Kermode Uncut: The Mystery Of Blade Runner
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 сер 2024
- www.bbc.co.uk/markkermode - Blade Runner - The Final Cut is about to get a big screen release by the BFI. Why does this movie continue to fascinate and intrigue audiences?
- Фільми й анімація
I'm not sure why Blade runner is still so fascinating and why it holds up so well. The soundtrack is definitely a big part of why the film is so mesmerizing. Maybe the greatest, most otherworldly score ever written.
Those end credits... Goosebumps every time.
***** It set the bar for what cyberpunk ambiance remains to this day.
Then show me a better film, you see you can't have your cake, people will find fault but as a piece of great cinema, music, dialogue and overall meaning nothing has come close, not even near it. We can look back and think this is wrong and that is wrong..but compare it to the deck these days and then you're barking if you can find an equal film these days...
This is where my interests cross paths. The Bladerunner soundtrack influenced so many of the early sounds of drum & bass and gave it such mystery and atmosphere.
Check out 'Angels Fell' by Dillinja for a good example of this.
I find it amazingly creepy how accurate he's been so far. Giant led billboards, computer systems that react to your voice, the police uniforms and the graphics on the police vehicles
Blade Runner will always, _always_ be my favourite film of all time.
munky cheez Mine too.
+TimeLimey Snap
+munky cheez Why is that. Care to elaborate?
M. A. dunno ive never seen a film better than it to this point. can't ever imagine another film beating it on the things it does. also i love cyperpunk, but cyberpunk films seem almost fake these days
+munky cheez I like the ideas the film presents. The artificial intelligence, the dark dystopian future, the quest for humanity and eternal life, but despite all the visual pizazz the film is very, very slow. I can totally understand why it flopped upon it's original release when most people wanted a popcorn film like E.T. Blade Runner makes you think and imagine things rather than show you everything and I guess that's the reason it's still relevant today. It certainly doesn't feel like an 80's movie.
The mystery was never "is he an android" the mystery is, what's the difference?
Finest hour of Rutger Hauer.
"The question is what's interesting, the answer is stupid."
- Hampton Fancher
I always thought the point of the film was that in the end it didn't matter who was a replicant and who was not. Both were living beings either created by nature or created in a lab by men who nature had produced in the first place. I prefer the final cut btw.
That was what I thought. To me tears in the rain isn't just him loosing his memories it's also that a replicant around humans is like tears in the rain
I do, still like Deckards voice over noir thriller esque.
RIP Rutger. The final scene is one of the most iconic in movie history.
“Aren’t you the good man?” . I love the fact that you root for the replicants who seem more human and emotional than the humans.
It still excites so much interest in fans because it's a masterpiece!!!! Simple!!
Amen. A masterpiece. My personal definition of what constitutes a masterpiece is when that work (painting, perfume, food, episode, film, music, etc.) is SO outstanding, that it remains SO high above the others that it is in a class by itself. Several times, I've noticed, that I can't compare two or more masterpieces and determine which is better; they are unique unto themselves.
Ray Der If Ridley Scott had the same definition of 'masterpiece' as you, he certainly wouldn't think Blade Runner was one.
a flawed masterpiece
I would say it's an artistic masterpiece and such its imperfections make it unique . it is a one of .The concept and its possible creation to man kind make it special .You either get it or you dont ...
Deckard is clearly meant to be a replicant in the directors and Final cut but I think the film is better if he isn't one.
One of the themes of the movie is the nature of humanity and there's a stark contrast between Deckard, who is human but becomes more and more inhuman as he ruthlessly slaughters the replicants and Roy Batty, who questions his own existence and maker and strives to live. The final scene is an excellent turning of the tables as Deckard becomes the animal (the only noises he makes are howls and grunts) being hunted by the superior species who then saves his life in a way that he would not have done.
None of this works if both of them are androids.
I prefer it being left up to interpretation
I saw it at Glastonbury on a massive screen in a huge marquee in 1984, flying to Tyrell building to test Rachel was like you were flying with them, fantastic.
For me....Blade Runner is about 'what's real' more than its about who's a replicant.
It is that final moment that shows the complex wonder and dread and ambiguity of conscious existence crammed into a few seconds and how deckhard confronts this as a now hunted man. And then the score kicks in. Intoxicating
It's the Vangelis and Lloyd-Wright that does it for me!
