This movie was a real DIRECT PUNCH ON MY STOMACH when i first saw it.... i was 15 years old... with lots of questions about life and death... I remember that scene with Deckard and Roy, in the end, made me cry, with maybe the most painfull cry i ever did... that moment opened my eyes about how death is inevitable and life is short...
Deckard’s character seems like he’s been taken over (possessed) from the start, as if he’s being played in a video game. At the noodle shop he asks for 4 but the chef tells him 2 is his usual, then Gazz speaks to him in a foreign language and Deckard tells him he’s got the wrong guy. In the meeting with Bryant he behaves almost like an imposter learning as he goes…
One thing this movie foretells is the building sized led screens as in Fahrenheit 451. Another thing that stands out is that Los Angeles is mostly populated with Asian people. The current version should show that the current Los Angeles is populated by Latinos. You can’t go anywhere without having to deal with them. Soldiers are replicants. I too love this movie for its slow moving phycological meanings. Like all good poetry, this movie is ambiguous.
I know Ridley Scott wants to have Deckard a Replicant. However, there is no way that makes any sense at all. Harrison Ford and both writers insist that Deckard is a human. I see him as human because it makes your analysis more profound. You have a human acting as a machine and a machine acting human and because of their interaction and choices, they both find what it really means to be human. If Deckard is a replicant then it loses the meaning of that story.
Rick Deckard: named in honor of Rene Descartes who famously said: "I think, therefore I am". If an android can think, is it indistinguishable from a human? The whole story revolves around these themes. Roy Batty's final soliloquy reflects the human condition: we spend a lifetime assembling knowledge and building wisdom just to have it snuffed out in the end. All these scenes come together as a study on what makes a human. The book, as the original source material, makes no allusion towards Deckard being an android, by the way.
A theme of the novel is that the replicants are NOT human. They are physically indistinguishable from human, and have human intelligence, but without empathy. I suspect this is a metaphor for actual people who are in a fundamental way, inhuman. The movie goes in the opposite (and much more cliche') direction. Replicants, they're just like us!
I believe Deckard is human. In the novel he is human, both of the screenwriters thought he was human, and Harrison Ford played him as human. There is a symmetry in the movie. Deckard is a human who is losing his humanity; he's an alcoholic. After killing Zhora he gets drunk to deaden his conscience, which replicants don't have. Rachel is a replicant who through her experiences and implanted memories is becoming more and more human. They meet and literally and figuratively save each other's lives. Break that symmetry and the heart is ripped out of the movie and all meaning is destroyed.
But isn't what kept the film alive all these years; the ambiguity of Deckard's humanity? The "Final cut" and edits that show the origami unicorn? The original flopped in part because E.T. came out that same summer. We're still talking about it (and not so much E.T.) in part, because of the hints that maybe, just maybe, he's a replicant. As such, he was doomed to hunt his own kind, and what's shown is a miracle that he was "rescued" from killing his own kind. That story of "salvation", because Deckard sees "humanity" in other replicants, even though he himself lacks biological "humanity". THAT story is ripped out of the movie, if he is definitely, unquestionably human. I sortof agree he's probably human, but I think it's way overboard to talk about "the heart of the movie... destroyed". It is much richer for proposing the Deckard might be android/replicant. that element adds, it doesn't take away!
I always thought the most telling scene in the movie was the fact that Roy spares Deckard at the end of their conflict. He'd beaten him, thoroughly. But, faced with his own death, he chose to not strike a man down out of pure spite. It's better than a lot of humans would have done. He was willing to fight and kill for his life and freedom, as is every living being's right. But he wasn't willing to kill for no point. That indicates a moral substance.
@@tulud That's certainly true, though one could make the case that Tyrell was much more responsible for the wrongs that had been inflicted on all replicants. Deckard was a "tool" of the wickedness more than being wicked himself. I think a main theme of the movie is the change he goes through on that front.
@@kimcarsons7036 No, Roy didn't kill Tyrell because of the revolt. He had already escaped, and going after Tyrell would only put him at risk of being caught. Roy, as a Replicant, without a fully developed set of emotions, life experience, and empathy, murders Tyrell almost as if a child having an angry tantrum, because he asks 'Father' for 'More Life' and Tyrell won't give it to him.
