Cancel Culture Sets its Sights on 1979 Film “Alien”

Everyone remembers being scared out of their seats in 1979 when one by one, the crew of a spaceship got picked off by a monstrous alien in Ridley Scott’s “Alien”.  But upon a closer look by many scholars and politicians today, the film is set to be the next target of cancel culture.  The chief argument is that the monster depicted in the film is never given a chance to be tamed.  With the exception of the first victim (who is unceremoniously killed and allegedly eaten by the monster), each time the monster is around, all the humans want to do it cause it harm.  Cattle prod?  Check.  Flame thrower?  Check.  Harpoon?  Check. It is never given a chance to make contact.  It can be forgiven that it attacked and killed the first crewmember Brett, as it had never seen another living thing.  Plus, it was likely starving.  But once it had a full meal, there was never an attempt at contact with the creature.  Its been argued that this illustrates the clear intention to show man’s dominance over animals.

But far beyond that, and any animal issues notwithstanding, Professor Cloe Les of the University of Berkeley in Georgia goes further with several racial undertones that in her mind, are a clear attempt at subtle and offensive stabs at racial inequality.  “Its sad that it has taken this long, I mean the film is over 40 years old, and to now see some of its true and dark intentions.”  Les goes on to explain the very purposeful use of an African American character in the film (portrayed by Yaphet Kotto). “One by one, guess who gets killed by the monster?  White people.  Scott [the director] chose to have the African American be the last human killed by the alien.  Why is that?  This is a clear and intentional call back to the early 60s, when African Americans were forced to sit in the back of the bus”. She goes on to suggest that with Kotto being last to die (which is arguably incorrect if one sees the female Lambert as the last one to die), is a parallel to the bus rules back then.  “Its all about ‘lasts’,” she postulates.

“And it gets worse,” an ex-20th Century Fox executive adds (who has asked to remain anonymous). “The last to die is the black guy, right?  We all know that.  But then the alien completely and purposefully bypasses the cat.  The cat!  It couldn’t be more obvious that the filmmakers of this trash were suggesting that a cat - a cat- is more worth keeping around than an African American.”   So the cat is allowed to live. He theorizes that this is a clear suggestion that African Americans are a lower form of life than animals.  “That’s right - not only the cat, but the alien itself outlive the Kotto character.” 

Jonathan Tuttle, of the Scarsgood Examiner, takes it a step further. “Is it a coincidence, or was Donald Trump already known about in 1979?  Is it a coincidence that the cat in the film is orange?”  This aspect of this film’s analysis arguably goes beyond rationality in most people’s eyes.  But it was said, and is merely being reported here. “Not only is the cat orange,” Tuttle goes on, “but a cat doesn’t get any closer to white, unless it is actually white, than orange. This is either the filmmakers being aware of this dangerous man and his hopes way back then, to one day be president -  and clearly a conservative hope that he would be since it survives in the film -  or, its another white (or almost white) entity with dominance over minorities in America - or in space no less.  Its truly white take-over universally, not just on earth.”

All the scholars and individuals in this article in one way or another, believe the film is outwardly racist, and contains racial over and under tones that cannot be denied, and must join the ranks of the likes of the Muppets and Mr. Potato Head. Possible bans on stores and online outlets carrying the DVD and Bluray are forthcoming.