Prometheus (Post-release)

[Art Andrews]

I can change Shaw into a male character and I wouldn't have to change much of anything in the story.

I STRONGLY disagree on this point. I don't think Shaw would have been nearly as powerful a character as she was if she had been a man. She was absolutely fantastic just as she was... a great female character, not a quivering, useless mess that needed saving, and not a... well, you know my other phrase. Like Anderson in Dredd, she was just awesome and a great example that you don't have to jump into the other ditch to show a competent and capable female character.

 

[Solo4114]

Jeyl, I think you are missing the point of NAZGÛL's comparison (funny that he and I made the same one within posts of one another).

Rambo is the extreme end of a testosterone-driven ALL male character... actually, I shouldn't say "character" but caricature. He isn't realistic in any way (at least not in the 2nd or third movies) but is a symbol of all the encompasses being a brutish, macho character. In many ways, especially in Aliens, Ripley IS the same.

How do you figure Ripley is a symbol of brutish macho extremism like Rambo in the later films? I mean, I really don't get that.


I think what you may be getting at is more the absence of typical femininity in her character, and with that I agree with you. Ripley doesn't come across as a typical female trope. Compare her to, say, Lambert in the first film or whatsherface-blondie in the fourth film. Or hell, even to Newt in the 2nd film.


I think it's that her being a woman is basically a non-issue in the films except in a few instances (e.g., maternal instincts re: Newt; flirtations with Dallas. Hicks, and the doctor in the prison colony). Outside of that, it's a total non-issue except insofar as the visuals are concerned.

In that sense, I suppose you could argue she's interchangeable with a man, but isn't that kind of the point about how she defies the then-all-too-common female stereotypes? She's putting a female face on a role that would otherwise be filled by a man. That doesn't mean she's adopting a male role or male behavior, though. It means that women in film at that time weren't portrayed in that way. They were typically virginal scream queens.

Ripley isn't "mannish" the way, say, Vasquez is. The fact taht she uses a firearm towards the end of the second film doesn't make her seem mannish to me either. More like a mother protecting her child. The films don't focus on her femininity, but they also don't force her to be "masculine" in any traditional sense either. She's a character who happens to be a woman.

If that's what you've been getting at, then I agree with you. But the comparisons to Rambo as if she's some gung-ho "I'm your worst nightmare" kind of figure really are not at all apt until the 4th film, and by that point she's half alien anyway.

 

[jcoffman99]

Ripley is just a foul mouthed truck driver. She's right up there with Large Marge.

 

[Jeyl]

He isn't realistic in any way (at least not in the 2nd or third movies) but is a symbol of all the encompasses being a brutish, macho character. In many ways, especially in Aliens, Ripley IS the same.

Ok, but what does that have to do with gender? Are you saying that women can't be macho, brutish or unrealistic? Even though I think that's goofy in and of itself, I don't believe that's the case with Ripley at all. I don't recall Rambo trying to figure out how to use a weapon in the midst of a battle, or choosing to willingly sit back and watch things happen in the comfort of an APC. He sure as heck didn't need anyone to fly a helicopter for him. Plus, when Ripley fought an alien with her bare hands, she nearly suffocated and would have been raped if Hicks and the others didn't shoot their way into the lab. Not quite as macho or brutish as Rambo, eh?

 

[Art Andrews]

How do you figure Ripley is a symbol of brutish macho extremism like Rambo in the later films? I mean, I really don't get that.


I think what you may be getting at is more the absence of typical femininity in her character, and with that I agree with you. Ripley doesn't come across as a typical female trope. Compare her to, say, Lambert in the first film or whatsherface-blondie in the fourth film. Or hell, even to Newt in the 2nd film.

Going back and watching the films this week if I have the time to provide examples to support my opinion (and everyone should keep in mind, it is just my opinion... not stating it as fact or forcing anyone to agree with me), but you might have a bit of a point as there seems to be very little vulnerability in her character in most of her time on screen and perhaps that is what is so unappealing about her and so appealing about Shaw... but again, don't want to say more until I have watched the movie with a fresh eyes, specifically watching Ripley's character.

I think it's that her being a woman is basically a non-issue in the films except in a few instances (e.g., maternal instincts re: Newt; flirtations with Dallas. Hicks, and the doctor in the prison colony). Outside of that, it's a total non-issue except insofar as the visuals are concerned.

