At the Picture Show: Extended Cut
by Chris Bellamy
 |
| instagram.com/neillblomkamp/ |
Bring out your dead
From 'Alien' to 'X-Files,' franchises continue to fight the future as they try to
rejuvenate tired icons
Out of nostalgia came a wave of enthusiasm over the last few weeks, as the
continuation of a beloved but [mostly*] dormant franchise quickly became a
reality. Well, to be clear, it began as a lark, morphed into an Internet discussion
and then suddenly turned into a reality. And so it was that, 18 years after Alien:
Resurrection, the series itself became resurrected with the official confirmation of
a forthcoming fifth chapter.
* No, I'm not counting Prometheus or the AvP series.
The story is well known by now - District 9 director Neill Blomkamp posted
concept art for a hypothetical Alien film that would bring back not only Sigourney
Weaver's Ellen Ripley, but Michael Biehn's Cpl. Hicks - who appeared in Aliens
before being killed off in the opening sequence of the franchise's third installment
- as well. The artwork made the rounds quickly, followed by Blomkamp revealing
that 20th Century Fox was ready to actually greenlight the movie (but that he
personally wasn't), followed almost immediately afterward that he had, in the
intervening days, apparently become ready after all and that Alien 5 was really
happening.
While much of what I've heard (at least from people I read and listen to) has
demonstrated a healthy level of skepticism - particularly given Blomkamp's
consecutive misfires in Elysium and Chappie - there remains a great deal of
enthusiasm as well. For every piece knocking the idea, or Blomkamp in general -
or both - there's another that's positively giddy about the prospect of seeing
Ripley one more time* on the big screen. Surely some of the excitement, at least,
stems from the enduring disappointment of both Alien 3 and Resurrection. Even
Weaver herself - who is all but officially on board - has publicly advocated for
the new sequel, arguing that the character deserves a "proper sendoff" that the
later entries didn't provide.
* Of course, "one more time" is nonsense, as Blomkamp has said he envisioned
"at least" one film, and we all know that if it's a hit they'll keep the sequels
coming.
What won many fans over was the (short-lived) understanding that Alien 5 would
essentially ignore the third and fourth films and simply pick up basically where
Aliens left off, presumably set a couple of decades later. (Cue the obligatory
Superman Returns reference that every single person online has already made.)
Blomkamp intimated as much in his remarks, saying he wanted his movie to be a
"genetic sibling" to the first two films and that his would fall in line right
afterward. "So it's Alien, Aliens, and then this movie."
He walked back those statements shortly thereafter - insisting he wasn't planning
on messing with the continuity of the franchise - but the larger issue, for me at
least, is the persistent idea that we need to bring back the character or continue the
franchise in the first place. Look, Ellen Ripley is one of my favorite characters
ever, and I love those first two films as much as anyone. But the purpose of going
back to the well after nearly two decades and two failed sequels eludes me, and
seems almost entirely fueled by fan nostalgia rather than any expectation that the
next movie will be any good. It's that same nostalgia that brought back our
favorite archaeologist for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and
John McClane for Live Free or Die Hard and A Good Day to Die Hard.
At a certain point, even a great character or a great franchise needs to either be put
to bed or completely re-tooled. Just because a filmmaker with one good movie
under his belt has a new idea doesn't necessarily mean it's a good one. Perhaps the
most telling thing about it is his insistence that he's going back to the series' roots
and making a film with the same DNA as Ridley Scott and James Cameron's
iconic early entries. First of all, that sentiment seems to ignore the fact that Alien
and Aliens are drastically different movies, stylistically and otherwise. For that
matter, the reason why the franchise is such a unique model overall is that each
sequel dramatically reinvented the series. Each movie is a left turn. That
Blomkamp essentially wants to just go repeat what the films used to be is kind of
antithetical to what the franchise represents, and the kind of creative risks it has
taken. (I touched on some similar territory in a piece I
wrote for Issue 39 last year.) Alien 3 and Alien: Resurrection certainly don't
work, but both are fascinating failures, and I'll take a fascinating failure over an
ordinary success any day.
In his interviews on the subject, Blomkamp's motivation seems to boil down to, "I
love those first two movies. I want to make a movie just like them." Just as Bryan
Singer's motivation was, "I love those early Superman movies, so I want to make a
movie just like them."
