Print

Print


I've neglected to get into this discussion of _Blade Runner_ partly because
so much of the discussion of the film itself has been covered, and covered
years ago. As much has been written about _Blade Runner_, I dare say, as
any film of our time.  To my knowledge, however, no one has mentioned
_Blade Runner's Dilemma_ edited by Judith Kerman, published by the Popular
Press. This is an entire book devoted to the film. Issues like what the
unicorn means, is Deckard a replicant and why it might seem that he is, the
imposed ending (the green world), the voice-over narration, etc., are
covered by many of the articles in that anthology. In addition, many fine
articles and sections of books discuss the film and these issues.  J.P
Telotte's _Replications_, for instance, has a wonderfully sensitive take on
the film around the issue of what it means to be human.  Much of the
disussion on Screen-L therefore seems to me a little bit like reinventing
the wheel; at least one should do the relevant reading, acknowledge what's
out there, and move on from there.  Is it the internet, its immediacy, the
sense of just saying whatever pops into our head, that enables us to
neglect the fine work of others and start everything all over again as if
it's new?  This is said without malice and it's not directed at anyone in
particular.  But as a film scholar and an editor of a journal, I'd at least
like to think that what I do and my colleagues do in spending time, effort
and much blood, sweat and, yes, tears, to produce our work at least gets
some acknowledgement by the audience for whom the work is intended.  Even
if you hate the work, and, especially if you disagree, you at least owe it
not just to us, but to yourself, to work through the stuff first, to
acknowledge it.
 
Respectfully,
 
David Desser
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]