tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post5804620424276793246..comments2024-03-29T04:57:26.162-04:00Comments on John Kenneth Muir's Reflections on Cult Movies and Classic TV: The Films of 1982: (From the Archives): Blade RunnerJohn Kenneth Muirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15629979615332893780noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-84772012618763246822012-03-04T10:22:09.456-05:002012-03-04T10:22:09.456-05:00Hi Spencer,
Don't worry if we disagree politi...Hi Spencer,<br /><br />Don't worry if we disagree politically. I have a lot of friends in real life, and here on the blog, who are of varying political stripe. It would be boring if we all believed the exact same thing. This way, I can learn from you, and you can learn from me. <br /><br />Thanks for the valuable history lesson on the 3/5s thing. I must confess, I didn't know that, but it proves what I often do write here, in terms of movies: context is important.<br /><br />I also loved this formulation: "It is a better argument for Decker as human, because he is an "authority" figure, perhaps the first one, to see and acknowledge the right of life for the replicants. "Authority" has started to see the wrong, and can start the hard work of correcting society."<br /><br />I think you make an excellent point there. It's important, if society is to change (and accept the Replicants as sentient, living beings with rights), that the authority/establishment see the truth about them. Deckard is, perhaps, the first to do so. Very cool thought, and your argument makes total sense to me.<br /><br />best wishes,<br />JohnJohn Kenneth Muirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15629979615332893780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-22641833187280559892012-03-03T08:17:33.699-05:002012-03-03T08:17:33.699-05:00I enjoy your reviews, though I differ with you on ...I enjoy your reviews, though I differ with you on a lot politically. One aspect I would clarify is your use of the 3/5 clause as an example of bigotry. The reason for the 3/5 clause was to leave the fight against slavery for another day. The Constitution was going to be derailed because the slave owners of the South wanted to count their slaves fully which would have given them enough delegates to permanently block the abolition of slavery. The 3/5 clause was a compromise that allowed the ratification of the Constitution to proceed, while the amendment mechanisms were in place to screws slavery at a later time. Frederick Douglas, upon studying the history of the 3/5 clause, argued that the clause was decidedly not racist because it ensured that society would have the mechanisms to correct it's course, while preventing the current status quo from having the ability to permanently block reform. <br /><br />Ultimately we need to acknowledge wrongs on an individual level and change society that way. That is the power of a character like Decker. It is a better argument for Decker as human, because he is an "authority" figure, perhaps the first one, to see and acknowledge the right of life for the replicants. "Authority" has started to see the wrong, and can start the hard work of correcting society.<br /><br />Great review of a fantastic movie. Thank you for expressing what I often don't even realize I am getting out of a movie. <br /><br />Spencer<br />Waxhaw, NCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-21128817230986890462012-03-02T17:03:04.474-05:002012-03-02T17:03:04.474-05:00Hi Le0pard13:
I totally agree with your excellent...Hi Le0pard13:<br /><br />I totally agree with your excellent formulation:<br /><br />"Even though the film is a product of the 80's, the context and brilliance of the piece manages to transcend the almost 30 years for today's audience."<br /><br />I suppose that's why Blade Runner is being resurrected as a franchise, right? Because so much of it still has currency today. I just hope that a new film can also be forward looking, somehow, if that's possible.<br /><br />I love your Angeleno's angle on BR, and think it's incredibly important, vis-a-vis the "development" of that city into a real life BR metropolis. I think it's happening even faster than anyone expected.<br /><br />I also like how you see the film's quest for immortality. It is, indeed, our quest too. <br /><br />Great comment,<br />best,<br />JohnJohn Kenneth Muirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15629979615332893780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-67197202099527090822012-03-02T16:12:53.467-05:002012-03-02T16:12:53.467-05:00I'll reiterate some of what I said back in 201...I'll reiterate some of what I said back in 2010 regarding your reprise of this film examination as it still applies:<br /><br />As a native Angeleno, this film resonates with many who live here. Ridley Scott's vision, and visuals, seem to be coming true to an extent. Already (and an ongoing controversy locally), we have building ads that almost meet the grand parameters on display in BLADE RUNNER. As well, because of globalization, many of precepts (certainly the co-optioning and the use of whatever cheap labor is available) ring true even more now. The racial and elite metaphors you discuss in the post remain timely and apt. Even though the film is a product of the 80's, the context and brilliance of the piece manages to transcend the almost 30 years for today's audience.<br /><br />I've always thought the replicant tale and struggle that's told here was symbolic of our own human realization of our mortality. The "I want more life, fucker!" and the answer given was suggestive of our learned awareness that everything has limits (even God's). What a great examination and analysis you've written for a truly great film, John.le0pard13https://www.blogger.com/profile/09421175808461787862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-72018180650062076372012-03-02T13:58:58.038-05:002012-03-02T13:58:58.038-05:00Hi Cannon,