@@cyrethnabal296 you are presuming this thru a neo-liberal lens. A slave revolt wishes for a liberation beyond the individuals concerned. It's a master/slave dialectic
The unicorn is a symbol of longevity. They live for 1000 years. When I saw the theatrical release (before Scott added the unicorn dream) I assumed that was why Gaff had left the unicorn there.
It kind of has, a little at least. I watched it with my son recently and he wondered why Dekkard didn't just phone for backup when batty was chasing him all over the Bradbury Building? The reason is because in 1982, when Ridley shot the movie, cell phones weren't a thing. William Gibson says the same thing about Neuromancer. That said, the movie is still a masterpiece and probably my favourite film. Or Aliens. One or the other. Cheers
@@BrianRPaterson Police radios and battery powered radio phones did exist though. There are many much more real reasons. First of all, it wouldn't really matter would it? Backup takes time to arrive and roy may kill him any second. Also, he's probably not in the right state of mind, since he has just had his fingers broken and is running from a mad murder-bot, so he's probably running off of pure instinct and adrenaline is clouding his mind. Also also, he could've just not gone alone to begin with, so he's not really the brightest guy anyway. In the end, it doesn't matter, since the fact that he didn't call backup has never even crossed my mind when watching the movie, and if you really want to be a stinker about mobile phones, then I could also point out that since 2019 came and went already, the movie has aged pretty poorly considering we still don't have flying cars or replicants, and animals are still not artificial. Maybe they just didn't invent cellphones in the movie's universe, there's no reason to overthink about it.
Other movies that have not aged, It's a Wonderful Life, West Side Story, and When Harry Met Sally. I am sure that I will think of more classic movies later.
I was absolutely enthralled by this movie when it first came out. It was like a breath of fresh air: A science fiction movie that didn't involve space battles. It has a deep and meaningful plot that's quite unique and thought provoking.
on a side note, Star Trek's space battles often involved large, well populated ships, like the old naval warfare stories, with captain outwitting captain through tactical positioning and broadside volleys. Star Wars began with the classic "whale swallows ship" scenario and ends with a space battle more like WW2 dogfight movies, the Death Star being taken down not by a broadside but by a single well placed missile by one ship.
I agree - the end of the movie, the final scene between Roy and Deckerd, Roy saving him, his sorrow at losing his life - none of that would have worked if Deckerd wasn’t human. And Gaff knowing about the unicorn, well, maybe he was just psychic.
I saw this movie in the theater when I was in college. It was a real lonely time for me,so I thought that I'd go to a movie to cheer myself up. It didnt,however It's what I wrote my sociology paper on. Many of the points you touch on are what I touched on. Scott made me feel more empathy for the replicants then any of the humans. This program of yours has me all nostalgic for 40 yrs ago. My God how time does fly! Better then 4 yrs I guess. Hope you get a chance to read this, I hardly ever comment since it's akin to shouting into the void.
My problem is that replicants are programmed AI in a flesh suit. They aren't alive, they aren't conscious beings. So killing one isn't really killing. You're shutting down a robot.
What if they think they're real? What constitutes being real? What if you were a replicant, and think you felt all the things you felt. Robots with feelings are no robot at all, no?
The underrated function of scify, by placing the characters in fantastical environments, is actually to examine that deeper understanding of human nature.
Yeah, Sci-fi done well absolutely does that. Sadly, a lot of sci-fi nowadays seems to be just throw aliens and space with explosions and heroes acting like a-holes in a blender and hope the cash comes rolling in! lol
Beautifuly put. I’d wager that even the fantastical elements in sci-fi and fantasy are deeper explorations of the human condition. Vampires, robots, dragons, aliens .. all of it! We probably can’t see past our own noses but, there it is.
By showing that we shouldn't fixate on the setting. Changing the backdrop creates contrast to what doesn't change, and that is to be focused on. Also a somewhat sad message that we can keep developing technological gadgetry as an expression of escapism, for hundreds or even thousands of years, while still neglecting our human development, getting stuck in a rut.
