Alita: Battle Angel - What Makes A Movie Bad: Consciousness & Unconsciousness in Filmmaking
Thoughts On: Alita: Battle Angel (2019)
A cyborg found in the trash heap of a sky city challenges the rule above from the city squalor below.
Alita: Battle Angel is not a good film, but it is an interesting one. James Cameron, as almost to be expected, and its other producers take a huge risk in adapting a somewhat low-key (maybe the original manga is incredibly popular, I'm not sure) IP. This fact is particularly pronounced by the recent box office returns of the likes of Ghost in the Shell. With moderate, you could say poor considering its production budget, box office returns, Ghost in the Shell seemingly indicated that anime/manga adaptations are not the way to go. But, Cameron threw this aside and pushed Alita into production after many years of struggle with a budget almost as great as the returns of Ghost in the Shell. This ballsy, seemingly nonsensical move, worked out: Alita did very well at the box office. And, in all likelihood, we'll get the implied sequel if James Cameron ever gets through his Avatar series. As a side note, James Cameron must just have to mention Titanic to be given money by Hollywood - it seems no other director could do what he is doing having not been associated with a particularly good movie since the early 2000s (of course Avatar was a huge hit, but who is interested in more?). All of that said, I'm interested today in Alita: Battle Angel as a clunky piece of storytelling and filmmaking.
I should start out with a mention of the manga. I know next to nothing about the medium, and only a fraction more about anime. But, the influence of anime and manga on cinema is--let's call it a distinguished one. It is this influence that could be explored as a root of the issues in this film, stylistically and narratively. But, I want to push past this and talk about cinema only. More specifically, I want to discuss how writers and filmmakers engage the meaning in their own creations.
There are two easily distinguished classes of cinematic meaning as attached to the conscious and unconscious processes of filmmaking. On the one hand, there is overt commentary. And on the other, there is thematic exploration. The difference between the two rests in the implied line between consciousness and unconsciousness. Commentary emerges from intended discourse, which is to say that the class of meaning produced by it is inserted into a narrative. Thematic exploration has its conscious component, but it is intrinsically bound to questioning and evocation; symbols and metaphors are presented, meaning breathes through them. In a true cinematic context, the difference between these two modes of meaning is highly nuanced and often muddied. But, in a theoretical context, one can argue that the difference between the two is clear - especially upon a broad evaluation of a narrative in its totality. This is worth making mention of because it is Alita: Battle Angel's management of, in particular, its thematic exploration that produces so many of the problems in the film.
Bad films feel fake and constructed, their stories, in some way, untrue. They are easily deemed clunky because they have no harmony about them as a result of a failure to mediate between mimetic and creative processes. That is to say that all films evoke or imitate life and its often abstract components whilst being manipulated and composed by a filmmaker who cannot simply present life, but an aspect of it. Alita, as an example of such a bad film, is clunky specifically because it attempts to compose and manipulate its thematic components too much. Let us take for example its attempt to explore individuation and the finding of one's true self. Not only does the story have to explicitly narrate this process as part of Alita's character arc, but it shows little understanding of what it fundamentally means to change, morph and develop as an individual. The film, in such, is highly conventionalised. For instance, Alita is framed initially as a child of doctor Ido. She eventually rebels against him because she wants to fulfil her potential. We are told this, but we do not feel it. We are told that Alita feels she is drawn to violence, Ido explains why, but there is no rumination on what it means for Alita to have been programmed, to have been thrown off her destined path. With these underlying thematic elements simply narrated, the movie focuses on cute moments and banal representations - such as her teen romance. This is where convention enters the picture. Alita has so many cliched, conventionalised plot beats used to half-assedly evoke theme. She falls in love with a rebel who rides a bike, is complicated, but respects her danger; she is willing to give him her heart; he is the masculine idol, her animus, that drives her toward self and away from the original animus: the father. These ideas are presented conventionally and entirely insipidly. And much of this has to do with the fact that theme is commentated, is raised into the consciousness of the cinematic space, not left to dwell, stir and churn in the unconscious. This is but one issue.
