Don't get me wrong; you're obviously entitled to your interpretation, since it is, after all, the sort of film that leaves itself open to interpretation. What I resent is Ridley Scott coming along years later and saying 'Oh yeah, Deckard's a replicant, and you're an idiot if you don't get that' (he actually says that in the intro to the new DVD). I far more respect someone like David Lynch, who refuses to say what his films 'mean' and would rather they have their own lives for each viewer.
So it's not the fans' Deckard-as-replicant interpretation I take issue with so much as Ridley Scott deciding for us what the movie means and announcing it as The One True Interpretation. It cuts off debate; it's as if Lynch told us exactly what everything means in the final reel of Mulholland Drive.
Then again, I don't have a lot of respect for Scott anyway — his true talent is in hiring brilliant set decorators and production designers and special-effects artists, I've always felt. And in not screwing up the few good scripts he's lucked into directing. There are very many others who were equally responsible for the magic of Blade Runner. I have a tough time accepting the director of G.I. Jane and Black Rain as the final voice of authority on how I should respond to such a beautifully ambiguous film.
That said, I wonder if you've always read Deckard as a replicant, or if that came with the 1992 version with the unicorn stuff. If the former, then my argument really isn't with you, but with Scott for ham-handedly nailing down his take on the meaning.
no subject
So it's not the fans' Deckard-as-replicant interpretation I take issue with so much as Ridley Scott deciding for us what the movie means and announcing it as The One True Interpretation. It cuts off debate; it's as if Lynch told us exactly what everything means in the final reel of Mulholland Drive.
Then again, I don't have a lot of respect for Scott anyway — his true talent is in hiring brilliant set decorators and production designers and special-effects artists, I've always felt. And in not screwing up the few good scripts he's lucked into directing. There are very many others who were equally responsible for the magic of Blade Runner. I have a tough time accepting the director of G.I. Jane and Black Rain as the final voice of authority on how I should respond to such a beautifully ambiguous film.
That said, I wonder if you've always read Deckard as a replicant, or if that came with the 1992 version with the unicorn stuff. If the former, then my argument really isn't with you, but with Scott for ham-handedly nailing down his take on the meaning.