That was the feeling of Asimov when it came to the Robots series. Particularly the later ones, involving Elijah Bailey. The last two novels have Bailey taking a back seat to R.Daneel and R. Giskard when it comes to exploring human nature, but Bailey is always there to ground the others, particularly Daneel, who becomes a favourite of Bailey's.
Deckard is not a replicant. I still remember how I got into this film, It was showing on one of the cable premium movie channels, and I'd tune in, watch for a while, then do something else while it played in the background. And the music haunted me. Finally, I sat down and watched the whole movie. And was stunned. I've been a fan ever since.
2001 is tackling very different themes and ideas. I love Blade runner more objectivily as a better movie but as science fiction stories I'd say they're about equal.
@uyeah1234 True but BR also tackles complex issues on philosophy, the meaning of life and who decides it (God complex) pollution, mercy, vengeance, etc. I love both like yourself but I still have BR ahead by a thin margin.
Respectfully, you've missed the meaning entirely. This story is built around a core question: "What constitutes life and identity?" Tyrell achieved a leap with his Nexus Replicants by seeding them with memories which gave them a foundation - a sense of identity, dreams, aspirations, a will to live. When Rachel is confronted with the truth of her origins, she is lost. Not just lost in the sense of her place in the world but down to her very being, her sense of self and self-worth is taken from her. Without this foundation, her very identity and her life purpose are tumbling down on her. Imagine not being able to trust your own memories and emotions. At the piano in Decard's apartment, Rachel plays a tune. Deckard awakens from the twilight of a dreamstate and says, "I heard music." She resumes her play then says, "I remember lessons. I don't know if it was me or Tyrell's nieces." He looks at her and says, "You play beautifully." With this one remark, he gives her something back of herself. In essence he is saying "I know your truth and I accept you, appreciate you, love you, just as you are." Each Replicant has an existential crisis of their own. Each has an innate imperative to survive and a will to thrive but also a looming sense of their own mortality. Does knowing your own death is imminent make you anymore alive? At first, Roy does not accept it. He sets out to meet his maker, to demand more life. When Roy and Pris engage Sebastian (himself a human who suffers from a degenerative terminal disease), Roy tells him "We've got a lot in common" which leaves Sebastian perplexed. "What do you mean?" he asks and Roy replies, "Similar problems." Pris drives it home saying, "Accelerated decrepitude." In every character we see a blur between humans and replicants. "We're not computers, Sebastian, we're physical," Roy tells him. And we're again confronted with the recurring question: What constitutes life? The imperative to live? Facing accelerated death? Dreams? Memories? Identity? If none of those then what? What does it matter then, human or replicant? Literally every character in this film walks this path in some form or another only to have all differences or distinctions blurred out. We end on Deckard and Rachel's departure together, flying into the happy ever after. The unicorn origami is symbolic. It is Gaff's way to tell Deckard he was there and will not give chase. It's also there to blur that last line of "more human than human" and make us wonder if Deckard is also a Replicant. The sequel ruined this of course but the idea there was to leave it open-ended, to leave us questioning, because that, after all, is the point of this story. To make you ask yourself, what constitutes life and living? Do androids dream of electric sheep? The apex is unquestionably Roy's "Time to Die" rooftop soliloquy when he comes to accept his death with dignity, recognizing that all life, all identity, however glorious, is ultimately fated to fade into oblivion - lost like tears in rain - but the takeaway message of the story is delivered by Gaff. In releasing Rachel and letting them go, he tells Deckard, "It's a shame she won't live. But, then again, who does?" In effect, that is to say, "no matter who you are or think you are, death awaits us all so make what little life you've got left worth living." And THAT's what Blade Runner is really about.
This is excellent and a fine counterpoint to the video. The subtlety of the storytelling in BR is amazing, one of the reasons it is worth watching over and over. Every encounter between replicants and humans reveals something about what divides and united them. Awesome writing.
