The Auden-attributed quote above was an epithet to the shooting script to, written by Walter Hill and David Giler, based on a story by Dan O'Bannon and Ronald Shusett, and directed by Ridley Scott. The quote invites us to question the intentionality of the creators of this masterpiece of sci-fi horror: which of our deep ‘fears and hopes’ does the film extract from and 'show' us? Is it, as Auden suggested, our fear of the Other - monsters, predators, alien invasions - and our hopes for technology and exploration? I’d like to suggest that it is something even deeper - the fear of life itself, and the hope that humanity can overcome any threat to our ‘species supremacy’.

It is crucial to grasp that an evolutionary change does not make an organism “better” in the sense of the surviving generation necessarily being faster, stronger, larger, or more intelligent. Species that evolve to flourish in a cool climate, for example, will perish if that climate warms, or they are forced to migrate to a warmer environment; as larger and faster animals need more food, they are more vulnerable when resources are scarce or when they have to rest. Evolutionary changes are neither linear nor purposive: animals probably first evolved feathers, for example, to regulate body temperature - feathers only later became an advantage predisposing creatures for the adaptive advantage of flight (‘Archaeopteryx’ - the famous ‘feathered dinosaur’ fossil first discovered in 1861, just after Darwin published his provocative theory of evolution - demonstrates this point, being a creature in a stage of evolutionary transformation between lizard and bird). In summation, evolution is neither perfect nor progressive – it is a mindless process of gradual transformation of temporarily preferential variants unguided by romantic notions of benign forces or organic homeostasis.

It is crucial to grasp that an evolutionary change does not make an organism “better” in the sense of the surviving generation necessarily being faster, stronger, larger, or more intelligent. Species that evolve to flourish in a cool climate, for example, will perish if that climate warms, or they are forced to migrate to a warmer environment; as larger and faster animals need more food, they are more vulnerable when resources are scarce or when they have to rest. Evolutionary changes are neither linear nor purposive: animals probably first evolved feathers, for example, to regulate body temperature - feathers only later became an advantage predisposing creatures for the adaptive advantage of flight (‘Archaeopteryx’ - the famous ‘feathered dinosaur’ fossil first discovered in 1861, just after Darwin published his provocative theory of evolution - demonstrates this point, being a creature in a stage of evolutionary transformation between lizard and bird). In summation, evolution is neither perfect nor progressive – it is a mindless process of gradual transformation of temporarily preferential variants unguided by romantic notions of benign forces or organic homeostasis.

A brief summation of the theory of evolution is useful here to emphasise that evolution does not equate to either ‘survival’ or ‘perfection’. Regardless of one’s superstitious or spiritual beliefs, organisms change over time and new species of organisms develop. This happens as adaptive selection in relation to factors such as environment, predators, disease, and competition for resources. Evolution – often parsed as ‘survival of the fittest’ - is defined as genetic changes in a population of like organisms over a discernable period, which afford selective advantages for reproductive success and propagation. Natural selection – the reproduction of those specimens best adapted to reproduce in a given time and place - is not the only force driving evolution, nor is evolution a teleological process of species perfection or environmental

If we accept three premises: 1) species evolution is the consequence of survival, 2) there is probably extra-terrestrial life in the universe, and 3) variation and entropy are conditions of the universe, then we can accept that species evolution and extinction are inexorable. This would mean that all life forms across the entire universe are both conditional and transitory. To be superseded by a bluntly existing creature, not a ‘perfected’ human, runs counter to what might be thought of as human ‘evolution’. It may be horrific to think of oneself - a human - not as a grand being to be transcended by something even ‘greater’, some Nietzschean, but as a comestible adaptation of the circumstances of life. This – not the horrible behaviour of the aliens – is the power of the sci-fi classicand its prequel,

InStephen Mulhall set out his reservations about film studies approaches to philosophical ideas in films, asserting that films can not only reflect or engage with pre-existing philosophical ideas but can ‘do’ philosophy. That is, that some films should be seen as 'philosophy in action - film as philosophizing' (Mullhall,, London: Routledge, 2008, p.2). Mulhall used theseries to exemplify his thesis, drawing out the ways in which the seriesengages the viewerin philosophic reflectionabout the nature of identity, personhood, and sexuality. Mullhall also commented on how the films engage with Darwinism in terms of competition between mutually ‘alien’ species. I want to expand on this and look at the ways in whichportrays a lived reality of evolution.

franchise, as there are a few anomalies in the description and behaviour of the Alien species. Rather, one can look at the ways in which the original film provokes anxieties about the force and trajectory of evolution by emphasising the life cycle of the creature and destabilising assumptions of humanity’s species supremacy. One can then consider the ways in which those fears are explicated in the film’s ‘prequel’,

It is fruitless to insist upon philosophical or ‘scientific’ continuity in the discourse on evolution across the Alien franchise, as there are a few anomalies in the description and behaviour of the Alien species. Rather, one can look at the ways in which the original film provokes anxieties about the force and trajectory of evolution by emphasising the life cycle of the creature and destabilising assumptions of humanity’s species supremacy. One can then consider the ways in which those fears are explicated in the film’s ‘prequel’, Prometheus . It is also significant that Ridley Scott directed both films because other Alien film directors modified the species described in the original film.

