I recently saw Blade Runner for the first time (shocking, I know, but I'm slow, sue me). After watching a movie I generally tend to read all about it online (because I'm a geek). Apparently, there is a disagreement between the people involved in making the movie whether Deckard (the main character) is human or a replicant (I'm not going to use this space to explain the difference, just to say, go see the movie). The director, Ridley Scott, thinks that Deckard is a replicant. Harrison Ford, who plays the character, says he's human. Phillip K. Dick, who wrote the story the movie was based on (Do Androids Dream of Electronic Sheep?) says he wrote Deckard as a replicant. Which side is right? Is there a right side. That made me wonder, 100 years from now if this film is being studied in an English class, will teachers just decide one way or another like they do now? That was always my least favorite part of English class was teachers telling me that one way to look at a work was better than another. While movies are different than books, I seriously doubt every writer meant to put as much meaning into their works as teachers seem to like to think. I have a feeling most writers just pounded shit out in the early morning hours before their deadlines just like everyone else. Some times, letters combine to make words, words combine to make sentences and those sentences mean exactly what they say, no more, no less.
A quick aside about Ridley Scott. My brother pointed out to me that Ridley Scott has released what feels like a Director's Cut of every movie he's ever made, most of which are far better than the cut seen in theaters. Does this mean that Scott is the world's biggest wuss when it comes to getting his way with studios? Hell, he even let the studio release a Director's Cut of Blade Runner that he wasn't really a part of. The man is a great director. One of these days we may even get to see a whole film of his in the theaters.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Oh, you've just opened up a whole can of worms here. When a book is adapted into a movie, who's right about a particular argument: The director, the actor, or THE AUTHOR?!?
ReplyDeleteWell, being an English major, and a serious obsesser of books, I'm going to say that the man who wrote the story is the one who gets to decide what his character is. He may be agreeable to open debate on the subject, but in the end, if the writer says Deckard is a replicant, I'm inclined to listen to his word.
I got into more trouble than not arguing with English professors about an author's intention in his book. Who says that Shakespeare meant for Merchant of Venice to be so anti-semitic? Why do we need to dissect all of Dickens' work as being analogies for the plight of the working class? Maybe they are. Maybe they aren't and these writers just needed the damned money. But what gives professors the right to tell me my opinion about a particular Victorian poem by a Rossetti is wrong? Who says your opinion is correct? Because you've read a book by someone else who says it is? So a hundred poetry experts say that's what's going on. Have they ever met Christina Rossetti? Yes, she had diaries, but she did not dissect her own work in full.
A college professor is already holding lectures across the country discussing the metaphors in Harry Potter, and how Rowling meant to tie them in with the Trinity, and some other such bullshit. Already. The last book just came out last year and some man is already making up what she meant. SHE DIDN'T MEAN ANYTHING!!! It's a classic epic story about good fighting evil. A boy who grows up to find the strength to battle his demons. And that is it! He asks the audience if they know the symbolism behind Mad-Eye Moody having a fake, rotating eye. There is no symbolism! It's just cool as hell! Why are the doors to the Great Hall a particular type of wood? Who the hell cares?? Probably because she looked around her office and saw a cabinet of that wood, and knew the name of it. Writing does not always have to be a transcending experience in which the book holds eight layers of Da Vinci Code crap. Not all authors are Salman Rushdie.
Wait until next year. We'll start hearing about how Meyers meant for Twilight to be symbolic of Christ's resurrection. Complete bullshit.