Abe, this sounds an awful lot like “if someone says he does not like this movie, that means he doesn’t understand it.”
You don’t seem to allow for the possibility that someone can understand the movie and still not like it. This makes you come off as quite arrogant (though not as arrogant as kingpengvin’sJust admit you don’t like movies that actually take the time to make you think without flashy explosions and people dying every 5 seconds. :rolleyes:.)
I have found this attitude to be quite pervasive among so-called "film-buffs’; that taste in movies is a good barometer of intelligence, when in fact it’s one of the worst. It pisses me off to no end. It’s been said a thousand times before, “there’s no accounting for taste”, and you don’t seem to acknowledge that it is in fact possibly to both understand Blade Runner and dislike it. The people who hate it are not all drooling morons who only like movies with lots of explosions to because of “the purdy colors”.
If I have misread you I apologize, but you really do come across as a Vile Elitist Film-Snob [sup]TM[/sup].
You have indeed misread. It’s not a matter of liking the movie, an issue which I never raised one way or another. The whole question of “liking” or “not liking” is rather irrelevant to formal narrative criticism because films are judged primarily on their merits and qualities, not on the kind of unsupported opinion we have seen aired in at most a few lines (try going on mainly about how much you liked or disliked the movie in your next Film Class paper and see how far that gets you). Frankly you can like or dislike Blade Runner as you wish, but I don’t see what could entitle one to make a “snap judgement” about a movie (“this sucks”, etc.) when one has failed to understand it even on a fairly basic level. Anyone approaching Blade Runner as an action flick, for example, may be deeply disappointed and may come away thinking it’s boring or pretentious, as we have read from some posters. On the other hand I can only respect someone who has made the effort to understand a work and then decides that he/she does not like it. Such people usually have sturdier phrases in their critical repertoire than “blowz chunkz” or “this sucks”.
I repeat: “I do not understand this film” does not equal “this sucks”. Rather than nitpicking at me for no solid reason, you should instead consider the high volume of such “snap judgements”, and consider the advisability of blasting movies on which one has little understanding.
Particularly a remarkable film like Blade Runner, which is still generating interest and debate after 20 years.
Said all that, lack of comprehension is often a crucial factor in forming an opinion of a work. It is of course wrong to assume that someone who doesn’t like difficult film X must necessarily lack understanding of it, but it is a distinct possibility (but not grounds to make the leap from “you didn’t like it” to “you didn’t understand it” unless the person in question actually says both; in that case it is reasonable to consider that the dislike of the work may arise from a lack of understanding).
I am really not interested in providing little clauses throughout my prose so that everyone who reads it is 100% unable to misinterpret it. The words are there and they already have meaning without ascribing them more. I reject the notion that I have ever stated or implied that not liking equals not understanding; that has been others’ contribution to my words.
And I think Kingpengvin nailed it by mocking the phenomenon of low attention span/high stimulus required when it comes to Holliwood movies. I did not have to assume that he was referring to all people who dislike Blade Runner, but merely to the trend of not watching or appreciating films lacking frequent action or lots of gunfire/explosions just because the films lack such elements (but are otherwise perfectly good movies). Ultimately, of course, whether one likes or dislikes a movie that one understands depends on taste.
Further, “I did not like this film” does not equal “this film sucks”. The latter is going to require some very strong arguments in its support, whereas the former is able to stand alone (unfortunately for Cafe Society).
Where are you getting this from? Anyone who understands anything about film also understands that the above is bunk. Only a moron would equate taste with intelligence, and I doubt it would be any sort of authority on film since this is one of the first thing they teach you not just in film, but in pretty much any narrative field.
Your assessment is based on a meaning I never even thought of putting into my posts. It sounds to me more like you are concerned about some intrinsic evil of elitism itself than anything else. Back in high school the students who were actually able to discuss Shakespeare intelligently (whether or not they liked it) were also called “elitist” by the rest; I don’t see much difference between that and your accusation, particularly when I have gone to great lengths to explain my belief that everyone should approach a film actively and build up his or her own opinion of it. And it’s only logical that if someone wishes to discuss his or her opinion of a film, it must be supported, otherwise the words have no meaning. That is part of what I have been going on about, and getting attacked for.
