Ciara O’Connor
Highly Recommended
Department of English Undergraduate Awards (3rd Year)
Abstract
By transgressing structural, physical, biological, and social boundaries, Ridley Scott’s Alien (1979) and James Cameron's Aliens (1986) blend science fiction and horror tropes in order to evoke the abject, a term coined and described by Julia Kristeva as that which “does not respect borders, positions, rules” (Powers of Horror: An Essay of Abjection 4). The aliens themselves, the spaceship set designs, the cyborg characters, and the disrupted gender norms in both films allow for the abject to be explored. The most significant evocation of the abject in these films is achieved through their focus on themes of gestation and motherhood. They emphasise the violent life cycle of the Xenomorph and contrast the protagonist Ellen Ripley, a ‘good’ mother, with the abject, ‘bad’ mother figures of the 'Mother'-ship and the Alien Queen. Although the abject allows audiences to interact with images and ideas that both horrify and intrigue, it must be expelled, ejected, in order to restore symbolic order. Alien and Aliens achieve this through the character of Ripley, who, in keeping with science fiction tropes, literally ejects the abject and re-establishes the borders transgressed throughout the films. This essay explores the representation of the abject in Alien and Aliens and examines protagonist Ripley’s role in reinstating normative borders.
Ridley Scott’s Alien (1979) and James Cameron’s Aliens (1986) evoke the abject, that which “does not respect borders, positions, rules” (Kristeva 4), through the transgression of the boundaries of structure, physicality, gender, and humanity. Both films incorporate tropes of science fiction and horror, as their focus on the transgression of borders makes these genres “illustration(s) of the work of abjection” (Creed 216). The structural designs of the spaceships, where much of the plot takes place, imitate the female reproductive organs, while the inclusion of cyborg characters evokes the abject as they threaten the borders between humanity and technology. The titular creatures, grotesque beings which disrupt structural and bodily borders and violate and consume other organisms, allow for themes of reproduction, the maternal, and the monstrous feminine to be explored. The Alien Queen in particular represents the phallic mother and unrestrained reproduction. While the abject provides the viewer with the “perverse pleasure” of “confronting sickening, horrific images, being filled with terror” (Creed 216), it must be ejected in order to restore symbolic order. By the end of both films, Alien and Aliens reinscribe the borders that have been transgressed throughout, by contrasting protagonist Ripley with the abject figures of the ‘Mother’-ship and the Alien Queen. This essay aims to examine the abject as it is represented in Alien and Aliens and how transgressed borders are reinscribed through the character of Ellen Ripley.
The abject, that which “disturbs identity, system, order, the in-between, the ambiguous, the composite” (Kristeva 4), allows for boundaries to be crossed in order to “separate out the symbolic order from all that threatens its stability” (Creed 221). The genres of science fiction and horror, both of which are employed in Alien and Aliens, possess the tropes required to best explore the abject. As science fiction is a “literature of cognitive estrangement” (Suvin 372, emphasis original) and horror “abounds in images of abjection” (Creed 216), these genres evoke the abject in order to transgress cultural and physical boundaries, using images of gore and representations of Otherness. Horror film imagery of bodily fluids such as “blood, vomit, saliva, sweat, tears, and putrifying [sic] flesh” (Creed 216) conjures the abject and confronts the viewer with that which they separate themselves from. In both horror and science fiction, the Other is represented through monstrous creatures, as “harbinger(s) of category cris(e)s (…) whose externally incoherent bodies resist attempts to include them in any systematic structuration” (Cohen 6) such as the Xenomorphs. Their phallic heads, their acidic blood, and their double-mouthed maw which resembles both the vagina dentata and a “science fiction phallus dentatus” (Kavanagh 76), physically marks them as monstrous. Monstrosity can be considered abject as it allows for that which is Other to undermine “the metaphysics underlying symbolic boundaries (…) that determine all those categories and classifications that separate kinds of being off from one another" (Gibson 237). When this separation is threatened, monstrosity interacts with humanity, or such as in the figure of the cyborg, takes on elements of humanity and reflects it back to society.
