This brings up a relevant issue to our present world situation, actually. That is, resource allocation, in the developing world and also the focus of the developing world's attention...do we 'explore' areas(worlds) where we've not been, ie, moon or undersea colonies, or do we primarily utilize our monies and emotions in 'solving' the world's/humanity's problems vis a vis hunger, po verty and living standards disparities.

In BR, it seems we're led to believe that their solution is to let the replicants trailblaze new, hostile, un'civilized' worlds for humans and then, when safe, the humans move in and do whatever it is they do (consume?) We don't have anything remotely close to being able to do this currently, but we can ask that, if today Nexus 6 model replicants were possible, would we use them to make our way easier, or would we view them as beings of comparable worth?

In particular, how does this change the storyline for the better when he's an un-selfaware repli cant chasing down and killing other unaware replicants until this point when he becomes aware that he IS a machine hunting other machines for humans' safety(the short view of his purpose)?

How is this a better story than the one PKD wrote or the one RS felt was the one that should end up 'in the can'?

Again, I will grant you RS intended for Deckard to maybe be an unrealized rep licant, but Scott settled for a vision that Deckard is human and that humans often need a prod or a mirror shoved in our faces to give in and 'see' oursel ves, because we can't or won't do so on our own. Whether the actors failed to convey this better, or that the script was inadequate in getting this across to the viewer (as some critics felt), SOMETHING or SOMEONE got it across to a good number of viewers(I include myself)that this was an important message to be con veyed.

First off, there's the opening eye frame. There's the fact that Deckard could be considered a 'private eye'. Batty places eyes on Chew's shoulders in his lab. When Rachel shoots Leon, where does the bullet go? Through his forehead, presumably exiting the tradi tional location of his "third eye". What are the power of the eyes, aren't they considered the link to the soul of a person, both as a hint or clue as to what a person may be thinking or truly feeling AND as our window that we look out and attempt to view others' 'souls' with all the attendant problems that come with looking at someone through our particular glass "pane"?

The ones that Rachel and Leon have are snapshots, modern 35mm prints of modern subjects. Okay, modern's a poor choice, contemporary subjects.

Now think about what Deckard's photographs looked like. Aside from his having at least as many as the replicants carried around with them, most of (all of?) his photographs are old, sepia prints and older studio portraits; in fact,I don't think he had any color photographs on the piano(but I could be wrong about the color photos). This would suggest strong, real ties to removed generations, versus the replicants' shallow roots of their immediate friends or family(No MCI tie in intended).

to my way of thinking it would make a whale of a difference in how the movie would have come across if it had been a more obvious point exp- ressed than what ended up in theatres on film. To quote an interview with Ridley in Twilight Zone magazine from a 1982 issue:

"TZ: one important element of the novel that you did not include in the film is the idea that Deckard begins to suspect that he himself is a replicant. Scott: you've hit on a bone of contention here, because I loved that aspect of it. Blade Runner is a very paranoid film. In fact, I shot that layer of the story and we cut it out. It was a kind of general consensus that the way I had shot it was a bit arty." Kerman, p.247.

I have to concede that I have read the book but it has been a while and I didn't remember Deckard suspecting his identity in the book.

I hope no one's getting too flamey about this is he or isn't he question... I am trying to not be upsetting to anyone nor do I wish to bring this up in order to get people all riled up. Truly, I never thought this was a possibility anytime I ever watched it and I'm just so puzzled and sur- prised that there is such a contingent who feel this is a plot aspect they can easily see. Even to that of Messers Peoples, Fancher and Scott's opinions on this topic.

I'm just interested in the thoughts of those who do see this idea, so that I can possibly understand how they see things this way

I also have to say that I find this discussion as worthy as whether or not Gaff was the replicant....

The scene also shows how second hand and common or well understood/ utilized this expanded vision is to DeckardasBladeRunner. The Esper computer is covered in papers and the normal clutter that often piles on top of our common in home electronic devices, be they tv, vcr, pc.

Further support of this way of understanding the Esper computer and what place it has in Deckard's life is its position in his apart ment, just like our boob tube, it's front and center...a focal point for his ohsofuturistic sectional sofa

This was an important scene, to me, in how it shows how he used that Blade Runner magic. Sure he had this holographic(?) tool, but not only did he have it, he knew how to USE it to find things other people would n't have bothered to look for or at. It is a question, I agree, not es tablished whether this Esper computer was as common as a chicken in every pot or if it was only a tool allowed to someone in Deckard's position , but that is how I interpreted this scene.

It's not clear to me why every character in a film is supposed to be an endearing, warm, chatty figure that viewers find an instant connec tion with and that by the end of a film, we're expected to fully under stand all this character's motivations and that they're supposed to have normal emotional responses to various and sundry experiences.

At least these seem to be the unspoken thoughts behind the reviewers who were of the opinion that Ford's performance was unemotional and wooden. It IS interesting to compare how different people view the same event.

I don't wish to sound like I'm enabling here, but could these themes also be the result of aspects of traditional noir characterizations but pumped up on the 80's steroids of bigger, faster, louder, bloodier? Resulting in the seemingly gratuitous message that the auteur uncon- sciously views that as the way things ought to be, when in fact, this message is less a matter of "I think this oughta be this way" than an ugly reinforcement of "This what you normally think is good, but look at what it means underneath"

Hoooey!!! They're coming to lock me up in an ivory tower any day now (VBG)

Gawd, I sound like I'm at a Blade Runner's Anonymous Meeting. (no offense intended)

Gray, I enjoyed the line in your post, "...The window on the world now shows who has the spark of life, a flame that radiates stronger than the sould of the common man..." Very Nice and a wonderful point I would probably not have caught on my own.

