Good stuff, sir. There's ANOTHER piece of human/replicant difference along with the eyes that is there for us the audience, but not necessarily there in the movie universe. The other way to tell human and replicants apart is.... surnames. The humans go by last names, and the replicants go by first names. Roy, Leon, Pris, Zhora, Rachel. Deckard, Tyrell, Sebastian, Bryant, Gaff. Cool, huh? Of course, with Deckard, they throw us that third act curveball, but you get the idea.
...That says something interesting about identity. could it be said that a surname is an identity that is cross-generational? Despite having surnames, the replicants' last name aren't ever truly given to them. By severing them from their surname, their identity is unhooked in history, and therefore given lesser importance than humans.
I'm seeing Blade Runner: The Final Cut in Tarantino's New Bev Cinema next week. I'm so pumped! Never seen Blade Runner - one of my very favorite films - on the big screen; and it will be my wife's first viewing.
Absolutely brilliant commentary on this film, Leon. Bladerunner is perhaps one of my most favorite films to just sit and discuss with people, because so many people come away from it with different thoughts and points of view. Having seen it countless times I find myself now mostly in complete agreement with your analysis. I'll definitely be passing this video along...
Thank you so much for posting this. Blade Runner is one of my all time favorite movies. Your analysis was well thought out and your presentation was spot on. Liked and subbed
I loved the video! I always liked blade runner but never read into it that much. Then I watched the video. When I finished the video and I saw the "tears in rain" quote and it made me cry. Then I promptly rewatched the video and cried again, now at several parts of the video. This video allowed me to have a deep connection to a movie I probably would not have otherwise.
Sigh, I like this movie. It is always nice if a book, a movie or other media works with layers of depth. And leaves us, the audience to peel it away layer for layer. It makes us return to see/read it again. And keeps us thinking. And in the end is mortality truly a curse. Other movies, just as layered, with immortality might teach you that mortality might not be the worst things. That the end.. might be a blessing.
Love your analysis, this one in particular made me feel uneasy but really inspired. Indeed it doesn't matter if Deckard is or isn't a replicant, I knew it but I just never thought about it. It's just like in inception, It doesn't matter If Cobb is or isn't dreaming, He doesn't care, so why should we? Thanks for your videos, never miss one unless I haven't seen the movie. Greetings from México!
I have to clarify something. The eye in the being of the film is Leon's. It's his trip to see the guy for his VK test. We know this because we can see the interrogation will be in the Tyrell building and also when Leon is on the VK machine, his eye is the same color of green. I think its trying more to show that replicants, eyes and all, are indistinguishable from humans at first glance.
Leon, I feel like this is your masterpiece. I have to say, though, that I also always enjoyed the version of the film with happy ending. I like to think that Rachel and Deckard will have a good life in off-world colonies.
You did a great job of leaving me, not with just questions, but with hints of answers that my mind can (_wants to_) fill the rest of. I guess that's what the filmmakers you admire do, isn't it?
I'd probably say the eye at the start was Holden's because the camera pans up to his office and cuts to him looking out of the window just after you see the eye. It seems to be implied that he's looking at the cityscape. That's what I got from it anyway.
I think I know why Roy saved Decker. If he had let Decker fall to his death, police then would have arrived, collected the evidence, the case would be closed, and then forgotten. But Roy picked Decker up, and that for sure means Decker would remember him, and so would, to an extent, anyone Decker told what had happened. Roy would die, but at least a memory of him would go on for who knew how long in time.
Most times I feel your _Renegade Cut's_ get way more philosophical than cinematic (but hey, maybe that's your voice inside video-essay-RUclips). Anyway, I thought the balance between the two was quite good in this Blade Runner episode.
I feel they didn't flesh out Roy's character enough. The only time he really had a humanistic dialogue was the "tears in the rain" speech. Other than that, his only dialogue was just a few one-dimensional aggressive attacks on people.
I don't think quite understand, "I think therefore I am." IMHO it means that while we might doubt many things, it is self-evident that we are thinking; even while we doubt we can't doubt that we are doubting. So if it is axiomatic that we think, then it follows that we exist -- not that the universe exists (at that point). The mere thought of the universe no more proves its existence than thinking about a unicorn proves its existence.
