Average User Score: 6.5Jun 11, 2012Actually, I am surprised at the lack of intelligent investigation/critical review by many of the formal critics. Only one, Ebert, out of Chicago caught and interpreted Scott's "Grand Design". Prometheus is about mankind's divine/physical origins. From the myth-like divinity of Prometheus, god of science and mankind's friend, to elements of scientific theory and fact (Eratosthenes, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Sagan, Hawking) Scott brings to his tale of divine origin a host of ideals and threats. Is life the survival of the fittest or the survival of the brightest, and/or is life about faith and discovery of self and the universe? Does science buy immortality or at the least the keys to immortality or does faith unlock the secrets of immortality? Without question, the scientists and philosophers' of the enlightenment pepper the script and Scott's movie reflects his remorse that contemporary philosophers are so rare - yet Jarad Diamond, "Gun, Germs and Steel" emerges reflecting that the true enemy of mankind is not one another but bacteria and viruses or even what is hidden in the subatomic mists. Blending the constructs of religion versus faith by introducing a Voltaire element of "Candide" into the script - Scott continues to utilize the great moments of sci-fi by replicating the primordial ooze of life similar to Clark's short story. The protagonist, Shaw, played by Naomi Rapace, is without question the Eve Gene - a truth seeker, scientist and adventurer who will challenge the boundaries of science and faith with her desire to find the land of the divine, man's creators. The glue that binds the above elements together is Hawking "Grand Design" - that divinity resides in the universe and life itself. The question; will it be a singular entity, tight and congruent like a Kantian model or is life in constant need of repair? Scott and his writing team - Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof - incorporates the best of the best in grand celluliod tradition and example, touching on the intellectual dominance of the sci-fi genre of Bradbury, Asimov, Clark, Herbert with a blend of sci-fi fantasy that includes the eternal battle between good and evil, negative and positive polarity, matter and antimatter. At the same time, Scott tickles his audience with images of great moments in Sci-Fi movies - the slimy snake like creatures that are parasites (Star Gates Gao'ld), Van Danikens (Chariots of the Gods) reflecting a race of superior aliens in archeological stone, David = Hal the computer of Kubrick's 2001, and often tongue in cheek moments of Scott's own trilogy Aliens (Ash resembles David or is David really the "Lawrence of Arabia of other worlds"?) or the moral debate when Shaw removes the parasite from her body conflicts with Ripley who birthed and destroyed the hominid-alien link of DNA cross breeding.
Of course, any intelligent critic will see the next movie - the sequel - and the leap from current theoretical debate to Hawking's "Grand Design". And in doing so - will Ripley look the lens "darkly" or give his audience a tiny picture into the Divine? This movie is not for the banal or the horror advocate - it is a movie where Scott, in all integrity, uses art to mirror society. So will his intellectual critics condemn or praise Scott's vision? Will it become a provocative movie (similar to Kubrick's 2001) that will mirror current theory of our origin and the struggle to survive? What is life, where did it begin, is it Divine or Darwinism, or a combination of both or neither - and is life governed by good or evil, negative and positive, or is brith itself the singular event of life?
It is a big movie, a big challenge. I think for the most part Scott has succeeded. The challnege will be his sequel - the dynamics of the main plotting. I, for one, will be to see the results of Scott's vision. "f he is successful, he will join the ranks of enlighten men and women.… Expand