As for the misogynistic themes...I'm afraid that it IS somewhat sus picious that the 2 female replicants die vigorously and with much resistance/(protest?) while Leon and Roy are allowed more dignity in their final moments.

Leon is allowed a sudden, quick, clean,(no blood, even though it's a head shot in which the audience views the exit wound) death and Roy's noble, quiet, respectfully attended passing. I don't know why this is done, but I'm afraid that it wasn't done just as a ran dom thing, someone (Fancher, Peoples or Scott)had a reason for these characters' deaths being done the way they were(no streisand comments).

It should be noted, too, that the replicants' deaths are all 'impor tant', ie, they all trigger a significant plot point or affect Deck ard. (Pris' doesn't exactly follow this, BUT her death does turn Roy into a hunter of Deckard)

In contrast, the human deaths are all over and done with, none of which are even seen except for Tyrell's[ok, give me a break--this is a stream of consciousness thing here], and the remaining characters move on. Ok, how's this for linking Tyrell's death, his is barely shown in the theatre cut and either way is not presented as fully as are the final scenes with ANY of the replicants. Now that I think about it, even Holden's scene in the beginning is almost as portrayed as is Tyrell's... if not a wee bit more.

I understand the ideas behind why you would want to have the repli cants' passing to be seen as more meaningful, but I can't figure out the female replicants' elaborate passing.

As for the length...break it down into 3 or 4 sections and send each separately, that'd do the trick for me. I agree with several points the author made, but I think he failed to account for Scott's motives I think. I feel Scott didn't read enough of the novel, or even worse, understand many of the points Fitting complained about, so to ascribe purposeful obscuring of the issues PKD touched on in his novel to conscious action on Scott's part I feel is incorrect.

The more likely thing that occurred was that either Scott was reflect- ing his innermost interests by making the movie the way he did, OR he did it on a more conscious level in order to attract people to the theatre for the 'action'.

Just my .02.

I felt the same way as you did when I first saw the comments from the writers and from Harrison, but I just couldn't totally believe them to be real, so after a day of puzzling on it, I came up with how I thought the comments appeared and tested it.

I think they were someone else funnin' but I can't get all that jazzed up about...it had me wonderin' for a while. That was fun.

You read DADOES in a day?! I'm impressed! I read pretty quick but that one takes me a couple/three. I agree however that no matter what his motives or id-driven impulses were, RS made an interesting, classic movie, and I for one, no matter Kael, Siskel or Medved's o- pinions, think the acting was just fine, if not excellent depending on the actor.

I'm looking forward to it. I hope I'll be able to devote more than a couple of minutes to spare, so I can comment on the recent stuff Scott wrote. Good comments. No flames. (g)

As for the edited line, that's interesting. I think THAT would have been a powerful line that would have added to the replicants' emo tional 'evolution' throughout the course of the film, and my first impression of why it was removed strongly points to the harder, more violent edge it gives to Roy's character.

Marcus, your comments have prompted me to consider reading the book sometime. I'm going to wait until I can read a copy from the library as opposed to buying a copy, though.

If you remember Tyrell tells Deckard how the company found a pattern in the Nexus 6 series of performance/behavior problems due to the replicants' developing emotional responses. For some time when I'd watched the movie and this scene, I always wondered about these 'tests' and how many replicants malfunctioned before they started fiddling with the memory implants to quiet the emotional storms in the replicants.

Seeing as how the corporate entity functions in the 21st century, I can imagine a relationship where a megapresence such as the Tyrell Corporation would be allowed to continue to operate Nexus 6 models even though there were these models operating in the offworld colonies (presumably)that were defective; these defective models would require the police (as Blade Runners) to operate as damage control for the Corporation.

That is how I interpreted the unexplained presence of a Blade Runner unit of the police department.

Since it began in December 1995, there has been almost 300k of comments!

We have installed a new chat system (I built it -- cross your fingers). It is very similar, except for 2 things:
(1) new stuff goes at the top (yay!), and
(2) it automatically archives

So, from now on, every 20k or so, it should create a new archive file. I have converted about half of the old archive and will do the rest soon.

Now back to the discussions. If you have questions, please email me -- don't post stuff here.
-jon

Dubs(?), an interesting point about the Greeks' attitudes towards the dead and the need to remember their lives after they're gone. Re: question 1 and virtual reality and the human condition...I feel VR *CAN* be used constructively and positively to enhance an indi- viduals' experiences and therefore their lives. Say, by allowing a person to experience something that they normally wouldn't have the opportunity to do so. Sorry, I've no stellar example, but I feel con fident in the basic premise to state it.

There's no more need to feel that VR will isolate and DEhumanize us from each other any more than the Internet and all the collective time that we're all spending on CitySpeak chatting, means we're all social derelicts incapable of conversation with 'live' human beings in our immediate lives. That idea is getting so old to me, and it isn't going to go away until we have a majority of journalists and reporters familiar and experienced in communicating with others on the computer.