Hey Leon! I'm a great admirer of your videos. I've noticed in the past few weeks you been featuring films with very dark and serious themes. Not that there's any problem with that, but I'd be interested in seeing you take on a straight forward comedy. Not a dark comedy like Dr. Strangelove, but something along the lines of His Girl Friday, A Hard Day's Night, or Some Like It Hot. You don't have to do one of those, just anything you think would make for great discussion. That last one you did was O Brother, and that was over two months ago.
Great episode for one of my all time favourite movies, and I agree that it's much more interesting to think about what it means if Deckard is a replicant or not, rather than just debating whether he is or is not human. I'm also wondering, which cut of the film you used for the review and/or which cut do you prefer?
The answer to the question of whether Deckard is a replicant or whether he is human in my opinion completely changes the meaning of the movie. If Deckard is a replicant I don't see what the meaning is, it's just muddled mess.
It is pretty amazing to see how Bladerunner has influenced so many different movies and tv shows. Psycho-Pass seems to be influence by the themes in Bladerunner. What other works do you feel have been influenced by this film? P.s. It's fun to see some of your ideas from Word Funk leak into Renegade Cut! Fan of both shows.
Good video. But here are my thoughts. Replicants are designed to not have their own emotional responses to life according to Bryant. He explains this to Deckard as part of the film's exposition at the briefing near the beginning of the film. So then why be so quick to have a "class structure" interpretation of the film that assumes natural equality between ALL replicants and humans? Ex. "Blah blah blah and this shows that replicants are just like us only we oppress them through our ignorance of what they are...blahblahblah." It's implied that it takes time for these replicants to gain their own emotional responses which is why the four year life span is put in place--to prevent that occurrence or shut them down around the time such a humanizing awakening would occur (along with the danger that would entail). So in general, it would seem that most replicants lack the emotional capacity to feel and rebel as the ones we see doing so within the film; and if that's the case, they'd then most certainly lack the all important empathy. So projecting Batty's deeds and character onto all of replicant kind is in my mind awfully presumptuous at best and outright fallacious at worst when analyzing what this film is actually saying about replicants. Presumably by the time replicants have acquired their own emotions (which are necessary for them to have any hope of exercising empathy towards others), they're near death. But before that, they are beings that would not seem to possess moral agency let alone empathy according to the logic of the information we're given within the film. And there doesn't seem be any guarantee that a given replicant will even necessarily reach any such level of "enlightenment" as Bryant states that the designers figured "they MIGHT" as opposed to "they will" develop their own emotions "after a few years." So in many cases, it WOULD seem to matter whether or not a being is a replicant or a human because they are not the same. "Replicant or human? Does it matter?" Uh, well yes. It does. People seem so quick to jump to a warm and fuzzy (and trite) egalitarian narrative that they seem to miss the very logic that the film has laid out. And I wouldn't even exclude the creators of this film from engaging in this oversight. We see in the film that it took Batty staring down the abyss at his own mortality with only seconds to go and with no hope at all before he became so empathetic. Before that, he was locking up people in freezers and massacring friendly cripples and crushing skulls like a sociopath in pursuit of his own egoistic ends. There is no other example in the film of such empathy (from either humans or replicants) except with what occurs between Batty and Deckard at the end. What Batty does in saving Deckard is completely devoid of any ego or self-interest and is based on a complete selfless compassion towards a human being. Now, he had previously expressed emotions like anguish and grief in the face of loss, certainly. But they're not empathy. Empathy is being able to see yourself in others by virtue of common experience and then through that exercise compassion. To be clear, Batty being sad and upset that Pris was shot is grief at a loss. Him losing Pris and Zhora and Leon was a personal loss for him. But grief at that, while human, isn't limited to humans and cannot be said to imply empathy. Even certain animals can grieve at the loss of something. But it takes a being that is "truly human" or "more human than human" to exercise empathy and show compassion towards a man that has just killed your friends and is in the midst of trying to kill you. There are obviously many valid interpretations of this film. But I think the beauty of this film comes from viewing the replicants as plot devices that are used to tell us something about the nature of our own humanity (and where its virtues lie). That's far more profound to me more than seeing replicants as a mere illustration concerning the perils of an unequal society and "discrimination" like people commonly espouse when explaining this film. I think it was almost a miracle that Batty transcended his own infantile replicant nature at the end of the film. But he was "the light that burned brightest" according to his own maker. And in transcending his own nature, he acquired a "humanity" (i.e. a soul) that other replicants may not necessarily have; and he showed Deckard (i.e. "us" humans) a glimpse of what separates humanity from the rest of the animal kingdom in the context of an increasingly inhuman world. Deckard is a cynic. But that seemed to be perhaps enough to even restore his waning faith in "humanity" as he deals with the dystopia he lives in.