And, on a side topic, is elitism really the bad word the masses make it out to be? In this case it seems to me the word means nothing more than reliance on authorities within the field. Sure, reliance on authority has its own problems, but some people treat elitism like it’s a good reason to go on a whitchhunt. I don’t see that Elitism is necessarily wrong, or even bad.
Congratulations, SmackFu, for being the first to post in this thread what is probably the single most occurring line across the SDMB. Yes, it is a word, and it is precisely the opposite of “pretentious vocab”. It means “shit” and it’s not in the dictionary because it’s not Engish (but it sounds better).
Anthracite, that phrase (and some others in my post) was not meant completely seriously! The alliteration in conjunction with the rather extreme (hyperbolical) self-righteous tone ought to have signalled humour. This being the Pit, and this being an attack against me, overall I think I have responded to Yondan’s baseless accusations quite well. I made the (humorous) case of the “insolent ingrate” because, regardless of his current attempts at revision, Yondan did ask for clarification, and when I made the effort to provide it he blasted me for being condescending (a rather simple word the meaning of which I would wager eludes great part of its users).
But you are right about the rest of your post. Still, I’m being accused of something here, something that seems to reside primarily in the accuser’s mind, so I have to try to disabuse the accuser.
Another recurring line on these boards. Seriously, what is it supposed to mean?
As for this, Yondan
Let me explain something, you viscid vermicular varmint: I never “weenie” out of original or other positions (unlike you it seems). If I change my position I will inform you of it and be thankful that this “discussion” is over.
Yondan is unhappy because I said things such as:
Well, at the very least I can see why you went off on such a tangent back when I was discussing the film (although you contributed practically nothing to that discussion except for accusing me the moment I posted and since then). Next time, however, I suggest you refrain from drawing conclusions on such weak evidence as the above. That’s because
SPOILERS AHEAD UNTIL END OF POST
the Unicorn Scene in Blade Runner is important whether you accept its implications or not. There are people who maintain that Deckard is not a Replicant, and who are able to support their arguments based on various points.
Those people invariably offer justification for the Unicorn Scene, meaning that even if you don’t subscribe to the view that Deckard is a Replicant, the scene is considered important and must be otherwise accounted for (as a childhood dream, for example). No one is asking you to accept that Deckard-Replicant is the ONLY possible way; but you don’t have too much choice about the Unicorn Scene because it is truly an important part of the Director’s Cut (whether you like it and what it implies or not, and many people neither like it nor accept its implications–although see below on Scott’s revelation).
Why assume that one instance of possibly ambiguous meaning on my part must take precedence over several instances of clearly stated intent?
Moving on, I also said that the “final answer” to the Unicorn Scene was made public a couple of years ago; apparently that was cause for Yondan-complaint. You really are grasping at straws here, Yondan, or perhaps you truly do not know the subject. The director of the film, Ridley Scott, came out in 2000 and confirmed that, yes, Deckard IS a Replicant, and that is why he had the implanted Unicorn dream (c.f. Rachel’s implanted memory of the spider) and that is why Gaff indicated he knew about the vision (and hence about Deckard’s nature) through his strategic placement of origami.
Personally I much prefer the ambiguity of leaving the question open to discussion, and there is a discussion on this going on in the original Cafe thread.
Do you wish to dispute that “final answer” in the sense I used above was perfectly appropriate for the discussion? If the director of a movie says that’s what the answer is, there’s nothing wrong with referring to that as the final answer to the riddle, since the director is the ultimate authority and word on the film.
