Bit o rant never hurt anyone... 

PREAMBLE: What do I do?!! I ask myself this while being in a break, probably a permanent one from any formal studies (not giving up on self- cultivation though). It's for the first time that I don't want to be enrolled in any form of study anymore, but do things my way; while at it, I decided to go through some popular art productions. For a change. Take off the ''thinking cape/hat/whatever'' and ..chill (I'm grinning...really??!).
 Yet...it seems that I cannot relax and empty my mind by watching films or reading books. I shouldn't wonder anymore about that, I guess I must finally accept that this is who I am and stop worrying I don't relax (i.e. forget about myself) whilst watching a film, for example...since this ''not so relaxed'' position doesn't tire me and I take pleasure in it. Ah well, of films I wish to rant a bit today, so let me roll down by the river (Lethe? :) ).

ONE: *Imagine the Imperial March as musical background*
Star Wars - surely I enjoyed the trilogy. Naturally, I've had lots of fun, admired the imagery, digested easily the simple dialogue, appreciated the artistry of film making and on the whole I loved (finally) watching it - yeah, yeah, I know, better later than never. I actually thought for a while that full relaxation worked!!!! BUT! I couldn't stop thinking of the Freudian echoes in the plot: the father complex, initially appearing in the plot in its most postmodern form - i. e.  the absence of the father).
How about the Jungian archetypes? Luke Skywalker corresponds to the archetype of the hero (which he shares with Han Solo), as much as to the Orphan; he's also a representation of the Self, his quest and individuation path being quite clearly portrayed, just as much as he chooses the Shadow exploration, not to mention his Anima, found in Princess Leia. The Sage part goes to Obi Wan Kenobi, while the Magician is our good old dear Yoda...is it hard to imagine who's the Ruler as well as the Villain figure? Good, you just won a light saber from me (to be collected imaginarily).
Hmm, if I think more I might as well shoot straight to the animal archetypes, but which in the series are replaced by...well, other types of ''people'': ''the faithful dog'' - Chewbacca (hmm, in some ways R2-D2 as well), ''the enduring horse'' - R2-D2 and ''the devious cat''- C-3PO...OK, stopping here, my wires are burning and next film is knocking an exhausted neuron already. So...

TWO:
Blade Runner. With watching this one, I had the intense sensation of ''I know, I know! Let me say it !", only because to me it seemed obvious that the Replicants were some kind of Nietzschean Übermensch, a transition form from man to robot (which I hope it's not visionary). Moreso, staying in the same nietzscean vein, isn't it the killing of the Father (the Creator of the Nexus 6 replicants) the death of God about which the philosopher spoke about? The twilight of gods, leaving behind nothing but chaos and individuality in its struggle to identify itself and create a new world in which to fit , bla, blaaa , blaaa - that's how I've thought while watching the whole film. More blaa and bleah and blaarrgh.  But before finishing this, it's Rick Deckard turn to be tagged: postmodern hero in search of his own identity. Looks like the debate if he's a replicant himself or not, is still going on...is it? Not?
In looking for the correct spelling of Deckard, I looked on Google and surprise, surprise: I'm not the first to talk about Blade Runner in Nietzscean terms. Well done, kiddo. Now relax, it's dinner time and no replicants to take it away from you.
May the Force be with you all!