Movies as mythologically informed literature. Cinema Discourse looks at current and classic movies from a literary, and particularly a mythological, point of view.
We also have top movie reviews, current movie reviews, film ratings, movie blogs and movie history.
8th June 2012

On Prometheus

posted in Uncategorized |

Prometheus

A Movie Review

by John David Ebert

There is so much going on in Ridley Scott’s Alien prequel that it is difficult, even for me, to know which angle to approach it from. It is an exceptionally rich film, packed with ideas, and I think it is safe to say that it is also the best science fiction film made in at least fifteen years.

The first thing that strikes one while watching it is that Scott’s handling of science fiction, as originally evidenced by both Alien and Blade Runner, is so effortless that one wonders why he squandered so many years of his career as a filmmaker creating one drab, mediocre movie after the next. This is the genre that he is clearly most at home in, and he never should have given up on it in the first place. Prometheus makes recent science fiction films like Moon, District 9 or Pandorum look like they were made by a tribe of monkeys hammering away at a typewriter trying to create imitations of Shakespearean plays.

The film tells a cosmological tale that describes how life on earth was created by a race of alien beings known enigmatically as the Engineers. As in the cosmology of Rudolf Steiner, in which creation begins with the sacrifice of the bodies of angels whose substance is then woven together to create the astral body of the human being, so too, the film begins with a primordial sacrifice of an Engineer who offers himself to the ancient earth’s rivers, seeding it with his DNA, from out of which the earth’s first microorganisms will arise.

In the film’s present timeline, the crew of the spaceship Prometheus is sent to the moon LV 223  in order to find and communicate with these Engineers who, meanwhile, have created a sort of temple with a cult of genetic engineers who have set about creating the ancestors of the Xenomorphs as weapons which they plan to use in order to wipe out the human race. We are not told why, nor, given the present state of depravity of human life, do we need to be told.

It is, of course, a reworking of the Book of Genesis, in which the angels who descend to teach humanity the arts of civilization are later traded out for the wrath of Yahweh when he changes his mind about his progeny and decides to wipe them out with a Flood.  When, in 1 Enoch, Noah’s ancestor Enoch is taken up into heaven by the angels, he sees the great gates where Yahweh keeps all the floodwaters that he plans to unleash upon humanity, but in the present film, the floodwaters are traded out for serpents as the prototypes of the Xenomorphs. Serpents, as in Indian mythology, are a well-known analogue for water. In Indian myth, they are known as nagas, and they are the enemies of Garuda, the sun bird upon which Vishnu rides and pecks them off one by one. In this film, the spaceship Prometheus is traded out for the Garuda sun bird, which descends from the heavens onto the surface of LV255 as its technologized equivalent, where its crew will then go to war against these new science fiction nagas.

But, of course, the temple in which the Engineers are creating these serpentine Xenomorphs resembles an ancient burial mound, like a Buddhist stupa — itself an adapted and modified kurgan tomb — in which the prototypes of what will later become the eggs of the aliens in the other films are here cannisters that are shaped very much like the ancient Egyptian canopic jars in which the viscera of the bodily organs were kept at the time of mummification. The larval creatures that are kept inside these containers do, indeed, resemble bodily viscera.

So, on one level, the film looks back at, and retrieves the ancient cult of the Elders and their ritualized traditions of death and burial and contrasts it with the electronic technologies of the West’s cult of the Wonder Child, whose miracles in the form of floating, disembodied computer screens and self-luminous sukshma technologies are evident throughout the film. Indeed, it is as though the film were dramatizing the West’s twinge of guilt at tossing the cult of the Elders aside in favor of culturally disintegrative and destructive electronic technologies that have, in the meantime, liquidated traditional culture forms everywhere. The film seems to function as an oracular reminder that the Dead cannot be simply tossed aside, or else, as at Halloween when they don masks and trouble our doorsteps, they will wreak revenge in the form of the various catastrophes which do indeed seem to be surfacing nowadays all around us.

The U-shaped spacecraft of the Engineers which is headed for earth pregnant with seeds of death and destruction should be contrasted with Elizabeth Shaw’s (played by Noomi Rapace) obstetric abortion, who refuses to give birth to one of the nagas. The Engineers who have created a technology that has escaped from their control like the Titans and Asuras out of ancient myth who escape the overcoding of the arborescent systems of the state apparatus which attempts to suppress them (and which always code for multiple ethnicities in ancient myth) should recall to the viewer’s mind a technological system created and given birth to by the West which is now tearing out of the grip of our control and slowly turning against us.