There's a lot of that kind of nostalgia these days - that desire to bring back
something from the past with the expectation that the same formula will recreate
the same magic. Pretty much every canceled TV series with a passionate following
is the subject of rumblings from people clamoring to get it back on the air (Save it,
Netflix, save it!) or, failing that, get a movie made. Speaking as a Firefly fan, I
don't think there will ever be an end to fan calls for the series' return, even after
12 years have passed, and a full decade after Serenity killed off two of the main
characters.
And even The X-Files - which is pretty much Exhibit A for what happens when a
show hangs on for way too long - is reportedly getting rebooted. And by
"rebooted," I mean "brought back with the same characters and the same actors."
It seems odd that we can't simply let things end. And so characters and concepts
and whole franchises are getting caught in an endless cycle of reiteration and
sameness. Case in point: The new retconned take on the Terminator franchise,
which is set for release this summer and is probably the best comparison point for
Alien. (Both iconic sci-fi franchises from the same era, largely defined by James
Cameron.) Instead of simply rebooting or taking the concept in a new direction,
the studio is insisting on making it all part of the same continuing saga - a saga
whose qualities dried up years ago. The obvious reason is to keep Schwarzenegger
as the selling point (although just how much cache he has with the modern target
audience for a sci-fi blockbuster is debatable), and I'm as big a Schwarzenegger
fan as anyone. But the fact that they're rewriting the entire narrative of the series is
just a cheap and transparent way to remake the original films while pretending
they're not. (Kinda like the way the 2011 version of The Thing pretended it was a
"prequel" when it was basically just an inferior copy* of the 1982 film.) In
fairness, if Terminator: Stupidly Misspelled Subtitle turns out to use its time
travel-based retconning in a really interesting way, I'll be happy to eat my words.
* And yes, I realize the 1982 version was a remake as well. But Carpenter's
version was not only an improvement on The Thing from Another World but had
an entirely different aesthetic.
I understand this type of retconning is common in various forms of storytelling,
notably comics and soap operas. But it generally strikes me as pointless. Why do
multiple versions of the same story have to coexist in the same thread? Why can't
we simply get multiple interpretations of the same characters or the same stories
instead of forcing them to fit together? Can you imagine if the Bond movies
strained to make sure that all the Bonds existed in the same universe, in the same linear timeline, every time it changed actors?
As we continue to see old characters and series brought back from the dead -
apparently Beverly Hills Cop 4 is back in play - I can't help but wonder if and
when it will become common practice to continue using actors' images and
personas after they're dead. (Cue reference to Ari Folman's The Congress that will
be understood by the other nine people who saw The Congress.) Hey, maybe
Kerry Conran's Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow - with its posthumous
Laurence Olivier cameo - was more ahead of its time than we realize.
In retrospect, the rebooted Star Trek and its multiple timelines bothers me a little -
not necessarily because it didn't work in the movie itself (in fact it worked
marvelously), but because it refused to simply cut the cord, and is now the go-to
example of how to be "faithful" (groan, eye-roll) while moving in a new direction.
The strain to reassure audiences - Look at these new actors and these new
filmmakers and this new approach but don't worry it's totally still the same! - has
grown tiresome. The recent X-Men movies are another example. Clearly the
franchise has moved on, but Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen are
too popular for the studio to abandon, so it hedges its bets with a rewritten
timeline that serves no purpose except to keep the same cast around. (As I wrote in
my review of Days of Future Past, the film isn't interested - in the slightest - in
time travel as a concept, but only as a device designed to sustain the franchise as it
currently is.)
Believe me - I can be part of the problem, too. Fittingly, the same thing happened
with the series' prequel, Prometheus, for which I became unreasonably,
uncontrollably excited even though I'd been underwhelmed by Ridley Scott for
years. No matter my cynicism about the purpose of Blomkamp's new Alien, or
whatever form it might take, I'll probably talk myself into it by the time it comes
out. Probably. The nostalgic part of my brain will somehow win out. But before I
let my lesser wits get the better of me, I can rationally realize that those
neverending cycles - those perpetual searches to recreate past greatness by
repetition rather than inspiration - are, more often than not, ultimately a
disservice. The more things change, the more we try to force them to stay the
same.
http://www.intergalacticmedicineshow.com/cgi-bin/mag.cgi?do=issue&vol=i44&article=_bellamy
