SEXUAL SUBTEXT IN ALIEN

Please note: if you have not already witnessed Ridley “Blade Runner” Scott’s other sci-fi masterpiece “Alien” (1979), you may wish to enjoy it first before reading this post, as it may reveal certain plot details about the film.

Recently I revisited Ridley Scott’s “Alien”, on the big screen at the Astor Theatre. A lot of sexually suggestive elements struck me while watching this film, things I might not have noticed as a child. Many scenes could be mentioned here, but I’ll pick just three.

Firstly, there is the disturbing scene between Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) and Ash (Ian Holm), where Ash stalks Ripley, locks her in the room and attempts to kill her. Look closely when Ripley is placed flat on her back by Ash and you’ll see pornographic pictures of women on the wall to the left of the screen. At about this point, Ash, who I guess could have easily killed Ripley with his bare hands, tries to suffocate Ripley with a rolled up magazine down her throat—no explanation needed as to what that suggests, use your imagination. Ash’s synthetic “blood” (he’s an android) looks just like semen—and it sprays across the room when he is bludgeoned and beheaded by Parker (Yaphet Kotto).

Secondly, there’s the scene where Parker and Lambert (Veronica Cartwright, who appeared the previous year in another classic sci-fi horror, Philip Kaufman’s “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”) are confronted by the alien. Lambert, trapped against the wall, is defenceless against the creature, as a tentacle dances its way suggestively up between her legs, before succumbing to the carnivorous alien.

Finally, there is the famous scene where Ripley, sole survivor of the Nostromo crew, strips down to her skimpiest underwear, as she prepares for hypersleep on the way home. Of course, the alien is playing voyeur (as are we) and reveals itself to an unsuspecting Ripley, who eventually overwhelms and expels the alien into outer space.

Naturally, one can mention the phallic nature of the alien’s mouth within a mouth (a penis inside its foreskin, if you like), plus the whole alien implantation and horrific “birthing” sequence (chest-bursting) that is the fate of Kane (John Hurt). What do others make of the sexual subtext in “Alien”? Also, is it any coincidence that both female members of the crew—Ripley and Lambert—are somewhat masculine in appearance? Sigourney Weaver was a total unknown at the time and was obviously cast due to her amazonian build, her slender, angular physique and androgynous characteristics—Jamie Lee Curtis could have played the role of Ripley, had she not been so young at the time. Veronica Cartwright is normally the most feminine looking person on the planet, yet she went incredibly butch for this particular film. Look at the contrast below to see Veronica in “Alien” and how she normally presented herself around the time:

(I resisted temptation to say it about the earlier picture of Ms. Weaver, but I’m going to say it now for Veronica—hubba hubba!).

There also didn’t seem to be any sexual tension aboard the Nostromo, which leads me to believe either the crew members were totally professional about their work, or there was a distinct air of asexuality about the place. However, that would be contradicted by the pornographic photos that somehow found there way on board. Or maybe those belonged to Ripley and Lambert. One could have a field day dissecting the sexual elements of this wonderful film.

What do others make of its sexual subtext and the connection between sex and horror in films generally?

I’m not sure from your post what “subtext” is actually there. Okay, so she wears something skimpy, there’s porno in a room, one actress looks butch…

Is something actually being expressed here, or are you reading too much into things?

I was reading about this just the other day as someone bought it up in conversation after watching Let the Right One In- you’re right, it’s dripping with sexual subtext due in no small part of the involvement of surreal strange cat H R Giger at the helm as designer :):)

H.R. Giger’s sexually-charged designs are deeply and potently provocative; from the bone-like meshes of the first alien spacecraft, complete with its erectile jockey and womb-like hull, to the primordial, serpent-cum-crustacean-like parasitic alien with acid for blood and the morality of a demon. http://thestorydepartment.com/alien-sex-in-the-cine/

wiki: His most distinctive stylistic innovation is that of a representation of human bodies and machines in a cold, interconnected relationship, described as “biomechanical”. His paintings often display fetishistic sexual imagery.

wiki: Prior to writing the script to Alien, O’Bannon had been working in France for Chilean cult director Alejandro Jodorowsky’s planned adaptation of Frank Herbert’s classic science-fiction novel Dune. Also hired for the project was Swiss surrealist artist H. R. Giger. Giger showed O’Bannon his nightmarish, monochromatic artwork, which left O’Bannon deeply disturbed. “I had never seen anything that was quite as horrible and at the same time as beautiful as his work,” he remembered later.⁶ The Dune film collapsed, but O’Bannon would remember Giger when Alien was greenlit, and suggested to director Ridley Scott that he be brought on to design the Alien, saying that if he were to design a monster, it would be truly original.³

wiki: After O’Bannon handed him a copy of Giger’s book Necronomicon, Scott immediately saw the potential for Giger’s designs, and chose Necronom IV, a painting Giger completed in 1976, as the basis for the Alien’s design, citing its beauty and strong sexual overtones…"

I have Mark Gatiss’ History of Horror to watch which might elaborate on the sex/horror connection over the years.

i saw a documentary a couple of years ago and it talked about the sexual imagery in the alien films such as the chestburster looking like a penis, and the facehugger having a vagina

check out the new sci-fi movie skyline and the aliens have similar vagina like features that suck up human brains!

