The commentator Joe Norman
posts on 10/22/2009 2:43:11 AM
I absolutely love the symbolism in this movie. Most importantly, the question it begs; What does it mean to be human? Personally, it makes me wonder how easily everything we think we know could just be an illusion.
One reason this film really piqued my interest is because it relates a lot to a conspiracy theory I've been reading a lot about. I'm not saying I believe theory one way or another, but the similarities are interesting. The theory asserts that extraterrestrials called "reptilians" (similar to replicants!) came to earth and created humans to mine gold for them. This is similar to Blade Runner in that replicants were created in order to do work for the humans. Another similarity is that the reptilians can shape-shift to look like humans, just like replicants look exactly like humans.
The film also has a wealth of religious symbolism. The replicants come "down" to earth, similar to angels coming down from heaven. Tyrell is a representation of a flawed God and Roy represents a Christ-like figure. I found it interesting that Tyrell's bed is a replica of Pope John Paul II.
It is my opinion that this film can tell humans a lot about ourselves. It shows our oppression through the symbolism of eyes throughout the movie; that we are being watched. Rachel is the character that tells us we shouldn't believe everything we think is reality and we can be manipulated to believe things that aren't true quite easily.
As for the idea of Deckard being a replicant, I believe Ridley Scott intentions were for him to be one. One of my biggest reasons for this belief is the unicorn dream; it shows that Gaff has access to his mind and memories. Another reason is the fact that Deckard's eyes glow like the other replicants in one part of the movie. Although I do believe Deckard is meant to be a replicant, I also think the question doesn't have a definitive answer. It goes back to the original question; what does it mean to be human?
|
Amanda R (UMD)
posts on 10/15/2009 5:00:43 PM
While watching the movie, it didn't even occur to me that Deckard might not be human. It wasn't until later that I realized that might not be the case. I believe, though, that his biological classification of human or replicant is by far secondary to his own decision about his humanity. It remains ambiguous to us because he has not decided yet. (For a more practical explanation, authors and writers often like to leave a little ambiguity- how else would they create a sequel?) Even if the director did confirm that Deckard is a replicant, that doesn't necessarily change his opinion about his own humanity.
There have been a few posts that have touched on the religious themes throughout the movie. I thought that this was a very interesting layer to a dystopian (post-apocalyptic?) society. One element/character that I am puzzled about is Gaff. He and Deckard are supposedly partners, but Gaff does nothing, really, except tag along and throw out some cryptic lines now and then. Oh, and make very elaborate origami animals out of scraps of paper. I can't decide if he is there to keep an eye on Deckard (maybe Deckard is a replicant and Gaff is deciding whether or not he needs to be retired?), or if he is there as kind of a guardian angel figure (maybe to help guide Deckard in his decisions about his humanity?). Gaff could take on either of these roles whether Deckard is a human or a replicant.
I am curious to find out how the term 'Blade Runner' came about. This is merely for my own, personal curiosity. To 'run someone through' with a blade requires a bladed weapon. As far as I can tell, Deckard and the other Blade Runners use (guns or hand-to-hand combat, if absolutely necessary). Am I looking for more meaning where there isn't any?
Again, this more of a personal interest comment, but I do like that JF Sebastian lives in the Bradbury Building. A nod to Ray Bradbury and dystopian works, maybe?
|
Heidi Akins (UMD)
posts on 10/8/2009 12:58:14 AM
Rachael was my favorite character. I felt sorry for her for feeling so lost and alone. Her having memories implanted from Tyrell’s niece must have been confusing and misleading for her. They attempted to make her “human”, but she could never truly enjoy what it means to be human. She added a different perspective than the other characters did.
I also believe that Deckard was a replicant. Who better to “retire” replicant’s than a replicant! I also thought the music in this film was very effective. It was dark and eerie and it creeped me out many times (especially since my fiancé wasn’t home with me to watch it!). The tone and ambiance of the film did a very nice job making the audience feel like they are actual watching the future (even though it seems a little silly now that it is 2009 and the movie is set in 2017, but you never know I guess).
Overall, I enjoyed the movie and I believe that someday we just might have genetically engineered people. This movie will hopefully heed that warning.
|
Shawna Longrie (UMD)
posts on 10/7/2009 11:33:34 PM
I found some interesting information regarding whether or not Deckard was really a replicant. The director finally revealed that Deckard really was a replicant. Although that tidbit of knowledge does shed some light on bits of the film, it doesn't really altogether change anything. It doesn't really seem to matter that Deckard was a replicant. Over all I thought this film was very well made and I liked the theme of it. I'm sure it had a different meanings to other people but to me it signified the importance of living each day to its fullest. The replicants spent so much time looking for a way to live longer that they couldn't even really enjoy the last bits of life they had. I thought it was great how Deckard realized that in the end.
|
The commentator jocylne
posts on 10/4/2009 4:56:30 PM
It’s completely possible that Deckard was a replicant, but in the end it hardly matters. Gaff’s last words to Deckard (it’s too bad she won’t live, but then again, who does?) and the origami unicorn could certainly be evidence that he is a replicant, but its purpose could be to simply serve the development of themes, which were complex and require critical thought.
