Somehow, Ash is Back: How Rook Ruins ‘Alien: Romulus’
In 1977, Ridley Scott was ready to make his next feature film prior to the festival debut of The Duellists. Initially, he planned to make another historical epic until he was inspired by Star Wars. He was invigorated by Lucas’ bold vision, pushing himself away from the well-trodden territory of history. A week after his transcendent theater trip, he was offered Alien. He accepted with Star Wars in mind, seeing this endeavor as an opportunity to enrich the long forgotten genre Lucas had just revitalized. He did not think it was a complete parallel, however, due to Alien’s bleak setting (Nashawty, 2024, para. 9–11). And if Star Wars brought life to the sci-fi adventure genre, Alien resuscitated the sci-fi horror genre after its decades-long coma, all while subverting its typical pro-capitalist themes.
The alien horror (or more commonly described as the ‘alien invasion’) genre, in particular, was stagnant since the 1950s. In that era, the invasion film reflected anti-communist fears to varying degrees and with few exceptions. Whether they were invisible body snatchers or little green men, aliens were framed as brainwashing deviants out to take the American dream away. The threat of conformity compounded with impending loss of monetary gains, frightening even the white men who were to save the day. Said loss was implied sometimes through world domination plots, but often through the very concept of destruction of American towns, as the towns were understood as the product of capitalism itself. Said implication was reinforced by the protagonist’s dedication to saving his fellow Americans — which was only achieved through keeping to individualist values. Said values were seen as the direct result of capitalist prosperity, thus defining protagonists by their work.
Whether it was Promethean scientists or the general practitioner of Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), the male lead saved the day through his identity within the capitalist system, implying that capitalism shapes heroes. This propagandistic thesis was strengthened by their pro-individualist speeches which equated the loss of American capitalist culture to loss of identity, putting the audience member at risk. The goal of the invasion film, then, was to use the fantastical genre to reassert capitalist values while framing communism in broad, malicious terms. An attack on capitalism was an attack on the audience. Alien subverted this philosophy not only through including corporate critique but by repositioning the role of the worker and capitalist representative.
I won’t delve too deep into Ripley (Sigourney Weaver), as her relationship to Ash (Ian Holm) and capitalist critique is worthy of its own analysis (of which I am currently writing for my thesis project). What should be noted, however, is Ripley is a unique hero not only for her gender. Most analysis of Ripley has focused upon the gender-blind casting, and the assumption that said choice is a primary distinctive factor in her popularity. It is possible Alien wouldn’t be the phenomenon that it is without Sigourney Weaver’s presence, but I find this assumption typically overshadows analysis of Ripley’s overall construction. Even if Ripley were Eleanor instead of Ellen, the character would still speak to anti-capitalist critique, given how Ripley rises as a hero.
While the natural villain of Alien, Ash, speaks for the corporation as its android representative, Ripley fights for the safety of her crew. Ripley may not be the explicit labor rights advocate that Parker (Yaphet Kotto) is, but her tactical choices are made under a logical deduction of which situation will lead to the least amount of harm to her co-workers. Given the directive of Special Order 937 (wherein the company declares the crew as expendable), her actions go directly against Weyland-Yutani, leading to the finale where she even destroys their most valuable asset: the Nostromo. And through each of these actions, she pushes against Ash, using her wit against his inhuman intelligence.
On the emotional spectrum of Alien, Ash is cold, uncaring, while Ripley’s stoic demeanor is betrayed by her careful logic. The logic of the corporation is directly compared to human logic, which can be governed by empathy. The logic of the corporation can only be directed through artificial intelligence rather than human intelligence. Ripley and Dallas take the company’s orders but they were denied the special order, as their conscience would betray them. Even if excluded from the expendable crew, it is continually proven that Ripley and Dallas, despite philosophical differences, consider the value of their crew over corporate profit. Meanwhile, Ash is excluded from emotions and thus only available to take corporate orders.