It is fruitless to insist upon philosophical or ‘scientific’ continuity in the discourse on evolution across the Alien franchise, as there are a few anomalies in the description and behaviour of the Alien species. Rather, one can look at the ways in which the original film provokes anxieties about the force and trajectory of evolution by emphasising the life cycle of the creature and destabilising assumptions of humanity’s species supremacy. One can then consider the ways in which those fears are explicated in the film’s ‘prequel’, Prometheus . It is also significant that Ridley Scott directed both films because other Alien film directors modified the species described in the original film.

Yet, it is not animal rights debates around speciesism that are most interesting in(although that could be explored and, perhaps, brought to dialogue with Phil Hutchinson’s thinkingfilm piece on and Rupert Read's on . Rather it is the desperate and tenuous speciesist ideology of human supremacy that drives it. In other words, the ideas explored inthat human evolution might involve not a ‘perfected’ humanoid creature, but a human/alien hybrid, or possibly extinction, suggests that a) evolution operates across the universe in diverse environments that demand different ‘superior’ adaptations, and b) human survival ultimately plays out not on Earth, but in space. This is an recurring issue in sci-fi, as inferred in Peter Krämer's thinkingfilm piece on 2001: a Space Odyssey . The work of resolving fears of evolutionary change and extinction inis of finding some means of reasserting human species superiority.

The very notion of an ‘alien’ is homocentric in that it implies that, even off-world, humans exclude themselves from notions of Otherness. How different might our way of being 'emplaneted beings' be if we understood ourselves as 'alien'? The idea that it is morally right to favour humans over animals when making ethical choices breaks down when brought to the level of pure survival or of the threat to the planet by, for example, human caused climate change. To include beings or animals not of the Earth adds another community of interest to the potential sphere of moral obligation. For example, are aliens ‘animals’ in that they are non-human life forms? If so, do they have 'rights'? In the human imagination aliens have been constructed as having intelligence, culture, technology, and will, as well as having none of those attributes at all. They can be vaguely 'humanoid' as well as/at the same time as being 'creatures'. Including an alien in the sphere of any moral category seems depend on its potential threat to human existence, rather than its capacity for rational thought (contemporary sci-fi films such asandplay with screen stereotypes by portraying non-predatory, animal-aliens that threaten only when attacked).

'Speciesism' is a concept in ethics that asserts that human animals assume supremacy over other species and thus privilege themselves with more moral rights than non-human animals. In Animal Liberation , Peter Singer defined it as ‘a prejudice or bias in favour of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species’ (Singer, Animal Liberation: 2nd Ed , New York: Ecco, 2001, p.6.) Speciesism – or 'homocentricity' - describes not only the behaviour of humans towards non-human animals (that would run the risk of claiming bigotry when dealing aggressively with predators) but also the ideology that humans are ‘superior’ in terms of intelligence, technology, adaptability, culture, biology etc. Darwinism has, in some ways, contributed to speciesism in that his 'common ancestor' theory can be used by some to reinforce a homocentric organisation of species superiority such as the Aristotelian or Christian 'Great Chain of Being' hierarchies ( scala naturae ) as well as Social Darwinism. Instead of God at the apex of creation it is homo-sapiens - specifically white, western, male, socially elevated ones. The existence in sci-fi of beings or animals not of the Earth adds a new element to the debates on humanity’s moral obligation to non-human animals.

'Speciesism' is a concept in ethics that asserts that human animals assume supremacy over other species and thus privilege themselves with more moral rights than non-human animals. In Animal Liberation , Peter Singer defined it as ‘a prejudice or bias in favour of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species’ (Singer, Animal Liberation: 2nd Ed , New York: Ecco, 2001, p.6.) Speciesism – or 'homocentricity' - describes not only the behaviour of humans towards non-human animals (that would run the risk of claiming bigotry when dealing aggressively with predators) but also the ideology that humans are ‘superior’ in terms of intelligence, technology, adaptability, culture, biology etc. Darwinism has, in some ways, contributed to speciesism in that his 'common ancestor' theory can be used by some to reinforce a homocentric organisation of species superiority such as the Aristotelian or Christian 'Great Chain of Being' hierarchies ( scala naturae ) as well as Social Darwinism. Instead of God at the apex of creation it is homo-sapiens - specifically white, western, male, socially elevated ones. The existence in sci-fi of beings or animals not of the Earth adds a new element to the debates on humanity’s moral obligation to non-human animals.

The immediate horror ofis, of course, humans encountering an unknown creature that has not evolved on Earth, and that preys on humans for its reproductive and resource needs. That humans are at risk from being wiped out by predators is not in itself the horror of– after all, we are prey for creatures on Earth. The horror is that, taken out of its terrestrial context, the human species is shown to be insignificant and non-superior. Any speciesist ideas we may have of the markers of species supremacy – intelligence, ethics, adaptableness, and technology – are not only contingent but dangerously speciesist and possibly even specious. The film, then, struggles to reassert human species superiority by addressing the existential reality of evolution.

Alien





A synopsis is warranted to briefly underscore that the alien process of the 'creature's' lifecycle is central to the narrative. In 2122, the Weyland-Yutani commercial spaceship Nostromo is returning to Earth with its load of mineral ore and 7 crew members held in stasis for the duration of the voyage home. When the ship intercepts an alien transmission, the pilot computer, Mother, awakens the crew. Being obligated to investigate any systematized transmission indicating possible intelligent extra terrestrial life, a party descends to the origin of the transmission on moon LV-426, where they discover the wreckage of a vast alien spacecraft. Inside they find the fossilised remains of an alien crewmember ('spacejockey') and a large cluster of eggs, or pods. One bursts open and an organism ('facehugger') attaches itself to Kane, paralysing him.

The two main threats to human survival inare the alien itself and the actions of the Weyland-Yutani Corporation that seeks to sacrifice its crew and exploit it. The specific, visceral horror is the creature’s symbiotic relationship to its prey – it hunts prey not only for its own sustenance but its existence. The creature is a manifestation of the fearful reality of life mutely exerting itself regardless of any need for ‘human’ qualities such as intelligence, self-awareness, language, or culture. As such, it embodies a fear of the supersession of humanity by a seemingly non-superior species. The other epithet to thescreenplay is 'We live as we dream: alone', a famous quote from Nostromo , Joseph Conrad’s existentialist novel about capitalism and exploitation. The Weyland-Yutani Corporation’s mining spaceship in the film is named after Conrad’s book, foregrounding the Corporation’s appalling exploitation of workers as well as Conradian fears of colonialism and voyaging to a ‘dark’ continent. These anxieties are surely manifest throughout the film’s franchise, yetspeaks more directly to Auden’s fear of monsters in that its narrative is dictated by the consequences of an 'alien' process of inception, gestation, parturition, survival and, ultimately, of evolution.





Finding the eggs in Alien, dir. Ridley Scott, 1979

'Face Hugger' in Alien, dir. Ridley Scott, 1979

Ripley refuses to let the infected crewmembers back on board, insisting they follow the Science Division's quarantine law, but Science Officer Ash defies her orders. He wants to extract the creature, dissect it and study it for scientific advancement. Eventually the 'facehugger releases Kane and dies. The ship continues its journey but Kane goes into convulsions and an alien bursts from his chest, killing him.





'Chest-burster' in Alien, dir. Ridley Scott, 1979

When the 'chest-burster' escapes, the crew must find and kill it. It rapidly grows into a huge, ferocious adult 'Xenomorph' (lit. 'alien-form') When Ash tries to kill Ripley for interfering with his 'specimin' she destroys him - revealing him to be an android. The Weyland-Yutani corporation deployed Ash to intentionally infect the crew of the Nostromo, thus capturing an alien sample and bringing it home to develop and possibly weaponise. The crew was expendable in his mission. One by one the alien picks off crewmembers, storing some in cocoons, until only Ripley is left. She initiates the ship’s self-destruct sequence and escapes in a tiny shuttle. The alien follows her into the shuttle where she forces it out of the hatch, blasting it into space. She sets course to Earth putting herself and Jones, the ship’s cat, into stasis.







Xenomorph vs. Human in Alien, dir. Ridley Scott, 1979

Themes of extinction, parasitism, and metamorphosis are integral to the narrative and the focus for generating horror. Metamorphosis is a necessity of the alien species survival, and an advantage for species dispersal. It maximises the possibility of propagation by ensuring diversity of hosts, temporary as opposed to fixed habitats, opportunity to maximise food supply, and widespread dispersal of animals – in short: it ensures the advantage of adaptation and flexibility.



alien Xenomorph also has the advantage of being parasitic and something approaching holometabolous TheXenomorph also has the advantage of being parasitic and something approaching. It has a similar lifecycle to some endoparasitoid insects, including some species of flies, cockroaches, and wasps. Alien, The Xenomorph lifecycle can be compared to that of Ampulex Compressa - an entomophageous tropical wasp that stings and zombifies a cockroach host with neurotoxins, then lays an egg on its leg and buries it alive. The larva that emerges from the egg then devours the cockroach host, ultimately killing it. In the creature's life cycle is similar yet it consists of four distinct phases involving two separate obligate parasitic ‘creatures’, the metamorphoses of which are dependent up on a dispensable host.



Ampulex Compressa approaching its prey



As android science officer Ash admires, the alien is a ‘perfect organism. Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility’. The initial phase consists of egg fertilisation and laying by a Queen Alien. The eggs are diapause and, when disturbed, release a sessile larval parasite (‘face hugger’) that attacks a host and deposit a pupa (embryonic Xenomorph) in the host's internal organs, rendering the host docile. Facehuggers have a hard protective coating, acid blood, and genetic material that reforms in response to atmospheric conditions. The facehugger supplies the embryo rather like a placenta, and the pupa feeds on the host. It destroys its host when it emerges as an infant (‘chest-burster’) before growing into an imago (adult Xenomorph) within days.



Xenomorph capture creatures, storing them in cocoons for feeding or impregnation at a later point. In later Alien films, we learn that the alien species function as hives - super organisms generated by a formidable Queen. This is nonetheless inferred in Alien by showing the field of eggs as well as the practice of nest building and encasing live victims as food storage. Queens, which are much larger, more developed and more intelligent than ‘drone’ Xenomorph, control the actions of the lower creatures. The Xenomorph is capable of instantaneous 'evolution' – its form varies depending on its host as it has the ability to appropriate genetic material from its host and it is physiologically capable of rapidly adapting to the atmosphere it finds itself born into. It uses host DNA to ‘evolve’ during gestation, becoming comparable with its prey and adapting to its environment. The human phenotype is a bipedal, insectoid vertebrate with acidic blood, a hard exoskeleton of 'protein polysaccharides', and both external mandibles and a retractable inner pharyngeal jaw of venomous teeth. As well as using them as hosts,inferred inby showing the field of eggs as well as the practice of nest building and encasing live victims as food storage. Queens, which are much larger, more developed and more intelligent than ‘drone’ Xenomorph, control the actions of the lower creatures.





T he admiration the android Ash has for the un-self-aware alien is based on a shared lack of empathy or ‘purpose’; ‘I can't lie to you about your chances’ he tells the crew, ‘but you have my sympathies’. The alien has no discernible purpose other than its own existence and no moral compunction. A more sentient life form would be a more purposeful predator, but Ash venerates as 'perfect' precisely it because it has so few ‘human’ characteristics, being ‘a survivor, unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality'. Unlike humans, the alien has no ‘reason’, and its practices of colonization and exploitation are extramoral.





Alien is deeply problematic and yet it reaffirms the idea of a 'monstrous' space at the very fount of existence, showing the subtle or dramatic changes inherent in the non-inear, non-progressive evolutionary process. In the documentary Alien Evolution As a Darwinian nightmare,is deeply problematic and yet it reaffirms the idea of a 'monstrous' space at the very fount of existence, showing the subtle or dramatic changes inherent in the non-inear, non-progressive evolutionary process. In the documentary writer Dan O’Bannon was very clear about ‘sexual’ procreative contact and the alien’s evolutionary power being central to the film's horror: "This is a movie about alien interspecies rape, that's it. That's scary. That's scary because it pushes all our buttons, all of our unresolved feelings about sexuality". He went on to clarify that the symbolism of "oral rape" by the impregnating facehugger was an intentional means of discomforting male viewers . In this nightmarish primordial wrestle males can play host to the next generation of life, but in so doing they are destroyed. This is procreation without man - a Darwinian psychohorror of reproduction (and not in that sense is it in any way a 'feminist' film in that it points horrifically to the literal place of evolutionary change as the 'feminized', parastitized body).



Critics might define Ripley by her moral stance towards her female biological capacity as a vessel for evolving creatures: she can make ‘people’, hence she can make 'creatures' - an act of biological warfare. Yet the 'creature' that threatens to supersede humanity is in fact amorphous - there is no 'Alien' and, horrifically, no individual entity to will its own survival (the self-aware Queen Alien in the later films being an attempt to continue the franchise beyond its natural demise). To survive, the Alien species, like some insects, separates its developmental stages into discrete beings the purpose of each being to secure the next, more evolved stage in its genesis. These discrete creatures nonetheless exert their roles and are prepared - unlike humans - to die in order to complete their purpose and ensure the perpetuation of the species.