Best film ever.
Finally saw it on the massive screen - at the IMAX in Waterloo - mental!
I must have seen this film over 100+ times and its the only one I never get bored of. As some have already alluded to, its just simply the perfect marriage of story, casting, art direction, photographic direction etc etc. Screening two days after my birthday is the perfect present. Tickets booked and probably another visit in April. Mark's documentary is not on any of the DVD or Blue-ray as far as I'm aware, but it was on here last time I looked, but its certainly worth a watch if you have not seen it.
The mystery of Blade Runner as I see it is exactly that: a mystery. There is no answer like life itself. It's there to ask questions not answer them. It's a projection of our multi cultural future which is becoming more like our present and to philosophise about one's place amongst social hierachy and urban decay.
I've always liked how it's incredible visual style is what people talk about yet that's hiding a small character driven piece. Like Deckard, do we know who we really are? Perhaps not. We don't understand the purpose of dreams ourselves either.
+LAWRENCE WHITEHURST Superbly put :)
I always thought of it as a "How comples does a machine have to be before it is a valid life form?" type question in the film. Deckard is the top replicant-hunter but they have now been designed to be better than human. They are better, 'more' human, even.
The Unicorn makes sense if you know the myth. In medieval literature the unicorn is a terrifying deadly forest dweller that kills anyone that dares confront it. But many try because it's horn is so valuable. It has one weakness, virgins.
If it finds a pure virgin in it's forest it lays it's head in her lap placidly. Knights hunting unicorns exploited this to kill them whilst vulnerable.
Deckard is like the unicorn, a ruthless slayer, but his growing empathy with Rachel makes him begin to sympathise, and Roy's ending changes him.
Just a thought
Still such a truly mesmerising film. A true masterpiece.
Ridley Scott filmed a scene where Tyrell was a replicant. After Roy Batty pushes his eyes in, he goes up one floor and there - in a tomb - is the real Tyrell. Batty then shuts the life support of that off. Perhaps being too much of a mind twist, or being too reminiscent of HAL in 2001, they cut that scene - it's not even in the Final Cut - but it did get shot. That really turns it on it's head. tyrell, Dekkard, heck - perhaps everyone except Sebastian.
An absolutely beautiful evocative film with an amazing soundtrack by vangelis...one of my favourite films of all time.
Deckard being a replicant may make him a more interesting character, but I think it also diminishes Roy Batty's "tears in rain" speech somewhat. A dying machine sharing those thoughts with a human is more meaningful to me than simply a machine to machine exchange of information, even when one of those machines isn't aware he is one. I like to think of the movie as Batty's story, but of course mileage varies a great deal with fans.
You've said it perfectly. It's an interesting twist, however to watch Deckard, as a human, be so inhuman through killing these replicants only to be reminded by Rachel, a replicant herself, what it is to be human, is very touching. Incredible to watch, really.
i think the film makes more sense and works better if dekkard is a human, as a human killing replicants which are themselves purpose built human slaves, who is the more inhumane in this scenario, also as far as evidence of dekkard being a replicant the only thing which supports him being one is the unicorn there is more evidence of him being human than there is of being a replicant imo
kevin caprani I agree. Plus, practically speaking, if Deckard is a replicant made to hunt and "retire" replicants, he's not that great at his job. Sure, he can track them, but he gets beaten up by nearly every one of them he encounters, even by the pleasure model Pris. Without his gun, he's kind of pathetic. The cops should really ask for a refund for that particular model.
kevin caprani After being thrashed around by Leon, while Rachel talks to Deckard as he washes up, we see a replicant glow in his eyes for a split second. Plus, Ridley himself confirms that in fact Deckard is meant to be one.
kevin caprani My favorite cut of the movie is one I don't think exists: the theatrical cut without the lousy narration. All the unicorn and red eye stuff, I could do without.
Saw The Final Cut at the Prince Charles with a friend that had never seen it. Absolutely amazing.
I believe in the ambiguity of Deckard's origin. It's not so important to know whether or not he's human, but to watch him appreciate life as it is. What does it mean to be human? To live? To love? The androids... The humans. What's their difference? They both want more life. To live.
My absolute favourite film. This will be the first chance I have had, to see it in the cinema and I CANNOT wait. Everything about this film, the visuals, the amazing Vangelis score, the performances it's just got this timeless quality.