Soon, the Earth, too, will be spawning its own nagas, asuras and Xenomorphs which it will send against us in the form of the various nature disasters that will slowly dismantle the edifice of technological civilization piece by piece, bit by bit. The alien that burst out of the technological exoskeleton that has confined it is a direct parallel with the Earth’s ecosystems that will burst out of the egg of the planetary scale technoskeleton that we have built as an attempt to capture, encode and control it by systems of dominant engineering.

In short, Prometheus captures and compresses the entire history of Western civilization’s technological project, including even dire warnings about its future, into a 2 hour and 4 minute popcorn movie.

I look forward to the sequel.

This entry was posted on Friday, June 8th, 2012 at 9:01 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

There are currently 10 responses to “On Prometheus”

Why not let us know what you think by adding your own comment! Your opinion is as valid as anyone elses, so come on... let us know what you think.

  1. 1 On June 9th, 2012, Larry Nove Mura said:

    Excellent and incredibly insightful (even profound) review of a rare mainstream film that actually has the balls to strive to be a classic. Whether it will ever reach that status we will have to wait and see in years to come. I went to see it in 3D under duress because all my friends wanted to see it in 3D. I have to say, it is the most exhilarating 3D movie experience I’ve ever had. Ridley Scott TRULY gets 3D cinema. Visually breathtaking in every way. And I hate 3D usually!!!

    There are images in Prometheus that rival Caspar David Friedrich in their epic and haunting sublimity. I’ve seen virtually everything at this point in my life in terms of imagery of the fantastique. Nothing really takes me aback in shocked breathlessness like things used to when I was younger anymore (I’m practically “unshockable” at this point), but there are several times in Prometheus where I found my mouth was literally wide-open. And for nothing else (and there are a great many things that are exceptional and unforgettable about the film), this is why Prometheus should be praised and celebrated.

  2. 2 On June 9th, 2012, A Quick Note on the movie Prometheus: Electronic Technologies & Nature’s Flood « Evolutionary Landscapes said:

    [...] haven’t watched Prometheus, but I was inspired to write this after reading John Ebert’s review of the film. Ebert believes that this film perfectly captures the state of the world today. The story retrieves [...]

  3. 3 On June 9th, 2012, admin said:

    I agree with you, Lawrence, that there are moments in this film that are just absolutely awesome. I’m not easy to wow, either, but Scott did an incredible job on this one. Watching it made me feel like I was a kid again in the cinema at the days of its apogee (the 1970s and 80s), when films of this quality were a routine, rather than a rare occurrence. It is a visual masterpiece, if of no other kind, and its use of both CGI effects and 3D technology proves that these kinds of technical apparatuses need not necessarily be detrimental to film as an art form. In the hands of a master like Scott, film can still achieve greatness. I think Lucas, Cameron and Spielberg should watch this film, then sit down and rethink their recent strategies. Avatar was a disaster and Tintin was humdrum, and the less said about Lucas’s recent efforts, the better. Scott still has an extraordinary command of the medium and I can’t wait to see what he does with the Blade Runner prequel.

  4. 4 On June 9th, 2012, David said:

    See Mr. Ebert, the cinema of greatness is not dead as you professed. With such recent films as Melancholia, Drive, Valhalla Rising, Bronson, Antichrist, Moon, and now Prometheus, you are getting reassurance. Although, I don’t share your accolades for this film or Moon, however you do see there is good stuff out there unwatched.

  5. 5 On June 17th, 2012, Bob said:

    First of all, I enjoy your site.
    You don´t know everything there is to know about everything. A sure way to know one is lost is when the universe seems to conspire to make you feel you´re right. Everyone has been dreaming about the apocalypse since forever. I find it so sad that nobody dares to dream about the future outside of say, contemporary art. If humanity becomes obsolete we can just dream up a new structure to carry us towards the future. Past civilizations where more “stable” true, but no more respectful of the environment than us, and no better “morally”, besides, old civilizations could never achieve globalization, they would all regard each other as savages. Also, old people yelling the world´s gone mad and kids theses days are shit with their stupid gadgets is a sad spectacle, it has always been.

