Being relevant

Most film reviews are published several days before the reviewed film is released, and many people do not care to read a review if it refers to the thing projected onto the screen as a "film" rather than a "movie"--some consider that pretentious.

While I do not have access to films prior to theatrical release, prefer to use the term "film" when discussing a "movie," and usually wait to see "new" movies weeks after their releases at the discounted drive-in or smaller art theaters, I think I can offer some relevant and practical advice to those who wish to learn something about film/movies in general and possibly Ridley Scott's new film Prometheus in particular (I plan to see Prometheus in the undefined "near future.").

It appears that Prometheus occupies the same world as Scott's early sci-fi hit, Alien (1979), though Roger Ebert doesn't go so far as to deem the film a prequel, something that Scott has denied. Regardless of the technical definitions, the film seems to be very close to Alien in its design, themes, and even storyline.

If you plan on going to see Prometheus or any other movie for that matter, here's a tip for reading the film through the mise en scene, which means "putting into the scene," or everything that appears within the frame (and on the screen). Each scene in a movie typically begins with (an) "establishing shot(s)" or the uninterrupted running of the camera ("shot") in which the place, characters, and spatial relationship among the characters, objects and setting is made clear--this is often times done through distant framing, i.e. the sweeping landscape in a Western, or in Hitchcock's Psycho (1960), the multiple shots of Phoenix, Arizona that take the viewer from an aerial view of the city, into the city between the building, to an apartment window, and finally into the protagonist's apartment bedroom and an intimate scene with her lover.

The very beginning of a film also has its establishing shots, which may or may not be part of the film's narrative (warning SPOILERS for Alien and Blade Runner). In the opening of Ridley Scott's Blade Runner (1982), another popular sci fi, Scott begins the film with a series of shots that cut between futuristic Los Angeles and the close-up of an eye. In this sequence, Scott physically locates the viewer in the city of Los Angeles but also psychologically prepares the viewer for the rest of the film. In addition to establishing the setting in the establishing shots at the opening of the film, the director will often establish a context for viewing and understanding the film. Of course, the eye in Blade Runner can be interpreted to mean many different things, but it, at the very least, signifies the importance that eyes will play in the film, i.e. the fact that replicants are tested by examining pupil dilation and other physical responses to the Voight-Kampff machine. It also possibly suggests that the presentation of the film is coming from a particular viewpoint as the film follows Deckard (Harrison Ford) and includes his narrating of events. In the end, one questions if Deckard is a reliable narrator as the chance of his being a replicant, unaware of this himself, seems more and more likely.

In the case of Scott's Alien, even the title sequence, which slowly reveals the word "ALIEN" is telling and establishes a certain context in which to view the film. At first, each letter appears on the screen as a single bold line. Little by little, additional lines materialize on the screen and connect with the originals to form each individual letter in non sequential order until the complete word is finally spelled out. This is perhaps a simple analysis but, interestingly enough, Scott has indicated to a savvy viewer several of the film's important themes before anything has actually taken place on screen or in the story's narrative--the superficiality of initial, surface appearances; the constantly shifting and changing shape of things; and reversals of order.

These conclusions are based on the numerous exterior shots of the Nostromo ship, which appears different at almost every angle, especially since there is only one brief shot in which the entire ship is shown in a single frame, and the altered purpose of the ship and its mission--originally, hauling mineral ore; later, exploring a planet and securing an alien organism; and finally battling the alien. The revelation that Ash (Ian Holm) is a robot upon his dismemberment and the famous scene with the alien bursting from Kane's (John Hurt) chest--the alien will also appear different in multiple scenes as it continually grows and more of its body is shown in the frame--illustrate the inadequacies of our initial perceptions and external perspectives. Ripley's (Sigourney Weaver) ability to survive, combat, and ultimately defeat the alien while all others parish places a female character in the position of a historically Hollywood male role is compounded by the alien's seemingly reversed anatomies with the initial alien organism (appearing more vaginal) impregnating Kane (who is later shot out of the ship into space, his all white suit and body flying through black space and resembling sperm) and the birthed organism appearing phallic as it bursts out of Kane's chest. The evidence here is brief as there is more to say, but the point is that the establishing shots (even the title sequence in this case) has provided the viewer a road map for watching the rest of the film.

Although, I have not seen Prometheus yet, I suspect Scott directs viewers to watch the film in a certain way by giving them a road map to follow early on.

If you go to see Prometheus or any other movie in the near future, keep these things in mind and see if the director is trying to show us something other than a sci-fi horror with special effects and things that jump out of the shadows and through people's chests. Chances are, he or she is, if he or she is a worthwhile director.