A Few Thoughts on Alien and Prometheus

 As I mentioned earlier this week, I watched Alien twice last weekend. Having seen Alien recently, I thought it might be a good time to listen to the commentary tracks on each version (the 1979 theatrical cut and the 2003 re-edited "alternate" version created for the Alien Quadrilogy boxed set) as I'd never actually gotten around to that*. And, seeing that the Ridley Scott directed / Damon Lindelof and Jon Spaihts scripted Prometheus is coming out next week, it seemed like a good time to glean some information about the well guarded story.

 Since the announcement that Scott was returning to science fiction for the first time in thirty years, there has been a degree of speculation as to how Prometheus was connected to Alien. Scott indicated that the original plan was for the film to be a prequel to Alien, but that in the course of developing the script he, Lindelof, and Spaihts moved away from that and that the film was a stand alone story. Then Scott indicated that Prometheus shared "DNA" with the Alien world but that there would be no Xenomorphs (the titular creatures of the series, as they don't have a species identified in any of the films). And then the trailers made their way to the internet.

 Without breaking too much down (believe me, type "Prometheus" into the Google search engine and follow any links from online magazines detailing the history of production, questions about the trailer, and articles that deal with questions from the viral campaign), the first teaser had what looked like the derelict from Alien (and Aliens) with the same cockpit Dallas, Lambert, and Kane explore, something that looks a lot like the Space Jockey's head (or helmet) and images that went beyond sharing "DNA". The subsequent trailers (international and domestic) introduced shapes and structures that looked a LOT like Xenomorphs, something that looks like a proto-facehugger, and more than one Space Jockey (with and without helmet, which explains what connects to the cockpit).

 The viral ads online have introduced Guy Pearce as Peter Weyland (one can debate whether this removes Lance Henriksen's Charles Bishop Weyland as the originator of the "Company" - based on the chronology, it's possible Pearce plays his son and therefore not all of the terrible Alien vs Predator films is being thrown out) and introduced David (Michael Fassbinder) as Weyland's android aboard the Prometheus (no Ash-like misdirection this time out), as well as a video from Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) contacting Weyland that also introduces the Yutani into Weyland Yutani (from Aliens).

 I don't even want to talk about some of the spots airing on television because I'm trying to avoid them. At least two I've seen give away far more than any of the trailers have about what the not-facehugger thing is capable of doing and more specific details about Shaw's theory of who the "Architects" are. They have produced one two interesting images (particularly this spot), including the one that conclusively answers the question "is this the same planet where the crew of the Nostromo find the derelict ship?"

 The answer is no: that planet was LV-426**, and this image:

 Makes it clear they're headed to LV-223, so we're not being misled and the fact that a Space Jockey's ship that crashes in every trailer isn't the same ship from Alien. But wait... if we go into rampant speculation mode, what else is there to learn here.

 Well, here's the shot that immediately precedes the image above:

 It shows the planet, the moon (LV-223), and another planetoid orbiting. I point this out because one of the things I noticed while watching Alien again is that LV-426 is orbiting this planet:

 It was actually much more difficult to find good pictures from Alien, but in the film you can see what appears to be a gas giant with a ring around it and two planetoids in orbit (I say planetoid instead of moon because that's how Scott describes it in the 1999 commentary, when he says "they told me the planetoid wouldn't have an atmosphere and I said mine would because otherwise it looked like rubbish.") This shot it from the end of the Alien teaser (hence the tagline in the lower portion of the picture) but you can kind of make out both smaller orbiting planetoids, one of which is LV-426.

 So is the other one LV-223? I don't know, but it was something I hadn't even given though about before putting Alien back on. Yes, the crash isn't on the same moon/planetoid but does that mean the Prometheus doesn't land somewhere very near to where the Nostromo answers a distress call? I guess we'll find out next week.

 Other interesting tidbits from Ridley Scott's commentary (the 1999 one and his sections of the 2003 group track, recorded with and without Sigourney Weaver):

 - He describes Ash as "basically a Replicant" tying together in his mind the worlds of Alien and Blade Runner, made all the more curious as Scott has announced he will be making a sequel to the latter with screenwriter Hampton Fancher (and possibly Harrison Ford in a small capacity) in the next few years.

 - Scott mentions both in 1999 and in 2003 of his fascination with the Space Jockey and his theory that the derelict was a "bioweapon carrier" designed to unleash the Xenomorphs on some unidentified species. He and Weaver agree that the origin of the Space Jockey and the Xenomorphs is the only way to continue making films in the Alien universe and that if either of them were involved, they would want to explore just that.

 - His conception of the Xenomorph was that it could essentially reproduce asexually, and the deleted "cocoon" sequence hinted that it could change its victims into other Xenomorphs. All of this was removed from the theatrical cut and the creation of the Queen in Aliens completely removes this from the lifecycle, but if you put on the 2003 recut of the film and listen to Scott's explanation of what Ripley is seeing, he explains an alternate theory as to how a single Xenomorph could perpetuate the species. Scott frequently refers to the facehugger concept of implanting eggs in living hosts by mentioning insects that have similar tactics.