    Every single story ever is composed of myth fragments, there are tons of things in the movie that would conflict with your interpretation, you arrange them the idea you when into the theater with. As I said, when you start feeling the world conspires to tell you you´re right, that´s when you know you´re not learning any new tricks. Being an “adult” is perhaps not enough anymore, in this day and age, to cope with the world, knowledge must come to mean something new, something that doesn´t stay still, that may mean humanity will be replaced by monsters, (all hipsters are basically failed monsters that remain pathetically human)
    BUT
    monsters can be sexy as hell! I mean just look at the beautiful bastard at the end of the flick!

    note:I know I sound a bit like a crazy person, I´m not gonna spend time polishing ideas that are difficult to communicate when almost nobody will be reading them.
    You should read rob ager´s site to see someone see a completely different, insanely coherent story behind many of the films you´ve written about.

    http://www.collativelearning.com/FILMS%20reviews%20BY%20ROB%20AGER.html

  6. 6 On July 14th, 2012, Jesse said:

    I hear that this movie was going to be originally called Paradise Lost and its clear to me some of the imagery is inspired from those epic verses. In the poem by Milton, Sin and Death, the former being spawned by Satan and the latter the spawn of Sin ravaged by Satan, appear to me to be the inspiration of the prototype to the xenomorphs.
    The physical description of Sin is “woman to the waist” that has fish tails constantly reforming, while Death is a translucent black figure armed with arrows and darts with crown atop its head. These characters are an allegory of when humanity created sin by defying the one rule decreed by God, and in turn being punished with their removal of immortality.

    In the film the heroine gives birth to a multi tentacled alien monster, which reminds us of the serpent earlier in the film that was called feminine by the crews biologist and fits the description of Sin quite well. This monster later entangles one of the engineers and in a reversal of convention typical in the Alien franchise the feminine beast overpowers and rapes the male engineer. (It was great to see this theme reoccur from the original film.) From the subdued engineer bursts forth the ancestor of the xenomorph, which has very similar physical attributes to Death, its teeth differ from the later xenomorphs and resemble a kind of pointed crown.

    In Paradise Lost, Christianity and traditional western society males are the superior sex, being stronger, smarter and more rational. But as stated before the convention of males being dominant while females submissive, weak and helpless is turned on its head.

    Speaking of heads, maybe some of you can chime in on your thoughts about the reoccuring head imagery in this movie. Its the central image in the story. Its on the movie poster and is at the core of the “stupa”, just as Ahab dwelt at the core of the Pequod and Satan at the core of the Earth in Dante’s Comedy.

    The “head” scene starts when the explorers follow the hologram of a engineer running and tripping in front of the chamber while the door shuts, severing his head. As the android opens the door the camera angle begins low and the viewer is expected to see the alien head to be shown but instead the Olmec like head is revealed first while the camera rises to show it in its full size. Later the heroine collects and even risks her life for the engineer’s head and at the end in a sort of mirrored effect she collects the animate head of the droid to continue her journey and search…The reanimated engineer’s head exploding…the droids head being severed etc…

    Just some of my thoughts on this great film, that like Mr. Ebert said can be looked into many different ways.

  7. 7 On September 30th, 2012, David said:

    Really weak and disappointing film, riddled with cliches, and mediocrity. Say what you will about Scott returning to form but if this is what he has to show for his return then I hope he scratches plans for a Blade Runner sequel.

  8. 8 On December 5th, 2012, Elizabeth said:

    Prometheus is the perfect film.

  9. 9 On December 14th, 2012, Iapetus said:

    It’s clear the allegorical subtext went over your head David, this film is a layered piece of art.

    Prometheus employs a very deliberate, Lovecraftian misanthropy and cynicism that casts ironic and arrogant Scientists as flawed and transient specks in the face of an unfathomable force, indeed, both Milburn and Fifield baulk at each other’s credibility as Scientists thus the point is that a mere credential will not change man’s status as insignificant bacteria teetering on the brink of evisceration. And that is the point with the characters’ dubious actions and mistakes. Such plot devices are set up to demolish the characters anthropocentric delusions of grandeur and render meaningless human society, cultures and belief systems and even man’s Science that is primitive compared to the Engineers; such vagaries are, to quote Lovecraft, an, “emotionally endurable set of illusions” and its these endurable set of illusions that prompt the characters’ hubristic faith in their flawed technology and Shaw’s optimistic interpretation of cave drawings as invitations from benevolent Creators.