It's the age old story, we fear what we don't understand, and the less we fully understand something, the stronger our fear tends to be. (Pardon me, getting off the BR subject)

Question 2...Where Rick and Rachel go at the end. I'll say up front, (not that it should be any surprise to anyone that's read what I've written the past few weeks) but I'm a romantic I'm not worried about where they're actually going, just so long as it's the prover- bial sunset! Question 3...check back in this month's archives, we've popped up a couple of eye points to ponder. Yet another, the use of the eye, especially full screen in the beginning of the movie, is useful in saying to the viewer, "Look! This is Important" or it also can be there to tell the viewer to look fully, use your vision to look under- neath what you'll be shown...use your vision on ALL levels. It can be considered as an attempt to encourage (demand?) the watcher, WATCH. Watch everything, interpolate, examine everything. This coupled with the rich tableau Messers Trumbull, Dryer, Mead, Scott and Cronenweth offer enforces this request(demand?)

Tyrell is gone, JF one of his significant(?) designers is gone {Igor?}, so are we to add to the thought of paradise the idea that the Franken- stein-like creator is stopped and mankind is saved OR are we to assume in a modern/techno way of thinking, the idea that Tyrell Corp. will continue to crank out new, improved Rachels and that nothing will change overall?

THERE'S a Rohrschach question for ya!

Actually, I couldn't imagine being irritated by comments such as your ones on replicant reproductive capabilities, nor on the way you presented them. I agree with your comments, although I feel a bit dense, I don't remember what she says concerning this subject, in spite of your reference. Could you explain?

Thanks for the Rutgermania. I'll have to try to find the 'private parts' film for my wife to view(g) Speaking of females, do we have any in on this discussion? Some of the more erudite pieces in Retro- fitting Blade Runner, were from women as well as an essay that was more along the personal impressions genre. That piece was close to the discussions we exchange here on CitySpeak.

Now on the 'lighter' bits on this discussion...I've been on too many other newsgroups that have deteriorated into squabbles over barely related or non-related traffic such as what you were complaining about. I'd like to see what would happen in a forum where these things are ignored to wither and die on their own, instead of being kept alive by complaining about these messages, even if they are annoying. I'm com- fortable with the level of background noise, so far. My .02, FWIW.

I just wanted to share a quote from the liner notes of my Miles Davis' Bitches Brew CD. I think it is highly applicable to Blade Runner and may go some distance in proving why the movie works. About Bitches Brew, Ralph Gleason wrote;

"there is so much to say about this music. I don't mean so much to EXPLAIN about it because that's stupid, the music speaks for itself. What I mean is that so much flashes through my mind when I hear the tapes of this album that if I could I would write a novel about it full of life and scenes of people and blood and sweat and love."

If I could make one point about Blade Runner, that would be it.

Thanks,Davefor the interview quote. That makes Ford's distancing himself from the film a bit more reasonable to me.

Here's mine:

1. Blade Runner

2. 2001 A Space Odyssey

3. Rollerball

4. Star Wars

5. Alien

6. The Road Warrior

7. Terminator 2

8. Silent Running

9. Planet of the Apes

10. Escape from New York

That's off the top of my head, so corrections are expected.

Thanks for the critiques of SS. Oh well, a guy's gotta eat I guess(g) I need to find that title of the new Hamill film and post it. The thing that got my attention was reading the back of the cover, it sounded very much like a BR story clone. Poor Mark. It would be tough to start a career in anything at a high point and then have to continue. Lest you think his genre choice is bad, may I remind you of Corvette Summer? Poor Mark.

10 fav SF films in no order:

Blade Runner

Alien (all 3)

Fahrenheit 451

2001

Road Warrior

THX 1138

The Day the Earth Stood Still

Godzilla movies (any)

Planet of the Apes (some, not all)

Star Wars (all 3)

I just watched Alien again for the first time in a long time and it is visually awesome. I forgot how very little you see the creature and even though I knew the story it was still gutwrenching on Laser Disc and stereo. I also forgot how (like Blade Runner) it had an outstanding cast. But, the detail of that movie obviously informed much of Blade Runner. Especially the drippy, rotting decay. I also noticed that unlike many sets, Scott's movies feel like every minute detail has a purpose. You could look for hours and describe a purpose for every gadget on the set, unlike the flashing light motif of most movies or Star Trek for that matter.

Anyway, I guess I didn't answer your question but, to me Blade Runner WAS best viewed at the time it came out. I realize this is impossible now and I'm not saying you can't get anything from the movie today but, much like Woodstock (I was 3) you just can't frame it in the same surroundings. Nothing was ever like this flick before and it is hard to explain to people now how Harrison Ford's performance pissed off so many people (movie fans not just critics) because he didn't run around like Han Solo. Nothing got blown up and no space ships flew around (except the cool spinners) and they didn't have LASER GUNS!!! They had guns that blew chunks out of you. I mean this damn movie seemed so real you felt like you were watching reality. Now couple this with the fact it came out during the heyday of the Reagan years and it was almost a thought crime to like this movie. I saw it with three friends during the summer it came out and had an epiphany. They walked out and thought it was boring. I realized we had not seen the same thing and to this day I have never been so engrossed in a movie for two hours. Of course I had to watch it a few more times and read discussions like the ones on this board to take it all in but, to me Blade Runner was a defining moment of the times it was in. It grabbed you by the throat, challenged your sense of reality and shook us out of our early 80's stupor. You felt like you saw the future and damn you better start working to change it. I mean I had friends I suspected as replicants.