“Creatures simultaneously animal and machine” (Haraway 149) such as the cyborg can evoke horror in a way that positions them as monstrous and abject, by evading categorisation and confronting the boundaries between the Self and the Other. Kristeva posits that the abject produces “a massive and sudden emergence of uncanniness, which, familiar as it might have been in an opaque and forgotten life, now harries me as radically separate, loathsome” (2), a reaction which is best induced by the image of the corpse, a physically evident border “that has become an object” (4). The figure of the cyborg, which disrupts and threatens the dualism of organism and machine, can evoke a similar reaction (Haraway 151). In Alien, the character of Ash disrupts the boundaries between humanity and technology and represents cultural anxieties about what may come from this disruption. The crew of the Nostromo believe he is the same as them, a human with the singular goal of returning home. The revelation that Ash is not, in fact, human, is established using bodily fluids, which, as Kristeva notes, show us what we “permanently thrust aside in order to live” (11). His milk-like perspiration and ‘blood’ which “has the appearance of semen” (Kaveney 143), evokes the abject, reminding the viewer of the fallibility of the human body and of bodily fluids which should not exist in a technological creation. Ash’s attack reveals his inhumanity and conjures images of oral rape as he chokes a near-unconscious Ripley with a rolled-up magazine, “a surrogate for the penis he presumably does not have” (Kaveney 144). The imagery and content of the magazine, which features nude women in sexually suggestive poses, furthers this phallic and sexual connotation. Due to Ash’s secretion of semen-like fluid, his substituted violent phallus, and his external appearance as a male, he is positioned as opposite to Ripley, in both perceived gender and in “species”. This attack also exposes Ash’s unnatural strength as he rips Ripley’s hair and succeeds in flinging her across a room, and this is further emphasised by the fact that it requires both Parker and Lambert to wrench him off of Ripley. Haraway notes that “the main trouble with cyborgs, of course, is that they are the illegitimate offspring of militarism and patriarchal capitalism” (151), a description that Ash encapsulates. Not only is he separate from the crew of the Nostromo due to his lack of biological humanity, his creation by and loyalty to Weyland-Yutani and ‘Mother’ positions him as a threatening Other to the working-class crew. It is this capitalist, technological Otherness that allows for the Xenomorph to board the Nostromo, to breed with, kill and eat the crew. Just as he praises the Xenomorph’s “hostility,” Ash, too, is “unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality” (Scott 1:26:02–1:26:36) because of his abject identity as a cyborg.
Benson-Allott argues that pieces of media that evoke horror “often start disturbing their audiences with spaces, not monsters” (268). The interiors of the Nostromo, the Sulaco, the colony, and the derelict alien ship disturb the viewer by engaging with the abject. The opening scene of Alien follows the camera through darkened, industrial hallways “that seem to go on forever” and “suggest that ‘things’ are not as they ought to be” (Benson-Allott 270), inspiring horror in the audience long before the Xenomorph is revealed. These shots “threaten their spectators’ agency by luring them visually into spaces they cannot master, spaces that elude their powers of perception” (Benson-Allott 272), making the Nostromo a space that disrupts the expected norm and threatens viewers' understanding of the Self. While Benson-Allott distinguishes the hallways of the Nostromo from the derelict spaceship by suggesting the abject is only conjured in the latter, Creed suggests that the opening scene is a representation of a “primal fantasy” in which “birth is a well-controlled, clean, painless affair” (223) and compares the imagery of the opening scene to that of the female body. The crew awaken in a “womblike chamber” (Creed 223), with a door that conjures imagery of the vagina dentata. Kane exits in “what looks comically like a diaper” (Scobie 83), foreshadowing his transition from an inhabitant of the mothership to the carrier and birther of the fetal alien, the chest-burster. Kavanagh’s note that the crew members are “curiously unsexed” (93), in the opening scene furthers ideas of this as a representation of the primal scene, positioning them as the undeveloped children of the archaic, phallic ‘Mother’ who controls the ship. The computer room – the room in which ‘Mother’ can be accessed, suggests Scobie, resembles the womb, in both its shape and the “warm flickering lights” (83) which provide the only visual warmth on the Nostromo. Access to this room, at the beginning of Alien, is confined to Dallas, “the figure of patriarchal authority,” who “enters the computer room by inserting a phallic key in a lock” (Scobie 83) which solidifies ‘Mother’ as an abject feminine, maternal presence.
