Quote from: SM on Feb 04, 2009, 05:22:08 AM
Are we talking about bashing the Bishop or in general terms?
My point is that if you don't illustrate to the audience that a character is a robot, then there's no point in making them a robot. We see how an Alien film shows an audience a character is an android and what we see at the end of Alien3 isn't it.
Well, the events lead to bewildering suspicion that something was very odd about Bishop 2 before he was hit. when he was hit and after he was hit, and that interested me. For me saying he's definitely a human or definitely a robot is too basic for me and it was open ended as to why the Bishop 2 character had to be like this, and it was fine for people to see nothing irregular about it but get their own sense o what that character was for them. That's something that David Lynch might do although this isn't his movie. This sort of open ended point of view might be normal for some and not for others and no one is going get the David Fincher to talk about it in depths because isn't going to fill in the blanks because he doesn't really know any more apart from the skeleton of a story that he was following amidst all the production problems that was more like being caught in a car accident for him.
So the beginning of Alien 3 opened with a dream like sequence that confused a good number of people, and the end scene here was for me almost dream like in the confusion it spelt out for me.
So I am bringing some elements of Philip K Dickian paranoia to the movie with me and Tarkovskian confusion of sorts as well as well, and the idea that we're dealing with a scifi fantasy world where things are not one hundred percent predictable. I'm bringing a perspective that can be called "thinking out of the box" also. And I like the idea that someone who painfully cries that he's not a droid just can't help being one for a portion of the audience no matter how much he claims he isn't. Probably because the movie has wonderful craftsmanship, the fragmented quality of some of the scenes in the movie makes it all the more purposeful. And I think that seeing the movie The Game by Fincher which was made much later and listening to some of his ideas in the commentary makes me appreciate what I projected onto the screen, that this Bishop 2 was someone there to say whatever the company wanted him to say and be whatever they wanted him to be and he's hanging around just for that purposeless purpose and for all I know, and going Dickian he might be even less real than that, he might be the product of one lie upon another upon another, just to appear realistic for that moment he was there in the movie. So I think that keeping the spirit of the associations I was making is important and no one can tell me that my associations are meaningless even if they are meaningless to a lot of other people. That's what made this character extraordinary even he wasn't meant to be and then we find that we never get to meet the character again. Maybe there's something Kubrickian about him for me as well.