One time in Montreal I had the chance to meet and hang out with Lenny Kravitz. I remember the experience particularly well because a friend I was with became involved in a deep conversation with him over one of his songs. My friend asked Lenny whether the song was happy or sad, and Lenny patiently explained that it was a sad song about this and that. My friend then went on to explain to Lenny that the song was in fact happy, while Lenny patiently tried to explain that no, it wasn’t, it was truly a sad song and he ought to know since he was the performer and writer of the song in question. This went on for a little while before Lenny became cross and, unsurprisingly, developed a rather negative opinion of my friend, who was by no means a giant of intellect. Well, railing against Scott’s solution to Blade Runner strikes me as a similar thing whether you like the idea of final answers or not. Scott is THE guy who ought to know after all, although the “Deckard is a genuine human” school of thought has been established for so long that it is still possible to view the fairly ambiguous movie either way and draw pleasure from it each time if you like the film. A “final answer” in this case, however, does exist and has been provided by the director himself.
At last something concrete. Your objection is noted, but I have to raise once again the possibility of your own threatened authority or bruised ego (something that is supported by your unimaginative “head in the ionosphere” tirade). Like it or not, people are not equal, and people are most certainly not equally informed. As I already said, both the specific subject matter discussed and the approach (narrative criticism) may have been difficult or obscure for some posters. I have already demonstrated earlier that your objections about me coming in as some sort of ultimate authority are without grounds. Now I would like to add that there is nothing wrong with covering the basics and/or making sure that the majority of readers (not just those versed in a specific topic) are able to access a post easily and simply, and are able to come away from it having learned something new if they weren’t already familiar with the details of the post.
It happens in Great Debates and General Questions all the time, and you don’t hear people whining about “assuming the role and technique of a teacher” when explaining or debating basic or advanced concepts – in fact people are grateful for the level of information and the edifying approach.
If you thought the material I was covering was too basic, then keep quiet about it and get on with the rest of the post. If you thought the material was wrong, then post your objections. If you thought the material was difficult or unclear, ask for clarification (which you actually did, so good on you). As I said, if you perceived I was talking down to anyone, such was not the case. However, I have no illusions of false modesty: on the specific topic of Blade Runner and the narrative arts in general I am better informed than the average person; the question then becomes how to express myself in the most comprehensible manner while making the post accessible to the broad spectrum of readers who will be its audience. While I recognize that there are people better informed than I am, who will have no problem following advanced discussions, I also know there are a lot more who are not completely familiar with the concepts involved, and who may lack an understanding of (or be a bit rusty with) the premises of a discussion. So, what is wrong with covering some of the basics of narrative appreciation, such as approaching films actively, etc.?
You seem to resent such an approach. Should I have skipped the basics in how to watch a film like Blade Runner seriously? That’s hardly fighting ignorance, and seems rather arrogant (because I would have to assume everyone else will be able to follow the argument regardless of its accessibility). Perhaps the idea of a forum dedicated to the Arts has misled you into assuming an “it’s all relative” and “every opinion is the same” state of mind.
What is the following if not a direct and clear request for clarification?
I doubt you’ll be able to equivocate on those words. Well, I have spent enough time defending myself here, it’s back to real debates with real substance as opposed to offended sensibilities where no offence was originally intended.
This is fun! ** Abe** you don’t wrestle or practice judo, perchance? I think you would be a lot of fun to play! (Viscid vermicular varmint that’s really funny!)
Ok, I apologize for slapping at you the way I did. I can see that you were earnestly trying to contribute to the discussion in a positive way. I stand by my initial impression of your initial post as snide 'n snooty, with a side of sneering, but I offer this observation now only in the spirit of letting you know that your posting style may strike some as such (as others have substantiated), not to say that you are in your heart a frustrated pedant. Obviously, you have no heart.
Kidding! I’m kidding!
Despite your repeated protestations that this conversation is without substance, you seem to be enjoying the discussion, so I will respond to a few of your points and questions.