utrak and shot by master Roger Deakins. Yes, from all the "late sequels" of late this has come up with a very talented interesting crew. I'll wait to watch it first.
What are your thoughts on Ridley Scott trying to shove down the audience's throats that without a doubt, Deckard is a replicant. I know you're saying that it doesn't matter, but what are your thoughts on that? I'm gonna be mad if Ridley brings out old Replicant Deckard.
Ah. I could've sworn (apart from the implanted memories) that Tyrell somehow said that she wasn't limited to the 4 year limit. But I'll take your word for it.
I just double checked with the Blade Runner wiki. According to one version of the film, which is probably the one I saw, Deckard narrates at the end implying she has a longer life span.
An amazing film and you have produced a very fine review. Many of your insights echo my own, but then you go past my limits with interesting connections to philosophy, poetry and religion. - I would add about the pessimism of Blade Runner that it has a connection with a pessimistic genre, film noir. This is a Neo Noir movie as Chinatown is. There are many echoes to classic noir (in its lighting/mood) and even homages such as with Bogart's The Big Sleep. - Blade Runner does explore what it is to be human but it is also a commentary on how selfish and cruel a human society can become.
If we reject the theory that the dove is the Holy Spirit which attends Roy's baptism (look at the water), then IMHO the dove symbolizes something very valuable in this movie, animals are so valuable; so then perhaps it is that LIFE is very valuable & Roy loses what is most valuable to him, which he came to earth to get more of.
Soul, "a meaning that we can select for ourselves" - what on earth leads you to think you can select meaning for yourself? aside from self-delusion. The story doesn't support such a POV. Yes, IMHO soul in Bible is person/life, not a metaphysical entity like spirit (different word). The eye glow is a problem, as u say, in that if it implies "replicant," it wud seem to make the psych test superflous. Incidentally, as the story goes one wud think that the robots wud pass it, but people might not! if it is supposed to detect human emotion.
A good discusssion, but what is your proof that we are all going to the same place? the narrative says that Rachael is an exception, a robot with long life. I don't think that is good in this story. I would leave it as it a problem left unsolved; maybe Deckard can solve it, or they cud extend the story a little & have Deckard solve it by donating some internal organ to her, like 1/2 of some part of his brain.
Well, now I know why I found this film overrated. Too much of religious problems that don't consider as a problem at all. Probably, it would be more accessible for me if the story was more focused either on the love story or the hunt story. The question of the 'soul' of an artificial life has been risen in vast majority of SciFi, namely in the R.U.R. The discussion of humanity fails in Blade Runner because the replicants never acted as non-human, hence there are no reason to consider them as soulless. One can argue that the toys in the engineer room are these soulless replicants, and it would be correct if film exploited them more than merely a background. Overall, for me this film is not so profound as it pretend to be, leaving outside all the religious meanings, that I immune to.
"If Decard thinks he gets a happy ending- he is dreaming"- gets to me every single time. I feel like crying after the quote...
he gets a happy ending in 2049
Good stuff, sir. There's ANOTHER piece of human/replicant difference along with the eyes that is there for us the audience, but not necessarily there in the movie universe. The other way to tell human and replicants apart is.... surnames. The humans go by last names, and the replicants go by first names.
Roy, Leon, Pris, Zhora, Rachel.
Deckard, Tyrell, Sebastian, Bryant, Gaff.
Cool, huh? Of course, with Deckard, they throw us that third act curveball, but you get the idea.
...That says something interesting about identity. could it be said that a surname is an identity that is cross-generational? Despite having surnames, the replicants' last name aren't ever truly given to them. By severing them from their surname, their identity is unhooked in history, and therefore given lesser importance than humans.
Oh man, I never thought that the orange glow from the Replicant's eyes are only for the audience to see! That's so cool!
There is also a theme of New Babylon. A hot mess of million languages and a Tyrell building representing the Tower.
I think this might just be my favourite film analysis from Leon.
Thinking about my favorite film led me to this, from one of my favorites, Renegade Cut.
Appreciate it.
I'm seeing Blade Runner: The Final Cut in Tarantino's New Bev Cinema next week. I'm so pumped! Never seen Blade Runner - one of my very favorite films - on the big screen; and it will be my wife's first viewing.
this is the epitome of cyerpunk.
and ghost in the shell, and akira
The Sprawl novel trilogy is.
With a tear in my eye I applaud you sir. You do justice to this film I hold so dear to my heart.
I always felt the ending origami unicorn left by Gaff was his way of telling Deckard HE KNOWS he's a Replicant.
Absolutely brilliant commentary on this film, Leon. Bladerunner is perhaps one of my most favorite films to just sit and discuss with people, because so many people come away from it with different thoughts and points of view. Having seen it countless times I find myself now mostly in complete agreement with your analysis.
I'll definitely be passing this video along...
The amount of work you put into your channel is excruciatingly underrated and undervalued. It's crazy good!
Great video! I showed my roommate this movie last night, and he liked it a lot. Now I'm showing him this video, and he's intrigued by it!
One of the best episodes in a while, great analysis
cant believe you managed to say something new bout Blade Runner haha
This is my favorite film ever, no hesitation when people ask. Your interpretation of the film strengthens my fondness
The Nun's Story, with Audrey Hepburn, my favorite actress
Thank you so much for posting this. Blade Runner is one of my all time favorite movies. Your analysis was well thought out and your presentation was spot on. Liked and subbed
I'm speechless, this is such an amazing analysis
BEST film analysis channel on youtube by far
You deserve more viewa bro, excellent analysis.
Excellent analysis! I love this film and the references you use are just great. Thanks for making this kind of videos!
absolutely brilliant, as all of your analysis videos I've watched so far. this one however is so beautifully written. cheers!
I always imagined that Deckard was printed a few hours before Gaff tapped him on the shoulder at the noodle bar.
I loved the video! I always liked blade runner but never read into it that much. Then I watched the video. When I finished the video and I saw the "tears in rain" quote and it made me cry. Then I promptly rewatched the video and cried again, now at several parts of the video. This video allowed me to have a deep connection to a movie I probably would not have otherwise.
Sigh, I like this movie.
It is always nice if a book, a movie or other media works with layers of depth. And leaves us, the audience to peel it away layer for layer. It makes us return to see/read it again. And keeps us thinking.
And in the end is mortality truly a curse. Other movies, just as layered, with immortality might teach you that mortality might not be the worst things. That the end.. might be a blessing.
Poetic conclusion, thanks Leon.
Going back thru your catalogue :)
Ridley Scott said on the audio commentary that the eye is the eye of Big Brother
imdb gives away that the close-up eye is that of the blade runner at the beginning of the film (i forgot his name) that gave the unsuccessful test.
Love your analysis, this one in particular made me feel uneasy but really inspired. Indeed it doesn't matter if Deckard is or isn't a replicant, I knew it but I just never thought about it. It's just like in inception, It doesn't matter If Cobb is or isn't dreaming, He doesn't care, so why should we? Thanks for your videos, never miss one unless I haven't seen the movie. Greetings from México!
To me the character of Roy Batty is the most interesting in Movie history.
6:48 EXACTLY my thoughts.
Bladerunner is now set in the past. Weird isn't it?
I have to clarify something. The eye in the being of the film is Leon's. It's his trip to see the guy for his VK test. We know this because we can see the interrogation will be in the Tyrell building and also when Leon is on the VK machine, his eye is the same color of green. I think its trying more to show that replicants, eyes and all, are indistinguishable from humans at first glance.
I've always loved this movie and the analysis surrounding it. Keep up the great work!
Leon, I feel like this is your masterpiece. I have to say, though, that I also always enjoyed the version of the film with happy ending. I like to think that Rachel and Deckard will have a good life in off-world colonies.
You did a great job of leaving me, not with just questions, but with hints of answers that my mind can (_wants to_) fill the rest of. I guess that's what the filmmakers you admire do, isn't it?
Amazing analysis. This movie made me had thoughts on Determinism and the nature of man.
Wow I really enjoyed this. It gave me a few things to think about when watching my favourite movie.
This was a great video with a great indept analysis. Makes me want to watch Blade Runner again.
I'd probably say the eye at the start was Holden's because the camera pans up to his office and cuts to him looking out of the window just after you see the eye. It seems to be implied that he's looking at the cityscape. That's what I got from it anyway.
+Renegade Cut Too busy to go through the comments, but I'll take your word for it.
Can't *WAIT* for your take on Blade Runner 2049.
This page is amazing! Going to have a binge of all of your videos the next day! (: p.s. I love Blade Runner and you choose the best films to analyze.
Brilliant analysis.
If I was allowed to "Like" this video a hundred times, it would not be enough.
I think I know why Roy saved Decker. If he had let Decker fall to his death, police then would have arrived, collected the evidence, the case would be closed, and then forgotten. But Roy picked Decker up, and that for sure means Decker would remember him, and so would, to an extent, anyone Decker told what had happened. Roy would die, but at least a memory of him would go on for who knew how long in time.
Awesome!!! My question is, how did Gaff know Rachel wouldn't live?? Anyone have any comments?
Most times I feel your _Renegade Cut's_ get way more philosophical than cinematic (but hey, maybe that's your voice inside video-essay-RUclips). Anyway, I thought the balance between the two was quite good in this Blade Runner episode.
Bravo! Your best video, in my opinion.
The building is by Frank Lloyd Wright. The design is based on Mayan temple. Multigenerational theme?
I feel they didn't flesh out Roy's character enough. The only time he really had a humanistic dialogue was the "tears in the rain" speech. Other than that, his only dialogue was just a few one-dimensional aggressive attacks on people.
This eye the guy is talking about sure does sound like our pineal gland. Our middle brain at the end of our spine. The seed/ cone.
Oh man, I watched Blade Runner because of your Gaff/Deckard theory video
Great review very entertaining & informative...!
i love how harrison ford played a retired cop.. almost 40 years ago
Here's another movie I haven't seen that I need to.
+cheezemonkeyeater Make sure you watch the Final Cut, it's the best version of the film.
Very good indeed
I don't think quite understand, "I think therefore I am." IMHO it means that while we might doubt many things, it is self-evident that we are thinking; even while we doubt we can't doubt that we are doubting. So if it is axiomatic that we think, then it follows that we exist -- not that the universe exists (at that point). The mere thought of the universe no more proves its existence than thinking about a unicorn proves its existence.
Hey Leon! I'm a great admirer of your videos. I've noticed in the past few weeks you been featuring films with very dark and serious themes. Not that there's any problem with that, but I'd be interested in seeing you take on a straight forward comedy. Not a dark comedy like Dr. Strangelove, but something along the lines of His Girl Friday, A Hard Day's Night, or Some Like It Hot. You don't have to do one of those, just anything you think would make for great discussion. That last one you did was O Brother, and that was over two months ago.
+Renegade Cut No worries man! Keep up the good work!
Great episode for one of my all time favourite movies, and I agree that it's much more interesting to think about what it means if Deckard is a replicant or not, rather than just debating whether he is or is not human. I'm also wondering, which cut of the film you used for the review and/or which cut do you prefer?
The answer to the question of whether Deckard is a replicant or whether he is human in my opinion completely changes the meaning of the movie. If Deckard is a replicant I don't see what the meaning is, it's just muddled mess.
The eye in the beginning is Holden's eye.
You should play The Talos Principle if you have not yet. I think you'll enjoy it.
It is pretty amazing to see how Bladerunner has influenced so many different movies and tv shows. Psycho-Pass seems to be influence by the themes in Bladerunner. What other works do you feel have been influenced by this film?
P.s. It's fun to see some of your ideas from Word Funk leak into Renegade Cut! Fan of both shows.
I'm hardly one for sequels and spin-offs, but I'd like to see what was going on out in space with the replicants, what battles were they fighting?
I am looking forward to a future video about 2049
Are you ever gonna do the sequel sometime in the future?
do androids dream of electric sheep, read it now
Good video. But here are my thoughts.
Replicants are designed to not have their own emotional responses to life according to Bryant. He explains this to Deckard as part of the film's exposition at the briefing near the beginning of the film. So then why be so quick to have a "class structure" interpretation of the film that assumes natural equality between ALL replicants and humans? Ex. "Blah blah blah and this shows that replicants are just like us only we oppress them through our ignorance of what they are...blahblahblah."
It's implied that it takes time for these replicants to gain their own emotional responses which is why the four year life span is put in place--to prevent that occurrence or shut them down around the time such a humanizing awakening would occur (along with the danger that would entail). So in general, it would seem that most replicants lack the emotional capacity to feel and rebel as the ones we see doing so within the film; and if that's the case, they'd then most certainly lack the all important empathy. So projecting Batty's deeds and character onto all of replicant kind is in my mind awfully presumptuous at best and outright fallacious at worst when analyzing what this film is actually saying about replicants.
Presumably by the time replicants have acquired their own emotions (which are necessary for them to have any hope of exercising empathy towards others), they're near death. But before that, they are beings that would not seem to possess moral agency let alone empathy according to the logic of the information we're given within the film. And there doesn't seem be any guarantee that a given replicant will even necessarily reach any such level of "enlightenment" as Bryant states that the designers figured "they MIGHT" as opposed to "they will" develop their own emotions "after a few years."
So in many cases, it WOULD seem to matter whether or not a being is a replicant or a human because they are not the same. "Replicant or human? Does it matter?" Uh, well yes. It does. People seem so quick to jump to a warm and fuzzy (and trite) egalitarian narrative that they seem to miss the very logic that the film has laid out. And I wouldn't even exclude the creators of this film from engaging in this oversight.
We see in the film that it took Batty staring down the abyss at his own mortality with only seconds to go and with no hope at all before he became so empathetic. Before that, he was locking up people in freezers and massacring friendly cripples and crushing skulls like a sociopath in pursuit of his own egoistic ends. There is no other example in the film of such empathy (from either humans or replicants) except with what occurs between Batty and Deckard at the end. What Batty does in saving Deckard is completely devoid of any ego or self-interest and is based on a complete selfless compassion towards a human being. Now, he had previously expressed emotions like anguish and grief in the face of loss, certainly. But they're not empathy. Empathy is being able to see yourself in others by virtue of common experience and then through that exercise compassion. To be clear, Batty being sad and upset that Pris was shot is grief at a loss. Him losing Pris and Zhora and Leon was a personal loss for him. But grief at that, while human, isn't limited to humans and cannot be said to imply empathy. Even certain animals can grieve at the loss of something. But it takes a being that is "truly human" or "more human than human" to exercise empathy and show compassion towards a man that has just killed your friends and is in the midst of trying to kill you.
There are obviously many valid interpretations of this film. But I think the beauty of this film comes from viewing the replicants as plot devices that are used to tell us something about the nature of our own humanity (and where its virtues lie). That's far more profound to me more than seeing replicants as a mere illustration concerning the perils of an unequal society and "discrimination" like people commonly espouse when explaining this film. I think it was almost a miracle that Batty transcended his own infantile replicant nature at the end of the film. But he was "the light that burned brightest" according to his own maker. And in transcending his own nature, he acquired a "humanity" (i.e. a soul) that other replicants may not necessarily have; and he showed Deckard (i.e. "us" humans) a glimpse of what separates humanity from the rest of the animal kingdom in the context of an increasingly inhuman world. Deckard is a cynic. But that seemed to be perhaps enough to even restore his waning faith in "humanity" as he deals with the dystopia he lives in.