Let us consider the unconscious components of this film: its archetypes. Alita, Ido, her boyfriend, etc are all, fundamentally, elemental energies or components of narratives that are to evoke primordial, deep idea structures in the human mind. Ido and Alita's love interest, as mentioned, are the masculine components of the narrative and, furthermore, are masculine archetypes for the daughter/maiden turned warrior archetype that is Alita. As suggested, there are problems with their construction and presentation on screen that concern conventions that reduce their potential complexity to inanity. But, there is a more pressing and irritating problem here. The filmmakers, and writers in particular, become possessed by their archetypes - especially those that Alita embodies at various stages of the narrative. In becoming possessed by the abstract archetypes of their narrative, the filmmakers attempt to present pristine ideal images or imagos, which explains the incessant and somewhat creepy return to the idea that Alita is an 'angel'. They attached themselves to these imagos as opposed to associating them with a character - which should be more than an idea (or, if they are to only be an idea, let that idea be deep). As a result of this attachment, characters become affective spectacle for the viewer susceptible to possession. Archetypes should grip and transform us, but they should not define us; we should not grip them. Yet this is the intent of character construction in Alita; we are, overtly so and quite off-puttingly, asked to identify and possess character like an overbearing mother smothering an ugly child. This is a risk all writers face when they either write with their--for lack of better terminology--genitalia, or become attached to their work in a queer and unnecessary manner. Possessed by its archetypes, Alita: Battle Angel has no freedom to evoke more than an unattractive relationship between filmmaker and creation. Indeed many films do this. The films of Tarantino are a great example. Some find the relationship between artist and filmmaker fascinating... some not. I don't like Tarantino. I'm going off-track.
Far more could be said about archetype possession, but I believe it has a plain and uncomfortable place in this film. A part of this possession that will lead us to another problem concerns aesthetics. One can feel the attachment between creator and archetype in the constant search for beauty and photogénie. Alita has no photogénie, no morally enhancing images of beauty. The beauty in this film is a reflection of possession, not individuation. And such puts into question the entire aesthetic approach that it takes. Why all the CGI? What is up with the modelling and texturing in particular? This type of criticism is somewhat boring, but Alita: Battle Angel is not a good looking film. The motion and modelling are often jarring and so interrupt the experience of narrative and spectacle. Fight scenes are, at points, enthralling and even unique. But, for every ounce of intrigue is three quarters of an ounce of alienation. The CGI is, simply put, uncanny. The lighting is incredible, but the modelling - textures and physics at times, too - just doesn't work. This has you wondering why this is not a 100% CG world as it is the juxtaposition of human and computer generated cyborgs that emphatically seals the uncanniness of the aesthetic. I could pose this as a rhetorical question, but there is some sense that could be read into this choice of so explicitly distinguishing humans from cyborgs with rather overt CGI. As to formulate a discourse and commentary on identity, discrimination, the Other, post-humanism and trans-humanism, the film aesthetically embraces, even emphasises, the difference between cyborg and human whilst evoking equality and love in the narrative. I have little to make of this; the commentary appears rather silly to me if I'm honest. At best, this formal commentary made me realise I don't want to be in an age where we have to live alongside robots; I would certainly be a bigot who would despair if my child fell in love with a hard body, non-human, freak weirdo.
Let's return to narrative. Emphasised aesthetically is an inability (a conscious refusal) to properly harmonise the composition of reality and unreality within the cinematic space. A similar failure is found in the dramatic construction of the film. Alita is a melodrama, therefore we can expect it to manifest a narrative composed to evoke theme with clear inflections of consciousness. That is to say that melodramas conventionally show an awareness of unconscious material, raising it into the subconscious as to emphatically explore emotional reactions to the basic truths or components of reality. Melodramas garner great success in this management of mimesis and archetypal meaning. However, the greatest trouble of this dramatic mode comes with its constructedness. Melodramas, to a far lesser degree than any other dramatic mode, seek not to replicate reality; rather, provide an impression of specific elements. The risk they run in doing this, however, is constructing a parallel to reality that bears no tangible relation or relevance - which reduces their interface with those components of life that are to formulate the meaning of narrative to innanity. In short, mimesis is undermined by false representation; melodramas can often evoke a view of life that is so far estranged from reality that the drama need be dismissed. Such occurs in Alita. We all understand, at least theoretically, what it means to want to give ones heart away. Yet we also should know that this would not look like what Alita: Battle Angel presents it to be.
Consistently in this film, reality and melodrama do not resonate, mimesis, and therefore, meaning, fails. With no evocation, narrative falls flat; consciousness encroaches upon unconsciousness and all becomes a muddled mess: flat commentary, innane discourse and questionable preaching. This is what is wrong with Alita; Battle Angel. We see this all the time, but Alita is a particularly overt example of the many failures that cinema can produce when the relationship between consciousness and unconsciousness as it related to meaning is not properly managed.