I conjoin these two passages because it seems to me that they arise from assumption, that there exists somewhere an intrinsically definitive answer. I hold a different view, based on the idea that, while not all interpretations are equally well supported or thoughtfully developed, each person’s experience or understanding of a piece of art is equally valid. On that basis, it is perfectly acceptable to for a person to say that the Unicorn scene has no importance whatsoever, and that the film seems quite complete without it. A viewer can easily say, “I don’t need that scene to enjoy the movie.” And be perfectly justified in doing so.
As to the issue of the author being the ultimate authority or not, my experience (both as a published writer, poet, and teacher, and having worked with critically acclaimed writers, poets and teachers) has shown me that once a work is made public, it is no longer the sole province of the author to determine its meaning. In fact one of the most interesting things about having my work read is to see what people make of it apart from what I originally saw myself. If poetry (as an example) “is not the assertion of truth, but the making of that truth more fully real to us” (T.S. Eliot) than it follows that different readers of that piece will perceive different truths, each one being fully real to that reader. So you can see where you and I are coming from quite different perspectives.
For myself, the whole issue of whether Deckard is a replicant or not is really uninteresting, because I don’t think it really changes the basic questions raised by the film, many of which you have already articulated. In fact, I would come down on the side that making Deckard a replicant is really a needless complication.
Moving on…
Nothing is wrong with covering the basics at all. My objection was never with your ideas, it was with the manner in which you presented them. You feel you were simply encouraging thoughtful inquiry; I feel you were being patronizing and pedantic. Again, (sincerely) I say this not to needle or vex, but simply as a description of our two impressions.
Finally, regarding this question:
I was not asking for clarification, I was using hyperbole and metaphor to comment on your posting style, and to request that you join the discussion, rather than try to lead it from on high. Once more, I understand that you do not see your writing as such, but it sure looked that way to me.
Finally finally, this:
has got to be the most back-handed apology I ever read! I really got a chuckle out of this. Of course, it may not be intended as an apology at all, but I will still take it to heart that no offence was intended.
[sub](“Viscid vermicular varmint”! That makes me laugh almost as much as “meat popsicle with a bitter filling.”)[/sub]
Glad to. I’ll clear up a few things first and proceed with the discussion.
Indeed, I was trying to help out the section of the population who “does not get” the Unicorn Scene, not trying to offend anyone. But no, that was not an apology as such, more like a statement of intent to clarify what you seem to have misread in my approach. I’m sorry if you found my manner offensive, but it’s not wise to assume the worst–you should try give the benefit of the doubt before doing that.
Not bad phrase construction, I have to admit. And yes, I’ve done Judo and some wrestling (Graeco-Roman, but only a little), so that was a good guess.
Well I must say this is a lot more like it and I am always grateful for constructive criticism, but I insist I was not being snide or snooty, and above all most certainly not sneering. I will however keep my eye out for any lapses in behaviour, since nobody is perfect.
I’ve taken your views into consideration, but consider you may be mistaken. As Anthracite pointed out, tone is not always clear across electronic media, and communication on these boards is often a typed combination of informal verbal conversation and more formal written discourse. You saw my manner as condescending, meaning behaving as if on equal terms with others while maintaining an overt attitude of superiority. My posing those questions to lead others’ examination forward still does not seem to me an instance of condescension. It seems to me that offering more on the possible answers to the questions themselves might have been condescending, because I would have to ask others to take my word on such issues, whereas the point of the film is that one works out the answers for one’s self, etc. I didn’t want to take a Cliff’s Notes approach on this issue.
Of course, I could have just done what I am doing now in my discussion with Bryan and thrown my probably needless caution to the wind; after all, readers of that thread have probably seen the film in question quite a few times and this is not the first time they come across such material.
As for pedantic, after thinking about the word I disagree. Certain people are more informed than others on certain topics, and I would value such persons’ relevant opinions over others less informed, but that is not necessarily a pedantic approach (just common sense, or maybe “elitism” according to some ways of thinking). I am not excessively literal in my interpretation, nor do I at any point sacrifice the wider view, which I consider paramount. I am not obsessed with any particular theory, and I am certainly not a doctrinaire.