That is a rabbit-hole I am not sure I want to go too far down as it gets into some very fundamental beliefs that would probably take us outside the confines of the board. Suffice to say, I don't believe men and women are exactly the same. I believe, as a general rule (there are always exceptions), we bring different, but equally valuable assets to the table. I believe, as much as modern society wants to make men and women interchangeable and indistinguishable from one another, they aren't (don't try to misconstrue that as some type of inequality statement), because it alters the perspective, motivations and approach of each individual. I believe this is because somehow, in societies mind, the only way to be of equal value is to state, whether it is true or not, that two things are exactly the same. I simply don't subscribe to that idea. Women and men are OBVIOUSLY of equal value because we are all human beings, but we are NOT the same and I think it is shortchanging ourselves of all the wonderful and interesting differences between the two sexes to try and make them interchangeable.

In that sense, I suppose you could argue she's interchangeable with a man, but isn't that kind of the point about how she defies the then-all-too-common female stereotypes? She's putting a female face on a role that would otherwise be filled by a man. That doesn't mean she's adopting a male role or male behavior, though. It means that women in film at that time weren't portrayed in that way. They were typically virginal scream queens.

See, that is part of what I see, and it bugs me with her role. I feel like she isn't "interchangeable" but was purposefully cast to buck the tide of scream queens and to very purposefully portray something different, but she was taken way too far.

Ripley isn't "mannish" the way, say, Vasquez is. The fact taht she uses a firearm towards the end of the second film doesn't make her seem mannish to me either. More like a mother protecting her child. The films don't focus on her femininity, but they also don't force her to be "masculine" in any traditional sense either. She's a character who happens to be a woman.

If that's what you've been getting at, then I agree with you. But the comparisons to Rambo as if she's some gung-ho "I'm your worst nightmare" kind of figure really are not at all apt until the 4th film, and by that point she's half alien anyway.

It isn't that she carries a gun at all. I don't think adeptness with a firearm is a singularly male trait, but I disagree with you on the Rambo thing at the end of Aliens. She was totally over the top for a man or a woman, and like Rambo, becomes a caricature.

 

[Art Andrews]

Ok, but what does that have to do with gender? Are you saying that women can't be macho, brutish or unrealistic?

See previous post. Hopefully your head won't explode.

As I mention in that post, there are always outliers...

 

[Jeyl]

She was absolutely fantastic just as she was... a great female character, not a quivering, useless mess that needed saving, and not a... well, you know my other phrase.

If you were going to say unintelligent, well, she's got a lot of that.

Crewman: Okay, so uh, do you have anything to back that up?
Shaw: I don't. It's what I choose to believe.

Science is about the search for truth through research in order to conclude your findings as fact. It has NOTHING to do with faith. If she honestly believes that the Engineers created humans and she doesn't need proof to be convinced, why is she on this expedition? People of faith don't need proof or scientific reasons to believe in their faiths. Science is also about being open to the possibility that they could be wrong. How does Shaw, our "scientist" ponder the possibility that religion might not be the answer to our existence?

Charlie Holloway: I guess you can take your father's cross off now.
Elizabeth Shaw: Why would I wanna do that?
Charlie Holloway: Because they made us.
Elizabeth Shaw: And who made them?

By using blind faith again. From what she had seen in the temple, there are no Earth like religious artifacts or symbols that would even indicate that her religion would apply to the Engineers. If Shaw was in Ripley's shoes in Alien, she'd let Dallas, Kane and Lambert in without hesitation.

 

[jcoffman99]

The faith in an idea is what lures the scientific mind to discovery. The first person who said the world was round had no initial "proof" just faith in their idea that led to scientific knowledge.

 

[CB2001]

That's... almost shockingly offensive. Never mind the fact that that gender is irrelevant in Alien (A male human gets impregnated), you still give no reason as to why the portrayal of Ripley is a down side. It can switched with a male character, so what? I can change Shaw into a male character and I wouldn't have to change much of anything in the story.

Funny you mention the gender being irrelevant, as the script for Alien had characters who were designed to be genderless (which allowed for anyone to be casted in the roles).

 

[Art Andrews]

Science is about the search for truth through research in order to conclude your findings as fact. It has NOTHING to do with faith. If she honestly believes that the Engineers created humans and she doesn't need proof to be convinced, why is she on this expedition? People of faith don't need proof or scientific reasons to believe in their faiths. Science is also about being open to the possibility that they could be wrong. How does Shaw, our "scientist" ponder the possibility that religion might not be the answer to our existence?