Finally, the real question is, if Blade Runner didn't come out, would the 90's be the 90's we know today. To me Kurt Cobain and Pearl Jam would never have happened without the cynicism and dread of Blade Runner. In fact they were the true offspring of that time frame and movie, not the White Zombie and Total Recall blatant ripoffs that happened later. Sorry if I'm incoherent. Comment if you like...

I like your argument because I am interpreting it this way...Deckard's response to Batty and Rachel gives them their humanity in the end. Their dignity if you will. You DO need humans to make other things human otherwise they don't become human, they merely stay what they are.

In other words, Humanity is not an ideal. It is elitist to think that things need to become human in order to have value. We also know that to be human is to be sick and diseased and brutal and all of the darker things we do when we exist. So, it makes far more sense that Deckard's compassion as a human for things that were not made him human and all the objects he dealt with "human." After all isn't this the point that the VK machine proved? That empathy did not exist in an individual.

I'm not saying I'm correct so, feel free to provide counterpoint.

I just think Blade Runner proves that humanity does not have exclusive right to "human" and that what we are really talking about is compassion and divinity. At the most basic point, I was merely agreeing with johsua that Deckard as a replicant destroys all this debate.

Anyway someone once asked about the religious significance and I think the Tower of Babel makes the most sense, especially considering your thoughtful analysis of striving toward divinity. Blade Runner proves the perfect "man" can't be built. The answer lies in the interaction, communication and compassion between each other and what we do with our "time."

So, you say, how does this fit into Blade Runner? Well, Deckard could be human or replicant but, it is still a movie about a turning point. The removal of apathy and cynicism and a final (very Ayn Rand like in it's selfishness) run for something more, while fully knowing it could be too late. The funny part about the movie is all the unspoken communication that goes on and it seems very real that people will talk less and less to each other in the future. Even today we are much more interested in our machines (that keep us clean and godlike) than each other. I sometimes sit staring at the TV with my wife and child in the room and think, would I talk more to them and thus know them better if that box wasn't on?

Well, I'm off for awhile. Thanks for some great thought. I'll have to pull out the ol' Laser Disc next week and reconsider all of this.

Also, remember that the appearance of guttertalk in 2019 in many ways was a necessary economic form of communication and not true "communication." It is very easy to draw parallels between that actual lack of communication in 2019 and the current attempt to make English the "official" language of the United States. Ridley's vision shows that the attempt will fail and the storyline shows it's silly to try.

Rutger Hauer: As (among other things) a costumer, here's my take on the bike shorts thing: it was as visceral as they could get without a full frontal shot (which would have been too damn distracting for most of us anyway ("wait, now, _what_ did he say?")). We get the suggestion of nudity, of human vunerability, without the shock value (and rating change!).

I haven't seen Verhoven's (by the way, NOT to be confused with Paul "Robo Cop" Verhoven, thankee) "Turkish Delights," but "Soldier of Orange" is pretty interesting stuff: Hauer's character is intriguingly multi-faceted. . . very lazy, contemplative treatment of some volatile issues. . . a lot of interesting homoeroticism (I'll keep my thoughts about _THAT_ issue and BR off public pages, but anyone interested feel free to mail me). Anyway, it's definitely worth a look.

About "Split Second:" watch it with the sound off. A good screenwriter would have made a phenomenal difference -- it's not Alien(s), I'll grant you, but there's some novel, gorgeous film in there. The scene where the heroine sticks chocolate cookies to the fridge, for instance, or the half-submerged mausoleum. . . the sidekick doing Tai Chi on the roof of the Jeep. . . Hauer's performance was uninspired, but the Brit who played his sidekick was teriffic.

I'm reluctant to spark off a discussion about the misogyny in BR because I'm not sure how much new ground we'd cover that hasn't been already discussed in the film noir debates, but I'm game to give it a go. First off, however, reminding y'all that misogyny is hate/dislike/illwill toward women, and gynephobia is fear of women. . . I think that in any discussion of the female presence in literature/film it's important to recognize which -- in any given instance -- we're dealing with.

I don't mean to monopolize the page. . . I'll pipe down for a while. . . just excited to have found this, about what everyone's had to say.

It's a fear issue and a point of demonstrating control issues with a being who is superior to oneself. Who would willingly create a superbeing and then allow it to roam unchecked?

That's a somewhat rhetorical query direct ed at the core idea of anyone creating something greater than themselves.

oooooooh! Throw me a line, it's getting deep in here!!! :-D

It's a fear issue and a point of demonstrating control issues with a being who is superior to oneself. Who would willingly create a superbeing and then allow it to roam unchecked?

That's a somewhat rhetorical query direct ed at the core idea of anyone creating something greater than themselves.

oooooooh! Throw me a line, it's getting deep in here!!! :-D

It's a fear issue and a point of demonstrating control issues with a being who is superior to oneself. Who would willingly create a superbeing and then allow it to roam unchecked?

That's a somewhat rhetorical query direct ed at the core idea of anyone creating something greater than themselves.

oooooooh! Throw me a line, it's getting deep in here!!! :-D

It's a fear issue and a point of demonstrating control issues with a being who is superior to oneself. Who would willingly create a superbeing and then allow it to roam unchecked?

That's a somewhat rhetorical query direct ed at the core idea of anyone creating something greater than themselves.

oooooooh! Throw me a line, it's getting deep in here!!! :-D

It's a fear issue and a point of demonstrating control issues with a being who is superior to oneself. Who would willingly create a superbeing and then allow it to roam unchecked?