My understanding is not well-advanced, but there are strong suggestions which might fall under the theme of humanity. The importance memories play was intriguing. If one has memories then he could develop emotions. This raises the question of how the power of the imagination might alter one’s memories and thus their humanity.
Also, the point is made that all die and the memory of one’s life is lost like tears in rain. Many aren’t particularly fond of the idea of one’s life disappearing into time, especially Roy. Pondering Gaff’s last words, one might conclude that life is neither here nor there because all have a shelf-life. This brings to mind the words of Roy, created to slave, “living in fear, that’s what it is to be a slave!”
|
Sarah T (UMD)
posts on 9/30/2009 10:32:05 PM
The first time I watched this film I fell asleep. I found it to be extremely slow and dull. After I read the plot-line online I began to gain an understanding of the symbolism in the film along with the cinematography chosen by Ridley Scott. Some of the scenes were unnecessarily long and others could have been explained in greater detail. The final
"chase" scene between Deckard and Roy was too long and Scott could have put more emphasis on the fact that Roy's life was coming to its end.
I do not think the film is bad by any means, and I do think it requires multiple viewings to fully understand its symbolism and depth.
|
Jarett Lehner-UMD
posts on 9/30/2009 9:04:45 PM
I can't get over the such rich symbolism this movie has. If the movie had been shot without all of the religious and humanity symbolism, the movie would be pretty dull. In my opinion, it would have been a complete washout. As it was when my roommate first saw the movie. He didn't notice any of the symbolism and he ended up not liking the film. When it was explained to him, it was like he had re-seen the film for the first time.
The symbolism is quite ingenious in my opinion. While on one hand you have the replicants are searching for answers about their origins and their potential humanity, we get to see a human (Deckard) struggling with his own humanity trying to figure out if he really is human. The replicants quest deals with religious symbolism, having them trying to find out if they are meant to be human by seeking out their maker and attempt to progress through the bible, such as: the encounter of Deckard and Zhora (Adam and Eve), talking to their maker or their "god" (as the people in the book of genesis did) and finally when Roy dies for the sins of the replicants (as Jesus did). Deckard is dealing with his humanity the opposite way the replicants are. It is initially believed that he is a human, but through his actions/interactions and the origami, it could be guessed that he is a replicant (the origami relate to his mood/feelings and even relate to his dream and ending of the movie).
|
The commentator Lisa Mattson
posts on 9/30/2009 8:20:57 PM
I think there is more evidence pointing toward Deckard being a replicant than there is for him being human. Deckard seems to be questioning his humanity throughout the movie. The fact that Rachel believes that she is human and has "memories" of childhood shows that anyone in this movie could in fact be a replicant. If replicants are used for the most dangerous jobs, it makes sense that they would use a replicant to hunt down and retire other replicants. They would have to give Deckard false human memories so that he could kill his own kind.
|
Joshua C (UMD)
posts on 9/22/2009 11:47:53 PM
Spoiler alert! Don't read if you haven't watched the movie!
My roommate and I had a long discussion about the scene where Roy meets Tyrel. Every piece of it seems significant. Chess is a game of kings, and this would imply that Sebastian and Tyrel are both kings, which makes sense since Sebastian designed the replicant brain and Tryel owns Tyrel corp, the manufacturers of the replicants. When Sebastian tells Tyrel he is there to move a chess piece in their game, he moves so that Tyrels king is in check. This is Sebastians subtle way of telling Tyrel that he is in danger, since he doesn’t outright tell Tyrel he has a replicant with him. There is also the fact that Roy wants to go to Tyrel because he wants to meet his maker. When someone is going to “meet their maker,” it means they are going to die, and Roy is dying throughout the movie. Roy then asks Tyrel “what do you ask your maker?” he is obviously trying to show how monumental this would be if it were a human meeting whatever creator they believe in. Meeting his creator is a religious experience for Roy, so he asked for forgiveness for his sins. When Tyrel tries to tell Roy that he is an amazing creation and that his sins aren’t important, my guess at Roys logic is that since his sins aren’t important, it won’t matter that he kills his creator when Tyrel won’t give him what he wants. He essentially loses faith in his creators because they aren’t as all powerful as he thought they were. The rest of the movie is similar to the Passion, with Roy putting a nail through his hand and dying at the end.