In 2024, it is nearly impossible to not see a connection between AI and Ash’s construction. Working in the humanities, I have primarily seen it take over writing and art. Yes, I’ve been bombarded with the ugliest Thomas Kincaide rip-offs on Twitter. But there has been a slow, yet steady rise in AI usage in film, even from major studios with Disney as a primary culprit. It isn’t just the Musk reply guys anymore. Now, Disney is using AI in their films often to replace actors. Their deployment started with the Disney+ original Prom Pact, wherein many background actors were lifeless dolls created by AI. There was outrage, but primarily jokes directed at the absurdity of a Sims character clapping alongside human beings. Still, audience reaction wasn’t enough to stop their recent AI task force (Chmielewski, D. and Hu, K., 2023) as evidenced by the reanimation of Ian Holm in Alien: Romulus.
Once again, Alien finds itself sharing a genre with Star Wars. Well, maybe not a genre but certainly odd cinematic similarities. In the Disney-approved, though wonderfully gory, Alien: Romulus, the new crew of survivors endure a xenomorph attack not dissimilar from the original. A white woman with androgynous qualities is our primary hero. Throughout the film she fights with the aim to save her fellow crewmates. The crew here is a group of scavengers rather than Weyland-Yutani workers. But, they respond to the crisis as the crew members of the original, with unique knowledge of equipment as a result of their individual jobs. A few changes to the cast are made such as the inclusion of a pregnant woman (the fourth pregnancy in the series) and a mentally defective, Black droid. I will focus more on Andy (David Jonsson), the droid, as his role is fairly pivotal in my issues with Alien: Romulus. The pregnancy, while notable, I will likely save for another time given how much there is to say which I don’t have space for here. Regardless, the cast is diversified to the point that one may be fooled into thinking the film is presenting a fresh, new vision. The only clear repetition is a Ripley look-a-like, Rain (Cailee Spaeny) which is not unique for the series, but a glaring issue nonetheless. And it primarily does provide a new vision of Weyland-Yutani and its impact, showing the severe poverty of colonists and the prison-like environment they work in. But these glimpses of fascinating implications are abandoned for a nostalgic return once the crew finds a sinister android.
After battling a hoard of facehuggers, the crew discovers they need android access to escape xenomorph-infested rooms. Scrambling for a solution, Rain and Navarro (Aileen Wu) discover a mutilated android body. Once turned around and rebooted, the android bears a familiar, if digitally altered, face. The image of Ian Holm is crafted upon this droid, reminding the audience of the original villain. Ash returns visually and even through the artificial performance though narratively, he is named ‘Rook’. The name is its own easter egg, lovingly pairing with Aliens’ positive droid representation: Bishop. Throughout his characterization, Rook acts as a remnant of the original and its popular sequel, rather than ever becoming his own unique character. Like Ash, he is the more approachable voice of Weyland-Yutani. His motivations are the company’s motivations which are, again, wrapped up in scientific research in the name of potential profit. And said goal is only attainable if the humans are expendable. Alien: Romulus has no ‘Special Order 937’ but Rook’s stated mission and his modus operandi are virtually identical to those of Ash’s. This similarity is clear on a pure narrative level, even if a human actor was used in place of Holm’s reanimated performance. But with the AI usage, Alien: Romulus’ uninspired nostalgia heralds a dark future for film.
Of course, this isn’t the first time Disney has resurrected an actor for a science fiction franchise. Rogue One was the debut of this trend as Peter Cushing was revived to make a brief cameo as Grand Moff Tarkin. Special effects were also used to recreate a young Princess Leia (though it was made before Carrie Fisher passed away). These decisions did not escape criticism as many worried about the breach of consent given the consenting party is not alive. Still, both scenes are short enough to wave away as an odd experiment, ridiculed enough to dissipate. This attitude quickly shifted into annoyance as Disney tried and tried again, with each attempt taking more space in the narrative than the last.
Oddly, it has primarily been in the realm of Star Wars, with the Disney+ original, The Mandalorian acting as a CGI training ground, primarily with de-aging technology. I haven’t watched the show since the first season so I can’t speak to the quality. Rather, I think the progression should be noted. Disney slowly integrates technology to test the waters. It started with Cushing’s CGI reanimation, then they backed up with a focus on de-aging. And with new AI technology, they jumped into the murky waters with Ian Holm’s reanimation. The difference is that CGI does not have many inherent moral issues attached to it while AI has a plethora of ethical dilemmas attached to it such as job replacement, environmental impact, privacy breaches, and corporate accountability.