That's a somewhat rhetorical query direct ed at the core idea of anyone creating something greater than themselves.

oooooooh! Throw me a line, it's getting deep in here!!! :-D

It's a fear issue and a point of demonstrating control issues with a being who is superior to oneself. Who would willingly create a superbeing and then allow it to roam unchecked?

That's a somewhat rhetorical query direct ed at the core idea of anyone creating something greater than themselves.

oooooooh! Throw me a line, it's getting deep in here!!! :-D

It's a fear issue and a point of demonstrating control issues with a being who is superior to oneself. Who would willingly create a superbeing and then allow it to roam unchecked?

That's a somewhat rhetorical query directed at the core idea of anyone creating something greater than themselves. oooooooh! Throw me a line, it's getting deep in here!!! :-D

Josh. . . for heaven's sake, don't quiet down. . . we're just getting warmed up, here!!!!! Interesting re: early script version. Your point and Melvin's points both illustrate something we should keep in mind: the multiple filter's of a film's process. Philip K. Dick, then the screenwriter, then Ridley Scott, then the production designers, the set designers. . . any production is the combined vision of a lot of artists, no matter how huge a megalomaniac the director is, his word is only barely law. No one can do everything. For all we know, Zhora may have been wearing a plastic raincoat because it was all the costumer could find at 2am the night before shooting and Scott said, "All right, fine, that looks good, use it." Trust me. Some of my best designing has been by accident. "Hey, those boots look great. Why don't you wear 'em for rehersal?" turns into "His boots are the perfect icon of the cyberpunk hero. . ." in a review. Really. It goes like that.

Loved the responses about the toys: they've given me a lot to think about insofar as the creator-creation relationship and motives are concerned. Thanks.

Okay, here's my first lunge at the female presence in BR issue, and is thanks mostly to a fabulous e-mail I had that I hope SOMEONE *hem* will please post up here for all to think about:

If we are (mostly) agreed that two of the critical issues in BR are life and creation, and we are also (mostly) agreed that the act of creating the replicants was a violation of divine process, then a lot of the violence in the film is a) struggle for control of the creation/termination process and b) atonement for a). As far as the female presence is concerned it is simultaneously a creation/termination symbol (Scott, re: email again) (I will elaborate on this if y'all can bear it, later), and so continually at the focus of the violence. In effect, the violence against women in the film is a part and symbolic of the conflict between desire to live and inevitable death.

Fire at will: I'll continue later. Sorry everything I post is so huge: it's either a little frequently or a lot sometimes. Bu then since I'm the only WOMAN posting most of the time (and yes, that was guilt for those silent ones), I guess I have to make up the difference. AHEM.

I wanted to talk about the role of women in the movie. we all know that the two 'evil' replicants are the only ones actually 'retired' by Dekard, and Kate makes a good point, if I understood her correctly. I think the point that the women being killed in such a violent fashion says more about the intent of the movie to get you to feel the killing more intensly. Any kind of homicide is brutal, but even the 'evil' replicants in BR, when they are retired, show the utter senslessness of their deaths. "...it didn't make me feel any better about shooting a woman in the back." And in the scene where Pris is retired, the violence of her death is shocking (one of the sections of the film that really disturbed me.) And the outward displays of affection between Pris and Batty make you feel their humanity and (com?)passion. Am I making any sense here, Kate?

I really just wanted to say, it's disturbing and yet totally predictable that there now pervades a sense among some posts for a longing to be superior and android. This longing is predictable and yet ironic since the superior machines wished to be human? Or did they just want to live forever? Anyway, you have to really loathe yourself to worship a higher form of machine or lifeform. Isn't that what made Ash truly retched in Alien? The fact that he (and the corporation) wanted the Alien to live at all cost (they must have liked this theme so much that they returned to it in Aliens with Paul Reiser as an even more effective HUMAN). All costs - including human life. I mean what really scared you more? The drooling Alien in the shadows or the fact that some bastard hated you so much that they were actually trying to undermine all your attempts to conquer something?

Someone nailed it right on the head with the toys in BR thing. Sebastian MADE his friends. He had no HUMAN friends except the evil incarnate Tyrell. If this is Blade Runner's vision of the future; either be friends with the Devil or make your own inferior (they walk into walls) friends then what the hell kind of future is that? As Kate says, get a pair of bitchin' boots and a plastic raincoat and pretend your there. But, I say work like hell to make sure we don't end up there. If you disagree that this is the choice BR presents then please point out the friend Deckard has in the movie?

KATE, I also wanted to say I identified with your cubicle example but, let's not forget you are seeing only one side of these folks which is the side they wish to present. Myself included. If you read carefully you might pick up the hint of some allies floating out in the ether. However, I've surfed enough to know it's merely an illusion and this box is really just a peek into the void. We're on our own, if that makes sense. I'm not sure that technology will enhance our environment even placed in the right HUMAN hands. I've seen too many people that want to use it against us.

There is also another interested point in JF's toys. I, as a human being, know that what I'm doing right now is sitting alone in my office typing on a keyboard to a blank space in the Web. I have no real connection with any one person, although this is a reply to Scott's earlier posting. Still, I feel inside that what I'm doing is connected, in some way, to a larger... (entity?). Anyway, in the same way that a radio personality can't SEE their audience, thay know that they're out there. The personalness of this technology in particular is very different from what JF perceives to be his interaction with his self-created environment. It is true that, in the future, the technology will be there to be able to interact with inteligences that are totally self-contained, I think it's always going to be that humans will crave the interactions between other humans. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? Am I pissing you off, Scott? Any kind of a reaction is called human interaction. Even if you don't reply.

