Kane's son

CONTENTS

Introduction   3

1.  Other than gender-related theories on Alien’s terrifying appeal  3

1.1  Alien and the Uncanny  3

1.2  Alien and other aliens - Why they scare us do they?  5

2.  The masculine Alien  8

2.1  The Face-Hugger  9

2.2  The Chest-Buster  10

2.3  Alien in its final stage  11

2.4  The (female) Alien Queen  12

3.  Males and masculinity in The Alien-Trilogy  13

3.1  Alien  13

3.1.1  Ripley  17

3.2  Aliens  19

3.2.1  Armament  19

3.2.2  The Marines  20

3.2.3  Ripley  22

4.  Own Theory  23

  Conclusion  24

  Bibliography  25

Table of  Figures  26

2

Introduction

Since Alien first appeared on screen in 1979, there have been many studies about it, covering every imaginable interpretation possible. There was a focus especially on gender theory and femininity studies - essays on a lesbian point of view, the abject mother and monstrous femininity. Even about male homoerotic aspects, obviously with special emphasis on Alien³. Astoundingly enough there is far less material about a male heterosexual approach to the movies.

Therefore, my task in this essay will be to look at the Alien movies - with a main focus on the original and the second part - from a different point of view. I will for two reasons not go into details with the last two parts of the quadrilogy. First, because it would be too extensive for this paper, and second, because I personally do not like Alien Resurrection at all - especially since it does not fit the continuity of its predecessors.

The paper is divided in several different parts that will all serve my major argument. First, I will present some ideas that might help to understand, why the Alien is frightening using, amongst others, a psychoanalytical approach.

I will then focus on the gender-related aspect, and the discussion shall on the one hand raise the question why the major theories all take it for granted that the Alien creature is female, and on the other hand try to show that the opposite interpretation is just as likely. The essay will also cover an in-depth look at the human male characters and what happens to them and their gender throughout the movie, as well as the gender metamorphosis of Ellen Ripley. After having done so, I will evolve a different approach concerning the question what the real frightening aspect in Alien and Aliens for the male audience is - is it really the “monstrous-feminine” or the “toothed vagina” as theorist Barbara Creed suggests? ¹ Or shouldn’t

we rather search for the source of fright at another place?

1. Other than gender-related theories on Alien’s terrifying appeal

1.1 Alien and the Uncanny

Why is it that some things scare us, whereas other things do not bother us at all? One may look and find a possible answer to this question in Sigmund Freud’s treatise on the uncanny.

3

One aspect that might help is Freud’s assumptions that people always “experience the feeling

[of the uncanny] in the highest degree in relation to death and dead bodies, to the return of the

dead, and to spirits and ghosts.” 2

This notion becomes important when one takes a closer look at the Alien’s body. H.R. Giger’s

creation consists to a great part of (humanlike) bones. The Alien’s chest looks like an uncov-ered human ribcage, while the legs look as if they just consist of muscles and veins with the

outer skin stripped of (Fig.1). The creepiest part might be the head, though, which - under-

neath the black and shiny outside looks just like a human skull as one can see very well in

figure 2.

Fig.1: Alien’s appearance ³ Fig.2: Alien’s skull-head 4

The Alien confronts the audience by its appearance constantly as an embodiment of death,

that is, one of the main factors that Freud pinpoints as being uncanny.

This aspect of the uncanny, however, is not the one that Freud puts his major focus on. His

main interpretation might be the more important one for this analysis.

Very early in his essay Freud argues that

the uncanny is that class of the frightening which leads back to what is known of old and long familiar. (…) The German word “unheimlich” is obviously the opposite of “heimlich”, “heimisch” the opposite of what is familiar; and we are tempted to conclude that what is “uncanny” is frightening precisely because it is not known and familiar. 5

¹ Creed, Barbara. “Horror and the Monstrous-Feminine: An Imaginary Abjection.” Grant, Barry Keith, Ed. The

Dread of Difference: Gender in the Horror Film. Austin: U of Texas P., 1996.P. 35-36.

² Freud, Sigmund. „Das Unheimliche“. In: Freud, Anna (Ed.). Gesammelte Werke. Zwölfter Band: Werke aus

den Jahren 1917-1920. P. 254. Translation by http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~amtower/uncanny.html

³ Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation. Alien - The Director’s Cut. 2 Disc Special Edition. 2004.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Freud, Sigmund. „Das Unheimliche“. In: Freud, Anna (Ed.). Gesammelte Werke. Zwölfter Band: Werke aus

den Jahren 1917-1920. P. 231. Translation by http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~amtower/uncanny.html

4

The uncanny is here defined as something strange, that is, alien. The Alien is therefore already uncanny, because it is unknown and not familiar to us - one does not even have to see its appearance to be scared by it. We as well as Lieutenant Ripley and the other protagonists do not know anything about it, because it remains unexplored. We only get hints about its habits and reproduction techniques. The unfamiliarity of the beast persists throughout all the Alien movies except for a variation in Alien Resurrection. Here it seems that Dr. Gediman has made himself familiar with the brute; after all, he managed to breed it and to even get a new species - an alien-human hybrid. ⁶ Accordingly, he is not afraid of it; but his familiarity to the

Alien is only an illusion. It remains a dangerous stranger, who eventually also kills in an oedipal act its own creator / father Gediman.