Your documentary is online. And it is tremendous. Thank you so much for making it.
Mark is obsessed with films. I know it is his job but he sometimes sees the same film two or three times and spends his holidays here in Cornwall visiting cinemas: talk about a bus man's holiday.
My favourite film of all time, seen it far too many times and I will be watching it again when it's re-released at the cinema. Probably multiple times.
I think that "mystery" is a good word. It has a mystique that doesn't have a definitive answer, so it's open to many viewing and interpretations, not mention the different versions, which gives you so many different angles and ideas to explore and interprer. Like all great films, you can watch it over and over and find different things. Plus, when you add in the film's history-studio interference, controversial production, box office failure, rediscovery on a new format of home video, multiple cuts-it just adds to the mystique.
If Benedict Cucumberpatch gets cast in Blade Runner 2 I'm sending a velociraptor to the studio offices.
will morris Not sure about that. Have you seen "Inseparable"? It's a short film(11 mins), mostly silent, and is on YT. He is outstanding in that. Perhaps he is not given a proper chance to show his skills. He is going the Hollywood route, it seems, which will be his undoing, IMO.
coool!
I know Mark said a re-release nationwide, I hope this also means the smaller towns and not just the cities. I was far too young first time round, would be amazing to see bladerunner at the cinema.
They are screening this across Canada in select cineplex theaters at the end of January going into the beginning of February, I'm really excited to see it on the big screen
I think the story is better if he isn't a replicant, because then it's about a human looking for his lost humanity and finding it in his compassion for a replicant... the alternative is that he's a android falling in love with an android, and it's not as powerful.
I'd say Deckard being a replicant brings nothing to the story and Scott just jumped on it because fans thought it was a cool idea. All it reveals to me is futher confirmation that Scott, while a master of atmosphere, is a hack of a storyteller. Bladerunner as a film looks and sounds great and dances around interesting themes, but is pretty empty as a story, like most of his films are in human terms. That's the mystery of it - the slightness of the story has allowed fans to read things into it and so contributed to its cult success. Fair enough, it worked well in its own way, and in cinematic terms its stunning. Trying to make out that Deckard is a replicant though is just gimmickry that undermines even the openess of interpretation that there is. It serves us with an entirely pointless and meaningless twist, not a deeper story.
As an aside, I have a lot of time for Kermode, but he sure does geek out like a fanboy sometimes and get lost in adulation.
+greyztone I agree with you 100%
+greyztone Hmm, there's at least one scene in the film where you see Deckard's eyes glinting like the (rest of) the Nexus. What would that mean otherwise? Personally, I found the book to be even more suggestive that *everyone* is a replicant, not just Deckard, which would sure fit in with the kind of paranoid themes often explored in Dick's writing.
Also, geeking out in adulation over this film is more than understandable; it's one of the finest pieces of sci-fi cinema ever made, IMO. How many other films over three decades old still look as good as it does?
Blade Runner is still The ultimate movie in my book! Remembering back in time Seeing it in the Cinema....i was just gone within my self...like my brain was paralyzed, yet thoughts were flying around....for days it was kind of living in a surreal world, part real time part in the world of Blade runner! Non other movie has ever had this kind of effect on me. I can only say that it is my Greatest Movie of all times and i am deeply grateful to R. S. for making this film.
Also, Ridley's clarification "he is a replicant", has no bearing on the way I -the audience- perceive the story. Any work of art, once out there, is like an arrow that has left the bow. No one cares what the bow thinks any more, the arrow has struck. Our hearts and minds.
Quite honestly my favourite film ever! There is so much I could say but in a nutshell there it is.
Actually, making Deckard an android ruins the film.
It's my favourite film hands down, for me it portrays the most legitimate dystopian future imaginable. Grime, filth, smog, dirt and decay, positioned in a climate of never ending rain.
what if in the world of Blade Runner everyone are actually replicants & there are no true humans left anymore? And it's just that no one knows except an elite few who keep watch over the populace & decide which ones need to be "retired".
+James Shelnutt You have just blown up my mother board with that one!!
Who are the elite few?
the engineers from Prometheus? The Tyrell corporation?
+James Shelnutt - Exactly what I thought too: "It's too bad she won't live, but then again who does?"
The fact that there's an element of mystery about whether he is or isn't a replicant is the beauty of this film. In essence i think anyone's answer to that question perhaps reveals a little bit about that person, their view on humanity, and what it is to be human. It doesn't need a sequel, the question the film asks is the films primary success.
One sign of a great movie is the amount of debate it creates, and how long the debates last. By that measure it's a great movie.
Another sign is how well it is shot, how cinematic it is. On that count it's a masterpiece. You could watch Blade Runner with just some music playing, just for the imagery.
On top of that though, it's visionary. Scott shows us a dirty future (like Alien) where most Sci-Fi shows us a World that looks like a huge Apple MacBook Air, shiny and perfect, Scott shows us a vision where the Elite live in exclusive high towers whilst everyone else lives in the dirt, despite technological advances. It shows us the effect of climate change quite subtly.
It's worth watching just to ask yourself, "How much of this is coming true?".
It's one of my 10/10 films (and writing about it makes me want to watch it...again).
More human than human, the fact that he is an android but doesn't really know, adds to the movie and answers so many hidden questions, like why Rudger didn't kill him at the end.
The meaning of the unicorn? Deckard really likes Legend.
Unicorns aren't real, that's what I take from it. He sort of knows he's a replicant
***** It means that Gaff knows what Deckard dreams about. Which means Deckard is a replicant.
***** "and ill find my way home" Jon Andersson
FU Art. Chris is joking here. Because this is a similar unicorn as Ridley Scott other movie called "Legend "
.. saw in one of the featurettes .. that the Blade Runner Unicorn Daydream sequence, was shot FOR the movie... then RS did LEGEND later in the 80's and those ornate Orb Collumns from BR, are later reused IN Legend, in the Hall of Darkness scenes? ... I see similarities in the cinemetography, with the 'look/effect' shot of the Spinners hovering ahead of Gaff & Deckard when they're flying together, which reminds me of shots of the UFOs from Close Encounters .. some of the deleted 'green paradise' scenes unused/deleted in later editions, were actual footage from "The Shining', given to Scott to use for BR.... so much you can cross ref with other movies prior and after BR!! :D
Honestly, Deckard has never been a Replicant to me. Sure, Ridley Scott can say he is, but at the end of the day, art is completely subjective and people will interpret it however they like.
But me personally, I think it hurts the ambiguity of Deckard's true nature and discourages fan theories and analysis if Ridley Scott flat out tells us Deckard is a Replicant. I also think it hurts the film if the protagonist, whose humanity he rediscovered through his budding relationships with the machines he's sworn to kill, discovers that he was NEVER HUMAN.
Finally, Deckard is not Ridley Scott's character. It's not his call. Deckard was created by Philip K. Dick.
Thank you! I agree 100%
I personally prefer the whole idea that he is human but become soo de-humanised by his job and dystopian future world he is in that the replicants are actually more human than he is, that to me seems central to the whole film and also Dick's novel. What it means to be human. But each to their own.
Sorry for the reply to an old thread. But I agree, and for me, it has never really mattered whether he's a replicant or not - to fixate on that would be missing the point entirely.
Indeed, be such a shame to reduce such a masterpiece to one point.
Kevin Striker but stanley kubrick created the shining XD
On the edge of Bladerunner is available, in its entirety, here on UA-cam. Check it out, even if you have the far longer final cut documentary Dangerous Days. It's a more concise, honest and edgier piece. With a younger more rockabilly haircut equipped Mark at the helm. And all the better for it.
Visionary futurism, timeless score, villains who become antiheroes, but also the questions it poses about what makes for a real person, what level of autonomy is enough to say, 'that's a being in its own right and not some machine you can turn on and off at will'? It heralds huge moral and philosophical questions we only ever approach in time. So it has major themes which seem more applicable in time, not less and in such a way that it offers real substance. It's basically timeless, that's why it's enduring imo.
Seen it so many times including twice on the big screen (once at an all-nighter at The Scala, Kings Cross and the other at The Ritzy, Brixton). Love it.
classic, brilliant ,timeless .Looking forward to the sequel .
That's not quite correct as the novel does pose questions over Deckard's 'humanity'. The original premise for the book is an evaluation of humanity in general however there are distinct elements addressing the possible 'Android' nature. This occurs not only through the general dehumanization of Deckard by his work but also through more direct narratives. The title itself 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep' can be readily be interpreted in this way since Deckard is the only character that owns and is troubled by owning one. Mercerism is not engaged in by Deckard in any form and Deckard's own belief in his identity is questioned when he is taking to the replica Police Station where a reflex-arc test on him is suggested. There are several places within the novel where the idea that Deckard is 'not' human, rather than 'no longer' human is presented to the reader.
He passes the VK test.......so.....human.
One of my favourite films of all time.
Recently some one said to me "Decker's a replicant". I didn't believe him at first but it did stick in my mind for a while and now I know that it's basically up to yourself as there is no real proof he is or isn't, oh and it's not real.
There is also an "assembly" cut that I saw about 10 years ago. I believe it was the first cut screened to the suits, cast, and crew. The only difference I noticed was that there was music placed in the bradbury building sequence at the end of the film to pump up the tension. It doesn't work. Scott was wise to remove it.
Blade Runner is one of my favourite movies of all-time. I think it's such a beautifully constructed movie - it's philosophically fascinating, and... well... I could go on about it for ages. The Final Cut is probably my favourite version. I didn't like the voice-over version, I felt it wasn't necessary and channeled an influence from Raymond Chandler a tad too strongly for my liking, in my opinion. Can't wait to see this at the BFI on the 14th December.
it’s STILL in my all time TOP 3 films ever just great hands down and then the soundtrack on top WOW WOW WOW😁
There's a bit in the book where the reader is made to wonder ... Deckard himself administers his own test. But the reveal is simple and obvious.
The real question is not whether or not he's physically a human or a simulant... but whether his actions are human... Does being a bounty hunter, someone who kills for a living, truly in touch with humanity and fully human?
Those questions are explored in the book... but not enough in my opinion. The film is much, much better than the book. And I say that as an avid reader.
Because Gaff seemed to know what Deckard was thinking. The matchstick with a hard-on. The unicorn at the end. Gaff knew what Deckard was. Scarily, before /Deckard/ did.... My #1 sci-fi film of all time!
Simple answer - it's the greatest sci-fi film made up till now. Many have tried; 'they tried and failed? They tried and died'
Therefore the real and interesting question is not if Deckard is a replicant but if Blade Runner is better movie with Deckard being replicant or not.
On The Edge Of Blade Runner is a fantastic work in its own right
Seen this twice at the cinema, both times have been amazing
Greatest film ever produced
I Love the film, and enjoyed the newer version of battlestar galactica which is its brain child. I never got a sense deckard was a replicant, moreover I thought the story was better Because he knew what rachel was and despite this his love, their love was undeniable. He would go north with her or to the ends of the earth to protect her until her time came.
As you get older this film gets better and better
Hi, just watched the doc, amazing job. Top spot for me Dick's reaction to the 10 minute take, along with Roy's mimicking the half of the disliking audience "this ain't LA, this ain't my town..". Brilliant. How come Ford didn;'t have his say in the doc? I guess he refused, didn't he. Would appreciate an answer if u can spare the time. Keep up the good work.
We love this movie because we easily relate with the main characrer's ''who am I'' problems. In fact this movie is about humans. But with one octave transposition towards the ''humanoid'' aspect that sparks up everything so we are not in a boring movie.
There's an old book with various essays on all aspects of Blade Runner, the name of it escapes me, it's worth reading.
I think the only reason why Scott has said deckard is a replicant is so we can be surprised when it turns out, in the new film, that he isn't.
When Rachel is in Deckard's appartment after killing Leon,she asks Deckard "Would you come after me?"
When he turns around Deckard is out of focus but his eyes have the orange artificial glow.
This may be a mistake since they used an orange lamp to get reflections off Sean Young's eyes, and Harrison Ford was simply caught .This and the Unicorn are kinda undisputable.
I like that you can't tell if he's a replicant or not
I grew up with the studio-tampered-with version with the forced happy ending. Years later, I saw The Final Cut. I agree, it is the definitive version of Blade Runner. But for sentimental reasons, I like the "Old Richter Route" ending :)
For me it's the Vangelis soundtrack. Blade Runner is my favourite film of all time. Of all time.
Mark - I watched your documentary (loved it!) - but the scene where Fancher/Peoples discuss how the android idea came about - it wasn't in there! Is there a longer cut or did you just not use the footage? Does it still exist?
In Blade Runner 2049 Mariette picks up the wooden unicorn in a way which suggests she as the same dream as K. When Gaff leaves the origami unicorn I think he is saying to Deckhard the same thing, 'I have the same dreams as you' perhaps, it's one interpretation anyway. But I think fundamentally like Joi and K's love, it doesn't matter whether or not Deckard is a replicant and that is the true point.
I'm still heartbroken this happened not long after I moved out of the UK. [sob!]
The Unicorn only confirms Gaff was there and spared Rachael's life.
Harrison Ford is on record as saying he played Deckard to represent human's.
So it is my belief that Gaff is a replicant, and a Blade Runner which would explain many scenes where he is acting in a non-human way. He does oragami with one hand like a machine and does not relate with his fellow Blade Runner.
Deckard on the other hand bleed's and is physically no match for any of his android opponents in fight scenes which is consistant with being human.
And in the final scene Deckard takes Batty's confession so he can live on in spirit much like the movie has.
As in other cases this "revealing quote" by Ridley Scott isn't satifying the mind. If anything, it banalizes that very sense of mystery that has been surrounding the movie since it came out. To NOT know till the end is what creates interest, provoques thoughts and keep us humans awake and asking questions. I love to see the movie as it ended up in the final version without those boring voice overs from Deckard on the rooftop. Luckily all those "not used scenes" have never made it to the movie.
Still one of my top 5 movies of all times. One masterpiece! Thanks to Ridley Scott for creating it!
In many ways, it makes no sense for Deckard to be a replicant. Replicants are property and don't get to "retire". Deckard could leave the Blade Runner Unit because he's human.
I think the film holds up so well because it was the first of its kind and it has a nostalgia trip for most of us that watch it to this day. Much like Alien, Aliens, Robocop, The Terminator etc. These films all share a similar quality, it was new unexplored territory for film making. Books had spurred on the imagination for filmmakers and with technology ramping up to dizzying heights for the time, they were finally able to really create these incredible worlds that were reserved only in our heads or on paper.
You might be asking but the technology is even better now, of course it is however it relies way too heavily on animation and less on story building, characters and physical assets that were painstakingly built (sets, animatronics etc.). With that being said I personally thought that 2049 was Incredible and a fitting tribute but in a way the first had done most of the story and lore for it.
What makes Bladerunner a mystery after all these years? You said it. Uncertain ingredient. As the creative juices were unclear on this subject, so was the resulting concoction. The audience is eternally confused by what they are shown. No matter the version they are seeing.
The visuals then the sadness through out the movie machines wanting more life
humans stuck on a slum Earth wanting more too
and in the middle of it all are some very poetic love stories
compared with other sci fi movies at the time it just changed everything !
I thought the "gold reflection" in "certain light" was an good identifier of being a Replicant, especially when we see Rachel and Deckard in his apartment.
The mystery for me now is "is the Tyrell that Batty kills a replicant"?
Anthony Fins I think there was a story board drawn up where batty finds a higher level of the pyramid.Tyrell is in a sort of iron lung, paralysed.But they didn't use it.
Just seeing those short clips moves me incredibly. A stunning master-piece of film-making.
Looking at Ridley Scott's later works, I think this, and "Alien" were flukes.
Also, Ridley Scott under-mined his own greatest achievement by making Deckard a replicant.
So I just ignore that one aspect of the film when I watch it.
Legend was fantastic, too. Anything Tim Curry was in from Rocky Horror to 'It' is Criterion on his performance alone.
*****
Yes, Legend was indeed great. But it never felt like a distinctly Ridley Scott movie.
Vebinz I've never been able to put a finger on what does, unless we're using more recent benchmarks like Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven. Both decent films, but essentially when he hit the Sam Raimi 'established gun for hire' level of directing. Nothing he's done in recent memory has any specific nuance save maybe Prometheus, but that's probably not his proudest moment.
*****
I simply meant it didn't have that detailed realistic design aesthetic that he showed in his first two (sci-fi) films.
Which is why I'm no fan of his later films and consider those two early ones flukes. He's nothing special when her's not doing sci-fi, and even that formula has expired as Prometheus apparently proved.
Vebinz Prometheus could have worked if he had nothing to do with it
I think when you see Blade Runner for the first time, you're placed into the shoes of Roy Batty: you've seen things other people wouldn't believe.
I think there's more than enough room in the film for both readings; Deckard-as-replicant and Deckard-as-human. While the filmmakers have decided to weight the film towards one more than the other, at the end of the day the final, absolute meaning is between the individual viewer and the film.
I like that there's ambiguity there as to "is he/isn't he?" I guess if I were to have a "perfect" movie in Blade Runner, I would have that question completely unweighted and unanswered... left 100% for the viewer to ponder. But, seeing as it's still in discussion today I guess there's enough ambiguity there after all. Besides, there's no such thing as a "perfect" movie, but Blade Runner, for my money, comes pretty damn close.
Can't wait to see this in cinemas.
One of the best films of all time coupled with legendary Vangelis score. Tears in the rain scene is one of the best in cinema history, a must have if you like your thinking mans film.
To me the reality here is that Deckard is NOT an android. The Origami piece at the end only suggests that the Blade Runners are on her trail back to Deckards apartment and have left a sinister calling card if you will to ramp up the pressure and remind Deckard of his purpose. Secondly when Deckard straightens his broken fingers he feels pain and howls. Although I think that could be a grey area.
It still resonates today because it is a bloody good film. Like others state below, it highlights what is real and what is fake. Who or what makes us human. Is Deckard deserving of life more than Batty or the other replicants.
Looking forward to Blade Runner 2049 and hope it adds rather than detracts from this masterpieces legacy.
Just not concerned about the debate. I enjoy the movie for what it is a sumptuous visual noir film.
Blade Runner is a beautiful and wonderful movie worth revisiting every few years, but life is rich and short, and there are so many other things that you can dedicate your emotional energy to other than the consideration of whether Deckard is a replicant.
"Replicant" not "Android". They are made through genetic material. Not mechanical components.
My favorite movie of all time.
Im pretty sure 'on the edge of bladerunner' is in the collector's boxset of the final cut
My favorite sci fi movie!
Fascinating. That’s one hell of a misunderstanding given all the angst super-fans have gone through over the years looking for deeper meanings. I get that it’s a neat twist “oh wow, HE’S AN ANDROID TOO” but isn’t one of the main points of “Electric Sheep” that in their desperation to just live the replicants become MORE human and Decker is de-humanised by having to hunt and kill them? He can't be de-humanised if he isn't human?
Blade Runner is (a bit) like a David Lynch movie. Pace is slow with flashes of violence, dreamy atmosphere, recurrent music all along, unexpecting turn of events in an otherwise very codified genre. Only thing missing is the humor.
What a Film! Just absolutely amazing.
Does Mark not know that his documentary is on the Blu-Ray Final Cut edition?
The documentary you may be referring to is the 3 hour long 'Dangerous Days', which is on the 2nd disc of the Blu-Ray edition. Mark's 'On the edge of Blade Runner' is not on any edition.. but it most certainly should be. Glad i still have it on VHS.
The reason I liked the voice-over when I saw the film for the first time, in an almost empty theater and then again with a former girlfriend in another almost empty theater days later, was that it provided what I thought was, correctly as it turned out, a necessary explanation of what was going on for those who would be intimidated by the menace of these perfect androids who might destroy us all - the injustice of them being hated and destroyed because they were created to be perfect. They were the good guys, in other words, and not the monsters. I was glad it was said out loud in the voice-over, though I had immediately understood the amazingly subversive and yet vivid theme - because I knew it was way, way over the head of most people who would see it and they would hate the perfect for being perfect, the very thing excoriated by this amazing film. So that is why I welcomed the voice-over - so I could say, "See, and they meant just what I'm trying to tell you this film means!" It was like my Woody Allen moment with Marshall McLuhan in Annie Hall. I wonder if anyone else would have believed that was what the film was about in subsequent years if wasn't for that voice-over or could have managed to overcome their initial visceral repulsion. Now we can discard that voiceover, but I think it was an essential tool for those of us who understood the film from the beginning to convince others why Deckard was actually the "bad man" in the story, and why that was such a challenging and brilliant theme.
How did Gaff know about the Dream of the Unicorn if not for the fact he knew Deckard was one.... A Special as it were. Why was Bryant acting all cagey when Gaff brought Deckard in? That scene always got me as to why it had to be Deckard to go take out these Nexus6s. Holden didn't fair too well.... ergo he's human. Deckard survived so much in terms of being beaten up by Leon and Batty. And why did Batty rescue him at the end? Why didn't he let him fall? He recognized a sameness in him. Ergo: Replicant.