[janos]

[quote]Structure is a good way to look at it, because anything with a cyberpunk element is recognizable because of the structure…sounds simple but I know I can get caught up in the idea of something cyberpunk as an atmosphere or an aesthetic without knowing or thinking about why I can identify it as such – or is that too deconstructivist??? [/quote]

Wow. It’s really nice to see someone take a mature stance on understanding film/literature.

I’ve had a lot of people write and tell me how ‘x is not cyberpunk because it does or doesn’t have y’….really comes down to which images they like best.

[quote]or is that too deconstructivist???[/quote]

Hey now way. Deconstructionism is very useful here. People who who would provide the definition based on a hierarchy of imagery, would be reductionist.

[quote]Looked like I could order the movie, so I think I do that this weekend.
Hope you don’t mind some feedback.[/quote]

You can download it for free through bittorrent, but if you don’t have high-speed internet, you can order the dvd.

Feedback is great, let me know what you think.

[janos]

[quote]Any mention of Larry McCaffery? [/quote]

Fraid not. The film takes an interesting perspective on what ‘cyberpunk’ is. Rather than try to define it through imagery (the typical way) , the movie asserts that the best way to understand it is structurally (an arrangement of imagery)- because it’s a better predictor- and evades cumbersome, personally biased arguments, better.

So, movies like Robocop, etc, get included by the structural defintion, where a lot of hardcore sci-fi fans might disagree.

You’ll see what I mean though, if you watch it- it roots cyberpunk in the 19th century Romantic movement (Blake, Shelley, etc) as much as the 1970-80’s, and tries to show it as a combo of Romanticism with Existentialism (in structure, tragedy with irony)

Janos

[Author]

Posts