 So here we are, one week away from Prometheus, and this could all be irrelevant by then. It's hard to say, but I have fun geeking out and speculating every now and then. Watching Alien again (and again) certainly gave me some things to consider until seeing Scott's return to the world of Space Jockeys and alien life forms. I guess I'll revisit this soon...



 * I had listened to the track for Aliens, which is an interesting collection of various participants, sometimes in groups or, in the case of James Cameron, alone, and contains all kinds of information about the making of the film and its relationship with Alien.
** That is, by the way, not speculation. In addition to being able to find that information on virtually any site about Alien or Aliens, it's part of the menu that opens the Alien Blu-Ray, which also provides the name "Acheron" which is what the colonists call the planet in Aliens.

Winnebago Man vs. Best Worst Movie

As I alluded to yesterday in my review of Ben Steinbauer's Winnebago Man, I'm slightly perplexed why none of the reviews I've seen have compared the documentary to another, very similar type of film, Michael Stephenson's Best Worst Movie. While they differ in the medium addressed, Best Worst Movie and Winnebago Man are functionally about the same thing: a long-forgotten piece of media has taken on a new life, separate from the people principally involved with it, and a filmmaker sets out to connect with one specific person and build a documentary around their reaction to new-found fame (or infamy).

Both films begin with an introduction to the "cult" following, including interviews with critics, media personalities, other people involved with the production, and then set about focusing the film on one person who the director feels is impacted most. Both films feature directors who are personally involved in the narrative of the documentary and both feel they have a stake in their subject. Best Worst Movie and Winnebago Man also deal in the culture of "to be laughed AT," a relatively popular phenomenon in the age of the internet and of "viral videos," where the subject(s) of mockery are largely removed from their audience, especially in the case of Troll 2 and Rebney's Winnebago outtakes.

Where they differ is on two key distinctions: the type of media (and the way it is /was disseminated) and the reaction of the film's "subject" (in Winnebago Man, Jack Rebney; in Best Worst Movie, George Hardy). These differences are critical in the success or failure of each film, in part because they frame the "subject" of the film and their audience well before the two ever meet on camera.

The first distinction is an important one, and it explains to some extent why Winnebago Man stumbles in its mid-section. The "viral video," and specifically Rebney's outtakes, are generally speaking viewed on an individual level. One person watches the video on Youtube (or videocassette, as is explained in the film), and passes it on to someone else. We watch them alone, we enjoy them alone, and don't tend to think of these videos as a truly "shared" experience. Gatherings to view the footage, like the Found Film Festival which is featured in Winnebago Man, are fairly rare events.

Troll 2, on the other hand, expanded from an initial home video run to appear regularly in theatres as a "midnight movie" like The Rocky Horror Picture Show. The experience of Troll 2, unlike the Winnebago outtakes, is inherently communal. In nearly every instance during Best Worst Movie, it's clear that fans enjoy watching the film together, laughing at the film together, and sharing the experience of Troll 2. The audiences also seem much more invested in the idea of meeting a George Hardy or a Michael Stephenson than a Jack Rebney, who the founders of the Found Film Festival assumed was dead.

This brings us to our second distinction, and the one that benefits one film and seriously undermines the other: the subject(s). I understand why Ben Steinbauer was interested in finding Jack Rebney: it's a fascinating project to track down the "lost" star of one of YouTube's most popular videos, and to find out how he feels about his indirect fame. The problem is that once it is apparent Rebney has no desire whatsoever to interact with Steinbauer on those terms, Winnebago Man struggles to move forward. Jack Rebney offers no insight into the questions Steinbauer hoped to answer, and moreover, he refuses to interact with the fan base the director planned on connecting him to for almost three years.

George Hardy, on the other hand, is a relatively benign subject who has fond memories of making Troll 2 and an inkling that people seem to like the film now, partly because Stephenson was also in the film. Michael Stephenson lucked out, in some ways, by choosing Hardy to expose to the screenings of Troll 2 he'd been observing prior to making Best Worst Movie. Hardy is easygoing, gregarious, and clearly a little struck by the sudden popularity he encounters, and he has the benefit of knowing the director as they experience Troll 2's resurgence together. Best Worst Movie can then accordingly document Hardy's rise and fall as a quasi-celebrity, complete with a narrative arc right out of classic Hollywood: the humble hero who brushes with fame, becomes consumed with it, and then realizes that it isn't all it's cracked up to be. Stephenson has a willing participant and Best Worst Movie becomes something more than a document of a twenty-year-old stinker's "cult" status, and as luck would have it, no one needs to be prodded to make it happen*.