See, I think this is where we are simply not going to agree as I LOVED some of those aspects of Shaw and of all the Prometheus crew, as I don't think ONE of them had purely scientific motivations that weren't tainted by personal feelings, which I think is also something present in the real world more than most people are willing to admit. I won't argue that Shaw was a great scientist as there is no doubt that pure and undefiled science is without emotion or influence, but part of the beauty of Prometheus was the very real world mixing of science and belief and looking into how the two intermingle in the human experience. Making a statement like "people of faith don't need proof" is very shortsighted on your part, but again, that is going into an area I am not going to debate here.

We are strolling quite far from the matter of how men and women are depicted in movies, but I will say that the whole combining of faith and science was something that I LOVED seeing explored in Prometheus. It was quite surprising and unexpected from someone like Ridley Scott and he handled it in a very interesting way that clearly didn't appeal to everyone but certainly tickled my imagination and made me consider a lot of interesting possibilities in what we believe and how we believe it.

If Shaw was in Ripley's shoes in Alien, she'd let Dallas, Kane and Lambert in without hesitation.

She would have definitely done so... and it would have been the wrong decision. Ripley made the right one, but from a POV that doesn't jive at all with the earlier example of her handling of the cat... so what does that say about how clearly her character is written?

 

[Kerr Avon]

Pfffft.. I think you are all missing the most important caricature in the movie..

That all corporations are monsters.

Pffft. Feminist, male caricatures, whatever.. stop hating on corps.

 

[SSgt Burton]

how you could see Shaw and Ripley as even being remotely the same is a mystery to me.

I don't. Not in the least. This all started with me saying "Shaw was no Ripley for me."

I'm still confused about Ripley being a cold heartless *****. (I'll admit I kind of skimmed through the rest of the thread- so I apologize if you've already gone over this).

I find there are several moments (most of which in "Aliens" where she is apparently a female Rambo throughout the film :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes) in which she is anything but cold hearted.

In ALIEN- When she finds Lambert and Parker's bodies she is clearly affected by it.

Already mentioned, but she does go back for Jonesy. What does that say? She doesn't have it in her to let that damn cat go even though it could cost her her life, and there was the possibility Jonesy had become Xeno chow anyway (yes I know about the deleted scene in which the Alien swats the cat carrier away; my point is Ripley didn't know this).

How is this cold hearted?

Aliens: She discovers (rather unceremoniously) that her daughter has lived out her life and died- she breaks down in tears.

There are some tender moments with her and Newt- the mother in Ripley shows through.

When Newt is captured by the Xeno (while Hicks is cutting through the floor with the welder)- She loses it. Complete meltdown. Literally kicking and screaming that she's alive. Certainly not a Rambo moment. If anything it is Hicks who acts cold hearted, by answering "I believe you; she's alive. But we have to go NOW!"

She is willing to do whatever it takes to rescue Newt- not because she is woman hear her ROAR, but because her motherly instincts have completely taken over. If anything it is estrogen overload she is suffering from and not testosterone.

Her defending Newt from the Queen (and "Get away from her") line, is actually spot on. It is NOT an attempt to make her look like a tough as nails Rambo wannabe...

It is a perfect example of a mother who will do ANYTHING it takes to protect her child. I'm sure every mother can identify with this in that if something threatened their child, some "switch" in their head would flip- they would go completely ballistic willing to do incredible acts of violence to protect their own. It's a primal instinct.


And for those quick to point out that Newt was not her daughter- Newt was Ripley's personal redemption. Protecting and adopting Newt was her atonement for not having been there while her own daughter grew up and died without her mother.




Kevin

 

[Bryancd]

Yeah, I have never found Ripley to be Hollywood stereotype of some kind of butch feminine hero like Sarah Conner in T2. THAT was what you seem to be describing, Art. I always found Ripley written for and performed by Sigourney as very much a female character with a sense of nurturing and compassion combined with a pragmatism that allows her to do extraordinary things when pushed to the limit.

 

[Jeyl]

The faith in an idea is what lures the scientific mind to discovery. The first person who said the world was round had no initial "proof" just faith in their idea that led to scientific knowledge.

No, that's curiosity. You don't know what it is, but you want to find out. Faith doesn't require you to find out because you don't need proof in order to believe it.

