For anyone who has now seen Ridley Scott’s sci-fi epic Prometheus, you’ll be resigned to the fact that the film offers no easy answers. It is the rare blockbuster comprised almost purely of big ideas. This can be at once extremely refreshing and painfully unfulfilling. And yet – I would argue the answers are there, waiting to be discovered by a discerning audience who takes up the increasingly foreign obligation for moviegoers – explore the film. MASSIVE SPOILERS FOLLOW.

Again, a quick reminder that what follows will explore Prometheus in depth, and will spoil both the narrative and themes for any person who has yet to see the film. If you have not seen it, I suggest stop reading at once, go to the cinema, watch the movie, think about it for a little while, and then come read this article when you’re done.

Let me start by saying a bit about my own relationship with Prometheus, because I think that will better inform the reader as to my own theories as to what Ridley Scott, Jon Spaihts, and Damon Lindelof were attempting – and often succeeding – to do.

I really dug Prometheus, so much so that I’ve now seen it twice in theaters. That’s not to say that I think it’s a perfect film, or that there weren’t moments of maddening unclarity on the parts of the filmmakers. It’s definitely a messy film, but I also would argue if this wasn’t entirely the intent of the filmmakers behind it. I’m a sucker for big idea movies that make you think, they’re much more enjoyable for me than – not to name names – a very entertaining, popcorn movie like The Avengers, which is very-well constructed on an entertainment level, but doesn’t really offer much in the way of depth or is much of a discussion-starter. Which, of course, is perfectly fine and something most moviegoers will no doubt prefer.

Whether you’re in the pro-Prometheus camp or not, you’ll no doubt agree there is an absolute bevy of themes embedded throughout the film. For me, so much so that I would argue they are the very basis and purpose of the film itself. In order to properly explore these, I’ll try to go in order of how these questions and themes present themselves within the film. Yet another reminder that massive spoilers follow, so you can’t say you weren’t warned.

The Opening Scene

Photo Credit: 20th Century Fox – Provided thanks to Rope of Silicon

In this opening scene, we see a strange and beautiful specimen – later identified as an “Engineer” by a waterfall — gaze upon a mysterious ship as he ingests a mysterious substance that breaks him down from a most basic level. His cells erode as he crumbles and falls into into the powerful waterfall, only to see his cells and DNA come to life again within the watery depths.

This scene comes out of left field and never really connects organically to the rest of the story. It is perhaps the most glaring instance of a scene which demands exploration, and it is very symbolic of the entire film. I think it is fairly clear this scene serves as an example of the “Engineers” creating life. Is this mysterious planet Earth? Probably not. Although I would argue that it doesn’t really matter. It simply serves as an example of the power these beings possess, while adding a dose of mystery for the moviegoer. Upon exploring the film as a whole, however, it’s fairly clear this Engineer was simply sacrificing himself to begin the terraforming process. Whether it’s actually Earth is essentially irrelevant, because what Scott shows in this scene he implies happens elsewhere throughout the universe – Earth included.

More on these Engineers later…

Darwinism vs. Creationism

Photo Credit: 20th Century Fox

The scientists within Prometheus, mainly Dr. Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) and Shaw, are preoccupied with the quest to “meet their maker.” Yet as scientists, the idea of a “maker” completely contradicts Darwinism, as the bioligist Milburn (Rafe Spall) is quick to point out. But within the scope of Prometheus, these two seemingly contradictory schools of thought have the potential to coexist.

This is perhaps best explored through Dr. Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace), whose “faith” is both a key symbolic and narrative feature of the film. There is an important moment within the film, where Shaw discovers that the DNA of an “Engineer” corpse matches that of their own – “We come from them,” she says. This should directly contradict Shaw’s faith in the Judeo-Christain sense, and yet it doesn’t. For if human beings come from them, where do they come from?

This could be easily seen as a slippery-slope, where no true universal answers can be found. And yet it also serves as a reason in which both of these beliefs can co-exist, and a reason as to why Dr. Shaw maintains her attachment to her symbolic cross throughout the film. Even as she is “still searching.”

Space Jockeys – The Engineers

Photo Credit: 20th Century Fox

The greatest mystery which remains at the end of Alien is the now iconic “Space Jockey,” the unexplored Pilot of the ill-fated derelict space-craft. Their identity is revealed in Prometheus as the “Engineers.” Whether you are satisfied with this or not, the actual role these Engineers have in the Alien universe is far more interesting, and goes back to the argument of Darwinism vs. Creationism.

As proven through the opening scene and Dr. Shaw’s discovery that these Engineers share Human DNA, we come from them. They are our creator. Which leads us to ask why? What is their role in the Universe? And ultimately, why did they choose to erase Human life? A question which is of ultimate consequence to Elizabeth Shaw until the very end.

As to the why, Ridley Scott had this to say in an interview with Movies.com, where the interview explores the idea of the Engineers punishing humanity for their sins. Look at it as an alternate interpretation of the sacrifice of Jesus:

Movies.com: You throw religion and spirituality into the equation for Prometheus, though, and it almost acts as a hand grenade. We had heard it was scripted that the Engineers were targeting our planet for destruction because we had crucified one of their representatives, and that Jesus Christ might have been an alien. Was that ever considered?

Ridley Scott: We definitely did, and then we thought it was a little too on the nose. But if you look at it as an “our children are misbehaving down there” scenario, there are moments where it looks like we’ve gone out of control, running around with armor and skirts, which of course would be the Roman Empire. And they were given a long run. A thousand years before their disintegration actually started to happen. And you can say, “Let’s send down one more of our emissaries to see if he can stop it.” Guess what? They crucified him.

Whether you choose to believe this particular example or not, it’s clear the Engineers were unhappy with their creation – humanity. But what is the Engineers’ role in our universe? Are they simply the “angels” of a higher power, as Elizabeth Shaw may presume? This is a conclusion I am most comfortable with personally, in large part due to a conversation between Holloway and David, whose character is the most integral to the whole film.

In a conversation between David (Michael Fassbender) and Holloway, David asks why mankind created him (an Android), to which Holloway perhaps foolishly (but definitely partly truthfully) responds, “We made you because we could.” To which David says, “Can you imagine how disappointing it would be for you to hear the same thing from your creator?”

This integral interaction has really informed my own beliefs as to the Engineers’ role in the universe, simply because David is correct, this would be an incredibly disappointing reasoning. If you look at the Engineers as the creation of a higher power, not only does it support room for both Creationism and Darwinism, but it also makes for further questions to be answered for Elizabeth Shaw. Said Scott later in the interview on the subject:

In a funny kind of way, if you look at the Engineers, they’re tall and elegant… they are dark angels. If you look at ‘Paradise Lost,’ the guys who have the best time in the story are the dark angels, not God.

These “dark angels” would be the true image of perfection in the eye of a creator. Humanity, meanwhile, is merely a failed experiment that remains at the mercy of the Engineers. With all the faults throughout mankind’s history, from the aforementioned Roman Empire, to our modern culture whose problems are self-explanatory, it makes sense that the reasoning for the Engineers wanting to destroy humanity is simply due to mankind’s sins and imperfections.

I quite like the idea of the Engineers as sort of Dark Angels, harbingers of destruction as the servants or creation of a higher power.

David, an Android

Photo Credit: 20th Century Fox

As the key figure of Prometheus, it’s ironic that David is (potentially) the only non-human on board. David’s behavior and impact on the film as a whole is of particular interest given his own maker, Peter Weyland (who is worthy of his own examination later). Weyland is David’s own god, a figure who informs each and every reaction and interaction David has.

The trick, William Potter, is not minding that it hurts.

It is no mistake that David obsessively watches Lawrence of Arabia, and fashions his behavior after T.E. Lawrence. In David we see a sort of recreation of Lawrence and all that he represents. David is to Weyland as the Engineers are to their creator: perfection. Of course, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”

David represents perfection for Weyland, an idealized humanity which can be seen in Lawrence, who is perhaps best described through that single line delivered to his colleague, William Potter. David emulates all which Weyland perceives as perfection, and also secretly works to achieve Weyland’s ambitions aboard the Prometheus. And yet, there is something deeper, perhaps more sinister going on here.

Who doesn’t want to see their parents dead?

This is an extremely interesting and insightful line that David delivers about half-way through the film. For David, who is so devoted to Weyland, it informs his behavior leading up to and directly preceding Weyland’s death. There appears to be some ulterior motive driving David which is never entirely clear. This can be examined in a variety of fashions, but I think comes down to three separate examples.

The first, and perhaps most important, is the above quote. David is obviously devoted to serving Weyland and his mad dash for immortality, so much so that he kills to do so (more on that later), so why wish death upon his creator? Perhaps something more sinister is going on, which is, to me, one of the greatest unresolved questions that I don’t have a theory for, let alone an answer. What did David tell the Engineer to make him so angry and offended? What are David’s motives now he is “free” and answering to no creator? These are the questions I would like explored in any potential sequel, past the obvious places the plot will take us.

Peter Weyland – The Quest for Immortality

Peter Weyland is an extremely interesting figure to examine in that he’s really the man behind the Prometheus, and his own desperate quest for immortality is a major driving force behind the whole turn of events. As Weyland proclaims in the TED viral video above, he wishes to change the world – and succeeds to a point. Yet for Weyland, immortality is the final obstacle between simply changing the world and becoming a god amongst men.

Weyland is a god to David, and yet he foolishly desires a more unnatural form of power – immortality. Immortality is Weyland’s one true obstacle in becoming a god in our understanding of the beings, much like Prometheus, the Titan whom Weyland names the vessel after. Segue!

The Symbolism of Prometheus, the Titan

Photo Credit: 20th Century Fox

As Weyland informs us in the aforementioned viral video, Prometheus was a Titan who was punished for stealing the power of fire and giving it to mankind. The gods punished Prometheus in a brutal fashion. Not only does this tale inform the quest of Weyland, and give name to both the film and the vessel of discovery, but it also eerily mirrors the arc of Weyland through the film. Yes, it very much is intentional.

Just as Prometheus sought to steal a power that was not his to steal, Weyland similarly desired to discover power that was not his to discover, and paid dearly for it. As Prometheus gave fire to those lesser than him, Weyland desired to steal the power of the gods – immortality – to grant to one lesser than them, himself. This is of course the more important quest of answers that Elizabeth Shaw do desperately wants, as we see within the scene in the starmap room with the Engineer. Weyland is so preoccupied with his quest to become like a god, he neglects that which makes life and discovery so meaningful – death.

There are clearly some deeply-rooted allegorical connections between multiple religious texts and Prometheus, from the ancient Greek tale of Prometheus, to the aforementioned comparison Ridley Scott made to Jesus. However to declare I have anything other than a passing knowledge of many of these religious texts and histories would be foolish, so I would point you to an excellent article written by someone far more knowledgeable than I. You can read it here, it brings fascinating theories and points to the table, so much so that writer Damon Lindelof admired the article himself.

The Monolithic Figure

Photo Credit: 20th Century Fox

Perhaps the most fascinating visual for me was the giant head – the monolithic figure – within the structure. This figure is so symbolic and mighty, yet largely goes unexplored by the group of scientists. What is its significance? Is it simply a relic? A monument the Engineers built to themselves? These would seem to be the obvious answers, and yet it leaves me wanting something more or significant.

Does this figure represent a model of creation? Whether by the Engineers for humans? Or for the Engineers from their creator? The grandeur of this structure has affected my thinking so much that it’s bothersome to have yet to come to a conclusion – whether right or wrong – as I have with other areas of the film.

Structurally, Prometheus is definitely not a perfect film, but it is a more interesting one than any I’ve seen in quite some time. This is how sci-fi is supposed to behave: use the unlimited potential to ask the same questions science does, and more.

My thoughts on Prometheus are definitely not final, as I continue to discuss, read, and ponder the many questions and themes which Scott, Spaihts, and Lindelof have raised. Perhaps I’m in the minority on this, but I appreciate a film that doesn’t provide easy answers, it makes me feel like I’m a part of the exploration of the film.

Now share your thoughts, theories, and questions on Prometheus in the comments, and I hope you’ve gotten as much out of reading this article as I did writing it Keep in mind this article is meant to incite discussion on the more philosophical, ambiguous questions and theories the film brings up. If they relate to these questions, plot discussion and any issues thereof is encouraged, if you merely want to complain about not “liking” the film, I suggest doing so in the comments of Harri’s review.