I will not overly focus on the many issues of AI as they are worthy of their own essays. Rather, I want to focus on the issues of Disney’s deployment of the technology. To begin with, I will always maintain that there are ethical issues with reanimating dead actors for the above stated reason. Yes, their estate may agree but estates often agree to unethical choices due to financial incentives. But renanimation is not reliant upon AI technology. AI brings its own set of ethics, specifically regarding actors. AI can generate scenes for marginally less work than it takes to work with a human actor, meaning that corporations do not have to deal with the liability that comes with humans. AI cannot be injured. It cannot stall filming by being difficult. It takes direction seemingly easily. It cannot strike. AI is perfect for corporations as it can generate content quickly while not causing any of the problems a worker can. Just as Ash and Rook can’t disobey Weyland-Yutani’s orders, neither can AI Ian Holm. AI actors are blank slates that do the company’s bidding with no question asked, even becoming an example of Disney’s technological prowess. AI images become a representative for a company and it is telling that the first test of such a representative is with basically a recreation of Ash.
It is certainly an ironic accident but Rook’s composition speaks to the artistic failures of AI. Rook is composed as a young version of Ian Holm, even younger than Holm was in the original production. His wrinkles only appear through his anger, basic skin follicles are erased. His skin is as smooth as that of the young cast of twenty-year-olds. But his basic facial features do not follow this line of perfection. As he speaks, his eyes slightly change placement on his face, with his mouth following in contortion. It may not be as unbelievably absurd as Facebook AI slop, but the basic misunderstanding of human components continues as the AI is made to ‘act’. Through this (mis)understanding, Rook’s facial expressions are not only oddly composed but they are overacted. He overemphasizes facial expressions as a poor stage actor would. The AI program overcompensates through this performance, adhering to the uncanny valley that the mind already imagines. Even if I hadn’t been bombarded with news articles on this chronicle, I imagine I would notice this wasn’t a simple CGI recreation like Rogue One due to such subtle but noticeable issues which are specific to AI technology.
While I have my own ethical issues with AI, it isn’t the entirety of the issue with Rook’s character. Fede Alvarez could’ve deployed more ethical CGI or even made a new character who also acted like Ash and the narrative issue would remain. Not only is Rook a tired recreation of Ash. As noted, he has a repeated motivation and villain arc. But his transferred consciousness, and thus personality, on Andy reduces Andy from an interesting new take on the android into another Ash replica. Andy has potential, being the first Black and the first explicitly ‘defective’ droid in the Alien series.
His ‘defective’ status is represented not through physical deterioration but through a neurodivergent performance. He is slow to understand human requests. He doesn’t understand human social cues without blunt instructions. Actor David Jonsson generally deploys a confused performance when Andy is acting as he is. I don’t take issue with this choice. The cyborg as a concept has a deep history with disability politics (see Chapter 5 of Alison Kafer’s Feminist, Queer, Crip) but mainstream sci-fi cinema has rarely taken the opportunity to explore these connections. The Alien series is even a great place for this exploration, given the androids primary role as workers. To explore the disabled cyborg under Weyland-Yutani policy can speak to the discrimination of disabled workers. The casting of a Black man similarly can speak to these issues, particularly as Black disabled life is as, if not more, unexplored as the disabled cyborg. But Andy does not act as a site of exploration as his character is fairly reductive.
Andy is introduced as Rain’s companion. Their relationship is implied to be familial as she is protective of him in their initial interactions. But this implicit relationship dissolves as he is revealed to be her ‘protector’. Before her father’s passing, his father coded Andy to always protect Rain at all costs, while keeping her ‘happiness’ in line. His personality is then completely tied to Rain’s fulfillment. His every action is dependent upon her reaction. He is kneecapped as a character as he does not have space to explore who he is outside of his relationship to her. The script does not help as he only every narratively exists with her father’s coding or the chip from Rook, meaning when he is ‘himself’, he takes on this dependent role. When he is overtaken by Rook’s motivations, he takes on Rook’s personality, essentially taking on the personality of Ash. When Andy’s race is taken into account for this poor writing, it becomes even messier.
