Death by a Thousand Nitpicks? Prometheus (2012) and the critical reception

Yesterday, I wrote about some of the ideas underlying Ridley Scott's Prometheus (2012).  Today, I want to survey briefly some of the arguments I've seen leveled against the film. Now, mind you, there are criticisms, obviously, to be made of the film.  This post is not designed to suggest that all criticism of the film is invalid or wrong, only that some of the intense, oft-repeated criticisms seem...overwrought, and suggest a refusal to meet the film half-way.

1. Scientific Inaccuracy.  I've read several complaints about the opening card (over a view of Prometheus in space) that establishes precisely the vessel's distance from Earth (and also the time it took to travel to this point in space).  In short, apparently Prometheus traveled really, really fast.  So is this an error in science?  Perhaps so.  But does it disqualify the movie from a position of quality, overall?  Well, let me just say this: "You've never heard of the Millennium Falcon? It's the ship that made the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs."  Does that (cringe-worthy) and unscientific line make Star Wars (1977) a bad movie overall?  And let's not forget Star Trek: First Contact (1996) either, wherein the Enterprise travels from the Romulan neutral zone to Earth in time to join a battle with the Borg already in progress.  So this point about Prometheus actually reveals how critical standards aren't exactly being applied evenly in discussions of the film.

2.  The characters behave stupidly!  This is actually a multi-part complaint, and one I'm sensitive to on some fronts. But what I've read most frequently online is a variation of "what kind of dumb scientist is Holloway that he would remove his helmet in an alien temple?!"  Well, he's the kind of scientist who already confirmed that there is a breathable atmosphere inside the temple, and then explicitly re-confirmed it with the expedition's brilliant android, David.  It's not like he just gets to the surface of LV-223 and tears off his helmet during a silica storm.  Yes, Holloway's behavior is undeniably rash, and Shaw isn't exactly happy about it, either.  So, 1.) Holloway does make at least a cursory safety check before the rash move, and 2.) his rash move is duly noted by the other, irritated characters in the drama.  So what's the problem?  I'm old enough to remember the response to Space: 1999 (1975 - 1977) when some folks complained that the Alphans acted too much like scientists; too reserved, too careful, too deliberate.  Where was their sense of risk?  Their sense of humanity?  Where was the drama?!  Prometheus takes the opposite tact, perhaps, but that choice doesn't invalidate the film.  Scientists are human beings -- replete with foibles -- too.

A.) The two scientists who encounter the snake alien don't show enough fear while facing it.  Well, they look pretty terrified to me.  One way to interpret their panicky behavior is that they are attempting to quiet the beast -- in case it is afraid of them.  It's like being faced with a wild tiger in the jungle.  Do you scream at the top of your lungs and scare it?  Run away suddenly, basically daring it to strike?  Or do you address the threat...soothingly?  "It's okay, it's okay...shhhh, it's okay...relax...we're not going to hurt you."  No, not a perfect response by any means, but an understandable and absolutely human one.  And one that ends badly, of course.  Is it so hard to believe?

B.) Holloway doesn't tell anyone he's sick.  Again, this complaint is absolutely true.  But in terms of movie conventions, how many zombie or outbreak-style movies have we seen in which a character fails to reveal to others in a timely fashion that he or she has been bitten or contaminated?  There are a lot of movies that we now must rule out as "good" if this element is going to be a disqualifying factor for Prometheus.  The truth is -- again -- that Holloway acts like a flawed, imperfect human being; a scared human being.  He makes a very bad judgment call.  When he has time to reconsider that call, he sacrifices his life rather than hurt Shaw and the others.  No, he's not perfect up front, instantly, upon recognizing his plight.  How many of us would be perfect in identical circumstances?  


C.) Captain Janek (Idris Elba) must not care about his stranded crew because he goes off to have sex with Vickers (Charlize Theron) while the marooned men are in danger.  If we gaze at Janek, his character arc is essentially one in which he goes from being "just the captain" (and indeed, not caring), to laying down his life to save the entire human race.  He comes to understand, because of the events on LV-223 that he can no longer remain uninvolved, or on the side-lines.  All that century-old music he appreciates from Earth's past (his parental figure or most important influence, it seems...) will be lost to the ages if the Engineers have their way.  If Janek had remained at his post all through the night, this character arc would be sacrificed. And thus his final act would be less meaningful, and less surprising.  And besides, Janek doesn't see the team, necessarily as "his" crew.  He's just along for the ride...until something he cares about is threatened.  Again, this isn't Captain Kirk-styled heroics; this is a very real, unromantic human portrayal.  