@@blakemoon123 That’s a fair distinction. Identity, self-awareness, self-actualization, personhood, consciousness. Perhaps my use of the word “life” was too broad. I meant it in the more nuanced sense as in “being alive” and all the myriad intangible aspects that entails. Personhood, while more precise and clinical, may be just slightly too precise and clinical for my style of expression or my aim in this discussion. I prefer to be slightly over-broad to include other aspects of identity such as dreams, aspirations, motivations, and still other realms associated with spirituality and existentialism. I think the biggest reason I chose the word “life” is because of how this film seemed to say that the tie that binds us all, human and replicant alike, is the fear and urgency that comes from the unrelenting sense of our own mortality - that life will end. That’s why I scoped my statement beyond mere personhood. Hopefully this better contextualizes my original comment. Thank you for the constructive feedback.
It was so gorgeous when Roy saved his life, just so he didn't have to die alone and his memories simply lost. He wanted to share his memories, to pass them forward, and to preserve them. More human than human.
I didn't like the film when I first watched it at age 12. I thought it was just boring. However, I kept thinking about the film for years. I've watched Blade Runner at least 50-60 times. After, the 5th time, I realized I liked the film but I didn't understand the full arch of the story and its characters. Now, I still watch it because it's such a beautiful film to watch. That's where its masterpiece aligns with me.
I'm just about the same age, but I saw E.T. in theaters instead of Blade Runner. I later rented a VHS from my local video store, specifically because of controversy of whether Deckard was an android or not, and the silver origami unicorn, and so forth. I'm glad I loved it from the first viewing. The "tears in the rain" speech really had an impact on me.
It shows that the way to enlighten people might involve not handing them something they cannot comprehend, but, where an openness to grow is recognized, to do the 'footwork' and actually explain stuff, teach awareness for complex, philosophical thought. Somewhat related but different, when I watched Abrams' Star Trek, I was in a negligent mood and thought it was a moderately entertaining, alright action movie. But then I read some reviews and that activated my discerning mind again and then I watched it a second time and noticed what an awful piece it is. - And that's alright. It is a bit of a sacrifice of the old in order to also become able to appreciate the pleasant types of complex works.
Your underdeveloped 12 year old brain just couldn’t comprehend what a good movie was. Me, on the other hand, saw this movie at the same age and knew it was brilliant. That’s why I’m better than you.
I. remember. in. 83. at. the. house,. we. had. Show Time and. Blade Runner. came on. a. few. times. about. 3. am ,. talk. about. a. cool. summer,. 16. years. old,. could. stay. out. half. the. night. them. go. home. and. watch. B.R. I,ll. never. forget. those. night's. 🥲
"Do Androids dream of electric sheep?" is worth a read. IMO the movie would be entirely different without Rutger Hauer's dying monologue, which he suggested and wrote on set.
The OST remains the most soul-stirring music I've heard in 40+ years. Blade- Runner can also be a halting look at how veterans are treated as fully disposable tools by an entire society. We hoo-rah them in media, but leave MANY to die; from neglect, from PTSD & worse.
If you're not getting what you contracted for hire a lawyer like the rest of us. You want to be a crybaby to get more because of the danger of the job there are a hundred jobs more dangerous, and all we get is a days pay.
I had to sneak into the theatre to watch this as I was under 18 at the time. This movie changed my life. It's my all time favourite movie. From the set props to the set lighting and mood. Syd Mead's designs. Harrison Ford and Rutger Hauer's performances. I was besotted with Sean Young. It was a Ridley Scott masterpiece.
Reception was mixed because people are dumb. I saw it in the theater when it came out as a young man, and i was blown away. I knew I'd seen something that was ground breaking and would be classic. I can't even count how many times I have viewed it since. I still prefer the original released version.
Bladerunner is arguably the greatest science-fiction film of all time, and whether you realize it or not, you've made an excellent 22 minute support for that claim. In this video, you've brought so much to light all those things that were put there under the surface. Ridley Scott made the story significantly better by making all his slight changes to Phillip K. Dick's original story. And the amazing thing is that his changes are not obvious or readily apparent. It requires the viewer to have read Phillip K. Dick and to have a deeper understanding of both version of the story. It requires the viewer to be mature, perceptive, intuitive. . . . You did an amazing job. Wow. My appreciation for this video and commentary is beyond anything I can say. Thank you.
Tears in rain might be the most touching impactful piece of cinema I have ever seen. I have a feeling this movie will have a much larger impact as AI and automation becomes more mainstream
This movie is about as perfect as it gets. The acting, costume design, set design, music, cinematography, editing, etc. It speaks about every human condition every person has about every aspect of life. It brings up what intellectuals, ptsb, controllers ,order givers, social engineers, government, politicians, oligarchs, etc, plan for regular people, but scientific creations as well. Talks about everything since Adam, but especially what secularism, Darwinism, survival of the fittest, eugenics, etc, that especially came to prominent thought and practice since the industrial age. Great movie in every way. I watch it 3 to 6 times a year. It was spectacular, refreshing, germane, and apropo, when it came out. What is a great thing about the movie is, is every frame can be clipped, printed into a visually stunning, beautiful photo of it's own. Visually stunning from first frame to the last. A true masterpiece, a very rare gem, and underappreciated.
“ She might have been a Replicant, but that didn’t make me feel any better about shooting a woman in the back. “ In the original, narrated version of the movie, there’s so many great lines by Harrison.
Philip K. Dick is my spirit animal. "The man who remembered the future." Read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" when I was 13 years old, and my life was never quite the same. While Dick's writing was serviceable; his concepts, world building and prescient imagination were astoundingly powerful.
Great book - finally read it in prep for this video and sampled more of his work after that. Over time will be working my way through his whole library
@@OneTakeVids Way to go, fellow DickHead (what Phillp K.Dick fans are called, ha ha). I really loved your analysis on Blade Runner, and definitely hope you do a follow up video on Bladerunner 2049. Peace!
@@KidFresh71 The first I read was _"A Maze of Death"_ in 1974, when I was 12. Nothing in science fiction makes sense except in the light of Phillip K. Dick. {:o:O:}
great author. But you do not want him as your spiritual animal. He has some demons i n his head. His world building comes from his psychological disorder. He is a diagnosed schizophrenic. And his latter books would not exist, if it wasn't for Heinlein, and the others who hand around Clifton's cafeteria, which closed several years ago.
For me, the retconned unicorn in the Final Cut is a red herring; Gaff was in Deckard’s apartment, and left the origami unicorn *precisely* to let Deckard know he’d been there and spared Rachel, not because he knew Deckard’s thoughts. The ‘You’ve done a man’s job’ line is merely acknowledging that a human can be a bunch of contradictions and still be a one-man slaughterhouse, *not* that Deckard aspires to be a man. Scott’s insistence that Deckard is a replicant fundamentally wrecks the writers’ vision of Deckard escaping his Blade Runner ‘programming’ and rediscovering his humanity, which is exactly what the theatrical release was telling us. Anyway, saw it in 82 and loved it, regardless of how the critics dissed it. It had the fabulous feeling of being simultaneously old and new; just how new is still being discussed!
I've posted similar quite frequently! I mean, taking Scott's involvement/acceptance of 2049, then effectively, as someone else put it (as either myself!) 'Deckard as a Nexus 7 Replicant given memories of a retired Blade Runner is a plot-twisted mess' 🤣😜. Why introduce an expensive 'experiment' into the World, in an (ex🤔) BR apartment, waiting around to meet Rachel? Without the Off-World escape there wouldn't even have been a reason for them to meet and procreate, which was presumably the whole point. Ruins the ending completely as you say, which is about a Replicant showing dehumanised human the precious nature of life, and being alive.
@@fredbloggs5902 For what it's worth, my reading is he had knowledge that Rachel was 'special' and one of a kind, with no termination date. As rare as a unicorn
My stepdad let me watch this when it premiered on network TV...I think it was on NBC. I was very young. The end blew my mind as a child....the "bad guy" saves the detective who killed those he loved and tried to kill him as well. I really thought Roy was going to let him die.
I saw this in the movie theaters when it first came out and it immediately became one of my all time favorites. I love the story line and the gritty atmosphere it has. Truly still amazing to this day.
4 years old is an interesting age for the replicants as it is roughly seen as the age when humans start to show the capacity for independent thought and decision making abilities. The tears in rain monologue, among the greatest monologues in movie history, is where Batty shows regret how his memories and experiences will not be shared or passed on, but it is also the moment when he expresses the realization where that is what it means to be human.
After many, many years and many viewings and now no longer feeling the impact of trying to grapple with such a harsh and disturbing reality that BR brought to screen so vividly by Scott, it's a love story at its very core. The replicants show complete loyalty, sacrifice and devotion (love) for each other. Deckard and Rachel's love story is integral. I would say that their love of life and their fierce determination was best demonstrated in Roy Batty's final scene. I love the line by Tyrell when he states that- 'commerce, that is our goal here at Tyrell, more human than human is our motto'.
I chiefly agree on how Blade Runner, like most from the dystopian future genre, can be more specifically about the present rather than the future. Certainly when the harsh reality of dehumanization and enslavement is still a potentially big problem today.
Felt the melancholy of Roy Batty. All those moments we treasure while we are alive, moments we shared with our loved ones, great experiences we had we were alone, individual experiences that are unique and cannot be replicated, experiences if conserved and shared could enrich human experience and wisdom altogether will be lost like tears in rain among thousands of other individuals who will also pass away.
Blade Runner is such a classic. I believe Blade Runner is about a man questioning his own humanity and what makes us human and questions such as what I am? Am I real? Am I human? Is my life and my memories real or a dream? What is my purpose? and how long do I live for? Blade Runner is pure cinematic storytelling.
I would also add, that both Deckard and Gaff reached the same conclusion about Rachel, that she was rare and special - a Unicorn. Even in nature, we see the same conclusions can arise multiple times independently. For example, the capacity for flight evolved independently among flying insects, pterosaurs, birds, bats. Although in this case Ridley Scott inserted the Unicorn to suggest Deckard is a replicant, the other factors of the story greatly outweigh the impact of the unicorn. For example Deckard could not retire as a Blade Runner on Earth if he was a replicant, since they are dangerous, unpredictable, illegal, and shot on sight. Put a different way, psychotic serial killers are not allowed to serve and retire from the police force and roam the public. So the unicorn story was a feeble failed attempt to paint Deckard as a replicant.
I didn't understand the movie when young The ending didn't make sense. It took awhile for me to realize why. Roy Baddie, is a military replicant. I was angry and that he killed Sebastian and Tyrell. and the eye guy. Got to love James Hong. They were useless deaths. and out of nowhere, Baddie saves Deckard, right after he tried to kill him. The problem is Baddie didn't seem human, until right at the end. He was more human than human, because he saved his enemy. That he realize that the only immortality a human has, is for other humans to tell their tale.
IMO the unicorn doesn't imply that Deckard is a replicant. The dream is his subconscious coming to a realisation about Rachel, she's unique, she's not a production line replicant she's a one-off, she has an open ended life span, and she accepts him utterly. Gaffs origami is his acknowledgement of that and his understanding of what Deckard has done in letting her live and absconding with her. A unicorn is a common metaphor for rarity.
Yeah, and also for purity and innocence. But don't take Scott's assertion seriously. He said that BS some 20 years after the fact, and by then he was all ego-driven. Also, you know, death of the author and all that, his interpreation doesn't really matter, ESPECIALLY when he's just clearly making it up such a long time after the movie.
@@alexandresobreiramartins9461 Remember, Blade Runner got a lot of viewership on video because there were different versions. Scott's reasons for asserting one truth or the other, might be because this brought his film from being a terrible flop in theaters (it came out against E.T. in summer of '82), to being a "cult classic", specifically because people were looking for the videos that weren't the original US theatrical cut. I don't know how much it was still in his financial interests, but it was certainly in the interests of his reputation, that people continue to look for, and buy, different versions that include Gaffe's origami unicorn, and other hints of Deckard's not being human. If he said, "yes, Deckard is definitely human", people might stop buying the alternative takes, or at least not watch different versions of it. And even twenty years later, in 2002, most copies were VHS, not all DVD, and people didn't yet watch digital movies streaming. It's not necessarily ego or BS. It's just salesmanship.
@@squirlmy Yeah, makes sense from a commercial standpoint. My point is just that the creator (director, writer, etc.) does never have the definitive interpretation of their own work, that's not how things work.
The unicorn dream was added to the film *after* the question of Deckert being a replicant was raised. It has always bothered me that Ridley Scott jumped on that train, something which Phillip K. Dick clearly did not intend.
Whether or not Deckert was a replicant is completely irrelevant. If that is what people are caught up by they've completely missed the tone and message.
@@Jianju69 "It has always bothered me that Ridley Scott jumped on that train." You posted your irrelevant opinion here too numbnuts 🤣 We must not be very strong on the self-awareness thing huh Tex? Lol
Best argument for why the ambiguity of deckard (in the original) is more consistent with the theme that the difference between replicant and human is irrelevant.
At 14:08, the reflection of the candles appear like a crown upon "Roy's" head. Roy means king. Like a candle, his life is snuffed out. I saw this movie first on the big screen. Amazing cinematography.
'The light that burns twice as bright burns but half as long, and you have burned so very very brightly.' The original proverb that this was based on actually says candle not light, since that was where the principle came from.
This film is so good! Apart from what is mentioned here, I also appreciate the love for little things. For example: Rachel's eyes glow not because of the CGI, but because of the combination of candles and mirrors.
This movie was for me the most innovative movie at the time, and for several more decades to come. So ahead of its time on different levels. And much respect to the original author of the book also.
That the movie critics thought that this amazing movie was shallow when it first came out tells us a lot about movie critics. But personally, I think the twist of Deckard turning out to be a replicant himself weakens the whole story. It's just another layer of complexity that draws attention away from the main story without adding anything to it. All of the main characters are replicants, except Tyrell who is kind of secondary anyway. This removes the element of seeing the sacredness within the opponent that seems so central to the movie. The key event of the movie is Batty saving Deckard's life, as fellow-replicant Rachael had earlier, thus fulfilling his quest for humanity just as he dies. This would mean much more with a human Deckard, rather than with Deckard being one of Batty's own people. Another question I have about the film is, who really is the protagonist? We see everything from Deckard's perspective, but it's Batty who is really going through the character arc, while Deckard is mostly just following along. And Deckard's growth, if there is any, is much more ambiguous. There's not much evidence that he "loves" Racheal in any real way, and he essentially rewards her saving his life by raping her. That could be the start of a growth arc, but the story ends before it has time to kick in. As it is, Deckard ends up in largely the same place as he started. It's Batty and Racheal who are the interesting characters, the ones who are confronted with the challenges and make the decision to attempt to rise above their programming. But Deckard seems to be mostly a plot device to let us observe Batty and Rachael.
I have seen this movie so many times, and yet, thought endlessly drawn to the Bladerunner universe, had not been able to see many of the finer points that you exposed. Thank you, it was a deep and beautiful analysis.
My own head canon is that Deckard is not a replicant. Ratchel's pointed jab about the Voight/Kamph test is that the whole idea that replicants have no empathy is BS. Its just a way for humans to "other" the replicants and an excuse to treat these otherwise superior beings as disposable. The humans show no empathy whatsoever, going as far as fouling up the Earth and killing everything that isn't them. It's a joke that they condemn the replicants for not showing empathy when it is something they lack themselves. I find it more meaningful that Deckard as a human learns a lesson about humanity from those he originally considered inhuman.
It's about whatever YOU (the viewer) think it's about. It belongs to YOUR thought process and YOUR imagination. Same with books, we get to fill in all the gaps and spaces, if it isn't in the book we get to fill it in. That's the magic and THAT is why movies, books and fiction can mean so much to us. It's personal. ❤
💯 I really find these "breakdown" style videos to be a bore and overly tedious. PKD's original story had a much different feel to it than the movie, and like most of his stories it left a lot up to the reader to interpret or make sense of. The gaps are what make the story.
