Re: Blade Runner

Yeah, and talk about going out on a high note--this is one of the funniest episodes in a loooong time. I almost fell over at one point relistening to it.

Last edited by Abbie (2015-02-28 22:21:35)

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

Re: Blade Runner

OK. Fine.  I've waited a polite length of time, but it looks like it falls to me to be that guy -- the jerk who wants to talk about whether Deckard is a replicant.  The only thing I can point to in mitigation is that I take a rather extreme line on this issue, so the purpose of the discussion can be to explain to me why I'm wrong.

This came up in an old thread on The Final Cut that Darth started I think, but I'm of the view that the film is at least compromised thematically, and possibly outright incoherent, if Deckard is a replicant.  I feel this so strongly that, when I show the film for a class I teach, I show the original 1982 US theatrical version.  Yes, I'd rather have the happy ending than that goddamn unicorn. 

Part of it is that one of the central questions the film wants to raise is  "what it means to be human", and if none of Deckard, Rachel and Batty actually are human, then I think it's difficult for the film to be about that, aside from a sort of cliched "maybe humans are the real monsters" sort of thing.  (But I don't even think that works.  Sure you have Tyrell and Bryant, but you've also got Sebastian.) 

However, if Deckard is a human, then that theme just clicks right into place.  So, what does it mean to be human?  The films tells us:  it's empathy -- the ability to understand on a profound level that another object in the universe is fundamentally like you.  That's what the Voight-Kampff test tests.  (Tyrell:  Is this to be an empathy test?....Deckard:  We call it 'Voight-Kampff' for short.)

So then a lot of really important beats between these characters crucially involve empathic realization/understanding.  Deckard is (and can be) redeemed through his relationship with Rachel by realizing that she is fundamentally like him, and I also think that's what's going on in the, let's say 'dubious consent' scene.  We all just are the sum of our memories and experiences, whatever the source, and Rachel understands that she is no different from Deckard in that respect.  So she then stops resisting and embraces the relationship. 

Empathy also explains why Batty saves Deckard's life at the end.  He's seen Deckard struggle and scrap for every last moment of life, which is what he's been doing for the whole movie, and Batty articulates the connection between them: "Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it?  That's what it is to be a slave."  This then serves as a trigger for his understanding -- Deckard is fundamentally like him.

But if Batty, Rachel and Deckard are all replicants, then none of this matters or is relevant. The realization that they are fundamentally alike doesn't doesn't have the same (or possibly any) meaning if in actual fact they *are* alike.   

You then have to explain Gaff's origami unicorn, but there are various ways to do that (the real explanation of course being that Ridley Scott's a moron who should just go make perfume ads).  Anything involving fantasy or mythical/unreal creatures will work I think.

So, cue the tumbleweeds and empty whistling wind....

For the next hour, everything in this post is strictly based on the available facts.

Thumbs up +4 Thumbs down

Re: Blade Runner

If authorial intent means anything, as well, in the novel Dick explicitly says Deckard isn't a replicant. Granted, this is an adaptation, but it's close enough to the novel in theme that I think the point stands.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Blade Runner

sellew wrote:

You then have to explain Gaff's origami unicorn, but there are various ways to do that.

The theatrical release's explanation of the unicorn fits right in with your theory.  It may have meant something different before the addition of the Deckard voiceover, but the movie you shoot isn't always the same as the movie you release

In the released version, the voiceover explicitly explains that the unicorn means Gaff had been there, but chose not to kill Rachel.  What the figure is didn't have any significance in 1982 - all the "what does the unicorn symbolize?" debate came from later releases.

This ties in with Gaff's last line in the previous scene - "Too bad she won't live, but then again who does?"  So Gaff too has gained some empathy, enough to skip an opportunity to further his own career by bagging a runaway replicant, and instead letting Deckard escape with Rachel.  He isn't going to help them, but he doesn't stop them.

Re: Blade Runner

Completely agree with your points sellew. My usual argument is that Deckard is too human (in terms of physical abilities) to be a replicant hunting other replicants, he's weak compared to even a 'pleasure model' for instance, but your thematic argument is much better.

Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere. - Carl Sagan

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Blade Runner

That's a really good point, sellew. I'd never thought about it.

Sébastien Fraud
Instagram |Facebook

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Blade Runner

Trey wrote:
sellew wrote:

You then have to explain Gaff's origami unicorn, but there are various ways to do that.

[....]

In the released version, the voiceover explicitly explains that the unicorn means Gaff had been there, but chose not to kill Rachel.  What the figure is didn't have any significance in 1982 - all the "what does the unicorn symbolize?" debate came from later releases.

Yeah, that's one way you could look at it for sure.  The thing is though that Gaff's first origami, the one of the chicken, really does seem plausibly like a comment directed at Deckard, seeing as it comes during the scene in which Deckard is expressing reluctance to come back and be a Blade Runner.  (The idea being that it's cowardice that's behind Deckard's initial refusal; i.e., he's chicken.) 

Now I realize that we're straying dangerously close to "Death of the Author" territory, but that does make it kind of interesting to see whether that thread can be maintained, once you give up what was apparently Ridley Scott's conception of the connection between Deckard and the final origami unicorn. 

The middle one is kind of a problem too though -- the matchstick man figure, which Gaff makes when they're searching Leon's apartment. 

http://www.bladerunnerunicorn.com/Match_Stick_Man_Diagrams_files/100_4164.jpg

I have to say, it wasn't until I encountered that cesspool of immorality that is the internet that I ever thought of the matchstick man as having an erection.  I always figured it was just a small counterweight or something so that the figure would stand up.  However, I have yet to see any explanation of it that really felt right. 

Trey wrote:

This ties in with Gaff's last line in the previous scene - "Too bad she won't live, but then again who does?"  So Gaff too has gained some empathy, enough to skip an opportunity to further his own career by bagging a runaway replicant, and instead letting Deckard escape with Rachel.  He isn't going to help them, but he doesn't stop them.

Indeed!  I somehow completely missed that, but you're absolutely right -- the line is what's crucial there.

For the next hour, everything in this post is strictly based on the available facts.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Blade Runner

Blade Runner is now a period film.

not long to go now...

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down