D.) Shaw blows up an Engineer head, willy-nilly!  Early in the film, Shaw recovers an engineer head, sticks some electricity in the thing, and blows it up.  I've seen a lot of folks complain about her behavior in this scene.  But if you look more deeply at the symbolism of this sequence, it doesn't seem so baffling.  The Engineers are clearly afraid of their creation, the humans, and exhibit A might be this very moment.  A human shows up and in a fever to gain "the ultimate knowledge"  she destroys that which she seeks to understand.  Could be a metaphor for the whole movie, no?  In trying to comprehend God, do we destroy God?  In finding God, do we destroy faith?  Similarly, look at the decapitation symbolism, specifically.  A decapitation can mean a number of things, like for instance that your head and heart are not connected.  Some scholars also interpret decapitation imagery in dreams to mean that the dreamer's beliefs are under attack.  In a very real way, this reflects Shaw's situation (and her character is already connected explicitly to dream imagery in the text of the film...)  Her chosen belief is that the Engineers are God.  She finds out that they are not.  The severed head is both a literal and metaphorical reminder that her beliefs are wrong. The Engineers are clearly as mortal and vulnerable as humans.  Finally, this scene functions as an eerie mirror of a similar scene in Alien involving a decapitated Ash, and attempts to communicate with the damaged android.   In any case, engaging with the film's mode of communication makes this scene less irritating, and more provocative.

3.) Implausibility.  One of the complaints I have read frequently vis-a-vis Prometheus is that Shaw gets surgery and then "runs around" for the rest of the movie like nothing ever happened to her.  Well, not exactly.  She does fall unconscious for an interval, after all.  And it's not as though she isn't feeling intense pain, either.  A moment that I found even more effective than the brilliant surgery scene in generating a sense of unease involved Shaw sucking in her gut to zip up her tight space suit.  It's pretty clear from her expression that she's in agony.  And again, let's return to movie history and movie convention for a moment.  In Die Hard (1987), Bruce Willis walked barefoot across broken glass but was then strong enough to go mano-e-mano with Alexander Gudonov.  So again, if this is a disqualifying factor for Prometheus overall, let's disqualify Die Hard from greatness while we're at it, too.

4.) Sloppy writing.  I read a complaint online yesterday that the alien Engineers just "left" their bio weapons out in the middle of an open room, for any unlucky soul to find.  But didn't we explicitly see a hologram sequence in which the door to the weapon room was sealed tightly shut?  And it was such a heavy door, in fact, that it actually decapitated one of the Engineers when it closed.  David must unlock the door to gain access to that room.  It's not just wide open, as some critics have insisted.   

Secondly, what kind of scientists are these guys to go in and start touching stuff in the temple? Well, if memory serves, David is the one who first touches the black goop, on the premise that, as Weyland explicitly states, he's immortal.  It's true that the presence of a breathable atmosphere impacts the vases and causes the leakage there.  But could the astronauts have known this leakage would occur ahead of time?  Don't they evacuate as soon as they do recognize what has occurred?  And besides, what fun would the movie have been if the scientists went all the way to LV-223 and decided not to go inside the temple because they might interfere with something?    Let's not forget that no movie is perfect in constructing its narrative.  To create tension in the final act of Alien, remember, Ripley returned to the bridge of the Nostromo to rescue a cat.   That's as questionable an act as any of the aforementioned nitpicks in Prometheus.  But of course, going back for the cat doesn't disqualify Alien as a quality genre film, either.

Other questions also boast relatively straight-forward answers if you engage with Prometheus and meet it half-way.  Why doesn't the Engineer ship in the prologue look exactly like the one in the finale?  Well, why doesn't the Enterprise look like the Reliant?  Same makers, different design.  Why doesn't Vickers roll to the side instead of being crushed by the falling derelict?  She stumbles and falls at the last second, but when she turns back over, it's too late.  At least she didn't outrun a fire-ball, a common convention in such films. 

Again and again, many of the complaints lodged against Prometheus are of the nature I describe here: easily explainable if you are willing to engage even a little.  These nitpicks are ones that -- if equally applied to other films -- would absolutely preclude enjoyment and appreciation of Star Wars, Die Hard, and other classics.  In short, there are ample reasons to find fault with Prometheus.  But these reasons? 

So, we must ask ourselves, why is Prometheus the target of such egregious and easily answered nitpicking?   My suspicion is that many folks are discomforted by what the film implies about family, mortality, and religion, and thus latch onto nitpick quibbles to build a case that the Scott film is poorly presented.  Rather than dealing with what Prometheus is actually about, they nibble around the edges. Again, I'm not declaring that Prometheus is above serious criticism.  But does this level of nitpicking qualify as serious criticism?   In the history of cinema, this isn't the first time such a thing has happened, either.  On original release, Psycho, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and even Scott's own Blade Runner met with fiercely negative reviews too.  Time has revealed the error in those cases.  Will it do the same for Prometheus?