Now on to the discussion.
There can be, but it is normally hid out of sight and the search for it generates a lot of interest and attention for the movie. Some films lack a definitive answer. Others have one or even more than one answer (which could only be called the Quantum Theory of Unified Narrative Criticism!).
Everyone is up in arms over the issue of whether Deckard is a Replicant or not, but is that really the most important issue? I don’t think it is. I think the crucial issue is that Deckard could be a Replicant, and that there is strong support for such a counter-intuitive view. It’s not so much a question of a “final answer” (which the director has provided for us anyway) but of exploration into themes. A lesser-known film that I find highly fascinating is Werner Herzog’s feverish Aguirre, Der Zorn Gottes (Aguirre, the Wrath of God), the story of nutso conquistador Aguirre bashing his way through the jungles of Peru in search of a city of gold, leading a collapsing expedition that is kept together and driven forward only by the awesome force of his madness. The film, if you are familiar with it, provides a lack of definitive plot answers that surpasses the point of frustration. The entire film will definitely not please that segment of the audience who became upset with the ambiguity in BR, but that hardly makes it a lesser film. One of its most important points is made by a long shot of violently churning, direction-less water (the destructive chaos into which the explorers are trapped courtesy of Aguirre). What a film shows us, and the possibilities that we are asked to consider, are often more important than its definitive plot answers.
I disagree. While I agree that everyone’s opinion ought to be respected, at least initially, the suggestion that every person’s understanding of a piece of art is equally valid is wishful (and would render departments in most centres of education unnecessary!). To begin with, art is not uniformly accessible, and the majority of people lack the ability or training to recognize important signals or elements in a given work (or even in a given discipline, such as film–you keep hearing people asking what was up with the colour use in films such as Le Mépris and Eyes Wide Shut). Therefore the average viewer of Blade Runner may miss all or most of, for example, the film’s religious symbolism and allusions, and fail to take such into account when providing an opinion of the film. Such an opinion would then be flawed in the sense that it was formed by neglecting to take into consideration some important elements. An opinion of the whole that does take into consideration all the constituent elements of a work is therefore clearly superior to one that does not.
You say anyone can dismiss the beleaguered Unicorn scene, and that certainly is true. However I do not consider such a dismissal indicative of an informed opinion. One does not whimsically dismiss elements that the director made an effort to include in his finished product. One tries to interpret them based on the greater context of the film. In this case, the main interpretations are, as we have seen-
-Deckard is a Replicant: well supported throughout the movie as argued here and in the original thread; this is why Gaff leaves Deckard a symbol of the Unicorn dream.
-Deckard is not a Replicant, and he is having normal human dreams: weak support for this, as his dream appears to be known to Gaff, plus other problems.
Now, holding the second opinion is of course fine, but anyone who does so by simply ignoring the Unicorn Scene is making up his own film, and is no longer watching Blade Runner. That is what I mean when I say that the scene must be accounted for, no matter which way your opinion lies (if it lies any particular way, even). Ideally, a scene as important as the Unicorn ought to be taken into consideration when forming an opinion, not after the opinion is already complete (a common mistake, unfortunately). But it is not the viewer’s job to cut scenes out of a film so that the rest of the movie makes “better” sense to him/her or similar reason (desirable as it may sometimes seem–in fact, I constantly find myself wishing I could eliminate all the god-damned Ewoks from Return of the Jedi).