|
James Norby
posts on 9/22/2009 10:36:13 PM
Blade Runner shows what will happen if corporations are allowed to continue their reckless assault on the environment. It is set in a post-apocalyptic world where the natural environment has been destroyed. The opening scene shows an expanse of industrial wasteland as far as the eye can see. Plants and animals are extremely rare and expensive to own. If we continue on the road we are going our world will end up like the one portrayed in the movie.
|
Wayne S UMD
posts on 9/22/2009 12:40:39 PM
I am going to make my assertion and say that Deckard was a Replicant. It just makes sense on how the movie progresses and it makes the plot line just that much more interesting. The most obvious evidence of this is the emotions he develops especially towards Replicants. It says in the opening lines of the movie that the Replicants are void of any emotions when created but develop them through experience. Another piece of evidence is the fact that they can install full memories into the Replicants. Deckard may have never even existed until the very beginning of the movie. Deckard even says how can a Replicant not know they are a Replicant? Another supporting piece is that during the movie Deckard says he would rather be a killer then a victim, which is the same mind frame of the Replicants. There is an argument if Deckard was a Replicant, why wouldn’t they make him stronger? If Deckard knew he was a Replicant and he had the ability to develop emotions and free will, do you think he would continue killing Replicants? Seeing how Deckard responds, changes, and falls in love throughout the movie, it would only make sense that Deckard is a Replicant.
|
Daniel W. - UMD
posts on 9/19/2009 9:53:40 PM
Employ a thief to catch a thief.
The topic of the day appears to be whether Deckard is a replicant or an actual human, with both sides presenting reasonable arguments. On one side is the unicorn dream, the lack of testing on Deckard himself, and his apparent lack of empathy in certain situations. At the same time however one could consider the former things coincidental, shaky evidence at best, and the aftereffects on a job that surely strips away humanity. A point this movie manages to execute well is that threshold of uncertainty that leaves the viewer guessing again and again.
However, after watching Blade Runner, I was most impressed with the impact the film apparently had on the industry, reshaping a genre in both appearance and function. While Blade Runner was most likely not the pioneer in the cyberpunk genre (after all, its an adaptation of a book) the stylistic combination of noir effects and dystopian science fiction has been repeated time after time. The falling rain, the monochrome atmosphere, the character archetypes used, these show up again and again and are even utilized in modern movies like Sin City and the finale in the Matrix: Revolutions. And that's nothing to say about the moral interpretations, done as well in films like I-Robot.
While the content and questionable narrative and identity of the main character is well done, I found the best point of the movie being how it renovated and cast the mold for films to come. From presentation and context to the skewed moral compass and artistic flair, Blade Runner still lives today in how we not only view cyberpunk, but what we expect.
|
The commentator Brooke Naland-Cst 3030-UMD
posts on 9/17/2009 7:25:25 PM
A common thing in literature and other forms of entertainment is to use ambiguity, and I feel that Scott definitely did that in this film. As others have said, the leaving of origami unicorns and Deckard's unicorn dream are confusing as to their purpose, and even the very ending, when Deckard asks Rachael if she trusts him, is confusing, because we have no idea where he's taking her or what he plans to do, or for that matter, what Gaff is doing. The movie itself is pretty intense and has a very chilling premise, and ambiguity only adds to the intensity. As to whether Deckard is human or replicant, I think the film purposely pulls us in both directions to keep us guessing.
|
Dustin P - UMD
posts on 9/11/2009 12:16:50 AM
As to the question of whether of not Decker (played by Ford) was a human or a replicant, I offer my following two cents - The purpose of the movie was that the question has no answer. As simple as that sounds, it was meant to leave an open ended (and discussion appropriate) main character which could identify with either side in the story. Although many people will argue adamantly either direction, I have trouble with either. Decker obviously feels for the victims he must "retire" which may lead you to either believe he has human emotions (and always has) or was devoid of emotions previously, and is only developing them now (which would suggest replicant). What I think would be the most telling part of the whole movie included the unicorn daydream scene (depending on the version you watch). The thought of being hunted down like a unicorn must cross Decker's mind. Perhaps this is a glimpse at his replicant side trying to warn Decker? I don't know if that even makes much sense, but that is the feeling I get when seeing it. Ultimately if I were to pick whether I believed Decker were human or replicant, I would argue that he is human. He lacks the strength of many replicants in the film and if you argue that Blade Runners were replicants that were made to hunt other replicants why wouldn't provide them with equal strenght and capabilities of the replicants they fight? I feel like Decker displays genuine human emotions and capabilities. Although he never administers the test on himself (in the movie or otherwise) speaks only volumes on the fear we all have in our heart that we aren't who we think we are. That somehow, we are lesser than human. I want to believe Decker is human, but in the end - I don't think there is an answer or was ever meant to be one.
|
Outsider
posts on 8/22/2009 6:20:45 AM
Deckard's character does indeed draw the question of "what" he really is. However, the intentions of the movie are to for him to remain as a human. I believe that the human in the movie treated the replicants in a condescending nature, and therefore I believe that if Deckard was a replicant it would have been more obvious.