Making a Black character dependent on another, non-Black character will always have racist implications. American cinema in particular has a sordid history of only using Black characters to uplift the narratives of white characters whether that is in an interracial romance that favors the white partner, the often-used ‘Black best friend’, or a servant character who gives sage advice to their (often white women) bosses. Alien: Romulus is careful to avoid these comparisons as Rain is soft and kind to Andy. She even calls him her brother and treats him like family. Her own motivation is centered on her survival and Andy’s safety. Linguistically, their relationship is continually explained as a friendship, but one that was encoded. The implication remains, however, as Andy does not have motivation or a narrative justification for his existence beyond his dedication to a white woman character. This relationship also impedes his development as his ‘defective’ status, his identity as a discarded droid, even his relationship to her beyond the coding, is abandoned either to reinforce their vague dynamic which ultimately favors her perspective or display his evil side as he basically becomes Ash.
As mentioned, Ash’s chip is inserted to Andy’s body. Over multiple scenes, he changes his usual bubbly personality is traded for a brooding one. He is hyperfocused on Rook’s mission, meaning he accepts that the other humans are expendable. With this new motivation, David Jonsson changes his performance. Andy no longer seems confused. But he is also not careful in his interactions with the humans. Rather than struggling to follow social cues, he abandons all want to adhere to them. All that matters is the collection of data which is only able to happen with the sacrifice of humans. Rain is still spared but her friends become lambs to the slaughter. But it is difficult to tell if she is spared for plot convenience or his emotional attachment as he is never established as a distinct character. Again, his motivations are dependent on other character’s motivations which is worsened by the attachment to and existence of Rook who has the motivations of Ash. Both Rook and Andy become shells of a former character, impeding a real personality for either and harming the film itself.
I do not think Alien: Romulus is devoid of artistic merit. The special effects, cinematography, and pacing is incredible. I was particularly in awe of the final act which improved upon a major plot point in the worst of the series: Alien: Resurrection. But it lacks a personality as it recycles other concepts within the series. There were many Easter eggs I noticed, and that Alvarez has sold the film on. At a certain point, characters and entire plots start to feel like quick, easy, clickbait-able Easter eggs. I don’t care about Alien because I am obsessed with Ash or must see a hundred different white women dressed like Ripley. I love its themes. I love what Ridley Scott, James Cameron, and even David Fincher had to say about gender, capitalism, race, etc., whether intentional or not. Even when those films get messy at least I have something to grab onto. Alien: Romulus is a dull recreation as it recreates the series’ greatest hits without any exploration.
References
Adams, A. (Director). (2023). Prom Pact [Film]. Disney Channel.
Alvarez, F. (Director). (2024). Alien: Romulus [Film]. Brandywine Productions.
Cameron, J. (Director). (1986). Aliens [Film]. Brandywine Productions.
Chmielewski, D, and Hu. K. (2023, August 10). Disney creates task force to explore AI and cut
costs — sources. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/technology/disney-creates-task-force-explore-ai-cut-costs-sources-2023-08-08/
Edwards, G. (Director). (2016). Rogue One [Film]. Lucasfilm.
Favreau, J., Kennedy, K., Filoni, D., Wilson, C., Gilchrist, K., and Famuyiwa, R. (Executive
Producers). (2019-) The Mandalorian [TV Series]. Lucasfilm.
Fincher, D. (Director). (1993) Alien 3 [Film]. Brandywine Productions.
Kafer, A. (2013). Feminist, Queer, Crip. Indiana University Press.
Lucas, G. (Director). (1977). Star Wars [Film]. 20th Century Studios.
Nashawaty, C. (2024, July 30). The Untold Story of How Ridley Scott Saw ‘Star Wars’ — and
Ended Up Making ‘Alien’. Wired.
https://www.wired.com/story/the-untold-story-of-how-ridley-scott-saw-star-wars-and-end
ed-up-making-alien-and-blade-runner/.
Scott, R. (Director). (1979). Alien [Film]. Brandywine Productions.
Scott, R. (Director). (1977). The Duellists [Film]. Paramount Pictures.
Siegel, D. (Director). (1956). Invasion of the Body Snatchers [Film]. Paramount Pictures.