    But alas, true to Lovecraftian lore, her naivety is eventually decimated by a pitiless primordial being awoken from a long slumber and a race whose amoral experiments a more essential in the cosmos than the petty exploits and beliefs of mankind. “We were so wrong”, cries Shaw and how wrong they were. Again, to quote Lovecraft, “The humanocentric pose is impossible to me, for I cannot acquire the primitive myopia which magnifies the earth and ignores the background. Pleasure to me is wonder – the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability.” Now that sums up the point of Prometheus in a nut shell; the pitfalls of hubris, the lure of wonder, the unexplained and dangerous irony and it seems to have been lost on those who would rather read the film superficially; in plain defiance of the work’s allegorical vernacular and subtext, thus such a face value reading is little more than superficial overcompensation for a lack of perceptiveness and more thoughtful interpretation and it’s self-evident.

    A good case in point is a review on Stumptown Horror blog; to quote the author, “I saw Prometheus as a warning to hipster culture and the ambivalent mind state of such that generates our current ennui. The trust-fund coddled kid need not ever challenge him/herself, life is merely about the acquisition of experiences without moral complication. Opinions are expressed in a vacuum, and generally the opinion is “meh.” Value is lost when something is given rather than worked for. Watching the actions of our Prometheus characters, I couldn’t help but be reminded of those living in the Golden Age in Arthur C. Clark’s “Childhood’s End” — everyone is free to assume whatever roll they want to play.
    Neitzsche proclaimed God was dead, and now Scott is showing us a future-world in which Science is dead too. These aren’t scientists; they’re well-funded hipster-scientists going through the motions of their craft without actually committing to the work of the scientific method. They are merely doing things because they can. Everyone here in Portland is an unemployed artist/designer/musician simply because they can (and because of food stamps), but no work of quality is resulting from this “creative epicentre.”

    If Prometheus begins in the world of “Science is Dead” it ends in a world where “Money is Dead.” The trust-fund is about to dry up and the hipster finds no tool to define value. Weyland has never failed, he has always had everything he wanted because of money. He can even buy a seat at God’s table to negotiate immortality — but the buck fails. A society that loses all forms of value is a dead one. The Alien that will destroy us all originates in each of us. To quote the end of my Muir-esque review, “eight self-deluding years under a cowboy president came to an end with the promise of hope and change that just turned into more of the same. We tried to care, but now care even less. Prometheus lenses the belief that we were made in the image of our God, where the emotionless android David was made in ours. Prometheus is a product of its time just as much as Alien was, and in this contemporary moment the 70’s trope of science-gone-awry is re-envisioned and warns of our apathy-gone-awry trajectory.”
    Spot on.

    Another good analysis was made by an astute poster on John Kenneth Muir’s blog, to quote, “I’d like to add a thought about a particular contrast in the film that I found cut through much of the cynicism noted by other responders. The figure of Janek, whose name means “God is Gracious”, stands in stark contrast to Weyland particularly and the self-serving or fearful reactions of other parent/child characters. Janek affirms that he will stand up and allow no evil to return to earth. He stands at the bridge grasping a horizontal bar with two thieves/crewmen on either side who were gambling on the outcome of the mission but now stand with Janek. Janek then sacrifices himself to save humankind, in part at the urging of Shaw but within a kind of integrity to good not seen as clearly in any other character. Ridley Scott, or was it Lindelof or Spaihts, then gives Janek the usual roller coaster pop reference to lifting arms as they go over the top, gesturing a crucifixial pose. Could it be that this contrast between Weyland’s selfish, self-seeking purpose in exploration of life human and alien; and the sacrificial act of Janek is meant to point toward transformation, transcendence and even the ultimate purpose and mission overlooked in the other relationships in the film?”

    And to quote John Kenneth Muir, “(Prometheus is) A piece of art that merits deep and close examination, a quality all too often absent from the medium in recent fare. I like too that the main characters in Prometheus are so… well, human. They are clearly competent at their day jobs, but betray many of the desperate flaws inherent to the human condition, and I think that is a necessity for the themes it explores. A crew of high-minded, elite individuals a la Star Trek was not what the film needed, and instead this band are more recognisable and identifiable to us, which I think was important.”

