I sometimes think that my reviews here are rather pointless - generally, by the time I've seen a film, I feel like I'm the last person to do so. I'd rather wait a week or two and see the film in an empty theatre than go opening day with the loudmouth, texting, popcorn-chewing masses. But Prometheus is a film I could discuss for a very long time, so it's worth writing about. It's such a conundrum, in more ways than one. It's definitely an ambitious film - it aspires to be the next 2001: A Space Odyssey. It raises some of my favorite philosophical questions, and it fairly balances both sides of the arguments. However, it was written by Damon Lindelof, the primary creative force behind Lost. Prometheus suffers the same fate as that series - we're drawn into an amazing story, with so many grand ideas, only to find out that it leads to nothing. Damon likes to ask questions that don't have an answer - which is a good thing, until he tries to bring closure to those questions with ridiculous ideas. In Lost, we all wanted to know what the island really was. In the end, we found out that it was the source of humanity's essence. It was good, and evil, and everything in between. I liked that - it didn't explain what it was, but it made it something larger than our little species could understand. I prefer big questions to little answers, so I liked the idea that we couldn't understand what the island really is. But Damon didn't know how to write that into a script; so he decided that this idea should be made literal. At the heart of the island, there's a river; and at the bottom, there's a big cork. If you pull the cork out, then the river drains, allowing evil to spread. But if you put the cork back, then the villainous evil is still free to spread, but now it's mortal, so the hero can kill it. What the fuck?! It was stupid, incoherent gibberish. Fortunately, Prometheus doesn't get that cheesy. Overall, I really did like this film a lot - and I absolutely loved parts of it. Ridley Scott is a brilliant director, and the cast is great. But I think I could have written a better screenplay myself.
One of the reasons I'm being so nitpicky here is that the themes of this film are very dear to me. This is the kind of film I've wanted to make since I first got into filmmaking over a decade ago. It delves into my love of science, philosophy, artificial intelligence, and the search for meaning on a universal scale. For years, my friends have had to endure long speeches on these topics, and this film set out to cover them all. So even when the script fails (and it does on many occasions), this film is still miles ahead of standard Hollywood blockbusters. It dares to ask the big questions. How did life begin? Did it come from another world, or from God, or from nothing? If there is a God, who created him? Is faith a strength or a weakness? Does the soul exist?
To be honest, I don't really feel the need to discuss these themes here, because that's exactly what I've been doing the last two years. I've written extensively on all of these topics. And there is no objective answer to any of them. The whole beauty of these questions is that nobody knows how to answer them. The film doesn't try to, and that's the film's biggest strength and it's biggest weakness. On the one hand, the open-ended nature of it will keep you thinking long after the film is over. But it's also a bit of a cheat, because the film doesn't explain anything - not even the central plot. This movie has more plot holes and abandoned ideas than any other I can think of. It keeps introducing new things, and then ignores them when the next thing comes along.
At the most basic level, the film is about Elizabeth Shaw, an archaeologist who finds evidence that the human race was created by Engineers on a distant planet. The Weyland Corporation sends a crew to the planet, in the hopes of finding this alien race. The entire film is spent uncovering clues, yet none of the clues lead anywhere. We never learn if Shaw's theory is correct. We never learn what the Engineers' motives are. Absolutely nothing is explained. The film clearly sets up a sequel, and I suppose they're saving the answers for that. But that just makes this film a ripoff. It's like watching a murder mystery that ends without telling you who the killer was, even though that was the entire point of the film. You watch the detective uncover clues to solve the case for two hours, only to hear him say, "I guess it doesn't really matter who killed him". I'm glad the philosophical questions were left open, but you still have to resolve the plot!
But I can't really get angry at this film, because it does have something truly astounding - David the android (you knew this was coming). This is the one aspect of the film that absolutely blew me away. If you've read my previous columns on David and artificial intelligence in general, you know how excited I was to see him. And he did not disappoint. I have never felt that kind of connection to a fictional character before. From the moment we meet David, he's a person that shares my view of the world.
When I was 16, I saw Lawrence of Arabia for the first time. It had a huge impact on me. I was fascinated by T.E. Lawrence and his life. I watched the film over and over, bought Seven Pillars of Wisdom, and even changed my hairstyle to match Lawrence. And when we meet David, he's doing exactly that. It was almost eerie to see such a specific personal detail onscreen like that.
David also has a wonderful sense of curiosity. He finds meaning in his life by constantly trying to learn new things about the world. He tries his best to help people, but he doesn't really understand them, and he tends to think of them as inferior to himself (although he would never tell them that). He craves their admiration. He doesn't care whether or not people like him, but he does want them to acknowledge how smart he is. David likes to point out that he's not like people; but he's also a little hurt when he's not considered a person. He doesn't understand why he's left out of social circles - in his mind, his lack of humanity makes him more valuable as a friend, not less. He tries to understand humanity through art, and he's constantly quoting his favorite films. He doesn't really put a value on life, but he's willing to die for the people who trust him. He longs for freedom, but understands that there's no such thing as real freedom. He's the voice of logic (sometimes to a fault), but in the end, he just wants to be a good person. I found myself caring for him on a very real level. Michael Fassbender was absolutely perfect in the role. So much of his character goes unspoken, but if you're paying attention, there are so many layers to it.
David is reason enough to consider this film a success. Prometheus has many shortcomings, which I'm hoping can be remedied in Paradise, the planned follow-up. But it's still an ambitious, worthwhile film. I will recommend it, as long as you understand that the plot is full of holes. But it's beautifully shot, fully engrossing, and it has a great cast. It asks all of the right questions; and even though it can be superficial, it still has value. It's not as smart as the writer thinks it is, but it is one of the smartest major Hollywood films I've seen in a long time. It should have gone deeper, but it's a step in the right direction.