Throughout the eighties, David Fincher had built up his reputation as one of the most in-demand music video directors around. His skill for visual flash and artistry was obviously going to lead him to Hollywood eventually. Meanwhile, 20th Century Fox was determined to continue their highly successful, critically acclaimed “Alien” franchise. After “Aliens’” blockbuster status, a new film had to be made. “Alien 3” would have a troubled pre-production, cycling through five completely different scripts and two directors. When Fincher entered the film, it was without a finished script. The producers were pushy and filming was chaotic. Fincher would disown the final film, not considering it truly his. The movie, meanwhile, remains the most controversial of the “Alien” series.
After “Aliens,” Ripley, Newt, Hicks, and Bishop seemingly float off to a happy ending. This, however, is not to be. Apparently during its brief time on the ship, the Queen Alien planted a single egg. While they were sleeping, the face-hugger attacks Ripley, impregnating her with a xenomorph fetus. This also causes a fire, injecting the pods. Only Ripley survives the crash. She awakens on an all-male prison planet, her loved ones once again stolen from her. The alien, meanwhile, also escapes, birthing a half-xenomorph/half-animal hybrid. Forming rough alliances with the prisoners, Ripley sets about stopping the alien again while struggling with the one growing inside her.
One can’t discuss “Alien 3” without considering the different versions of “Alien 3” that could have been. The very first script would have Hicks as the protagonist, with Ripley only having a cameo. It would have involved a space-bound faction of communists genetically engineering a new breed of xenomorph. A screenplay from William Gibson would add a mall on a space-station. After Gibson exited via conflicts with would-be director Renny Harlin, horror screenwriter Eric Red would enter. Red’s schlocky script would have country bumpkins fighting earth-bound xenomorphs. This was quickly abandoned when writer/director Vincent Ward entered the project. By this point, Ripley would become the main character again. Ward’s artistic vision involved a wooden planet full of monks, who believed the alien was sent as punishment for their sins. Ward would clash with the producers, his vision being dismissed as too arty. The loose idea of that premise would be mutated into the final “Alien 3.” Gibson’s vision would have certainly been better received by fans. Ward’s, meanwhile, certainly would have been more interesting.
More divisive than how the film looks is its content. “Alien 3” tells a nihilistic story with a grim tone. Ripley is stranded on a ugly planet. It’s full of creaky, industrial architecture. She’s surrounded by hostile men who either want to kill her, rape her, or ignore her completely. There’s an alien on the loose and, more personally, one inside of her. The company is still after the xenomorph, so no true help is coming. When Ripley discovers she’s pregnant with a Queen, she becomes suicidal. “Alien 3” is not a nice movie. It moves pass the chilly isolation from the first two movies and into full-blown hopelessness. Weaver’s performance is exhausted and downbeat throughout, with little of Ripley’s indomitable will showing through. Compared to the sci-fi/action/adventure of “Aliens,” fans were hostile to a movie as relentlessly glum as “Alien 3.”
No aspect of the movie is more heavily contested then the death of Hicks and Newt. “Aliens” ended with Ripley riding off with her new family, a boyfriend and a surrogate daughter. After everything she went through, it seemed fair for her to get a happy ending. “Alien 3” rips that away. Hicks and Newt are not only killed but killed off-screen. The movie re-enforces their dead-and-not-coming-back status by lingering on their corpses. Their causes of death are breathlessly repeated by a chilly coroner. An autopsy, which doesn’t spare too many details, is performed on Newt, an eight-year old girl. Fans were pissed, to put it lightly.
“Alien 3” does mash up the property with another pre-existing genre. In addition to being a space-and-future-set monster movie, it’s also a prison movie. The prisoners have conflicts with the order-obsessed warden. Some men are close to being released while others want to start trouble. An interesting decision is made to make most of the men religious fanatics. In their god-forsaken corner of the universe, the prisoners have turned to faith to give themselves hope. This is an interesting idea and the movie mostly runs with it, constantly reminding us of the men’s conflict between their brutal nature and their forgiving beliefs. This is most evident during the one scene every prison movie has to have: The attempted rape scene. Being the only woman around, Ripley is naturally the target. The moment is filled with the intensity of a heavy metal video, music blaring as the rapist slips goggles on his head. It’s an odd, unnerving moment but one that definitely stands out among the rest of the movie.
Every “Alien” movie has to add to the mythology of the monster in some way. “Aliens” gave us the Queen. “Alien 3” introduces the idea that the shape of the xenomorph is affected by what animal it incubated inside. That’s why the aliens in the last two movies were bipedal, with a generally human-like frame. (The expanded universe explains that this is how the xenomorph prepares for its new environment, as good an explanation as any.) In “Alien 3,” the monster grows inside either a dog or an ox, depending on which version you’re watching. As a design, the new alien mostly sticks to the xenomorph we know and love. It’s quadrupedal, with longer limbs and a slightly different slope to its head and mouth. Otherwise, the movie knew not to mess with H. R. Giger’s concept. The dog alien is fine. There’s only two things wrong with it: The gimmicky, unnecessary new ability to spray its acidic blood. And the unstable special effects used to bring it to life, an awkward combination of puppets and green screen that is frequently mistaken for crappy CGI.
“Alien 3” is also smart enough to fill its supporting cast with some memorable character actors. Charles S. Dutton makes an impression as the fiery, passionate Dillon, the prisoner most helpful to Ripley’s cause. Charles Dance is also a nice addition as the compassionate coroner, who provides Ripley’s sole love scene. Dance’s refined charm and quiet wit brings a great deal of levity to “Alien 3.” The movie lessens with his early exit. Ralph Brown is somewhat likable as the simpleton Aaron and the manic Paul McGann certainly makes an impression as the insane Golic. I wish Pete Postlethwaite was given more to do though, as his distinctive presence is definitely noticed. Lance Henriksen reprises his character of Bishop, in a sort of way, and gets to bring a more sinister side to his previous performance. If nothing else, it’s good to see him again.
Another reason I suspect the film was disliked was because the only version available for years wasn’t the best version made. David Fincher disowned “Alien 3.” Even when given the chance to re-cut the film, he refused. In his absence, an “Assembly Cut” was put together which more-or-less resembled the original cut presented to Fox executives. The original 145 minute cut was butchered down to 115 minutes. The extended cut is easier to follow and more character oriented. An entire subplot, about capturing the alien inside the prison, was excised. More time is spent developing the supporting cast and focusing on Ripley’s dilemma. The biggest difference is that the alien grows inside an ox, instead of a dog. This removes the silly aspect of the movie starring a “dog alien,” which sounds like something from Kenner’s “Aliens” toy line. Though not approved by Fincher, the Assembly Cut is still, easily, the superior version of the film.
“Alien 3” is not perfect. It’s relentless downbeat tone does not make it the most welcoming viewing. The decision to brutally kill off beloved characters was not met well by many. At times, it is clearly the work of a fractured, difficult production. However, I give the movie a lot more credit then most. It’s a handsome production, an effective monster movie, filled with interesting ideas, and a solid supporting cast. If nothing else, it gives Ripley a worthy send-off. [Grade: B]
No comments:
Post a Comment