 

[SSgt Burton]

This is nonsense.

You've completely missed the point of the Ripley character (and especially the climax in the Queen hive).


The sequence of her rescuing Newt is NOTHING like Rambo shooting up a small town, or the helicopter "YOOOOO!!!" scene in Rambo II in which he shoots up the POW camp with superior firepower...

Ripley just wants to rescue Newt and get the hell out of there. But a random explosion sends her and Newt into the Queen's nest.

So (after demostrating the flamethrower) she "barters" a deal with the Queen- she will quietly leave with Newt, the Queen will not retaliate, and Ripley won't harm the Queen's eggs.

What happened? The Queen double-crossed her. Rather than overtly send one her Warriors, the Queen had an egg open near Ripley (the hopes to have Ripley face-hugged). There is a pause in which Ripley has a "So that's how you want to play it huh?" look on her face--- and lets fly with everything she has.

This is partly survival, but also "purging" her demons of the fear of these beasts. They have turned her life upside-down as well as threatened Newt.

It is easy to dismiss this as Ripley "going Rambo", however there is much more depth to that sequence than just bullets flying and Xenos dying. But for some reason this one moment "defines" her character as a female Rambo.


Kevin

 

[Jeyl]

The faith in an idea is what lures the scientific mind to discovery. The first person who said the world was round had no initial "proof" just faith in their idea that led to scientific knowledge.

No, that's curiosity. You don't know what it is, but you want to find out. Faith doesn't require you to find out because you don't need proof in order to believe it.

 

[jcoffman99]

But wouldn't you need faith to go against everyone telling you you're wrong?

 

[SSgt Burton]

Yeah, I have never found Ripley to be Hollywood stereotype of some kind of butch feminine hero like Sarah Conner in T2. THAT was what you seem to be describing, Art. I always found Ripley written for and performed by Sigourney as very much a female character with a sense of nurturing and compassion combined with a pragmatism that allows her to do extraordinary things when pushed to the limit.

Totally agree, especially the comparison of Sarah Connor in T2. In that case the roles were deliberately switched. Sarah being completely detached from reality, acting emotionless, looking VERY much like Rambo, and nearly killing a man in cold blood (behaving just like a Terminator would), while the emotionless Terminator becomes more and more of a nuturing father figure.


Kevin

 

[joeranger]

OK, just read the last three pages. Both Ripley and Shaw are the "reluctant hero" who happen to be women. Ironically, they both play a flawed female. Shaw can't have kids. Ripley abandons hers. I support the challenges of working moms, but the Nostromo is the modern day "Ice station zebra". A good mom can't voluntarily leave for a few years. Young kids need mom.
They are both heroes because they don't fall apart like Lambert. They don't use there feminine nature to get out of trouble. They just don't give up like Lambert did before putting her tail between her legs, oh, nm.
Ripley bothers me but i love the character. I love strong females. I love the scene with Burke, "A bad call?". She is strong enough to call out Burke, but too naive to understand how a man would react.
Shaw is smarter. She does understand. When she figures it out, she goes to the capt and tells him to commit suicide to save earth.

As long as we are being unfair. I am more attracted to Ripley, yet she bugs me more. I would not have a chance with Shaw. Too brainy.

Sarah Conner is rambo in a bra.

Shaw and Ripley are complex women is impossible situations. When the **** hits the fan they "man-up" oh, wait....

 

[Jeyl]

But wouldn't you need faith to go against everyone telling you you're wrong?

No, you would need facts. Things that support what you believe in. Faith doesn't need facts or proof. The ones who were telling scientists and philosophers that their research was wrong were people of faith. They didn't need any scientific studies or research because they believed their faith was the true answer. Aristotle, the guy who proved the Earth was round via solar eclipses was denounced by religious leaders because they felt that his research wasn't honoring their gods.

What makes Shaw such a terrible character is that her faith dictates everything she does when she's working in the field of science. She's not interested in the pursuit of truth or facts to back up her beliefs. She already believes it and anything that might counter what she believes she just writes off.

Ripley made the right one, but from a POV that doesn't jive at all with the earlier example of her handling of the cat... so what does that say about how clearly her character is written?

What does it say? She's human. She obviously has an attachment towards the cat and she doesn't want to leave it to behind to die. I'd hardly call such an action "cold" or "heartless".