Trying to manufacture an event with the mercurial Rebney moves the film out of the realm of "what would happen if" and make it a "let's see what happens when I drag someone who clearly isn't interested in what I want to do out of his comfort zone and put him face to face with people he doesn't want to meet for reasons he has every right to express. It reminded me of something that hasn't happened yet - but could - tied to Best Worst Movie.

During a post-screening Q&A, one of the producers indicated that Fragasso wanted to make a Troll 2: Part 2 (in 3-D), and if that were to happen, they would certainly document it for a Best Worst Movie 2. And that's a horrible, misguided idea, I have to say. It's not simply trying to catch lightning in a bottle again; the concept as presented is trying to create it, and that never works. Troll 2 isn't the endearing train wreck it is because the writer, director, cast, and crew set out to make the "best worst movie": it was simply the accidental byproduct of their efforts.

By making a Troll 2: Part 2, everyone involved (and especially the people making Best Worst Movie 2) is going to have the reputation of Troll 2 in their minds, and many of them will be trying to replicate it - or worse, play it up. The documentary crew is certainly hoping for this (and if you doubt me, they also expressed hopes for a reality series with George Hardy and The Room's Tommy Wiseau that fortunately never came to pass) and the result will be a film trying so hard to be bad (on a conscious level or not) that it lacks the necessary "it" that makes Troll 2 the "best worst movie." It's like expecting Jack Rebney to show up at a screening of his Winnebago outtakes ready to spew profanity and swat at flies.

Winnebago Man dances around the nature of Rebney's "fans" by portraying them exactly as he suspected while waiting in line but then soft-pedaling the Q&A and post-screening. Only one person expressly states their perception of the "Angriest RV Salesman in the World" was way off, while other people exiting the theatre substitute for earlier interviews (who sometimes appear taking pictures with him but saying nothing, thereby neither asserting or refuting their earlier opinions). Best Worst Movie doesn't directly address the fan reaction with Stephenson, but the film certainly shows you the ugly side of how the "laughing AT" audiences regard Fragasso, Hardy, and Troll 2 in general. The fans move from genuinely enthusiastic near the beginning to partially hostile (or at least incredibly judgmental, as with the case of the "how come it's called Troll 2 when there are no trolls?" question) to the people involved. There's an ugly undercurrent to the fan relationship in Best Worst Movie that Steinbauer avoids addressing during the second half of Winnebago Man**, much to the latter's disadvantage, in part because the film struggles to find its footing at that point.

I do feel that Best Worst Movie is successful in ways that Winnebago Man is not, but I would like to point out that this is not the fault of Ben Steinbauer: he found himself in the unenviable position of changing a documentary midway through his search with a subject that continued to throw him curveballs and refuse to meet him halfway on almost every decision. Winnebago Man is a well constructed documentary that lost its sense of purpose and has to push onward. Best Worst Movie has the tremendous benefit of everything falling into place in a compelling manner, but this is not to belittle or undermine Stephenson, who put together a consistently entertaining, endearing, funny, and disturbing documentary. It takes just as much work to make either film, and I think they both handle their subject manner in the best way possible. One has a better go at it for me, but I understand why the other one exists, and more importantly, deserves to be seen.



* It doesn't hurt that Best Worst Movie is also populated with a host of interesting supporting characters, from the rest of the cast of Troll 2 to its egotistical director, Claudio Fragasso. Winnebago Man ultimately rests on Jack Rebney's shoulders, and he's clearly less interested in being the subject of that particular documentary than anyone in Best Worst Movie.
** Early in the film, he interviews two hosts of a "found video" cable access show that state upfront they have no interest in ever meeting Rebney or anyone else in the tapes they receive. To meet the person associated with the injury or embarrassment would remove any joy taken from their suffering, they explain, which is a telling comment the film never again explores.

Blogorium Review: Winnebago Man

Editorial Introduction: Maybe there should be a new category of documentaries, called "personal essays" or something to that effect: over the last ten years or so, we've seen more documentaries where the creative force behind the film becomes the subject of their own investigation. Documentaries like Super Size Me, Religulous, This Film is Not Yet Rated, Bowling for Columbine, Best Worst Movie, The Kid Stays in the Picture, Don't You Forget About Me, and now Winnebago Man certainly qualify (in varying degrees) as documentaries told from a considerably more subjective viewpoint than, say, films by the Maysles brothers.

Winnebago Man is a well made documentary that suffers from one major problem: in the end, it's very difficult to answer the "so what?" question. During undergraduate, I was continually faced with writing papers where the stakes weren't clear enough, and more often than not, the best argument against the topics in question were "so what?" This is not to say Winnebago Man isn't worth watching, or that writer/director/producer Ben Steinbauer didn't set out to make a movie that feels superfluous, but I have a hard time giving the film an unequivocal recommendation.