    At the end of the day these are human characters facing an unknowable unknown; an unknown exobiology. There is no “form” or “plot” for that. And if you’re about 240 trillion miles from home facing certain extinction and the extinction of your home, there is no script for that and no professional manual. All of that gets blown away. When that happens, you’re facing ordinary human beings. Navy seals and soldiers train hard several times a day for months to do missions that can last upwards of 45 minutes, sometimes even less than that. Now contrast that with the LV-223 mission where everything is unknown.

    It’s important to stress that Prometheus provides a philosophical look at a privately funded discovery, expedition and colonization of space – as opposed to a government funded NASA example. This is a plot point many are misunderstanding. Ergo, it is exactly the point that the story portrays it as a messy, unethical and unruly enterprise. History has had its fair share of hubristic expeditions that ended in disaster due to incompetent and inexperienced people (though ‘experts’ in their fields) who were hired by suits. A good case in point is the Terra Nova expedition; a member of the ill fated expedition, Cherry-Garrard, was teased by other members for his lack of specialised credentials for the position of assistant zoologist. Note Fifield and Milburn scoffing at each other’s credibility in the film, what do you think Lindelof is trying to imply there? There were suspicions also that Cherry-Garrard had bought his way onto the exploration by contributing a large sum of money to the funds. The fact that Vickers had to raise monies upwards of a trillion dollars, as a suit she obviously relied purely on business over all else.

    Ah, sweet hubris.

    I think the major impetus that follows the human arc all the way through are the events that abolish the notion of progression and advancement, which, you know, is very Lovecraftian. Indeed, God, Science, Morality and Money are dead in Prometheus; to quote Jacques Lacan, “The characteristic of a human being is that – and this is very much in contrast with other animals – he doesn’t know what to do with his shit. He is encumbered by his shit… Civilisation means shit, cloaca maxima”

    Lovecraft was a cold rationalist but he no doubt would have scoffed at the hubristic ambitions of many of today’s Scientists in pursuance of the ultimate ‘theory of everything’. There is an ironically teleological and promethean undercurrent to such a pursuit and ignores Gödel’s incompleteness theorem at its own futility. To quote Carl Sagan in A Demon Haunted Word, “Humans may crave absolute certainty; they may aspire to it; they may pretend, as partisans of certain religions do, to have attained it. But the history of science- by far the most successful claim to knowledge accessible to humans- teaches that the most we can hope for is successive improvement in our understanding, learning from our mistakes, an asymptotic approach to the universe, but with the proviso that absolute certainty will always elude us.”

    It’s interesting to note the relationship between Shaw and her Gods that was a standout feature in the film, signifying perfectly the Problem of Evil. Her transformation from naive, optimistic star-gazer to a harrowed raped orphan screaming angrily at her maker “Why?!” was remarkably executed and it is not only a hallmark moment of the Alien saga among many others but is perhaps the greatest moment in sci-fi along with David’s activation of the orrery since Blade Runner’s greatest moments. Another interesting thought is how Shaw reacts to her unwanted pregnancy and the offspring itself. The engineers/titans/fallen angels, etc, and their motivations can clearly be seen as exactly the same writ large. They could have just wanted to abort what they see as a hideous, unwanted offspring just as much as Shaw wanted to abort her hideous, unwanted offspring.

    Another fantastic element in the film is that we have a ship full of humans who spend their days and nights badmouthing an android for not having a soul. Later, they discover that these possible originators of human life have nothing but contempt for humanity! I mean it really doesn’t get much cleverer than that and I’ll defend Lindelof to the grave for such ingenuity that has clearly been wasted on more myopic viewers.

    The Titans in Greek myth were giants just like the offspring of the Watchers; again to quote Boyd Rice’s research for I cannot put it better, (emphasis mine) “When the primordial god Ouranos (a permutation of Oannes) had an incestuous liaison with his mother, Gaia, she gave birth to twelve giants, the Titans. When the powerful race of Titans rebelled against the authority of the parental gods, Zeus cast them into the abyss, imprisoning them in the underworld. Ouranos may be connected with the idea of the ouroburos, the watery Leviathan … And the Titans were obviously connected with the Tritons, a race of gods spawned by Poseidon and Amphitrite. Rather than being giants, the Tritons were hybrid fish-men.” Note the aquatic features of the final Engineer; he and his kin can be seen as amalgams of Titans, Tritons and Giants.

    “In Plato’s Critias, it is evident that the Titans and the Tritons are one and the same. They are the offspring of Poseidon and a mortal woman, and are giants. The story told is very much that of the Watchers, with a key difference. Here it is the human element of their nature that leads to their corruption and downfall.“

    In short, humanities ancestors were more like the Engineers in nature and appearance, but over time their primitive humanity won out but being descendants of both human and Titan/Giant, etc, humans still possess characteristics of the Gods; the prime example in the film is Peter Weyland.

    Indeed, to quote Plato’s Critias, “For many generations, as long as the divine nature lasted in them, they were obedient to the laws, and well-affectioned toward the gods, who were their kinsmen…but when the divine portion began to fade away in them, and became diluted too often, and with too much of the mortal admixture…human nature got the upper hand, then, they being unable to bear their fortune, became unseemly, and to him who had eyes to see, they began to appear base, and had lost the fairest of the most precious gifts; but to those who had no eye to see the true happiness, they still appeared glorious and blessed at the very time when they were filled with unrighteous avarice and power. Zeus, the god of gods, who rules with law, and is able to see into such things, perceiving that an honorable race was in a most wretched state, and wanting to inflict punishment on them, that they might be chastened or improved…”

    As we can see there are many variations of mythological stories, in Plato’s Critias we can see that Zeus didn’t want to wipe out the Titans’ offspring on earth (man) but he wanted to see them “chastened and improved.” As Rice puts it, “…their sin was due not to any wilful rebellion against God (or the gods), but was a byproduct of miscegenation with humans (note the DNA paternity test in the film); which led to their divine nature being overshadowed by the human.”

    If your understanding of the film has not been contextualised by now you really have no hope. Again, it’s called Prometheus for a reason.

  10. 10 On February 3rd, 2013, Steve Wiberg said:

    Hello.

    I was surprised you did not mention the the character “David” in your analysis of the film, especially after you mentioned the West’s Cult of the Wonder-child, because a lot of the themes of the movie are built up around him and David fits the bill of a wonder-child (he is the precocious and marvelous son of the aged technocrat Weyland). David idealizes man, just as the humans idealize the engineers. By examining David’s character in the film we can see where humanity gets it wrong.

    We meet David admiring and pretending to be Lawrence of Arabia after watching the scene wherein Lawrence and his companions are mesmerized by the fire of the lit match that Lawrence rashly lets burn down to his fingers. David is fascinated by man who is fascinated by technology via Thomas’s Promethean match. Thomas lets himself be burned out of pride, and the child-like David cannot see the allegorical meaning here, unrestrained technology is damaging, because he is overawed with fascination and admiration for Lawrence’s powerful will over himself and the elements. Because this lesson is ignored, David (Technology) eventually betrays Charlie Holloway (Man) by transforming him into a rampaging monster that needs to be killed.

    Despite this act of betrayal, David still seems to be a positive character. He is loyal to his father Weyland and seems to express a genuine love for him. And after his ability to move of his own accord is removed through destruction of his body, Shaw, who had previously aborted David’s technological miracle-monstrosity, places his severed head into her bag. This is a sort of pregnancy without vulnerability. David who had previously represented technology’s ambiguity with both good and bad parts, who had been free to do what he wished, has been reduced to just a talking head and is now completely at the mercy of Shaw. Technology has been relegated to its proper place, and this enables Shaw have mastery of the gods own chariot and complete her spiritual quest.

    After the apocalyptic end we are teased with a reminder of the dangers of unrestrained technology. A xenomorph emerges from the corpse of the engineer. The engineer who had initially seemed a benevolent creator god-man, but who had succumbed to the death impulses of technology, and who had been waiting for naive humans blinded to the potential evils of progress by their own desires for immortality since the beginning of history in his temple-necropolis to reveal to them the destiny of those who do not control their technological creations– Death.

    Your analysis mid-wived this idea, so I thought I would post.

Leave a Reply

     

    CLICK-FOR-CULTURAL-DISCOURSE

     

    Click here to access Creativity Discourse

    For more John Ebert books and lectures...Get it on Google Play

     

    Contribute

     

    Catastrophe book cover

     

    newMedia-book

     

    CELEBS-ICONS-book

     

    Ebert books
  • Archives