I would like to align myself on the "ambiguity" side of this argument. It= =20 seems to be a much richer train of thought - the point is that Deckard=20 can't know if he's human or a replicant. In keeping with the=20 Deckard/Descartes pun - "I think therefore I am" just doesn't work=20 anymore. (Another author to read on this is Zizek, in _Tarrying with the=20 Negative_, though he claims that Deckard is a replicant.) In PKDick's book,= =20 this fundamental question of what constitutes the human is mirrored in the= =20 theme of artificial animals, "real" animals are practically extinct in=20 the world of the future, and humans start keeping mechanical animals as pet= s.=20 The whole concept of what is "natural" is constantly being played with. Ano= ther=20 interesting film in this regard is Tarkovsky's _Solaris_.=20 And re: the following, I have to take exception. > I still find more intriguing a cop falling for a gorgeous > face than the problems of artificial intelligence and the nature of > civilization. At least in the cinema ("a girl and a gun", as Godard once > said). Exaggerating just a bit, a gorgeous face in the cinema *is* the > cinema, and I=B4m not sure about the rest. But, perhaps, this is a matter= of > taste. >=20 I originally thought that Teresa de Lauretis was exaggerating the problem= =20 in _Alice Doesn't_, but it seems like she wasn't. Because it has to be a=20 gorgeous female face here as object of the voyeuristic spectator, right? So= =20 the only possible spectator for this film (and, in fact, "the cinema" in=20 general, would be male.=20 Rachel Gabara Program in Comparative Literature University of Michigan=20 ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]