The Archive of Free Thinking

Metaphors are dangerous. Metaphors are not to be trifled with.

Milan Kundera

---

In a recently published article in the FT, Adam Rutherford, evolutionary biologist and ‘alien consultant’, describes how he designed a realistic, biologically accurate alien for a film. Rutherford and his team went through a long and demanding process, creating a fully rendered genetic history and functional physiology for the creature. After all their hard work, the film’s producer gave them this feedback: “I’ve made a lot of monster movies, and nobody knows what they’re looking at unless you give it a fucking face. So do it again and give it a fucking face.” 

Although this instruction could perhaps benefit from a slightly softer delivery, it was nonetheless an insightful statement. What this producer understood, more acutely than the creative team, was that crafting a fictional alien is not primarily about ‘accuracy’ or ‘logic’. When he yelled, “nobody knows what they’re looking at without a face”, he was making it clear that the metaphorical and narrative impact of the alien design was more important than its realism.

Learning to understand aliens as metaphorical objects, not just as attempts at realism, can be immensely rewarding. It can increase the logical and emotional intensity of a film. It can help explain why a film does not work. This article looks at five alien films and explores how each one depicts alien creatures, and examines the underlying metaphorical meanings. First, the article looks at the depiction of Rocky from Project Hail Mary, the Xenomorph from Alien, and the Na’vi from Avatar. The article then compares two similar representations of aliens in two different contexts in Disclosure Day and Paul.

It is possible to determine an alien’s metaphorical meaning by looking at how it is represented in images and behaviours as then repeating the process in different situations in a film. Using this approach narrows down the possible interpretations and keeps the analysis rooted in the text. In Project Hail Mary, the alien, Rocky, is quite pet-like with his smaller size and excitable demeanour. Without further context, it is hard to tell what this communicates. It could be a physical representation of humanity’s superiority, physically and metaphorically above other species in skill and intelligence, implying that Grace’s relationship with Rocky is one of master and pet; kind but unequal. Alternatively, their difference could point towards a relationship of compassion and care. This would mean Rocky’s size is more about making him seem cute, young but also vulnerable. He represents innocence and potential, making us feel protective. 

Without any further information, it would be hard to decide which of these interpretations was more meaningful. However, when considering all the other aspects of the film, a more thoughtful answer starts to emerge. In the rest of the film, Rocky and Grace have a strong, collaborative, intimate relationship. Their cognitive similarity is established easily through the quick development of common language, and their physical difference is frequently discounted. Rocky is placed on high surfaces, or Grace drops to his level, so they are at the same eyeline. These interactions lead to a more compelling interpretation. They are different, but equal; they are friends.

Based on this reading, it is possible to build further interpretations. Rocky’s smaller size and connection to innocence link him metaphorically to Grace’s character arc, as Rocky becomes a stand-in for the children in Grace’s classroom. Both are full of questions and excitement, and both require Grace to sacrifice his life to give them a future. Grace starts disconnected and cowardly and refuses the call. At this point, he is unable to make the sacrifice to save mankind, but his connection to Rocky changes him into a ‘hero’. This creates a powerful narrative circle. Grace’s sacrifice gives Rocky a future, while Rocky’s vulnerability gives Grace the chance to redo his earlier mistake and redeem himself. 

It is possible to further validate the metaphorical interpretation by imagining diametrically different physical characteristics. What if Rocky was much bigger than Grace? (Interestingly, Rocky’s spaceship is three times the size of his own). What if he had a black exoskeleton like the Xeno? How would this have changed the film and your interpretation? (Required)

The power of metaphors and design of alien creatures is evident in Alien and Avatar. They both are a combination of familiarity and ‘otherness’ which draws the audience to them but with contrasting consequences. In Alien, the Xenomorph is made partially of human genetic material, but ultimately biologically superior. The uncanny terror of being the same, yet different is communicated metaphorically in its design and behaviour. Physical similarities, such as arms and legs, are disrupted by unexpected parts, like a tail or a beetle-like exoskeleton. It thinks like humans, displays a clear intelligence and empathy, but then only ever for destructive purposes, evident when it sends the false distress signal to trap the space travellers. The Xeno mimics humans, enters their world and then confounds them. The humans presume the Xeno to have similar biological weaknesses, but this ends up being untrue; its blood is acidic enough to burn through the spaceship’s hull. This extends into metaphysical concepts. The most iconic scene, the chest-burster, is so traumatic because it is both an act of violent, bodily destruction and a metaphorical destruction of the very idea of what the human body is. The alien both attacks and uses the human body. It commits a symbolic sexual assault as it latches onto Kane’s face and penetrates into his throat. The resulting ‘impregnation’ kills Kane and results in the ‘birth’ of a new alien. The male human body becomes a breeding ground for death. Ideas that seem unimpeachable are broken by this creature. Its similarities and differences drive the tension and fear in the film. 

Avatar is about us and the harm of oppression, colonisation and exploitation and the value of independence, freedom and harmony. The Na’avi’s design reflects this theme. For the story to work, they have to be both otherworldly and familiar enough to be relatable and empathetic. James Cameron acknowledged this directly, describing how the Na’avi were originally more fish-like, but this undermined the audience’s ability to connect with them, and so they were modified to be more feline, with traits which were more human-acceptable. The need to make the Na’vi familiar is evident in its quadrapedic design, when every other species on Pandora has 6 limbs. It is important that the Na’avi communicate familiarity rather than a biological ’reality.’ The importance of similarity is again emphasised when Jake undergoes two assimilative transformations; first, as a replacement for his identical twin, and then again into the Avatar body. The familiarity in their design is used to bring the aliens ‘closer’ to us, to enable the audience to identify with the Na’avi and their values. This is in direct contrast to the Xenomorph, which takes the opposite track and abuses our understanding of sameness to intensify terror. 

It is possible to further develop metaphorical skills by analysing two similar depictions of aliens and comparing how the same creature can have different meanings and impact. The most ‘classic’ kind of alien depiction is the stereotypical ‘little green men’, which appears in the next two case studies: Disclosure Day and Paul. The design is characterised by big brains, bulbous eyes, asexuality, collectivisation, and greeny-grey skin with spindly legs and arms. By looking at two films, which both use the ‘typical’ alien design, it is possible to compare and contrast why one film works and the other does not. Disclosure Day has multiple issues, but one of the most fundamental is the metaphorical vacuum left by the depiction of the aliens. Steven Spielberg’s choice to use a ‘typical’ alien design reflects his desire to make the film ‘realistic’; but he is trying to make a film about the ‘reality’ of the unreal, and in this endeavour, he is doomed to fail. These aliens are metaphorically weightless, having no connection to the story they are in. The familiarity of the depiction combined with the lack of metaphorical depth makes Disclosure Day’s extraterrestrials feel dull and uninspired, as if there is no real point to their presence. 

Furthermore, Spielberg’s attempts to anchor the aliens in reality by wrapping them up in a layer of governmental bureaucracy and conspiracy theories (bolstered by the title, which evokes ideas of truth and justice, and implies a cover-up) just produces more problems. The attempt to make the aliens real, by disclosing ‘secret footage’, leads to issues about realism: why are they that shape, why do they not wear clothes, if they are so superior, why do they keep having crash landings? The decision to use ‘little green men’ undercuts the metaphorical potential inherent in the alien, as an unreal object. Furthermore, the special superpowers that the human characters feel are random because they are linked to the ‘real’ aliens that lack any metaphorical meaning. The human characters become unbelievable, the falsity of the film becomes clear, and experience becomes unrewarding.

By contrast, the alien in Paul is a much more successful depiction, even though his design is also ‘typical’. Paul may look like the stereotypical image of an alien, but his personality is anything but. He is visually an object from the future but, in a contradictory sense, a character of the present. He is crass, rude, funny, kind and thoughtful; in many ways, he is more human than many of the human characters in the film. It is a film about defying assumptions, and Paul’s image and the contradiction with his personality are an embodiment of this theme. As he befriends the similarly outcast humans Graeme and Clive, the audience sees the value of being open-minded and non-judgemental. Paul examines how interacting with ‘the other’ can be revelatory, opening eyes and minds, just as Paul literally gives (eye)sight to the blind and (in)sight to the misguided. 

The principles and examples developed in this article provide the basis for understanding alien metaphors in film and more broadly. By close reading of visual images, looking for parallel examples, and fitting these images into the film’s narrative arc. By considering alternative representations, it is possible to understand the emotional and logical depth of a film and to intensify what is already felt.