I think you make an excellent argument...Hi Cannon,<br /><br />I think you make an excellent argument regarding Deckard as Replicant. I think that in very broad strokes, the idea that he is a Replicant works. Primarily because it incorporates the noir elements of the film (the search for self, namely).<br /><br />But on a detailed level, you're right to point out inconsistencies if that's the case. I totally agree.<br /><br />I especially sympathize and agree with you that if Deckard is a replicant, that fact takes something away from the film's argument that humans and replicants, though different, can get along and interact. That's a great point, my friend. Very well debated, and I see what you mean.<br /><br />Best,<br />JohnJohn Kenneth Muirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15629979615332893780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-45335627174561232522012-03-02T13:11:06.142-05:002012-03-02T13:11:06.142-05:00Cool review, John. Definitely insightful concernin...Cool review, John. Definitely insightful concerning the Japanese corporate elements, which is something I’ve always vaguely recognized but was never able to fully articulate, not even to myself. However, I find rather suspect the whole ‘Deckard-Replicant’ theory. A number of factors to consider:<br /><br /> In the Director’s Cut, Bryant mentions a rogue group of six Replicants (three males, three females), one of which was killed while trying to break into Tyrell Corporation. But in the Final Cut -- the most recently altered "official" version, as decided by Ridley Scott -- a different take is used where Bryant clearly states that <i>two</i> were initially electrocuted and killed, leaving only four, Leon, Zhora, Pris and Roy. This doesn’t eliminate Deckard as a Replicant per se, only that he wasn’t part of the rouge six; honestly, I don’t see how that particular plotline would have made sense either way. <br /><br />How does a Replicant go from being a recent off-world fugitive to a police detective with his own lived-in apartment? I suppose that, after capturing Deckard, perhaps even as one of the two who allegedly died, the police could have given him the "Total Recall" treatment, thereby using one Replicant to hunt down the rest, but it all seems like an awful big stretch. Nothing really adds up holistically, given not only what is depicted in the film, but how. Deckard is clearly not as strong or fast as the Replicants. Fisticuffs, he gets his ass handed to him by Zhora, Leon, Pris and Roy accordingly. Why would this Replicant be physically weaker? A last minute alteration by the police/Tyrell? Eh, I don’t know, that’s pretty thin.<br /> <br />But, okay, there’s still the idea that Deckard is a separate Replicant altogether, specialized to fit in as human but with the senses to detect other Replicants. Except...<br /> <br />The fact that Gaff’s origami was a unicorn design was originally of no significance, only that the origami itself indicated that he had tracked Rachel to Deckard’s apartment but then decided let her live, to let bygones be bygones, so-to-speak. For his Director’s Cut, Scott, with a change in conceit, cleverly realized then seized an opportunity to make something of the paper design by inserting stock footage from <b>Legend</b> (a unicorn running through the forest) for Deckard’s newly rendered -- through simple dissolve editing -- connective dream sequence. Voilà.<br /> <br />Now, this doesn’t negate the theory that Deckard is Replicant made. Not at all. So what if the dream sequence was added post hoc? A thematic through-line can be just as valid editorially. Yet said themes are precisely why I’m not on board with Deckard being a Replicant, at least not entirely. In my view it kinda, sorta, halfway defeats the purpose. If Deckard learns the value of Replicant life <i>only</i> by discovering that he is a Replicant himself, then he hasn’t really learned anything. Sure, he comes to respect the rights and freedoms of non-human sentient life, but ultimately because he’s forced to by way of revelation. I think it works even better that he learns as a human, from the human perspective, that he is able to think and feel beyond and across differences; for the very meaning of “empathy” is to emotionally and intellectually relate to <i>another</i>, to someone who is not you, not <i>like</i> you. This should be a human ideal. As you suggest, it also ties in better with Deckard and Rachel’s romance. Furthermore, there’s something fetishly fascinating about their heated love scene -- the psychology of sex with the artificial (as continued from <b>Alien</b>) -- that is almost completely undermined by having both be Replicant.<br /><br />As for the dream sequence, I still think it works regardless. It works in a different light. Perhaps there is a higher spiritual, metaphysical link between Man and Replicant. Perhaps Gaff is a unique Replicant all his own, sharing a special subconscious with a very human Deckard. <b>Blade Runner</b> is a very lyrical movie ...so, who knows?Cannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12886860130286869992noreply@blogger.com