"Who do I go to if I have a problem?"

"Me!"

"You're a dedicated man. Dry me."

As you all noticed, I tried several times, with the same result on both ends of my computer(g)

Scott, you made some good points about whether we should be wishing Los Angeles, 2019 is what will be. Perhaps a tie in between Deckard's aloof ness, JF's lack of friends and general minimizing of social interaction in the movie is that it's a reflection of the part of the story where everyone who can has left the Earth for the Colonies. Mightn't the remaining citizens either develop their feelings of inadequacy or establish some? That's not quite on what I'm trying to get at...I need to work on that thought....

Perhaps one day androids or simulacra will achieve a position of being able to supplant another human, but I contend it will be many, many years in the future. If ever.

Again, though, very nice job.

Anyway, there's lots of miscues (bloopers or whatever) in Blade Runner and I always wanted to say that the chess scene really bugs me. I believe Sebastian says Tyrell is a "Grand Master" of chess and that Sebastian has only beaten him once? Knowing little about the game of chess it still seems strange that Tyrell could have been mated in a mere two moves? He certainly responds very quickly to Sebastian's move when it appears they don't time themselves to make moves. Now if they were using Spock's chessboard I could understand because I never could figure that one out!

To me the only thing that floats out here that is valid is not personalities and posturing but, the words and arguments seperated from all that. I think there will be fun spots in the zones where you can pretend anything but, part of the fun of visiting Blade Runner is that it's such a great serious work that you draw GREAT ideas and arguments. It's tempting to think we are creating friendships in these gatherings but, to me it's more like going to college... The most influential people on me were the ones who asked the great questions from the back of the class and the professors who challenged and questioned me.

My FRIENDS were the ones who drove me home drunk as hell from the bars.

I know what I said about the feminine equating with death and mortality was pretty obtuse: didn't mean to weight that thread down out of existence. . . but Simon, it does tie in pretty naturally with the gynephobia issues in your essay. Anyone?

Paul, Scott, Leo. . . about the constructed virtual people question. . . agreed, for the most part, but although I think that the actual symposium itself is artificial, the _act_ of symposium is not. Although our language may cover who the "subject" (true self, Simon?) is, what saves this from being a purely intellectual and abstract exercise is that we (generally) keep eachother in mind when we respond. Even if the "subjects" are intangible, we are imagining a real, feeling person to whom we are responding and of whom we are asking questions. . . somewhere in the process we acknowledge the other person's emotions and ideas, and it's THAT that makes the process human. Compassion, as we've said. Those of you who come here to soapbox and flame, therefore, take heed. *grin* Ware of your humanity, before it's too late.

Just some thoughts.

In a conversation with some friends this weekend, we talked about a lot of the issues that Simon raised in his essay, among them the role of the female as representative of the spiderlike death-threat, but also of birth, genesis. If the gender of the replicants is as symbolically significant as we've been saying, then in the process of becoming "human," they must transcend the iconography of gender. Roy Batty is in the intriguing position in this movie of being simultaneously the prototype of the male villain, the male hero, and the female love interest. It is this last that I mean when I talk about the homoeroticism. . . look at Deckard's pursuit of the mystical perfection of Batty. . . he hears "tales" of this man, and must uncover him, as we've said, in the process of pursuit. I think that the whole bringing-to-justice theme of cop movies is inherently homoerotic in general: "Speed," for instance is a classic example of the lures of the villain set out to impress and coerce (and spiderlike, bring down) the hero. You could argue that this is the 20th century take on courtly love, that instead of Orlando pursuing his beloved and capturing her, posessing her, now he comes to destroy her. ( In "Silence of the Lambs," Hannibal Lechter winds up being something of a pimp in this process. . . something to have nightmares about, huh?) In the final combat scene between Batty and Deckard, Batty's language is unmistakably erotic as they "come together" for the first time: in the midst of the high, classic violence, Batty uses a lover's language, and it is possible that the union that he's talking about points past their fight to the moment on the rooftop, that what Batty is looking for ultimately is communion, that he is exhorting Deckard in the violent, sexual culmination of his pursuit to something beyond it. You could argue that his "acceptance" of Deckard's violence is akin to sexual surrender, a sort of sexual martyrdom seeking a place of joining. . . which, I would like to think, is ultimately rewarded.

This last assumption has all kinds of heinous anti-feminist implications about sexual violence. . . that the female seeking union must conceed to the violence of penetration. . . but I think that in the end Batty transcends gender. Choosing Rutger Hauer for Roy was casting brilliance, since (and please, no broader implications are intended -- this is why I've resisted this whole topic) Hauer brings, I feel, a certain androgyny tending to homoeroticism to practically every one of his roles. Stripping Batty down in the last scene removes recognizable gendered clothing, and Hauer is able to drop a lot of the "masculine" carriage of form from previous scenes. He sits cross-legged on the rooftop, holding the dove, in the end neither male nor female exactly, but critically human.

I would like to offer less theoretical and more concrete support for these ideas, and will try and formulate something soon. . . maybe an essay of sorts. . . I'm interested in input and arguments, as usual. . .

One point, I know what you mean about Silence of the Lambs but, Michael Mann's Manhunter might be a better Hannibal Lechter reference. Silence of the Lambs was more of a mentor role. But, to me Manhunter is a better movie even though Lechter takes a back seat to a better villian. I think Mann makes a more hypnotic movie than Demme and the scene with the Tiger is blatantly erotic. If you haven't seen it, you should make it required viewing.

I never got that much into college english thematic analysis(g) I mean, yes I got INTO it, but I didn't take enough courses to have gotten around to having this presented to me as an option.

What I'm reacting to, I think - and nothing personal intended, but you had to have heard this expressed somewhere else, if not have had it taught to you. This sounds too involved a thematic vision to have just arisen from a bunch of cinemaniacs, drinkin' and trying to make sense of *it* all. I'd like to hear references about from whence this all de rived.

That's an earnest request not a challenge.

Signed D. Thomas

Hmm. Guess I did take it the way it sounded.

Scott: I'm thinkin' about it. Question: is it transcendable? In the film? In general?

I sign my name to my opinions. And I take the time to think about and express them somewhat logically. I also take an interest in the opinions of others. Is there a more meaningful discussion you would like to have?

Ilan Gul: Define what you mean by humanism. . . if you look in the archives, I did discuss neoplatonism and BR a little: a somewhat obtuse thread that got dropped but I'm willing to pick it up again.

Francesca: HURRAH! I enjoyed your essay tremendously: as a costumer I tend to over-think the costumer's intent and underthink the character's motivations behind their clothes. The multiple purposes of veil for Pris were particularly intriguing, as well as the constructed Rachel. . . you alluded to costume and the "monstrous woman:" haven't seen that for a while! I'm sure you've read a lot of the stuff that I have about clothing as enforced chastity and removal of a woman's identity from self (padding, ribbing, etc. a form of concealing, constructing _on_ her): what I've always wondered insofar as Rachel is concerned is if the highly "constructing" clothes are put on her by others, or a security she chose for herself? I guess it's kind of a chicken-and-egg paradox, but what do you think? I wonder how much feminine office wear (female suits) is designed (by the wearer) to be simutaneously camoflaging and unthreateningly feminine? And again, is this the device of the wearer, or convention?

I'm intrigued with this homo-erotic angle but, I think it stems mostly from Rutger Hauer's performance more than anything. If you look at Blade Runner, Night Hawks (Stallone - in drag! - kills Hauer) or The Hitcher (Hauer teases and taunts C. Thomas Howell), ol' Rutger plays quite a slow boiling timebomb in a very sexual way. Add that with his somewhat androgynous looks and you've got a star for the eighties. I think the eighties saw the macho man (ushered in by the Village People?) homoeroticism, while the nineties tend to play to the sensitive/passive role. Music certainly reflects this with all the return to glam and Kurt Cobain. That's why I think you've seen a serious miscalculation by stars like Kevin Costner doing sci-fi roles like Waterworld. He certainly was a totally despisable hero acting 80ish in a 90s film.

I think the first time I really saw the homoerotic angle played up was in The Road Warrior. In fact I also felt that was kind of a racial dig on Indians as it was very Indians versus the surrounded cavalry motif. If you check out all the bad guys they have Mohawks, ride around in disorganized fashion (compared to the cavalry) and have a HIGH tolerance for homosexuality. This last point really comes home when you consider Balboa was murdering tribes on his way across South America for allowing the practice of homosexuality. Isn't catholicism great?

I think much of Mel Gibson's character plays up somewhat to the heterosexual fear of homosexuality in the fact that he is chased quite constantly and only acknowledges for a brief moment, the warrior babe as a kindred spirit. She gets killed off so, we know now he's out of luck and better keep the peddle to the metal if he doesn't want to get plooked in an undignified manner. (Sorry I always resort to Frank Zappism's when I discuss these themes). Of course the ending narration shows that Mel was a big influence on the Feral kid who becomes a leader of his people so, thus you have a triumph of truth, justice and the American (Austrailian?) way.

So, you say, how does this get to Blade Runner. Well, a big argument could be made for a similar plot line as Deckard frantically tries to escape Batty who has only his bare hands to kill Deckard. For those of us viewers who identify with Deckard, we also sense (very hetero-like) that since we just killed Batty's girlfriend he might not just want to push us off a building. There might be a little plooking retribution before the lights get turned out. Or maybe just torture but, I'm running with this thing. Also, you throw in the Rachel thing where she is very cold, with boyish hair in rigid suit and then later she's in fur coat and curly hair (did she stop off at the hairdresser?) and you kind of get the final conquest over homoeroticism thing. Somehow this seems to suggest it's ok to role play but, you need to come back to reality in the end?

OK, there you go. Amateur psychoanalysis at it's worst.