A cyborg found in the trash heap of a sky city challenges the rule above from the city squalor below.
Alita: Battle Angel is not a good film, but it is an interesting one. James Cameron, as almost to be expected, and its other producers take a huge risk in adapting a somewhat low-key (maybe the original manga is incredibly popular, I'm not sure) IP. This fact is particularly pronounced by the recent box office returns of the likes of Ghost in the Shell. With moderate, you could say poor considering its production budget, box office returns, Ghost in the Shell seemingly indicated that anime/manga adaptations are not the way to go. But, Cameron threw this aside and pushed Alita into production after many years of struggle with a budget almost as great as the returns of Ghost in the Shell. This ballsy, seemingly nonsensical move, worked out: Alita did very well at the box office. And, in all likelihood, we'll get the implied sequel if James Cameron ever gets through his Avatar series. As a side note, James Cameron must just have to mention Titanic to be given money by Hollywood - it seems no other director could do what he is doing having not been associated with a particularly good movie since the early 2000s (of course Avatar was a huge hit, but who is interested in more?). All of that said, I'm interested today in Alita: Battle Angel as a clunky piece of storytelling and filmmaking.
I should start out with a mention of the manga. I know next to nothing about the medium, and only a fraction more about anime. But, the influence of anime and manga on cinema is--let's call it a distinguished one. It is this influence that could be explored as a root of the issues in this film, stylistically and narratively. But, I want to push past this and talk about cinema only. More specifically, I want to discuss how writers and filmmakers engage the meaning in their own creations.
There are two easily distinguished classes of cinematic meaning as attached to the conscious and unconscious processes of filmmaking. On the one hand, there is overt commentary. And on the other, there is thematic exploration. The difference between the two rests in the implied line between consciousness and unconsciousness. Commentary emerges from intended discourse, which is to say that the class of meaning produced by it is inserted into a narrative. Thematic exploration has its conscious component, but it is intrinsically bound to questioning and evocation; symbols and metaphors are presented, meaning breathes through them. In a true cinematic context, the difference between these two modes of meaning is highly nuanced and often muddied. But, in a theoretical context, one can argue that the difference between the two is clear - especially upon a broad evaluation of a narrative in its totality. This is worth making mention of because it is Alita: Battle Angel's management of, in particular, its thematic exploration that produces so many of the problems in the film.
Bad films feel fake and constructed, their stories, in some way, untrue. They are easily deemed clunky because they have no harmony about them as a result of a failure to mediate between mimetic and creative processes. That is to say that all films evoke or imitate life and its often abstract components whilst being manipulated and composed by a filmmaker who cannot simply present life, but an aspect of it. Alita, as an example of such a bad film, is clunky specifically because it attempts to compose and manipulate its thematic components too much. Let us take for example its attempt to explore individuation and the finding of one's true self. Not only does the story have to explicitly narrate this process as part of Alita's character arc, but it shows little understanding of what it fundamentally means to change, morph and develop as an individual. The film, in such, is highly conventionalised. For instance, Alita is framed initially as a child of doctor Ido. She eventually rebels against him because she wants to fulfil her potential. We are told this, but we do not feel it. We are told that Alita feels she is drawn to violence, Ido explains why, but there is no rumination on what it means for Alita to have been programmed, to have been thrown off her destined path. With these underlying thematic elements simply narrated, the movie focuses on cute moments and banal representations - such as her teen romance. This is where convention enters the picture. Alita has so many cliched, conventionalised plot beats used to half-assedly evoke theme. She falls in love with a rebel who rides a bike, is complicated, but respects her danger; she is willing to give him her heart; he is the masculine idol, her animus, that drives her toward self and away from the original animus: the father. These ideas are presented conventionally and entirely insipidly. And much of this has to do with the fact that theme is commentated, is raised into the consciousness of the cinematic space, not left to dwell, stir and churn in the unconscious. This is but one issue.
Let us consider the unconscious components of this film: its archetypes. Alita, Ido, her boyfriend, etc are all, fundamentally, elemental energies or components of narratives that are to evoke primordial, deep idea structures in the human mind. Ido and Alita's love interest, as mentioned, are the masculine components of the narrative and, furthermore, are masculine archetypes for the daughter/maiden turned warrior archetype that is Alita. As suggested, there are problems with their construction and presentation on screen that concern conventions that reduce their potential complexity to inanity. But, there is a more pressing and irritating problem here. The filmmakers, and writers in particular, become possessed by their archetypes - especially those that Alita embodies at various stages of the narrative. In becoming possessed by the abstract archetypes of their narrative, the filmmakers attempt to present pristine ideal images or imagos, which explains the incessant and somewhat creepy return to the idea that Alita is an 'angel'. They attached themselves to these imagos as opposed to associating them with a character - which should be more than an idea (or, if they are to only be an idea, let that idea be deep). As a result of this attachment, characters become affective spectacle for the viewer susceptible to possession. Archetypes should grip and transform us, but they should not define us; we should not grip them. Yet this is the intent of character construction in Alita; we are, overtly so and quite off-puttingly, asked to identify and possess character like an overbearing mother smothering an ugly child. This is a risk all writers face when they either write with their--for lack of better terminology--genitalia, or become attached to their work in a queer and unnecessary manner. Possessed by its archetypes, Alita: Battle Angel has no freedom to evoke more than an unattractive relationship between filmmaker and creation. Indeed many films do this. The films of Tarantino are a great example. Some find the relationship between artist and filmmaker fascinating... some not. I don't like Tarantino. I'm going off-track.
Far more could be said about archetype possession, but I believe it has a plain and uncomfortable place in this film. A part of this possession that will lead us to another problem concerns aesthetics. One can feel the attachment between creator and archetype in the constant search for beauty and photogénie. Alita has no photogénie, no morally enhancing images of beauty. The beauty in this film is a reflection of possession, not individuation. And such puts into question the entire aesthetic approach that it takes. Why all the CGI? What is up with the modelling and texturing in particular? This type of criticism is somewhat boring, but Alita: Battle Angel is not a good looking film. The motion and modelling are often jarring and so interrupt the experience of narrative and spectacle. Fight scenes are, at points, enthralling and even unique. But, for every ounce of intrigue is three quarters of an ounce of alienation. The CGI is, simply put, uncanny. The lighting is incredible, but the modelling - textures and physics at times, too - just doesn't work. This has you wondering why this is not a 100% CG world as it is the juxtaposition of human and computer generated cyborgs that emphatically seals the uncanniness of the aesthetic. I could pose this as a rhetorical question, but there is some sense that could be read into this choice of so explicitly distinguishing humans from cyborgs with rather overt CGI. As to formulate a discourse and commentary on identity, discrimination, the Other, post-humanism and trans-humanism, the film aesthetically embraces, even emphasises, the difference between cyborg and human whilst evoking equality and love in the narrative. I have little to make of this; the commentary appears rather silly to me if I'm honest. At best, this formal commentary made me realise I don't want to be in an age where we have to live alongside robots; I would certainly be a bigot who would despair if my child fell in love with a hard body, non-human, freak weirdo.
Let's return to narrative. Emphasised aesthetically is an inability (a conscious refusal) to properly harmonise the composition of reality and unreality within the cinematic space. A similar failure is found in the dramatic construction of the film. Alita is a melodrama, therefore we can expect it to manifest a narrative composed to evoke theme with clear inflections of consciousness. That is to say that melodramas conventionally show an awareness of unconscious material, raising it into the subconscious as to emphatically explore emotional reactions to the basic truths or components of reality. Melodramas garner great success in this management of mimesis and archetypal meaning. However, the greatest trouble of this dramatic mode comes with its constructedness. Melodramas, to a far lesser degree than any other dramatic mode, seek not to replicate reality; rather, provide an impression of specific elements. The risk they run in doing this, however, is constructing a parallel to reality that bears no tangible relation or relevance - which reduces their interface with those components of life that are to formulate the meaning of narrative to innanity. In short, mimesis is undermined by false representation; melodramas can often evoke a view of life that is so far estranged from reality that the drama need be dismissed. Such occurs in Alita. We all understand, at least theoretically, what it means to want to give ones heart away. Yet we also should know that this would not look like what Alita: Battle Angel presents it to be.
Consistently in this film, reality and melodrama do not resonate, mimesis, and therefore, meaning, fails. With no evocation, narrative falls flat; consciousness encroaches upon unconsciousness and all becomes a muddled mess: flat commentary, innane discourse and questionable preaching. This is what is wrong with Alita; Battle Angel. We see this all the time, but Alita is a particularly overt example of the many failures that cinema can produce when the relationship between consciousness and unconsciousness as it related to meaning is not properly managed.