I think the T.S. Eliot’s line you quoted pertains not so much to the interpretation of poetry as to the purpose and nature of poetry in general, and not even necessarily poetry in its restrictive meaning but to all the narrative arts that are capable of expressing poetic qualities. Anyway, the author is as ultimate an authority of a work as you can have, without necessarily spoiling the experience for the rest of the people. As I said in the original thread (and was laughed at for it) a work like BR lives not only on film, but also in the minds of the viewers. Said that, the author holds the greatest understanding of the work in question, and is aware better than anyone else of the original intent of the work (obviously). The author is the “ultimate” authority; a book or a film is an author’s expression; the rest of us are merely the come-lately interpreters, no matter how good we get or how deep we mine the film. Such a distinction is what I was trying to demonstrate through the Lenny Kravitz anecdote, where my friend challenged Lenny’s authority by saying that a sad song was actually happy (and it was a truly funny moment).
Now, the one thing you can definitely attack in the paragraph above is the possibility that the author is not immediately aware of what he is doing; perhaps we can refer to this as the unconscious expression of art, but if that is what you think may be happening the case requires additional support (my friend was obviously not able to present a convincing case to Lenny Kravitz).
Beyond that, if a reader reads something the author did not insert into a work, the error seems to lie with the reader, fortuitous or not as this may seem for the author (some people accuse Ridley Scott of wanting to make Deckard appear to be a Replicant only starting from the Director’s Cut in 1992, which is not true: Deckard was written as a replicant in a number of versions of the original script since at least 1980. What Scott eventually did for the 1982 theatrical version was make the Deckard-Replicant connection more latent and cheer up the film slightly with a false sense of closure).
Yes, but if that is your opinion, does it not mean that you have already weighed the other possibilities against the evidence? If so, Scott has succeeded in making you consider the different options presented by his somewhat ambiguous approach; as I said earlier, consideration of these possibilities is important to the film itself. After all, one of the basic and fundamental purposes of art is to make the audience ask questions and think.
Anyone who dismisses the Unicorn Scene or the possibility that Deckard is a Replicant is not asking the necessary questions and is not enjoying the piece of art quite as much as it is possible to. This doesn’t mean that you have to agree with the overt implications of the Unicorn Scene, but that ignoring the Unicorn Scene, or referring to it as “that stupid crap” (as someone did in the Cafe Society thread), is a pretty counter-productive way to establish one’s opinion as in any way meaningful (and Cafe Society, sadly, see quite a bit of meaningless unsupported feel-good opinion).
On the relevancy of Deckard’s identity, I disagree with you. The possibility of Deckard being a Replicant has important reverberations up and down the movie; the revelation may not change the overt film significantly, since no character in the film is very “human” to begin with, but the questions we then ask are significant (starting with how we feel about the hero now that we know he is a Replicant). At any rate, what’s important is not so much concluding with finality anything one way or another but addressing the possibilities (highlighted by the material itself), examining their corresponding probabilities, and exploring the themes that the possibility of Deckard being a Replicant raises.
Glad to. I’ll clear up a few things first and proceed with the discussion.
Indeed, I was trying to help out the section of the population who “does not get” the Unicorn Scene, not trying to offend anyone. But no, that was not an apology as such, more like a statement of intent to clarify what you seem to have misread in my approach. I’m sorry if you found my manner offensive, but it’s not wise to assume the worst–you should try give the benefit of the doubt before doing that.
Not bad phrase construction, I have to admit. And yes, I’ve done Judo and some wrestling (Graeco-Roman, but only a little), so that was a good guess.
Well I must say this is a lot more like it and I am always grateful for constructive criticism, but I insist I was not being snide or snooty, and above all most certainly not sneering. I will however keep my eye out for any lapses in behaviour, since nobody is perfect.
I’ve taken your views into consideration, but consider you may be mistaken. As Anthracite pointed out, tone is not always clear across electronic media, and communication on these boards is often a typed combination of informal verbal conversation and more formal written discourse. You saw my manner as condescending, meaning behaving as if on equal terms with others while maintaining an overt attitude of superiority. My posing those questions to lead others’ examination forward still does not seem to me an instance of condescension. It seems to me that offering more on the possible answers to the questions themselves might have been condescending, because I would have to ask others to take my word on such issues, whereas the point of the film is that one works out the answers for one’s self, etc. I didn’t want to take a Cliff’s Notes approach on this issue.