However, I agree with the last post and that a good director will play with his audience’s imagination. This is what is great about the movie and science fiction in general. It creates a foundation for possibility in our minds. In the movie not only robots take a whole new “life. They are deemed to serve humans; however, we come to realize that they too can create a “human” like personality.
One thing that I found contrary to popular opinion was the relationship to religion in the message of the movie. I don’t believe the intentions of the movie were to represent the “imagination” used in religion. Or the control of the “higher power”.
|
The commentator Eric
posts on 8/4/2009 5:16:29 PM
Another argument for Deckard not being a replicant is he is an ex-cop and after that is only job was to retire replicants. You would think that in order to get that job he must be put through some kind of test to see whether he is in fact a human. With that said, the movie does hint a lot at Deckard being a replicant. I think the viewer should believe how they see fit. I think the little twist of Deckard actually being a replicant is quite fascinating. In 1982, Ridley Scott actually came out and claimed, "the central character could in fact be what he is chasing." With that said, it is easy to see that the director might have been planning that all along. I think he did an awesome job masking it enough where people to this day hotly debate it. The topic plays with your mind. That is what exceptional directing does.
|
Ian Floyd-UMD
posts on 7/21/2009 5:18:01 PM
The one character who really stood out to me was Deckard because of the question that looms over him the entire film. Is Deckard a replicant? Originally it seems as though this being true is foreshadowed with the revelation of Rachael, a replicant with implanted memories and when Rachael asks Deckard if he had ever taken the test to identify replicants. It makes sense for this to be true because after seeing the physical prowess of Leon and Roy it becomes obvious that no human could match them thus making the idea that Bladerunners are in fact replicants with implanted memories likely. Gaff leaving the origami figure at Deckard's apartment seemed to me like he was giving a message saying that he was coming for Deckard and Rachael but was giving them a head start. Though one could make a counter argument against Deckard being a replicant because of how physically inferior he was to both Leon and Roy and because he has a greater emotional range.
|
Will Schmidley
posts on 6/30/2009 11:49:13 PM
Wouldn't it be very immoral of Deckard to be intimate with Rachel if he wasn’t a replicate? But if he was a replicate, then it would be perfectly normal given the relationship between Roy and Pris. I believe this provides further evidence that Deckard must be a replicate himself. Throughout the movie, I believe that Deckard does not know that he is a replicate until the end when Gaff leaves the origami unicorn.
|
Derek SaintOnge
posts on 6/25/2009 3:00:15 PM
I had to watch the movie a few times to completely understand everything that was going on. One character that still confused me was Gaff. I didn't understand why he left origami figurines at the replicant's residences. After doing some research, I think his purpose for those were to show his presence. Almost like leaving a calling card. His last line in the movie also left me a bit confused, "It's too bad that she won't live much longer, but then again who does?" At first I thought he was going to hunt her down but after seeing that he left a unicorn origami at Deckard's place where Rachel was sleep I think he realized that Rachel wasn't a thread to humans like the other replicants were. After reading other people's posts, the thought of Deckard being a replicant really never occurred to me. He didn't seem like he could hold his own against the other replicants and basically let his gun do the job for him. Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed the film. It consisted of not only a great cast but also a decent plot.
|
Kristin Juntunen-Cst 3030-UMD
posts on 6/24/2009 3:25:25 PM
It took me a few times to get through the movie and actually understand it. I'm not much of a science fiction buff, so this movie was hard for me to grasp. Things that confused the most was why the character Gaff was so mysterious and always leave those oragmi animals! I was also a little taken back by the love affair of Deckard and Rachel. It just didn't seem right. After reading more into Bladerunner I found out that Deckard may in fact be a replicant himself, which makes the relationship make a bit more sense. My favorite part by far is the ending. When Roy is dying he's says some of the most important dialouge in the entire movie. It is something like, "my memmories will be lost as tears in rain". This is a very realistic statement. When people are gone there memmories are lost forever. You can document them thru picture, writing, movies, but it will never truely be what it was when that person was living. You can only hope to leave an impact somehow on someone that could continue your own legacy.
|
Click here to post a message
|
|