Steinbauer's documentary, about Jack Rebney, the "angriest RV Salesman on Earth": in 1989, Rebney was filming an industrial video for Winnebago RV's, and due to the heat, humidity, and flies in rural Iowa, coupled with an inability to remember his lines, Rebney unleashed a litany of expletives and blowups. The crew edited these outtakes, showed them to Winnebago, and Rebney was fired. That should have been the end of the story, but videotapes of the outtakes started circulating, and five years ago they made their way to Youtube*, turning Rebney into a short-fused joke. Steinbauer, who had seen the tape, wanted to know what happened to the man behind the profanity, what he thought about the tape / Youtube, and how he would approach his audience.

The answer, it turns out, is that Rebney is living a reclusive life in Northern California, doesn't care much for the tape and even less for the people he perceives to be its audience (Jack describes his expectations of "room temperature IQ's" and even when they aren't, he professes he can't understand why intelligent people would watch the Winnebago video). Rebney initially dupes Steinbauer into believing he's a kindly old man who put that anger behind him, but then admits it was all a charade**, and decides he'd like to ask Steinbauer to provide him with a platform for his political, philosophical, and cultural positions. When the director assumes Rebney means his audience on Youtube, the curmudgeon bristles and becomes combative, and Steinbauer leaves, reaches out to his friend Keith Gordon, and eventually coaxes Jack into attending a special Found Film Festival as the Guest of Honor.

Winnebago Man reminds me most of Best Worst Movie - a comparison that, strangely, I haven't seen anywhere - and I'll deal with comparing the films in greater depth tomorrow, but Steinbauer starts the documentary strong with a history of viral videos, including their pre-internet incarnations through events like the Found Footage Festival. His personal involvement in the narrative of Winnebago Man is going to remind audiences of Michael Moore, and to that end I'm willing to overlook some of the "recreations" (like footage of Steinbauer talking to Jack over the phone after their first encounter).

In fact, Steinbauer is as much of a character in Winnebago Man as Rebney, and his constant involvement in prodding the reclusive ex-newsman into opening up or addressing his fans hurts the film the most. Rebney's disinterest in being more of the story leaves the documentary spinning its wheels for far too long, and the exasperated Steinbauer doesn't have much to work with when his subject is wholly disinterested.

Another component that really doesn't help Winnebago Man is that it's very easy to forget that Steinbauer spent three years getting Rebney to come out of seclusion and bring him to San Francisco for the Found Film Festival. The film begins with an argument between the director and subject, then inserts a "three years earlier" card before introducing the viral video. After that, there are periodic, incremental ".... later" cards, and then vanishes for the bulk of the film. Steinbauer and editor Malcom Pullinger collapse the time between meeting Rebney and everything that happens afterward, ultimately hurting the film at the point the "narrative" most needs it.

I also wonder how Rebney would have responded if he knew that the audience he reconsidered after the Found Film Festival Q&A were on camera openly wishing that he'd show up at the theatre angry, cursing, and that "maybe there will be some flies," everything he assumed people watched the video for. The disconnect between what the audience was assuming they'd see, what Rebney assumed he would see***, and the lasting impression he had of his "fans" closes the film on a somewhat sweet, uplifting note, but like Best Worst Movie, the audience members outside were hoping for someone to laugh AT, not with. While at least one attendee admits how wrong their perceptions were coming out of the Q&A, I have my doubts that most people at the showing saw past the grouchy, profanity spouting Rebney**** they expected to see.

There are moments that make Winnebago Man worth seeing, mostly related to Gordon's friendship with Rebney and Jack's dog, Buddha. The DVD includes Rebney's finished Winnebago industrial film, which provides context lacking from only watching the YouTube video. Yes, there's actually a successful flip-side to the outtakes, and I'd argue that it makes the profanity and frustration worth it, as would anyone who seriously struggled to put something good out there. In the "premiere" feature, Steinbauer suggests that Winnebago Man is ultimately about the "human condition," an argument I don't necessarily buy. What Winnebago Man, ultimately, "is", is a documentary about looking for something, not finding what you expected, and making a film out of what's left. It's worth watching once, but I don't know that I'll be revisiting Winnebago Man in the future.


* If you haven't seen the video, then go to YouTube. I'm not putting the link up for reasons outlined in the review. ** I don't want to put this in the body of the review, but the whole "bait and switch" component of Winnebago Man really strikes me as dubious considering how uninterested Rebney is in collaborating with Steinbauer. That many of the film's "re-enactments" happen during this point in the documentary doesn't help matters. *** There's not a good place to put this in the review, but Rebney begins going blind from glaucoma during the film, leaving Gordon and Steinbauer to lead him around. **** Speaking of which, I sometimes wonder how much of the "grumpy" and the cursing is part of what Rebney expects will keep Steinbauer around, as it increases exponentially as the film goes on.