Of course, I could have just done what I am doing now in my discussion with Bryan and thrown my probably needless caution to the wind; after all, readers of that thread have probably seen the film in question quite a few times and this is not the first time they come across such material.
As for pedantic, after thinking about the word I disagree. Certain people are more informed than others on certain topics, and I would value such persons’ relevant opinions over others less informed, but that is not necessarily a pedantic approach (just common sense, or maybe “elitism” according to some ways of thinking). I am not excessively literal in my interpretation, nor do I at any point sacrifice the wider view, which I consider paramount. I am not obsessed with any particular theory, and I am certainly not a doctrinaire.
Now on to the discussion.
There can be, but it is normally hid out of sight and the search for it generates a lot of interest and attention for the movie. Some films lack a definitive answer. Others have one or even more than one answer (which could only be called the Quantum Theory of Unified Narrative Criticism!).
Everyone is up in arms over the issue of whether Deckard is a Replicant or not, but is that really the most important issue? I don’t think it is. I think the crucial issue is that Deckard could be a Replicant, and that there is strong support for such a counter-intuitive view. It’s not so much a question of a “final answer” (which the director has provided for us anyway) but of exploration into themes. A lesser-known film that I find highly fascinating is Werner Herzog’s feverish Aguirre, Der Zorn Gottes (Aguirre, the Wrath of God), the story of nutso conquistador Aguirre bashing his way through the jungles of Peru in search of a city of gold, leading a collapsing expedition that is kept together and driven forward only by the awesome force of his madness. The film, if you are familiar with it, provides a lack of definitive plot answers that surpasses the point of frustration. The entire film will definitely not please that segment of the audience who became upset with the ambiguity in BR, but that hardly makes it a lesser film. One of its most important points is made by a long shot of violently churning, direction-less water (the destructive chaos into which the explorers are trapped courtesy of Aguirre). What a film shows us, and the possibilities that we are asked to consider, are often more important than its definitive plot answers.
I disagree. While I agree that everyone’s opinion ought to be respected, at least initially, the suggestion that every person’s understanding of a piece of art is equally valid is wishful (and would render departments in most centres of education unnecessary!). To begin with, art is not uniformly accessible, and the majority of people lack the ability or training to recognize important signals or elements in a given work (or even in a given discipline, such as film–you keep hearing people asking what was up with the colour use in films such as Le Mépris and Eyes Wide Shut). Therefore the average viewer of Blade Runner may miss all or most of, for example, the film’s religious symbolism and allusions, and fail to take such into account when providing an opinion of the film. Such an opinion would then be flawed in the sense that it was formed by neglecting to take into consideration some important elements. An opinion of the whole that does take into consideration all the constituent elements of a work is therefore clearly superior to one that does not.
You say anyone can dismiss the beleaguered Unicorn scene, and that certainly is true. However I do not consider such a dismissal indicative of an informed opinion. One does not whimsically dismiss elements that the director made an effort to include in his finished product. One tries to interpret them based on the greater context of the film. In this case, the main interpretations are, as we have seen-
-Deckard is a Replicant: well supported throughout the movie as argued here and in the original thread; this is why Gaff leaves Deckard a symbol of the Unicorn dream.
-Deckard is not a Replicant, and he is having normal human dreams: weak support for this, as his dream appears to be known to Gaff, plus other problems.
Now, holding the second opinion is of course fine, but anyone who does so by simply ignoring the Unicorn Scene is making up his own film, and is no longer watching Blade Runner. That is what I mean when I say that the scene must be accounted for, no matter which way your opinion lies (if it lies any particular way, even). Ideally, a scene as important as the Unicorn ought to be taken into consideration when forming an opinion, not after the opinion is already complete (a common mistake, unfortunately). But it is not the viewer’s job to cut scenes out of a film so that the rest of the movie makes “better” sense to him/her or similar reason (desirable as it may sometimes seem–in fact, I constantly find myself wishing I could eliminate all the god-damned Ewoks from Return of the Jedi).