Is it weird that I empathized with K a lot more than I did with Deckard?
Are you excited for Blade Runner 2? I can't help but being sooo intrigued.
utrak
it's happening so... the team around it is like really good that's why I'm intrigued.
utrak
and shot by master Roger Deakins. Yes, from all the "late sequels" of late this has come up with a very talented interesting crew. I'll wait to watch it first.
......dreaming........of electric sheep.
What are your thoughts on Ridley Scott trying to shove down the audience's throats that without a doubt, Deckard is a replicant. I know you're saying that it doesn't matter, but what are your thoughts on that? I'm gonna be mad if Ridley brings out old Replicant Deckard.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Rachel's gift from Tyrell that she didn't have a limited life span?
Ah. I could've sworn (apart from the implanted memories) that Tyrell somehow said that she wasn't limited to the 4 year limit. But I'll take your word for it.
I just double checked with the Blade Runner wiki. According to one version of the film, which is probably the one I saw, Deckard narrates at the end implying she has a longer life span.
Ah. Thanks for clearing that up.
Favorited
An amazing film and you have produced a very fine review. Many of your insights echo my own, but then you go past my limits with interesting connections to philosophy, poetry and religion.
- I would add about the pessimism of Blade Runner that it has a connection with a pessimistic genre, film noir. This is a Neo Noir movie as Chinatown is. There are many echoes to classic noir (in its lighting/mood) and even homages such as with Bogart's The Big Sleep.
- Blade Runner does explore what it is to be human but it is also a commentary on how selfish and cruel a human society can become.
Please do a Dawn of the Dead: Renegade Cut
👍
If we reject the theory that the dove is the Holy Spirit which attends Roy's baptism (look at the water), then IMHO the dove symbolizes something very valuable in this movie, animals are so valuable; so then perhaps it is that LIFE is very valuable & Roy loses what is most valuable to him, which he came to earth to get more of.
Isnt' it strange how Gaff can sense Deckard's thoughts and know exactly where he always is.
Android rights are human rights :P
I really hope the fate of Rachel is not the fate of us all.
*Thinks of the sexual assau- I mean...romantic... scene*
😰😖😞
I guess judging by the preview for the equal Decker is not a replicate
Soul, "a meaning that we can select for ourselves" - what on earth leads you to think you can select meaning for yourself? aside from self-delusion. The story doesn't support such a POV. Yes, IMHO soul in Bible is person/life, not a metaphysical entity like spirit (different word). The eye glow is a problem, as u say, in that if it implies "replicant," it wud seem to make the psych test superflous. Incidentally, as the story goes one wud think that the robots wud pass it, but people might not! if it is supposed to detect human emotion.
A good discusssion, but what is your proof that we are all going to the same place? the narrative says that Rachael is an exception, a robot with long life. I don't think that is good in this story. I would leave it as it a problem left unsolved; maybe Deckard can solve it, or they cud extend the story a little & have Deckard solve it by donating some internal organ to her, like 1/2 of some part of his brain.
So I guess this is your favorite movie of all time, huh?
Well, now I know why I found this film overrated. Too much of religious problems that don't consider as a problem at all.
Probably, it would be more accessible for me if the story was more focused either on the love story or the hunt story. The question of the 'soul' of an artificial life has been risen in vast majority of SciFi, namely in the R.U.R.
The discussion of humanity fails in Blade Runner because the replicants never acted as non-human, hence there are no reason to consider them as soulless. One can argue that the toys in the engineer room are these soulless replicants, and it would be correct if film exploited them more than merely a background.
Overall, for me this film is not so profound as it pretend to be, leaving outside all the religious meanings, that I immune to.