1.2 Alien and other aliens - Why they scare us … do they?

However, the fact that the unknown tends to be uncanny is not sufficient enough to explain, why the Alien is frightening. After all, we might be scared by this creature, but we are certainly not afraid of, for example, other Hollywood aliens such as Steven Spielberg’s E.T. The latter is, of course, set in a children’s movie surrounding and is therefore unlikely to (be meant to) appear scary. On the contrary, E.T. is rather pitiable, since he himself is hunted by “aliens” - human beings. Those are creepier than E.T. himself could be. 7

There are more reasons, why E.T. is not at all like Alien. Whereas E.T.’s appearance has easily detectable humanlike features ⁸ , Alien lacks any resemblance to an alive human being

whatsoever.

⁶ This one is, judging from its appearance, even scarier than the original, when one keeps taking Freud’s idea of the death being uncanny into account. The hybrid lacks the black cover over his head, and one can easily see every feature of his humanlike skinless skull. In addition it is not black, but bone white, what makes it look even more like a human skeleton. It is all in all a very disgusting creature.

⁷ Especially towards the end of the movie, when men in oxygen suits enter Elliott’s house. The fact that one cannot see their faces and that they seem to turn the house into a foreign place (with oxygen tubes, tents and a cooling box for E.T.) themselves, makes them truly creepy appearances.

⁸ His anatomy is very humanlike, even though it is utterly distorted. His huge eyes give him the look of a puppydog and his behavior is childlike and innocent. He is even easier to be scared than his human friends.

5

Of course, E.T.’s humanness leads us back to Freud’s concept of the uncanny - that is, we are less afraid of things that appear familiar to us.

One can put E.T. in a group of science fiction and fantasy movie creation named “good aliens” as we know them from movies like Starman (Jeff Bridges as sweet alien humanoid), Star Wars (Yoda, Chewbacca and co.) or Mac an Me (a cuddly dwarf, who plays on the audience’s heart strings). None of the above was supposed to appear scary. ¹⁰ On the other hand, there is the category of “bad aliens”, to which Alien most certainly belongs; yet, among many versatile other creatures such as the Body Snatchers (alien impostors invading human beings), Predator (killer machine with dreadlocks) or The Thing (disgusting and very dangerous monster).

Yet, none of the just mentioned managed to achieve what Alien did: to become “eine nie dagewesene Mischung aus zungenlähmender Monstrosität und anbetungswürdiger Vollkommenheit.” 11

Another species created by Spielberg, which belongs to the second group of film aliens, appeared 20 years after E.T. and Close Encounters of the Third Kind in his War of the Worlds remake; but although this movie is in opposite to E.T. hardly meant for a younger audience (PG-13), the actual aliens themselves are not really frightening, either. They may be deadly creatures, but in their individual behavior they remind one rather of curious, big-eyed monkeys than of dangerous killers. That might be one of the reasons, why War of the World didn’t suit the critics. It has always proved to be risky for a director to create an alien, because if it is not scary, while it was intended to be, the whole movie is in danger to become a ridicu- ⁹ http://movies.uip.de/et20/#

¹⁰ Even though the first appearance with E.T. in the corn field is rather startling.

¹¹ Raum-Deinzer, Uwe. “Mensch gegen Monster: Science Fiction, Horror, Action - Die Alien-Triologie.“ MovieStar Sonderband: Aliens 2 (1994): 44.

6

lous pratfall. That is why it is often wiser to not show the creature at all or only very shortly

and towards the end respectively. Both Spielberg’s Close Encounters and M. Night Shyama-

lan's Signs work very well this way. The suspense derives from the fact that (some of) the

protagonists can see the aliens whereas the audience cannot. The latter can only judge from

the expressions of the actors’ faces.

Alien (as well as Alien³) does partially work the same way, which is due to director Ridley

Scott:

Scott achtete beim Endschnitt sehr darauf, dass man das Alien nicht zu oft sah. Er war nie ein großer Fan von Horrorfilmen gewesen und schob die Schuld hauptsächlich auf die unsäglichen Männer in Gummianzügen, die viel zu oft im Bild waren. Also filmte er so kurze Bewegungssequenzen wie nur möglich. (…) Scott brachte das Alien bis kurz vor Schluss fast nur in Sekundenschnitten und extremen Großaufnahmen ins Bild. 12

The reason for this procedure is obvious and complies to what was already mentioned above:

“Er [Scott] drehte auch ein paar längere Einstellungen, und wer sie - allerdings natürlich un-

montiert - sieht, merkt wie harmlos, ja geradezu lächerlich das Alien bei solchem Zur-schaustellen wirkt.“ 13

That is, the audience is aware of the presence of the beast, but rarely sees it in its whole.

Alien often remains in the shadows, and the audience can only guess how it looks like.

Fig. 4: Brett sees and is terrified by the Alien; the audience gets only short glimpses at it 14

Translation: an unprecedented blend of tongue-tying monstrosity and adorable perfection.

¹² Raum-Deizer, Uwe. “Mensch gegen Monster: Science Fiction, Horror, Action - Die Alien-Triologie.“ Mo-

vieStar Sonderband: Aliens 2 (1994): 44.

Translation: Scott minded at the final cut very much that one could not see the Alien too often. He had never been a great fan of horror movies und he blamed mainly the unspeakable men in rubber suits, who were on the screen far too often. Therefore, he filmed the animation sequences as short as possible. (…) Scott showed the Alien until shortly before the end almost only in cuts of few seconds and in extreme close-ups.

¹³ Ibid.

Translation: He [Scott] also shot some longer sequences, and who sees them - although unmounted, of course -, notices how harmless, even ridiculous Alien appears in such exhibitions.

7