Alien (Director's Cut)
In discussing heroine content with someone new, it generally doesn't take long for someone to pipe up "what about Ripley?" Sigourney Weaver's Ripley, it seems, is at least 50% of the population's example of a female action hero. Given this, it seemed odd to me that I had never seen Ripley's original appearance in 1979's Alien, nor any of its three successors. With a few Netflix clicks, I decided to remedy this oversight, and it was not without a good deal of excitement that I sat down last night to view this epic example of heroine content.
It goes without saying, perhaps, that it was disappointing.
Many of the reasons I didn't like the film are almost certainly due to showing a 1979 film to a 2007 audience who has never seen it before. It seems dated and hokey--probably inevitable, I (gasp!) feel the same way about Jaws. It's also far slower moving than I like my action movies to be. Just how many times do I need to see a character play with the levers and buttons on the ship's many control panels? More importantly, though, I just didn't find Ripley to be all that great. Sure, she ends up the only survivor of an alien-infestation on her ship, and she is the only one to encounter the alien and live, and she's always right and if her warnings had been heeded none of it would have happened in the first place. But she's also just not very interesting, and she comes off an unpleasant know-it-all for most of the film.
In 1979 terms, just having a female action star, particularly one who ends up living while all the boys perish, may well be cause for adulation. And maybe I'm just being too demanding, but I wanted more. At the very least, I wanted some sense of style, some comedy, some dramatic flair. Instead, Ripley just grimly goes through the motions. She doesn't save anybody (well, besides the cat), and she shows no particular joy in saving herself. Nothing about her is particularly likable, which makes it hard to care whether she wins or loses.
And though she does win, Ripley's victory over the alien seems more a facet of her luck than of any superior skill or intelligence. She doesn't come up with any brilliant plans, she doesn't have an ass-kicking battle scene to prove her superior strength. Her suspicion of science officer robot Ash (my favorite character in the film, played brilliantly by Ian Holm) is really the only thing that sets Ripley apart from the less fortunate characters. Even her final battle with the alien in the escape shuttle is anti-climactic, with Ripley never even touching the monster, just using the ship's capacities to get rid of it.
The film is also not without its typical anti-feminist throwback references, the most obvious of which has to be the scene near the end where Ripley goes about readying her escape craft in her ass-crack revealing panties and nipple-accenting tank top. It's completely gratuitous, as if the filmmaker is making a last desperate attempt to win back whichever audience members he lost by having a female protagonist. It's also just kind of a non-sequitor. Up until this point, Ripley has been an almost completely de-sexualized character, something else that separates her from her modern counterparts. If Lara Croft were flipping switches in her underwear, it would make sense. Not so much with Ripley.
It may be a typical pratfall of much talked-up pieces that their realities pale in comparison to the expectations they build. It may even be that I am judging Alien too harshly. Still, though, I think that a true action heroine is more than just a woman taking the place of the last man standing. Winning isn't enough to garner you heroine content.
More Commentary:
Subscribe to posts
I've always thought it's interesting that Ripley was written for a male actor, and then Sigourney Weaver was cast instead. I wonder if the panty-baring final scene, with the camera hovering so insistently at waist level, would have stayed the same if Ripley had been played by a man.
Yeah, I doubt it.
Gaaaah -- Autofill foiled me. I'm sorry to double comment when it's my own fault, but is there a way to remove my last name from the above?
PnR: It might have. The producers had "raped, impregnated, killed by the birth" in mind with John Hurt's character (and considered it critical that it be a man it happened to, to avoid the risk of titilating male viewers rather than horrifying them). So I could imagine them leaving a bare ass-crack in there.
Good to know that a girl without "style," "flair," or "comedy" can't be much of a hero. (I'm rolling my eyes here if you can't tell)
Personally, I'd rather see a sensible woman who does her damn job.
In real life, sure. In film, though? Boring.
With all due respect Grace, the reason that "Sigourney Weaver's Ripley,...is at least 50% of the population's example of a female action hero" is because she was cast correctly and played the part well. It was also written well for the films intended purpose. It may not conform to a feminist’s idea of being a work of art that promotes feminism, but in the end, that wasn't the goal of the film’s producer. The goal, and the result, is that this film and its sequels made tons of money and appealed to a huge audience.
You go on to say “Ripley's victory over the alien seems more a facet of her luck than of any superior skill or intelligence. She doesn't come up with any brilliant plans, she doesn't have an ass-kicking battle scene to prove her superior strength.” I am given to wonder if you really watched that film or if you fast forwarded through most of it. Let me summarize for you: She was up against an opponent that killed and was one step ahead of her crew most the time. The superior strength did not go to Ripley but to the alien. What did you expect would be her tactic to win? By the way, if you really want to see that “ass kicking battle”, you need only to go to one of the sequels and look at the part where she uses a freight loader (which is an exoskeleton that she climbs into) to fight the alien.
I find it ironic that in order to post my comment I had to type the word “feminism” as a required field yet when I look at the totality of your comment I wonder if it really does the cause any good. First, let me say that I do believe in political, social and economic equality of the sexes. Does that make me a feminist? I’m not really sure. Perhaps it does. I do notice however that many feminists seem to look for battles where none exist.