“Alien” has much in the way of sexual imagery and sexual suggestion, but no actual sex.

Take a gander at the Notebook article addressing at least some of this (full disclosure: it’s written by me)

“Is something actually being expressed here, or are you reading too much into things?”

Yes, something’s being expressed, but I also think that that something, while permeating the film in subtextual details of the Nostromo’s decoration, ornamentation and dilapidation, gets clearly unified only by the addition of Giger’s philosophy: that our bodies are merely reproductive machines within a greater technological system that we might not be meant to recognize. Once we’ve become a reproductive machine, then we can become a dying machine and make more room for more machines to reproduce and again die in, etc, etc. Returning to Fraser-Orr’s original comment, I don’t think the scriptwriters themselves had in mind a subtext as dark as this, and I think Giger brought it to the table after many years of independent aesthetic contemplation upon the subject which primed him to be the perfect designer who could add an edge of, as Cronenberg would say, ‘venereal horror’. Then again, early drafts of the script do have more literal references to parasitism, so it was on O’Bannon and Shussett’s minds. Point being, if anyone read into the original story, it was Giger, and he was hired to do so to purposely bring that element to the final film.

There are definitely some references to sex onboard: Lambert’s clear discomfort at Parker’s line “Yeah, well, I’d rather be eating something else.” And the original script had a moment when Ripley asks Lambert if she’d ever slept with Ash as a means of getting to the bottom of his strange behavior but also in a manner that suggested it might be commonplace on board work ships. But then again, that material did get cut, perhaps because the idea and tone ultimately felt out of place amidst interpersonal character relationships that indeed exhibited low sexual awareness.

Fraser-Orr, I know you have a history of looking at things in film in the “obvious” sense and take personal pleasure in being derisive towards my posts. If that makes life for you more colourful, be my guest.

A previous post of yours ridiculed me for attempting to interpret symbolism in films (the one where you sneered sarcastically (“yeah, because looking at art is all about playing spot-the-symbolism” or words to that effect). Well, guess what? Films and other forms of art are full of symbolism. Porno wasn’t in the room just because Ash enjoyed jerking off to real women. It was deliberately placed just to the left of the set by the director when Ripley is being attacked by Ash—even though he was trying to kill her, the whole scene looked more like a weird form of sexual molestation (come on, he tries to kill her with a rolled-up magazine down the throat—how is that a conventional way of killing someone?).

By the way, two actresses look butch in this film—you’re forgetting Sigourney Weaver. She has a pleasantly androgynous appearance, much like Jamie Lee Curtis in some ways. Sigourney is much taller than average (5’10"), has a prominent jawline, deeper voice than normal for a woman, an angular, curveless physique, and so it goes. Let’s not forget EVERY woman in James Cameron’s sequel (most blatantly Vasquez, played by Jenette Goldstein) was a butch, too, although I don’t believe “Aliens” has the same depth of subtext as its predecessor—Cameron was just looking to make a whiz-bang action flick.

Ridley Scott loaded both “Alien” and “Blade Runner” with symbolism upon symbolism—these little things aren’t mere coincidence, F.O.

Stanley Kubrick was the same way—do you REALLY think he put these funky little details into his films by mistake? The man was meticulous.

As you can see, F.O., I’m not alone in reading a sexual subtext from the film in question.

To be honest, I looked at this thread, interested because frankly I thought sexual subtext in Alien isn’t worth even discussing… It’s so powerful within the film. (Don’t mean to come off blunt about it though and attacking)

It’s obvious to me. In the influence of HR Giger’s artwork, his design on the film itself, Ridley Scott’s direction, the list goes on. It’s there clear as day.

Even the actor’s themselves were aware of the sexual nature of Giger’s work at the time.

I never realized it was actually a “subtext,” it seemed so apparent to me. I agree that this was what Scott and his cohorts were intending to convey with all this symbolism, but it wasn’t exactly subtle. Just sayin’.

