| >> |
No. 39767
>>39762
All good movies can be interpreted in different ways. For example, I could debate the merits of what >>39616 said, but ultimately those points don't really matter, as there is no evidence correlating them anywhere, and it would just be dudes arguing on the internet.
Even with DVD commentaries, Directors rarely talk about what they ultimately meant with the movie. A truly good movie leaves a certain ambiguity, because what a good movie does in addition to entertain is that it also makes you think, on some level. While I have my own idea about what the movie is about, generally there's a few highly valid interpretations for any movie that has that ambiguity. You can write that it's about this that or the other, but ultimately you're presenting a thesis and then supporting it with scenes from the movie, and discussing how those scenes support your thesis.
That said, all of the questions "answered" in that video are really things I'd consider to be kind of trivial to any comprehensive thesis about the film. They're little things that don't necessarily matter to the overall thematic and narrative arc, and while some of them are ambiguous, the mere fact of their ambiguity does not really change the thematic structure, or metaphor, whatever it is. For example: The question of whether Vickers is a robot is largely irrelevant to the theme, mostly because we never have any real hint one way or the other, and even if she was, what does that really change about the movie? And if she really was, wouldn't Weyland be more proud of her? She'd be a better facsimile than David. Ultimately though, the scene in which Janick asks her if she is a robot, and she responds by inviting him to her quarters, suggests that she is a red-blooded woman, and has no problem proving it to anyon
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.
|