“This Time its War”: Blockbuster Cinema, Vietnam, and the Assemblage of the American Family in James Cameron’s Aliens
spring 2017
“Get away from her you bitch!”, Ripley screams during her final showdown with the alien queen in James Cameron’s 1986 sequel, Aliens. Having gained a new maternal purpose in the form of the orphaned Newt, and equipped with the power and technology of her cargo loader exoskeleton, Ripley forces the queen into the ship’s air lock, ejecting her into space. In many ways the ending of Aliens is quite similar to the conclusion of Ridley Scott’s original 1979 film, Alien, but it differs in important ways. In Scott’s film, Ripley also blows the alien into the cold depths of space. She then enters a solemn ship’s log, signing off as “Ripley, last survivor of the Nostromo” before placing herself and her feline companion, Jonse, into hypersleep. With the exception of the cat, Ripley is alone. She is exhausted and uncertain. In Cameron’s film, Ripley places Hicks, her masculine ally, then Newt, her figuratively adopted daughter into stasis, and finally herself. In the final shot, Newt is in the foreground, asleep and facing the camera. Ripley sleeps behind her facing Newt, as if to watch over her, as serene music plays. In this essay, Cameron’s film will be placed in the context of 1980s Hollywood cinema, as well as in the cultural context of post-Vietnam, Reagan era America. First, I will look at what makes the film emblematic of blockbuster cinema and 80s science fiction. Then I will look at Aliens as a war film about the American experience in Vietnam. And finally, I’ll analyze what the film might say about gender and the family through its depiction of women at war, and motherhood.
Aliens self declaration of blockbuster status can partly be gleaned from its title. The pluralization of the original film’s name indicates a sense that this film will be more, bigger, and better. This sentiment is also reflected in the film’s estimated budget and run time. Cameron’s film was made for an estimated $18.5 million compared to the original’s budget of $11 million. Aliens in its original cut is 2 hours and 17 minutes long, while Alien is just under 2 hours. The film’s increased budget and length indicates an attempt to make a film which is more epic in size and scope than the first, which is a relatively intimate space thriller. Furthermore, when Aliens was released in special edition it featured additional content which extends the runtime to 2 hours and 34 minutes. This reflects a trend starting in the late 70s of films as living or constantly revisable, as well as a culture of audience ownership in which viewers can own multiple versions of the same film. From a production stand point, Aliens is undoubtedly a “big” film. The use of James Cameron as director is also indicative of the movie’s blockbuster status. Today Cameron has become known almost exclusively as a blockbuster director. The budgets and special effects of his films are spectacles in their own right. But even at the time Cameron had proven his ability to produce blockbuster level sci-fi and action cinema with his breakout 1984 film, The Terminator. But its not only the film’s production statistics and personnel that make it emblematic of 1980s cinema. Aliens is also identified as such by its content and aesthetics.
With the exception of the corporate space station Ripley is initially taken too, which is slick, clean and minimalistic; space is depicted as a dirty and gritty place. This aesthetic is not only in line with the working class themes of Scott’s original film but also reflects the legacy of film’s like Star Wars on the science fiction genre which use the appearance of grit and dirt in order to add a sense of realism to an otherwise fantastical film. The film also features a preoccupation with slime and fluids that is similar to that found in other 80s films such as John Carpenter’s The Thing or the work of David Cronenburg. The alien “facehuggers” as they have come to be known, are slithery and slimy, and the fully evolved aliens drip and drool fluids as they reveal their set of retractable teeth. It is also often noted that the primitive facehuggers, the intermediate chestbursters and the fully formed aliens resemble grotesque depictions of human genitalia, the former vaginal and the latter two phallic. This is in conjunction with the preoccupation with bodily functions and anatomy in many films of the late 70s and early 80s. Much has been written about what these allusions to genitalia may symbolically represent, but regardless of their meaning, they function to elicit a kind of visceral response that was becoming increasingly prevalent in 1980s cinema. Related to the rise of this kind of visceral cinema is a cinema which features scenes or sequences which resemble the experience of theme parks or rollercoaster rides. Aliens features such a scene when the crew of the Sulaco are “dropping in” to the colonized planet. Private Hudson lets out an ecstatic “Whoohoo!” as their ship drops towards the atmosphere. Hudson frequently comments on the characters’ situation, either with despairing fear or by cracking jokes. He performs another trope of 80s cinema in his prominent and exaggerated reactions to the events and effects within the film. His reactions let the audience know what is fun, what is nerve-wracking, and what is flat out terrifying. While Hudson is constantly referring to the events happening within the film, Cameron refers to the craft of filmmaking itself.
Cameron uses his characters, science fiction technology, and the dynamic of a squad of soldiers being commanded from a central observation point to perform the act of filmmaking within the movie’s narrative. As Tim Blackmore points out in his article, ‘Is this Going to be Another Bug-Hunt?’ S-F Tradition Versus Biology-as-destiny in James Cameron’s Aliens, Cameron cuts between the character’s cameras point of view in order to create a shot reverse shot pattern as they speak to Gorman and Ripley in the command center (Blackmore, 215). Blackmore also points out how the language used by those in the command center mimics the language of a film director (ibid). “Pan right” Ripley tells Hicks so that she can see the angle she wants on the monitor. In scenes where darkness and fog only reveal the soldiers in silhouette, their large guns and shoulder mounted lights resemble a camera crew. Cameron actually used steadycam harnesses as the mount for the soldier’s machine guns (Blackmore, 218). The presence of video as opposed to film in Aliens—the monitors, screens, and grainy visuals—also indicates Cameron’s fascination with the evolution of filmmaking technology and the increasing presence of computers. This tendency towards self-reference or meta-narrative would become increasingly prevalent in American cinema throughout the 80s and 90s. However, Blackmore’s primary concern is in viewing Aliens as a text about the American war in Vietnam and the ambivalent feelings towards technology which that war helped to cultivate.
The tagline for Scott’s original film read, “In space, no one can hear you scream.”. It communicated to audiences that this was a film which intended to scare you. It was essentially a horror film—a monster movie in space. The tagline used for Cameron’s sequel locates the film within a very different genre. It read, “This time it’s war.”. This tagline not only indicates the film’s intent to be bigger and more exciting than the first Alien film, it also identifies Aliens as a war film. Prior to writing and directing Aliens, Cameron co-wrote Rambo: First Blood Part II in which Vietnam veteran John Rambo returns for a covert mission in Vietnam and asks, “Do we get to win this time.”. In many ways, Aliens is a film which is trying to figure out why Americans did not succeed in Vietnam, and a fantasy of how it could have turned out differently. The character’s conflict with the aliens mirrors the kind of asymmetric warfare which first became popularized in Vietnam but has now come to characterize much of how war is fought. The soldiers of the Sulaco are equipped with all the firepower and technology they could possibly need. As Hudson says before they land on the planet, “We got tactical smart missiles, phased plasma pulse rifles, RPGs, we got sonic electronic ball breakers! We got nukes, we got knives…”. They are technologically superior to the aliens, who they view as primitive animals—much like Western perceptions of the Vietnamese. But this also makes them arrogant. When they begin to encounter the aliens, their greater firepower does very little to protect them. Like the Vietnamese during the war, the aliens are framed as closer to nature and biology than the technologically assisted soldiers. Hudson’s palpable fear and his cries that they are “coming out of the walls” also brings to mind the kind of gurrila warfare many American soldiers were not prepared for in Vietnam. The aliens frequently come from above or below and the motion sensors the soldiers use only make the surprise attacks more terrifying—for the characters and viewers alike. A large part of the Vietnamese strategy involved using boobie-traps and surprise attacks to incite as much fear as possible in American GI’s. Blackmore notes that when the aliens do attack directly, they come in seemingly relentless waves while the soldiers barricade themselves in a stationary location. He observes that these wave attacks are reminiscent of those carried out by the North Vietnamese army during the Tet offensive (Blackmore, 217). The corporate intents of their mission—embodied by Burke—evoke the military industrial complex which had been a focal point of the protests against Vietnam. Furthermore, reference to the alien “hive” is reminiscent of the vilification of communist societies as hive-minded and lacking individual and market freedom. But if the film is to be understood as a reflection on Vietnam, its conclusions may be disturbing. Ripley and the other survivor’s solution is the genocide of their alien enemy via nuclear explosion. It is worth noting that throughout the war in Vietnam, nuclear strikes were considered a viable option (Blackmore, 1). But the seemingly futile use of most of the soldiers’ advanced technologies leads to a complicated and ambivalent relationship between war and technology in the film.
Aliens features various scenes of characters gearing up with technology and weaponry, and stripping it off. Technology is consistently breaking down, malfunctioning, or misleading the characters in the film. From the malfunctioning “atmosphere processor” which could kill them all in a thermonuclear explosion, to the cargo loader which helps, but eventually traps Ripley in her fight with the queen, technology is framed as equally or more dangerous than it is useful. The film suggests that while technology maybe useful to a point, it eventually must be stripped away. At the beginning of the mission, Vasquez body is covered with military machinery. In the time leading up to her death in the air duct, she progressively strips away her technological accessories. Completely out of ammo and with no more technological protection, she and Gorman are forced to kill themselves in order to help protect the others. Technology only goes so far before the soldier is required to sacrifice the body. Ripley’s arch from burdensome outsider, to soldier, to mother also prominently correlates with her relationship to technology. When the mission begins she is unarmed and clearly the most vulnerable of the group. It is only when she goes back alone to save Newt that she covers herself with every weapon she can find, becoming a soldier. Her final showdown with the alien queen forces her to completely exceed the capabilities of her body using the cargo loader. Once Newt is safe Ripley is stripped of all machinery, and most of her clothes. Here, Ripley is again reframed as a mother. But these examples also call attention to the film’s depiction of gender, and the place of women at war, and in society more generally.
In many ways Aliens could be seen as ostensibly progressive in its portrayal of women. It has a strong, capable female lead in Ripley, and features women in its supporting cast both as corporate workers and soldiers. When looked at more closely, the film presents a very limiting representation of women’s place in the military and in society. The two most prominent women in the film, Ripley and Vasquez are surrounded by and subjected to immense sexual aggression and objectification. Vasquez has a muscled body and short hair. She is a soldier. As a result, she is denied her femininity by her fellow soldiers. “Has anyone ever mistaken you for a man?” Hudson asks her. “No, have you?” she replies. But despite being denied her femininity, she is still framed as a sexual target. “Fuck you” she tells Hudson in another instance. Hudson replies, “Anytime, anywhere.”. The social environment of the military is sexually hostile to women, everywhere and all the time. Sargent Apone jokes to Hudson, “It’s a rescue mission, you’ll love it. There’s some juicy colonist’ daughters we have to rescue from their virginity.”. Later, during the drop into combat Hudson repeatedly says “Let’s get it on!”, a phrase which could be used to refer to battle or sex. In another iconic 80s film, Top Gun, Maverick refers to a bar full of women using military jargon as a “target rich environment”. In a militarized patriarchy, when there is no enemy to kill, women become the targets. Vasquez position as a racialized woman (the character is Hispanic but the actress who plays her is white) associates her with tropes of the “red woman” and the “white women” in war. “Red women” are often foreign, and sexualized while the “white women” are perceived as homely and maternal. When they first meet, Vasquez refers to Ripley as “snow white”. And while the film’s depiction of Ripley is different than its treatment of Vasquez, it is not any less limiting.
Despite being strong, smart and confident throughout the film, Ripley’s identity is made inseparable from the figure of the mother. In Scott’s Alien, Ripley is largely defined by being working class. In Cameron’s film her working class skills are reduced to novelty. When she demonstrates her proficiency with the cargo loader the men are surprised and impressed, but they also chuckle to each other condescendingly. Ripley is also the character who is most sexualized by the camera. In various scenes, attention is drawn to her breasts, suggesting both sexuality and maternal nurturing. This frames Ripley as more feminine than Vasquez, which is also indicated by her longer hair. Furthermore, Ripley is allowed to live while Vasquez is not. Because Vasquez is still a soldier and a soldier’s job is to die so that people like Ripley—mothers—can survive. Ripley is only allowed to become a soldier once Newt is in danger. Her ability to fight is always tied to a natural motherhood which she demonstrates upon encountering Newt, presumably as a result of missing the life of her own daughter. But even though she is equipped with military weaponry, when it comes time for Ripley to fight, she is no longer fighting an army. The true enemy is revealed as the alien queen, an alien mother who asexually produces eggs which need to feed on others to evolve. The film then pits two mothers against each other for the protection of their “children”: the feminine, human, “white woman”, against the grotesque, hive mind of the “other”. But Ripley is not only fighting for her own life or the life of her figurative child. She is fighting for the reassembling and maintenance of the American nuclear family.
Ripley’s performance as mother to Newt, and the relationship she begins to build with Hick’s—the honest and protective army grunt—function as the assembling of a patriarchal nuclear family within the film. Hick’s is a protector and provider. He asks Ripley if she is “alright” multiple times in the film, and it is through their relationship that Ripley gains the skills and weapons required to retrieve Newt. It is only by linking herself to a father figure, that she is able to attain the fire power needed to be an effective mother. In a tender moment just before Ripley goes to save Newt, the two parental figures exchange their first names. They recognize each other not as soldiers but as a man and a woman, and perhaps a figurative husband and wife. The emergence of this nuclear family also reframes the war they have been fighting. It becomes a war to protect the nuclear family from the physical invasion of their bodies by sexually grotesque and promiscuous, hive minded aliens. This focus on the protection of the purity of the American family is also in alignment with a Reagan era emphasis on traditional values, and the revamping of cold war tensions during the 1980s. In the film, it is only a nuclear explosion which can ensure the safety of the nuclear family. Aliens’ ending is not more affirmative than the first film in the franchise because Ripley’s hardships are any worse, or because her survival is more inspiring. It is more affirmative because this time it is not just one woman who has survived, it’s the institution of the American family.
Cameron’s Aliens contains many of the technical and ideological characteristics of the archetypical 1980s action film. It plays an important role in the tradition of the Hollywood blockbuster and sequel, while demonstrating many trends which were prevalent in American cinema at the time. Aliens raises the stakes of the original film. It is self referential, features visceral, theme park like thrills, and is coated with dirt, grime, and slime. The film is also ideologically compatible with other films of the 1980s in its attempt to work through the trauma of Vietnam once the country had gained some temporal distance from the war, and its attempt to reassert and maintain traditional gender roles and familial structures. Aliens is a classic action epic which exceeds conventional expectations of movie sequels, but it is still very much a product of its time.
Works Cited
Alien. Dir. Ridley Scott. 1979. Web.
Aliens. Dir. James Cameron. 1986. Web.
Blackmore, Tim. ""Is This Going to Be Another Bug-Hunt?": S-F Tradition Versus Biology-as-destiny in James Cameron's Aliens1." The Journal of Popular Culture 29.4 (1996): 211-26. Web.
Blackmore, Tim. War X: Human Extensions in Battlespace. Toronto: U of Toronto, 2011. Print.