Sexual subtext always recalls the ‘dirty pictures’ joke that Bill Murray tells in What About Bob?, for me. You’re all a bunch of dirty bastards. Old dirty bastards, surely.

Mark: Fair point that the symbolism is there intentionally, but you haven’t said what it’s actually meant to express, or how it makes the film more enjoyable. I thought these “gender” debates and Freudian analysis were the stuff of universities you loathe. Let’s not get started on Kubrick…

Ben Simington answers:

Yes, something’s being expressed, but I also think that that something, while permeating the film in subtextual details of the Nostromo’s decoration, ornamentation and dilapidation, gets clearly unified only by the addition of Giger’s philosophy: that our bodies are merely reproductive machines within a greater technological system that we might not be meant to recognize.

That seems like a massive stretch to me. It makes sense that Giger’s philosophy is in his designs, but the design of the film, made by Ridley Scott who I would think took little advice from Giger, is created purely to provide a roller-coaster ride for the audience.

Ripley strips in the final scene in order to be more vulnerable and enhance the excitement of the audience, and show some T&A. Of course, sophisticated film-watchers can note the many things outside the main action, but the central reason for Alien’s existence is provide thrills and chills.

If you say so…

The producers were worried they’d lose the Catholic market because the back of the creature’s head was a giant schlong.

No joke though it would take me a while to track down the citation for that.

FRASER-​ORR – While I’m sure Ridley Scott’s primary concern while making this film was making a successful thriller that would scare the audience, I don’t think that the sexual tones ended up only from Giger’s contribution. You don’t think Scott was aware of this when choosing to work with Giger, knowing it would make a stronger, deeply layered film? I think Scott very consciously chose to add the sexual themes to the film. In my opinion it adds an extra dynamic layer to the film, allowing it to transcend from being a standard monster movie. The sequels aren’t as strong because they discard this layer. Aliens just becomes an action movie and nothing more.

And to expand upon the scene where the alien kills Parker and Lambert:
I’ve always thought that the alien rapes Lambert. The visual clues are all there. The scene begins with the alien being interested in her and it quickly kills Parker when he confronts it. Then we see the alien’s tail between her legs. The key to this image is that she has pants and shoes on. When Ripley gets to the room after it’s all over, we see a shot of Lambert’s bare and bloody leg.

Also, the alien kills Parker quickly and seems to take its sweet ass time with Lambert, indicated by her screams. And those awful noises she makes don’t sound like she is merely being killed the same way Parker was…

That’s my favorite seen in the film. The masterful editing makes it all the more horrifying.

-but the design of the film, made by Ridley Scott who I would think took little advice from Giger, is created purely to provide a roller-coaster ride for the audience-

Actually, Dan O’Bannon met Giger while working on an abortive attempt at adapting Dune, and it was Giger’s work that provided the inspiration for the story, not just the realization of it visually. O’Bannon:

“His paintings had a profound effect on me. I had never seen anything that was quite as horrible and at the same time as beautiful as his work. And so I ended up writing a script about a Giger monster.”

I’d say the sexual imagery is text in the film, not subtext.

I jested and shrugged off Fraser but frankly this is not even up for debate. He was simply trying to undermine Ridley’s original intentions with Alien. There are countless sources, in magazines, internet, DVD and now even Bluray which goes against every single fucking thing which Fraser said. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the film and shows Fraser just really doesn’t know Alien.

Ash’s encounter with Ripley subtextually takes on a sexual nature. It’s on film, he experiments with her using a magazine, Ridley is on record in saying, do androids think of sex? That’s just one example, and it doesn’t even have anything to do with Giger, and his DIRECT work on the film.

End of fucking story.

Instead of just pointing out the sexual subtext, maybe we can interpret it a little? (Hermeneutics, I say!) Because it seems like there are actually lines of force that you could accredit with pretty specific meaning, whether it’s Scott’s intended meaning, or the ambient meaning inherent in all of HR Giger’s work, or the channeling of a collective unconscious meaning that we all bring to the mutual construction of the sci-fi/horror genre.

It’s hard with a horror film, because the basic codes of morality are in flux. In a heroic film or a romance, even a complicated one, you can usually tell who has virtue on their side, because they win, whether it’s an actual real-world victory, or simply the moral victory of earning out sympathies. However, in a horror film, there’s often very little moral center. I mean, you could say Ripley is the moral center of Alien, and that the film is oriented around rewarding her… but in a cynical universe that’s relentlessly cruel to all its other humans, it’s hard to identify exactly what’s being rewarded in her, aside from her mere survival skills, and this doesn’t even require the sexual subtext at all.

When you consider the sexually-charged nature of the murderers (the Alien and the android), in contrast with the sexually neutralized nature of the crew, some more possibilities emerge. In this light, it almost looks like the crew is being punished by the primal forces of nature: detachment and automation, suddenly at the mercy of the vicious, beastly, sexual aspects of nature.

The more I think about it, the more I realize how fantastic this movie is, on a thematic level. The threat comes from outside, representing the base sexual desire that the humans seem to have lost… but it also comes from within, by a process of parasitic implantation. And on the flip side of this equation, the android, the most artificial and inhuman of the crew, ends up committing a key act of sexualized violence — almost as if he’s reached an event horizon and revolted against the inhumanity that he represents.

Amen Smokey.

Now we’re talking Jesse. In the end, it’s also not about just adding thematic layers in the case of Alien. It’s adding terror. The sexuality and imagery is what makes it memorable and horrific, whether you are mindful of it or not.

The very nature of how the alien is entered into the film, is impregnation against Kane’s will. Kane is raped, mouthraped no less, and he gets to experience something he would’ve never experienced otherwise, giving birth. As Ash says, the Alien is Kane’s son.

To go along with the “sexual subtext” discussion and Smokey bringing up the alien’s birth from Kane; there are many maternal images and themes as well.

The crew wakes up from their sleek white sleep pods, which look a lot like eggs. There are the opposite eggs that the facehugger comes from.

I find the whole film to be a conflict between nature and technology. Ripley represents the pure, natural mother. She is human, she takes care of the crew after Dallas dies, she can’t seem to leave the cat behind. Everything that opposes her is “un-natural”.

The alien has a bio-mechanical design, a fusion of human and machine, and is sexually charged with male phallic symbols all over it. It’s implied that the alien rapes Lambert. Also, the birth of the alien is violent, horrific, and kills the host, it directly opposes a natural human birth.

Ash is a robot in human form, again he is “un-natural”. He tries to kill Ripley in a violent and sexual way. The crew calls the Nostromo “mother” and that computer room resembles a womb. Ripley comes into conflict with the “mother” ship when she can’t shut down the self destruct system, which adds another threat to her. Ripley is the natural mother trying to destroy the false technological “mother” ship and the monster technology that threatens her.

@Mark I agree with you about your interpretation of Alien and I don’t believe it’s some shallow Hollywood blockbuster as Fraser-Orr puts it in another thread that addresses Alien and politics. Also, as Smokey SD puts it, you can hear it on the DVD for instance. I have the Quadrilogy box set and I believe I heard in the commentary some sexual references regarding the film by not only Ridley Scott, but the cast as well.

Wow, I regret missing this. I’m rewatching all the Alien films currently.

But I take issue with this: “Aliens just becomes an action movie and nothing more.”

It may not be the profoundly despair film the original was, but Aliens has some substance.

It’s also a pretty great, cynical subversion of Biblical notions that humanity has some kind of manifest destiny to rule the universe (and all that God reportedly created in it “for us”), with the sexual aspects coming into play when a superior species hacks our reproductive ability to propel population growth.

The later Alien films take on a more political subtext, especially Anti-Corporation (Aliens and Alien 3 and Anti-Military (Alien:Resurrection).

I feel that the nature of the Xenomorphs has been downplayed in favor of making them more ferocious but the subtext is still there albeit in a smaller role.

Unless someone with a genius idea comes along, I really hope they don’t make a fifth Alien film ( I like to pretend that the Aliens never met the Predators), seeing as a film about them made today would likely contain none of the previous themes that made the past films great( Maybe not Resurrection, but still.).

bookmark

Ben, the plan is to revamp the Alien franchise with a prequel, directed or at least produced by Scott.

I one time watched the four movies back to back and realized that there is a kick-ass fifth movie that would take place on Earth, where the anti-corporate subtext comes to a T and Ripley and aliens actually end up taking out “The Corporation” as resolution to the fact that Ripley’s attempts to destroy the aliens have always been ruined by one entity and one entity only. There is a character arc of seduction where Ripley gets more and more familiar with the aliens, going from chased (1) to flirting (2) to dating and impregnated (3) to matriarch (4). By the fourth, she’s no longer human anyway and so in the fifth she becomes mother queen that she destroyed in 2, and the inevitable (that she has been trying to stave off the aliens from Earth for several centuries at this point) ends up on a Terra-bound endgame succinctly established by the closing shot of 4. It makes too much sense for me but of course I’m not the one writing the follow up right now.

—PolarisDiB

bookmark indeed. great discussion !

Scott’s prequel has changed plots. The film is now about finding out where the Space Jockey is from. It’s still set in the same Universe albeit with very different life forms.

The being in question for those who don’t know what I’m talking about: