stj said:
The absence of a single definitive reading is not the problem. The problem, to say it again, is that self contradictory readings have no meaning. The only astounding conclusion here is that contradictory readings can provide meaning.
And again, I say that’s nonsense. Deckard is a Replicant. Deckard is a human. Which one is it? The answer isn’t clear.
Blade Runner provides evidence in support of both conclusions. It’s an ambiguous text. It demands that the viewer examine the evidence and draw a conclusion.
It is clear that you are suggesting that the reader or viewer should be allowed to select whichever interpretation they wish
If the film supports multiple readings, and if the viewer can support their interpretation with evidence from the film, of course they should be free to select their preferred interpretation. That doesn’t withhold me from arguing in favor of my preferred reading or changing my mind in the face of a superior argument.
If you want to talk about Battlestar Galactica, join me in the proper forum, and I’d be happy to debate with you in perpetuity. But I won’t derail this thread anymore than I already have, as such a tangent is sure to do.
I think that a fully successful work of art, however rich in other types of ambiguity it may be, does not contradict itself thematically. If it does, it is confused and ineffective and artless.
I would agree. The Nigerians definitely compromise
District 9’s thematic coherence. But I must go back to your long complaint that Wikus’ final actions can be interpreted in multiple ways, which strikes me as no more self-contradictory than the question of Deckard’s humanity in
Blade Runner. You keep hopping around the part of your argument that I don’t understand.
You have said, although perhaps you didn't realize it, that you're judging the film's total success by your personal values.
Of course my personal values are involved. Filmgoing is a fundamentally subjective experience, and reading a film is no different.
It totally undermines the dramatic irony in the supposedly human Deckard, in fact an "inhuman" murderer, being saved by the supposedly "inhuman" Roy Batty. It also makes no sense whatsoever, starting with Deckard's supposed retirement at the beginning of the movie. It does't make sense that Deckard the replicant can't hold his own fighting with other replicants. I don't what "unacceptable" can mean in this context. Deckard is a replicant=dumb idea.
Is it not possible that Deckard’s supposed retirement from the police force is an implanted memory gifting him with the necessary past to do the job? We know that Rachel also possesses implanted memories, and had presumed she was a human with a real past before learning the truth. Isn’t it a little strange that this world-weary cop has no personal relations outside of Bryant, who reactivates Deckard in the first place?
On the subject of strength, it’s established early in the film that, with the exception of Pris, all of the Replicants are combat models with superior strength. Rachel, a proven Replicant, seems to possess no superior strength. When Deckard nearly rapes her (in one of the most twisted “love” scenes ever), he physically overpowers her.
Finally, on the subject of dramatic irony, I’d suggest Deckard’s revelation at the end of the film that he’s a Replicant is only one further layer of it. Deckard spends the film “regaining” his humanity, only to discover that he was a Replicant all along.
Did I give that impression? Didn't mean to. No, I meant it wasn't acceptable on stage, so it wouldn't be acceptable in a movie adaptation either. The natural interpretation of Taming of the Shrew, i.e, it means exactly what it says, is primitive and nasty. The play can be interpreted ironically, although I'm not sure Shakespeare would have approved, although that's now the standard stage interpretation. But they can't do it both ways, on stage or screen.
Okay, I understand your point now. I haven’t read, nor seen performed, many of Shakespeare’s comedies, so I haven’t much else to say, then.
It would be interesting if Thompson made it to libraries, because the movie adaptations I've seen are pretty interesting.
They’re worth pursuing if they ever do reach your area. After reading it, it seems improbable that
The Killer Inside Me wasn’t a heavy influence on
Dexter, both in literary form and on television. And, given the way it handles the subject matter, both in tone and in length, I suspect you would find it superior.
I don’t have any other thoughts about Christie, so I’ll leave it at that.
On the subject of the original short,
Alive in Joburg, I’d agree that it is more thematically consistent than the film. I was surprised that it wasn’t on the Blu-Ray (or, if it was, I didn’t notice it).
) Interpretations that ignore the contradictions in the work are all forced readings. To put it another way, you must have a reason to reject the contradictions. Barring reason, yes, indeed, you must accept all natural readings as valid. Quite aside from abandoning all critical standards, the pick the one you want approach makes the idea of discussion moot. I think that a fully successful work of art, however rich in other types of ambiguity it may be, does not contradict itself thematically. If it does, it is confused and ineffective and artless.