I think the T.S. Eliot’s line you quoted pertains not so much to the interpretation of poetry as to the purpose and nature of poetry in general, and not even necessarily poetry in its restrictive meaning but to all the narrative arts that are capable of expressing poetic qualities. Anyway, the author is as ultimate an authority of a work as you can have, without necessarily spoiling the experience for the rest of the people. As I said in the original thread (and was laughed at for it) a work like BR lives not only on film, but also in the minds of the viewers. Said that, the author holds the greatest understanding of the work in question, and is aware better than anyone else of the original intent of the work (obviously). The author is the “ultimate” authority; a book or a film is an author’s expression; the rest of us are merely the come-lately interpreters, no matter how good we get or how deep we mine the film. Such a distinction is what I was trying to demonstrate through the Lenny Kravitz anecdote, where my friend challenged Lenny’s authority by saying that a sad song was actually happy (and it was a truly funny moment).
Now, the one thing you can definitely attack in the paragraph above is the possibility that the author is not immediately aware of what he is doing; perhaps we can refer to this as the unconscious expression of art, but if that is what you think may be happening the case requires additional support (my friend was obviously not able to present a convincing case to Lenny Kravitz).
Beyond that, if a reader reads something the author did not insert into a work, the error seems to lie with the reader, fortuitous or not as this may seem for the author (some people accuse Ridley Scott of wanting to make Deckard appear to be a Replicant only starting from the Director’s Cut in 1992, which is not true: Deckard was written as a replicant in a number of versions of the original script since at least 1980. What Scott eventually did for the 1982 theatrical version was make the Deckard-Replicant connection more latent and cheer up the film slightly with a false sense of closure).
Yes, but if that is your opinion, does it not mean that you have already weighed the other possibilities against the evidence? If so, Scott has succeeded in making you consider the different options presented by his somewhat ambiguous approach; as I said earlier, consideration of these possibilities is important to the film itself. After all, one of the basic and fundamental purposes of art is to make the audience ask questions and think.
Anyone who dismisses the Unicorn Scene or the possibility that Deckard is a Replicant is not asking the necessary questions and is not enjoying the piece of art quite as much as it is possible to. This doesn’t mean that you have to agree with the overt implications of the Unicorn Scene, but that ignoring the Unicorn Scene, or referring to it as “that stupid crap” (as someone did in the Cafe Society thread), is a pretty counter-productive way to establish one’s opinion as in any way meaningful (and Cafe Society, sadly, see quite a bit of meaningless unsupported feel-good opinion).
On the relevancy of Deckard’s identity, I disagree with you. The possibility of Deckard being a Replicant has important reverberations up and down the movie; the revelation may not change the overt film significantly, since no character in the film is very “human” to begin with, but the questions we then ask are significant (starting with how we feel about the hero now that we know he is a Replicant). At any rate, what’s important is not so much concluding with finality anything one way or another but addressing the possibilities (highlighted by the material itself), examining their corresponding probabilities, and exploring the themes that the possibility of Deckard being a Replicant raises.
I don’t mind at all, but I can’t remember and have never been a Leny Kravitz authority! The year was around 1993-1995, and all I remember about the song was that it was supposed to be quite sad, possibly a hit from his then-recent album?
MODERATORS: it seems my last post was submitted twice somehow, apologies for the inconvenience (if it helps, I didn’t press the submit button twice in a row, but I was timed out by the SDMB server several times when attempting to make the post).
My sympathies are with Abe on this one.
I have often enjoyed reading his posts. I think he’s quite intelligent and articulate. He doesn’t come off as condescending to me, yet I do believe that the Ad Hominem attacks are very condescending. I focus on the content of his posts, and choose to agree/disagree. Unlike some other members, I don’t feel like he has a gun to my head.
Simply my opinion.
FWIW, I provide a link to: