if you need ridley scott to tell you whether deckard is a replicant capitalism has officially made you unable to appropriately enjoy art

Follow

the idea that anyone has "ownership" over the "real" events in any given work of fiction or the "real" interpretation of any work of art is absolutely ludicrous

when scott says that deckard is a replicant (a point on which, tellingly, he disagrees with many other people who were involved in the making of blade runner), he is offering a reading of that film, based on the same information we all have access to: the film.

and the funny thing is, whether you think deckard is a replicant or a human, you are wrong.

the only correct answer is that we dont know

Show thread

blah blah 

@garfiald So I'm not confident that a this-strong version of Barthes is really satisfactory to many people, who view art as a means of communication, but that aside

There is an interesting sub-point here, in that BR2049 has an unambiguous answer to that. So then the question is, are BR1 and BR2 part of "the same" work/canon, or should we consider BR1 with no take whatsoever for what BR2 says? And if we do that, is BR2 totally independent of BR1? Is this a sensible way to read sequels?

blah blah 

@_ampersand The answer is a simple one in my opinion. If a text explicitly refers back to another, then the text being referred to is relevant to reading the text doing the referring. We don't need to watch BR2 to make sense of BR1, but watching BR1 does help us make sense of BR2. Much in the same way that knowing what Coca-Cola is helps us make sense of a small detail in both of those films.

blah blah 

@_ampersand So BR2 does decide on an ending for BR1, but that decision only counts *for BR2*, it doesn't transform the text of the previous film. Specifically, it is very clear that BR2 is intended to be a sequel to the theatrical cut of BR1, something I'm surprised more people haven't complained about.

blah blah 

@garfiald I think this technique makes doing formal critique easier, but I think for most of us it's pretty emotionally unsatisfying. Think of how many people say that sequel "ruined" preceding versions, for example.

I don't think that's a capitalism thing - viewing multiple connected works as part of the same gestalt-work, and reading paratext as part of text for that matter, seem pre-capitalist. It seems to be a factor of viewing creators and creations as "real" past their commerce.

blah blah 

@garfiald Also we had enough problems with BR2 on its own merits, it was bad.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!