'Splice' Sucks the Science Out of Science Fiction

This bit of metaphorical business keeps on giving, for the film presses hard on the well-worn connections between sex and birth, sensual desire and freakish ambition.


Director: Vincenzo Natali
Cast: Adrien Brody, Sarah Polley, Delphine Chanéac, Abigail Chu, David Hewlett, Brandon McGibbon
Rated: R
Studio: Warner Bros.
Year: 2009
US date: 2010-06-04 (General release)

Staring into her computer monitor, Elsa (Sarah Polley) sighs at the scrolling message: "Splice unsuccessful splice unsuccessful splice unsuccessful…" Frustrated, she turns to her lab partner and lover Clive (Adrien Brody), who makes the completely right assessment: they've been thinking in circles. How about if they put some jazz on the CD player? And have sex? And voila! When they return to that pulsing screen, the hitch has miraculously disappeared. The splice -- of human and other material -- is done.

And so Splice begins -- with one of those contrivances that suck the science out of science fiction. In fact, this bit of metaphorical business keeps on giving, for the film presses hard on the well-worn connections between sex and birth, sensual desire and freakish ambition. But if Splice is upfront about its lack of originality -- citing King Kong, The Brood, Species, and, um, Jeepers Creepers -- it's also okay with grinding its gears. There's not really a moment here you can't anticipate, but Splice just gets noisier as it goes.

The splice that popped up on the monitor, you know without anyone telling you, is illegal and not approved by the company employing Elsa and Clive (their names homages to the olden-days Frankenstein actors). According to their contract with Newstead Pharma, they're developing non-human tissue blobs as living cell sources. Just as they're directed to come up with a commercial product to justify their experimenting, Elsa realizes a couple of things: they'll never be funded for the "medical breakthrough" she seeks and oh yes, Clive doesn't want kids. Let's just say her clandestine solution doesn’t help either situation.

The splice results in fetusy creature that develops chickeny legs, wide anime eyes, and a tail tipped with a poison stinger. As it develops a clingy-daughter-like personality, Elsa names it Dren (named for the lab where they work, Nuclear Exchange Research and Development/NERD, and played as a digitized child by Abigail Chu and then by Delphine Chanéac) and marvels at its ingenuity, apparent intelligence, and especially, its speedy development, from infant to teen in a matter of days. As she also resists Clive's suggestions that they kill it, the two are drawn into an increasingly disturbing emotional-familial-psychic threeway with Dren: they play parents with alternating inclinations to evaluate and spoil their baby, and Dren plays an ever mutating combination of way-too-smart child, jealous sister, science experiment going very wrong, and object of lust and brute fear, sort of.

At last their secret is discovered -- by Clive's co-worker/brother Gavin (Brandon McGibbon). Theirs is a criminally undeveloped relationship, but it does highlight the film's persistent poking at the idea of family: how it's constituted, what members owe one another, how it assumes structures of loyalty and betrayal, and most importantly, how it establishes and undermines moral orders. For as Dren works its makers' nerves much as any offspring might, it becomes devious, manipulative, and monstrous. That Elsa and Clive don't see this -- or remain willfully blind to the plot emerging in front of them -- they start looking less like brilliant researchers and more like stalker film victims, making one wrong choice after another.

It won't surprise you that one set of these choices is premised on Elsa's bad relationship with her mother. You don't learn abuse details, but by the time she and her new family decide to hide out at the farm where she grew up, it's clear enough that this past affects her profoundly. Now the film turns into something like a psychological study: as Elsa and her man both pretend they're being objective, focused on name-making science and maybe also curing diseases, they're really plunging deep into her family history, her needs, and her own manipulations.

And so, Elsa spends long hours away from her job and with her baby-doll, teaching her to spell (first word: "tedious," as in, her hidden-away life in the barn and, increasingly, her movie) and wear makeup. That is, Elsa's relationship with Dren is now full-on troubling, damaging to both mother and child-project and of course to Clive, who slips into tragic victim mode without much resistance. Splice turns out to be interested in all manner of social perversities passing as norms, from nuclear families to gender prescriptions to the unregulated relationship between research and money. As Elsa turns steely and ballsy (and her science turns stupid), Clive turns feeble and neurasthenic.

Clive's weakness here is frankly pathological, as well as enabling, opportunistic, and not a little dim-witted. When the obvious truth of Dren's genetic material is revealed, Clive's visible shock only underlines that he hasn't been paying attention. "Was this ever about science?" he asks -- at which point you just want to advise him, "Keep up." Both he and Elsa are punished, as much for their obtuseness as for their hubris (and bad science). Her undoing is patently cynical and unclever, set in a dark wood suitable for her Last Girl standing. But if Elsa's punishment is of a piece with Splice's obvious joking throughout -- its other-movie references and cultural critiques, its arrangements of scares, gore, and allusive raillery -- it's also pretty abject. Even as the movie interrogates specious morality, it clings to it too.


So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.