Alien vs. Predator seems to retroactively validate capitalist nutjob Erick Von Daniken. It’s all the evidence that can truly tie humanity's civilizations to extraterrestrials. If this movie were a documentary depicting actual fact, it would prove all the data wrong. It even implies that very sentiment.
The evidence/plot hinges around a pyramid linking all the ancient cultures, one that predates them too, to visitors from other worlds. In other words, BOOM! Take that academia! But watchers of the film, like myself, must know (and I emphasize ‘must’) that the filmmakers are strictly in it for the (to be honest) well thought out connectedness of the mythology. If it made no sense at all, nobody would care.
The connectedness comes from the [completely fictional] details. The film has explicit, clear artwork depicting aliens and predators. The art is showing/telling the characters the exact "true" history of human kind. The Predators (Von Daniken's Aztec "Gods" from the sky) taught the ancients how to build the pyramids. The pyramids function as some sort of training/ritual area for the Predators. Hey, it may not be true, but we all know Arnold fought one of these beasts before so who’s to argue the merits? In the universe of the film, anything they say goes because they have the rights to do so.
Some ethnoarchealology even happens with the behavior of the predator being interpreted and linked to past civilizations. It all gives this movie a scientific, real feeling that the filmmakers are aiming for. That’s the key word too. The Colbertian “feel” of truth. Truthiness.
This movie highlights how interesting the extraterrestrial connection to the past is. It’s a heavily imaginative, apparently violent, and 'fictional?' story of our "past." Archaeology just isn’t this interesting and quite frankly, doesn’t ever expect to be to the general world population. People entertain these ideas for the simple fact that they are entertaining. The ancient past is inconsequential to the average viewer's life. More fantastical explanations, factual or not, draw the interest of the "layman."The bottom line is that it’s kind of fun.
Personally, this film wasn’t as great as, well, better movies. I’d like to have had it been more epic…maybe add a standoff or eight.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Friday, October 8, 2010
Chariots of the Gods. Archaeologically speaking.
I did not like this movie. If it wasn’t for the class, there is no way I'd have even watched it. Tell me that somebody is tying Aliens to ancient cites and that they are serious and I'll have a hard time thinking they are sane.
To be fair, I went into it with the same mindset that was used when I watched The Last Airbender. I left room for error and maintained low expectations. Sadly, it had similar results, complete annoyance. The "evidence" Von Daniken uses is moronic if it is even presented. A groggy six year old can come up with better, more plausible conclusions.
While the film was going, it took maybe 20 minutes before I was finally sure this was being presented as non-fiction, and that was only because in fiction, there is more thought put into making the story seem believable. The entire time, the narrator is just shot gunning loaded questions on a backdrop of archaeological sites. In Ancient Egypt, for example, it’s too complex for stupid primitive humans to have built so aliens did it, no? This painting about an ambiguous drawing, that's an alien right? The narration became insulting too. Daniken insists that people are simply not capable of anything extraordinary.
It became painful to watch. Instead of the old archaeological saying "When in doubt, Ritual!" it became "There is doubt? ALIENS!" It’s not science. Not in any sense. It is reworking facts rather than utilizing them. Every question an archaeologist should ask is asked. "Who built X and how did they do it?" Then it jumps right to aliens...all the time. When it comes to aliens and earth, even people who are "abducted" would agree to the anomalistic nature of such events.
This movie and all who agree with it sincerely are frightening. Coupled with massive accusations and Von Daniken's own admissions of fraud, it’s somehow all the more disturbing. As Detective Emerson Cob from the show Pushing Daisies once stated "Oh look, a dumb idea just found a friend." Except that "just" is 1970 and that dumb idea has more than one friend.
To be fair, I went into it with the same mindset that was used when I watched The Last Airbender. I left room for error and maintained low expectations. Sadly, it had similar results, complete annoyance. The "evidence" Von Daniken uses is moronic if it is even presented. A groggy six year old can come up with better, more plausible conclusions.
While the film was going, it took maybe 20 minutes before I was finally sure this was being presented as non-fiction, and that was only because in fiction, there is more thought put into making the story seem believable. The entire time, the narrator is just shot gunning loaded questions on a backdrop of archaeological sites. In Ancient Egypt, for example, it’s too complex for stupid primitive humans to have built so aliens did it, no? This painting about an ambiguous drawing, that's an alien right? The narration became insulting too. Daniken insists that people are simply not capable of anything extraordinary.
It became painful to watch. Instead of the old archaeological saying "When in doubt, Ritual!" it became "There is doubt? ALIENS!" It’s not science. Not in any sense. It is reworking facts rather than utilizing them. Every question an archaeologist should ask is asked. "Who built X and how did they do it?" Then it jumps right to aliens...all the time. When it comes to aliens and earth, even people who are "abducted" would agree to the anomalistic nature of such events.
This movie and all who agree with it sincerely are frightening. Coupled with massive accusations and Von Daniken's own admissions of fraud, it’s somehow all the more disturbing. As Detective Emerson Cob from the show Pushing Daisies once stated "Oh look, a dumb idea just found a friend." Except that "just" is 1970 and that dumb idea has more than one friend.
"Pirates of the Caribbean: The Cure of the Black Pearl" Through Archaeology.
I watched the movie (probably my 10th all-time viewing) ready to scrutinize every inaccuracy (I may be biased). The archaeological aspects had not gone unnoticed before but what I found through this new, ultra archaeological lens, however, was new appreciation for a movie Id relatively recently gotten unobsessed over.
What is depicted is archaeology being made. We are shown how ships of old get drowned, we see clothes and trinkets and weapons being used in what seem like accurate enough ways.
The entire movie gives the air of historical reconstruction embedded with magical phenomenon. The film may amp up the obsession over treasure but for this level of action and fantasy, it remains heavily grounded in the 17th/18th century life style and depictions.
The actions of pirates have some historical basis. We were told in lecture how they didn't have women, their captainship was less formal and how women were not on ships at all. The life on the ship is shown to be quite gritty and unsophisticated. Women that are present are definitely anomalies. The pirates are looters and low lifes and for all we know, they did all leave merchant ships. A parallel is even made between pirates and merchants when Will and Sparrow are talking about “Bootstrap” Bill Turner.
Some detractors may point to the attire of Captain Barbossa or his elevated position and even to how the pirates raided as being inaccurate. It seems like those criticisms overlook the "curse" aspect of this movie. Yeah Barbossa is captain but he is recognized as such. We learn the Jack Sparrow was basically voted out of the job at the whim of the crew, much like the historical facts told to us in lecture. The raid, being on, what seemed like, a major port, was driven by magic and not typical pirate behavior.
What I will concede however is the seemingly glamorous portrayal of the navy. From what we were told, conditions were awful and nobody wanted to be in the navy. Other than that (and maybe some as yet inconsequential nitpicks here and there) this film does a fantastic job of giving as close a depiction to real pirate life as can be expected of a fantasy/action/adventure. At the very least, we should all be thankful that it is not a pile of cutesy entertaining fluff like The Mummy.
What is depicted is archaeology being made. We are shown how ships of old get drowned, we see clothes and trinkets and weapons being used in what seem like accurate enough ways.
The entire movie gives the air of historical reconstruction embedded with magical phenomenon. The film may amp up the obsession over treasure but for this level of action and fantasy, it remains heavily grounded in the 17th/18th century life style and depictions.
The actions of pirates have some historical basis. We were told in lecture how they didn't have women, their captainship was less formal and how women were not on ships at all. The life on the ship is shown to be quite gritty and unsophisticated. Women that are present are definitely anomalies. The pirates are looters and low lifes and for all we know, they did all leave merchant ships. A parallel is even made between pirates and merchants when Will and Sparrow are talking about “Bootstrap” Bill Turner.
Some detractors may point to the attire of Captain Barbossa or his elevated position and even to how the pirates raided as being inaccurate. It seems like those criticisms overlook the "curse" aspect of this movie. Yeah Barbossa is captain but he is recognized as such. We learn the Jack Sparrow was basically voted out of the job at the whim of the crew, much like the historical facts told to us in lecture. The raid, being on, what seemed like, a major port, was driven by magic and not typical pirate behavior.
What I will concede however is the seemingly glamorous portrayal of the navy. From what we were told, conditions were awful and nobody wanted to be in the navy. Other than that (and maybe some as yet inconsequential nitpicks here and there) this film does a fantastic job of giving as close a depiction to real pirate life as can be expected of a fantasy/action/adventure. At the very least, we should all be thankful that it is not a pile of cutesy entertaining fluff like The Mummy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