In Aliens, the Sulaco looks like “a great shark, or like a Swiss Army Knife – it is an image of brutal strength and ingenious efficiency” (Kaveney 159). The tracking shots of the interior, which mirror those in Alien, introduce a militaristic and efficient ship, this stark technological cleanliness soon to be contrasted with the abject imagery of organic matter through the dwelling of the Xenomorphs. “The hypersleep caskets (…) are more mechanical, less organic looking” (Kaveney 160), no longer resembling a womb, no longer positioning the crew’s spaceship as an abject figure. The derelict alien ship, however, evokes the abject throughout Alien and Aliens, representing “the interior of the human body–the windings and curvings of organs and glands” (Cobbs 199). The ship, with its “vaginal doorways, cervical mazes on the walls, phallic sculptures (…) and bulbous mammary projections” (Cobbs 199) emphasises the themes of reproduction and sexuality. Creed suggests that in Alien, the lowering of the crew into the ship evokes the presence of the child invading the womb to experience a primal fantasy of watching their own conception (223). The eggs that they find inside the womb of the ship continue to conjure images of the female reproductive system, mirroring flesh as they drip fluid. In Aliens, this is furthered by the presence of the Alien Queen.
Creed posits that “all human societies have a conception (…) of what it is about woman that is shocking, terrifying, horrific, abject” (211), drawing on Kristeva’s work which focuses on “different ways in which abjection, as a source of horror, works within patriarchal societies” (212). Historically and culturally, the feminine body has acted as a central source of abjection, specifically, its menstrual and maternal aspects. This is portrayed in Alien and Aliens, as gestation functions as a major theme and a central source of the abject in both films. The gestation period of the Xenomorph is outlined in Alien and made more monstrous by happening on a larger and accelerated scale in Aliens. When the face-hugger, described by Bihlmeyer as “vulva-like” (47), again conjuring the image of the vagina dentata, attaches to its host, it penetrates the host’s mouth and extends down their throat an organ which can be viewed as both “umbilical-like” (Bihlmeyer 48) and phallic. This organ, be it a representative of the feminine or masculine organs, disturbs the border between the inside and outside of the body. The birth of the alien, as it tears through the host’s chest, killing them in the process, does the opposite and brings the inside outside, presenting an image of a birth that is bloody and horrific, and therefore abject.
Not only is pregnancy abject, but so is motherhood, according to the psychoanalytic theories of the archaic and phallic maternal figures. Creed argues that “one of the key figures of abjection is the mother who becomes an abject at that moment when the child rejects her for the father who represents the symbolic order” (212). The phallic mother represents the castrating, all-encompassing figure of motherhood who will not relinquish her control over her child. The Alien Queen in Aliens is positioned as such; a symbol of uncontrolled female sexuality which is abject due to “primal anxieties about woman’s sexual organs” (Bundtzen 14). The uncontrolled reproduction of these monstrous creatures which violate the human form, highlighted in the sight of the Queen’s giant ovipositor – fleshy, dripping and pulsing as it produces innumerable eggs, each one possessing an aggressive Xenomorph – evokes these anxieties. The Alien Queen’s positioning as a monstrous, abject representation of motherhood is contrasted with the portrayal of Ripley as a maternal figure in both films. Thomas argues that in Alien, Ripley’s “heroism is defined by her maternal leadership of the group” (77) aboard the Nostromo. Her competence and intelligence allow her to lead and protect the group and to “act as the surrogate mother of the crew” (Waldrop 34), defeating the Xenomorph and prioritising “her own species’ survival” (Thomas 79). However, Ripley’s relationship with Jones, the cat, suggests she “feels more motherly towards (him) than her fellow humans” (Thomas 80). Ripley’s return to the Nostromo in order to rescue Jones, risking her own life in the process, marks her as distinctly maternal and “traditionally feminine” (Newton 86). By referring to the cat with language such as “nice kitty” and “sweetheart” (Scott 1:29:14-1:29:30) as she searches for him, as well as cuddling him and tucking him into the hyper-sleep chamber, Ripley is positioned as a mother figure to Jones.