Sigourney Weaver prancing around in her “ass-crack revealing panties and nipple-accenting tank top”, while gratuitous (hey we agree on one point), is NOT an “anti-feminist throwback reference.” There is no attack on feminism or the feminist here. Weaver playing a part in a movie in which her character is shown (for only a small part of it) in rather revealing clothing is in no way an attack on feminism or a denigration of the gender.
Her character is one of a reluctant hero (the most believable in my opinion) who manages to save the human race and her own ass against overwhelming odds and happens to be a FEMALE! What more do you want?
I think I've made it pretty clear in my reviews of other films what else I want. And your post only underscores exactly what I didn't like about this film (besides that it was just plain boring)--that I am shown something sort of mediocre and expected to think that just because there's a woman who wins in it, that's enough. It's not.
A few thoughts I had while reading Curt's comment:
If you have to start a comment with the phrase "With all due respect," don't. It's so often used to get out of actually being respectful that it immediately raises suspicion.
The point of Heroine Content is to analyze films from a feminist perspective, regardless of whether the filmmaker made it as a feminist project.
Insinuating that the reviewer did not watch the film is hardly the way to get her to consider your argument.
A scene from another movie, even if it is a sequel, brought up to convince the reviewer of the worth of the movie... how does that work? Unless it's a statement about contrast, which this isn't.
If you're actually trying to talk to Grace, try not generalizing about how feminists create issues where there are none.
If you're not, then why are you commenting?
“If you have to start a comment with the phrase "With all due respect," don't. It's so often used to get out of actually being respectful that it immediately raises suspicion”
I used that phrase because I knew that some of the things I was about to say may not sit well and wanted to assure Grace I meant her no disrespect. And I don’t. Quite contrary. Perhaps you should just take that at face value and forego the posting instruction.
“The point of Heroine Content is to analyze films from a feminist perspective, regardless of whether the filmmaker made it as a feminist project”
Is the feminist perspective then, to analyze films without regard to intent or state of mind? What perhaps may be the underlying cause for exactly why a film is written or directed the way it is? Umm….ok, but the moment Grace made point about “anti-feminist throwback references” I submit all that was open to discussion.
“Insinuating that the reviewer did not watch the film is hardly the way to get her to consider your argument.”
In the short time I had to read Grace’s comment, I assessed her to be strong enough to take that statement and move forward. Her following post makes be believe I was correct. I believe that this movie does not fall into the genre she normally watches or enjoys. I think she missed big sections of the film that make counterpoint to her post.
“A scene from another movie, even if it is a sequel, brought up to convince the reviewer of the worth of the movie... how does that work? Unless it's a statement about contrast, which this isn't”
That portion of my post was written around a mistaken assumption. For some reason I remembered those two movies as being produced and directed by the same two people and my post was going to the “state of mind” of the director and producer. I was mistaken however as the two movies I referenced were produced, and directed by different people. Even the writer was different. My apologies.
“If you're actually trying to talk to Grace, try not generalizing about how feminists create issues where there are none.”
Now I am talking to you, Skye. That has been my observation and your post reeks of it.
“If you're not, then why are you commenting?”
Your question is rhetorical, but in case I’m wrong and you really want to know, I suspect for the same reason most others comment in forums of this nature. To communicate opinion, experience. To add in some small way to the human body of knowledge to the topic presented. I stumbled on to this forum while looking for something else and read Grace’s post. I felt compelled to comment and posted. You read my comment and felt compelled to post. I have zero doubt as to why and see no point in asking.
OK. You think you're smarter and more insightful than the wee girlies who post here. We got it. No need to keep commenting. I've said everything I have to say to you, I assume Skye has as well, and now you're just kind of overstaying your welcome.
One more comment, actually. Reviewing Curt's comments and my comment, I still have a big problem with the tone he takes. I feel like everything he brought up, he could have found a way to do so without being insulting to Grace and then to me.
However, I could also have done a better job of phrasing my comment. I don't think I was uncivil, but I could have done better. So I have emailed Curt to let him know, and in the future I'm going to wait a little longer before I comment in response to something that bothers me.
Ah, learning.
If I don't get across correctly, I'm sorry, but English is a second language for me.
I got the clear feeling from reading the review that the rewiever doesn't like the film or its realistic side.
Yes, it's a lot more slower than action films, but, I supposed it was about psycological terror, so why to compare the pace of two so different narratives? That's the magic of alien, that it is so slow.
There's a brilliant - IMO - terror piece called 'two sisters' and it is slow as hell. I assume I wouldn't have liked the film if shot in high paced action movie way.
I also don't understand that she's not a feminist character. What can be more feminist that genre-blind casting? Ripley was a man, that's why she seems so 'normal', because writers are far able to make realistic or normal men than women.
But that's the atmosphere for all characters, they aren't superheroes or marines, they are space truckers. Why should she be kicking asses? The point of the monster is that's a real monster, not a semi-dangerous creature who after all our heroine can easily kick at the end so after all she rocks and she wasn't in danger, really, because she's so idealized - in the realism versus idealism scale.
If you want a superhero to identify with, that's perfect, for you, but I don't get how it diminishes realistic heroines as not being heroic enough. They're just realistic and play in other field.