always outdoing the last. I can't say the same for his brother, who I feel is far more deserving of your disapproval.
Now That I think about it, Mann himself came from a background in television commercials, if I'm not mistaken. So my argument in that regard may have been wrongheaded.

I will agree that Scott's first three films are easily his best, though I've never really liked them. I'd say The Duellists is the weakest of the three. As for Bladerunner, I find it extraordinarily overrated. I think it's especially weak as an adaptation of the Dick novel -- though I realise it must be judged for its own qualities as a film. And it certainly does have many attributes, as you say. Despite my dislike of it, I often let it play in the background while I'm working on something else. The ambiance is incredible.

As for Tony Scott -- I won't pull a Tarantino and say I actually like him better than his brother, but I think something like The Hunger is more interesting (but also more flawed) than Alien or Bladerunner.

Harvey Domino
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 6:18 am
Contact:

#49 Post by Harvey Domino » Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:10 pm

Mr_sausage wrote:Overall, the biomechanical aspects are more there to enhance the mood than to contribute to themes, ect. It's not a high concept movie to be sure; it is a remarkably effective one, tho'.
Your examples are ones I had thought of as well, but they would have weakened my argument if I had included them in my original post (ha!)

I guess it's pointless to want the film to be something its not, but I just wish Scott had been less concerned with adhering to a "plot" -- especially one as simplistic (though, yes, effective) as Alien's. In my mind I envision the film as an almost abstract, wordless art film (I wonder what it would have been had Giger directed it?)

Roger_Thornhill
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:35 pm

#50 Post by Roger_Thornhill » Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:54 pm

jackson_browne wrote:These are the kinds of films where I feel like you just have to put aside all of the philosophical thematic analysis crap and just enjoy the movie. Turn off your mind and escape for a couple of hours. Not every great movie has to offer insight into the human condition or anything like that. I think life is too short to only watch films like that (or only mindless films too for that matter).
I almost find it more interesting when someone writes an insightful and unique analysis of an escapist film like Alien or The Thing over, say, a Bergman or a Bresson film because oftentimes the nuances of genre escapist fare is sometimes difficult to pick up on for me. Not to say that Alien is better than Au Hasard Balthazar, not even remotely, but when I sit down to watch the latter I will be more attentive to Bresson's aesthetic and thematic concerns than I will to them in Scott's Alien.

Post Reply