The idea of Ripley as a maternal figure is furthered in Cameron’s Aliens, wherein she becomes a “mommy” (Cameron 2:29:55), not only to Newt, but is revealed to have been a biological mother throughout the first film as well. Ripley’s position as a mother is established as she discovers that, because she has been gone for fifty-seven years, her daughter, who was a child when Ripley left, has died. This moment not only highlights Ripley’s position as a mother, but also prefigures her relationship with Newt. Throughout Aliens, Ripley displays a softer personality than seen in the first film and adopts a motherly attitude toward Newt. In order to comfort her, she sheds her logical, commanding demeanour and becomes more playful – joking with Newt, relating to her by asking about her doll, and suggesting that because the doll does not have bad dreams, Newt shouldn’t either. Ripley’s maternal instincts are most evident in moments of danger, as her first thought in each situation is to protect Newt, to shield her from damage or troubling images, telling her, “Cover your eyes, Newt, don’t look at the light” (1:54:39) and “Close your eyes, baby” (2:20:55). While Ripley is established as a maternal figure in Alien by risking her own safety and returning to the ship to save Jones, her motherly attention transfers from an animal to a child in Aliens, solidifying her position as a maternal figure. She no longer prefers another species to her own and embraces normative motherhood.
Ripley’s final battle with the Alien Queen emphasises the Alien Queen’s position as an abject figure. While Ripley is positioned as a “good” mother, a figure who prioritises “self sacrifice, selflessness and nurturance” (Arnold 37), the Alien Queen is her opposite, a “bad” mother, a “phallic mother of nightmare” (Bundtzen 104). The Alien Queen’s position as an abject figure is linked to her feminine, reproductive qualities, emphasised by Ripley’s cry of “Get away from her, you bitch!” (Cameron 2:25:55). While the Alien Queen retains her abject, grotesque body throughout the confrontation, her phallic head and dripping mouth attacking Ripley, Ripley dons an exosuit to fight her. Charles Hicks suggests that this suit acts as “a phallic extension that compensates for her lack” and allows her to “embody the phallic mother” (32) simultaneously contrasting Ripley with the Queen while also highlighting their specular identities. Ripley’s defeat and ejection of the Alien Queen eradicates the abject, destructive “bad” mother and champions Ripley as the good mother as “it is only after Ripley defeats the Alien Queen by expelling her through an airlock that Newt refers to her for the first time as “mother”” (Hicks 32).
The transcending of gender norms in both Alien and Aliens can also be read as abject. In Alien, Kane gives birth to the Xenomorph, subverting the normal human reproductive process, which is already abject, and now becomes even more so, because it transcends sex and gender. Ripley is largely gender-neutral throughout the film, however, once she believes she is safe from the alien in the escape pod, she strips down, revealing her feminine figure to the audience. This reminds the audience of her gender and redraws gender norms and boundaries, allowing for a release from the abject. In Aliens, the female characters are largely military soldiers and are masculinised because of this. Vasquez, with her short hair and muscular appearance, is asked by Hudson, “have you ever been mistaken for a man?” to which she replies “No, have you?” (29:48-29:57), disrupting the gender norms of their society and of the film. However, just as in Alien, these norms are reinscribed through Ripley and her portrayal as the “good mother” in comparison to the Alien Queen. Charles Hicks suggests that a nuclear family structure is portrayed at the end of the film through Ripley’s relationships with Newt and Hicks, which continues the re-establishing of gender and social norms (32).
Creed defines the final representations of the primal scene in Alien in relation to the image of ejection, “a convention of the science fiction film” (224). The ejection of Kane’s body from the Nostromo following the birth of the alien signifies how “the “mother’s” body has become hostile; it contains the alien whose one purpose is to kill and devour all of Mother’s children” (Creed 224). Kane’s corpse serves as a reminder of the death that the ‘Mother’ has allowed to happen in her body. Creed describes Ripley’s escape from the Nostromo as a representation of “the living infant (…) ejected from the malevolent body of the “mother” to avoid destruction” (224). However, she does not refer to the final image of ejection in the film, that of the alien itself. As Ripley opens the doors to the escape pod and watches as the Xenomorph falls to its death, she is reinscribing borders of normality, reflecting the viewer’s desire to “eject the abject and redraw the boundaries between the human and non-human” (Creed 221). The alien clings to the doors, one final groan and opening of its vaginal/phallic mouth, but then is cast aside, allowing for normality to reign again. This scene is re-enacted in Ripley’s ejection of the Alien Queen in Aliens, once again through doors to the outside, allowing for ‘good’ motherhood and normative gender and family structures to be reinscribed. The abject in Alien and Aliens allows for the consumption of that which we reject and detest, with the reassurance that the abject will always be relegated to a position outside of the borders of normality, to “the place where I am not” (Kristeva 3).
Alien and Aliens both portray the abject in a myriad of ways – through bodily fluids, through spaces, through technology, and through gender. Physical spaces such as the spaceships reflect images of the body and of reproductive systems, while the cyborg acts as a technological representation of the abject. Although the Xenomorphs inspire abject horror, the most significant abject motif is that of gestation and motherhood. The Alien Queen represents unrestrained reproduction and is portrayed as a “bad” mother in contrast to Ripley’s position as a “good” mother, and their final battle highlights both their differences and their similarities as maternal figures. However, despite the frequent representations of the abject in these films, both Alien and Aliens “eject” the abject and reinscribe the transgressed borders, returning to social norms through the character of Ripley.
Works Cited
Arnold, Sarah. Maternal Horror Film: Melodrama and Motherhood. Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.
Benson-Allott, Caetlin. “Dreadful Architecture: Zones of Horror in Alien and Lee Bontecou’s Wall Sculptures.” Journal of Visual Culture, vol. 14, no. 3, 2015, pp. 267–278.
Bihlmeyer, Jaime. “Alien: The Pre-Oedipal Horror of (m)Other.” The International Journal of Literary Humanities, vol. 10, no. 4, 2013, pp. 43–55.
Bundtzen, Lynda K. “Monstrous Mothers: Medusa, Grendel, and Now Alien.” Film Quarterly, vol. 40, no. 3, 1987, pp. 11–17.
Cameron, James. Aliens. Twentieth Century Fox, 1986.
Cobbs, John L. “Alien as an Abortion Parable.” Literature/Film Quarterly, 1990, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 198–201.
Cohen, Jeffrey Jerome. “Monster Culture (Seven Theses).” Classic Readings on Monster Theory, edited by Asa Simon Mittman and Marcus Hensel, Amsterdam University Press, 2018, pp. 61–76.
Creed, Barbara. “Horror and the Monstrous-Feminine: An Imaginary Abjection.” The Monster Theory Reader, 2020, pp. 211–225.
Gibson, Andrew. Towards a Postmodern Theory of Narrative. Edinburgh University Press, 1996.
Hicks, Charles. “If the Exosuit Fits: Becoming the Alien Queen in Alien and Aliens.” Journal of the Motherhood Initiative. vol. 7, no. 2, 2016, pp. 25–34.
Kavanagh, James H. "Feminism, Humanism and Science in Alien."Alien Zone: Cultural Theory and Contemporary Science Fiction Cinema, edited by Annette Kuhn, 1990, pp. 73–81.
Kaveney, Roz. From Alien to the Matrix: Reading Science Fiction Film. I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd, 2005.
Kristeva, Julia. Powers of Horror: An Essay of Abjection. Translated by Leon S. Roudiez, Columbia University Press, 1982.
Newton, Judith. “Feminism and Anxiety in Alien.” Alien Zone: Cultural Theory and Contemporary Science Fiction Cinema, edited by Annette Kuhn, 1990, pp. 82-90
Scobie, Stephen. “What’s the Story, Mother?: The Mourning of the Alien.” Science Fiction Studies, vol. 20, no. 1, 1993, pp. 80–93.
Scott, Ridley. Alien. Twentieth Century Fox, 1979.
Suvin, Darko. “On the Poetics of the Science Fiction Genre.” College English, vol. 34, no. 3, 1972, pp. 372–382.
Thomas, Brennan. “Motherhood and Machoism: The Multi-Dimensional Ellen Ripley of James Cameron's Aliens.” Gender and Action Films 1980-2000, 2022, pp. 77–89.
Waldrop, Kelly. “Bellies that Go Bump in the Night: The Gothic Curriculum of Essential Motherhood in the Alien Movie Franchise.” Curriculum of the Monstrous, vol. 34, no. 5, 2019, pp. 32–43.
Comments