As far as your take on the clothes: I really want to agree with you. . . love what you said about the "blow up doll" and agree with the dysfunction of Rachel and Deckard's relationship in contrast to Roy and Pris'. But, with all due respect, isn't it a smidge sexist to say that "all women's clothes have been fetished by men?" I mean, it's like what I do as a costumer, always assuming the artist's intent and not allowing myself to see the clothing also as a reflection of the character. On the one hand, I see the fetishist elements you mention, on the other, I'm still not sure that I'm willing to ignore the stiffness and padding as armor and construction, for defense and control respectively. By "defense," I mean what I talked about in the last post: Rachel's clothing is armor-like, makes her look physically "harder" than her femininity might indicate. It also has the weird fake-out of being suit-like and masculine, while hugging her body in an intensely feminine way: while not being overtly sexual (like, for example, a lot of what Pris wears), and therefore reflecting a removal of the threat of seduction ("you see, I've covered my breasts, my thighs: I almost look like one of you -- barely a woman at all!"), it at the same time makes the sexual promises you mention. It's my question about women's suits, and their duplicity as far as sex goes: I look like a man, style-wise, but have retained my sexuality in the clothing's form. Whether these are clothes Tyrell has put on Rachel or ones she has chosen for herself, they indicate control over the wearer. Rather than Rachel just "being herself," her makeup and clothing mask the self, in contrast to Pris' makeup and clothing, which as Francesca says emphasize the self in their artistic self-expression. That is, what Pris wears reveals what/who she is (changing from situation to situation), whereas Rachel's cover it -- literally, as in the bulky overcoat and highly padded and stiff suit, and perhaps even later when she assumes a femininity that might simply be copied from what she sees in the photographs.

Theoretical, as always. I'm not married to these ideas: fire at will. Francesca?????

One of the parts of Blade Runner that kind of makes simple assumptions about the relationship between Rachel and Tyrell is the fact that Eldon manufactured Rachel. Therefore, it becomes difficult to state who chose Rachel's clothes, Eldon directly, or Eldon through Rachel, or does the fact that Rachel is independent, ultimately, of Tyrell due to her possession of memories, mean it was her own choice. Does the fact that Eldon chose whose memories she would have affect the independence she finds in these decisions?

Francesca, I loved the essay, and I am pleased that other people are out there thinking seriously about the women in Blade Runner!

About Eldon's niece and the memory thing. . . God, I wish I'd never brought it up. . . that's creepy, you guys. Ack. Scott. . . I think it's one of those quintessential free-will questions. In some ways, ties back into the whole quandary of the movie. . . is it possible to be created, even to the memory level, and still make spontaneous, original actions? It was a horrifying thing to play out what you're saying to the end, which is the possibility that Rachel never once stepped outside of anything that Tyrell gave her: that she never crossed over from machine to human. Is it possible that everything she did followed the logic and intent that Tyrell had set up for her? In that case, the fact that she and Deckard wind up together is pretty bleak. Or did I take that way farther than you intended??

It probably was really boring or really dumb but, I must say I thought someone might have at least challenged it?

Ryant: go for it. What do you think? There's a lot going on with the rejection/isolation/control/eradication of the "other," of course. . . I'd be interested in what specific paralells you had in mind. . .

Simon Scott; sorry for them confusing my attempts with yours. I probably should post my address but, I don't really want the additional email.

Adrian, I agree with your point wholeheartedly. I was merely picking up the thread that Kate laid out and I must say that it forced me to address some of the very reactionary issues that people dislike about the film.

We must remember BR was a product of it's times and came out in the height of Reagan mania. The fact that it slipped through and informed so much that came after it, is something of a small pleasure to me. But, it is flawed in some ways and it is a very male oriented movie in many ways. I believe at the end it transcends gender and that is what we are all responding to and what the critics miss. But, there was an article located on this page somewhere and the critic who was writing at the time says that he hated the riding off into the sunset with his own playboy doll or something to that effect. In my first viewing I kind of interpreted it that way as well. That is one reason why I think the Director's Cut is superior because it didn't destroy the powerful Batty scene which REALLY closes the movie. Think of the Rachel scene and Unicorn as a coda.

The other thing Kate sparked in me is that I really realized a lot of scenes are somewhat homoerotic (I have no idea if I'm using this word correctly and humbly apologize if I'm not) in the fact they try to provode a response. I no people who will never watch Deliverance again because of the rape scene with Ned Beatty. In fact, most heterosexual men I know have two responses to that scene. Either utter disgust or audible chuckles. Either way there is no mere sitting through that scene. That's why the scene with Deckard and Rachel bothers me now. But, much like Ned Beatty's masterful acting I believe Ford and Young played it right. Deckard was crossing the line with Rachel and it is part of the story. I mean, can you rape a machine? Is it possible? Doesn't this in someway make Deckard's transformation at the end even more incredible? Anyway, chase scenes I now feel very often provoke a strong fear response and did you ever notice the bad guy who is chasing the good guy is usually bare handed or has a weapon that must be used in close proximity like a knife? It's not sudden death we are frightened by it's the loss of our control to another person in a physical struggle. Next time you watch an action movie, check it out.

Blade Runner transcends it through Batty. Deliverance transcends it by saying. yeah Burt Reynolds kills one of the rapists but, Ned Beatty still got raped. He can't take it back which for many men was the first time they saw a heterosexual male as actual victim. In many ways you are relieved that it's just a movie and it didn't happen to you but, for the first time you relate. There is a difference between sex and rape.

I'm probably way too far on a limb here but, I think my point is that homophobia can be a powerful button to push in many movies and Rutger Hauer has that androgynous quality that really stirs up the fear factor for the confrontation with Deckard. I was scared witless when I saw it the first time and I certainly did not predict Batty saving Deckard. When he breaks Deckard's fingers and places the gun back in his hand it seems to fly in the face of every chase scene you've ever watched. Chilling stuff.

But, what I'm saying is do we really need the hand-to-hand struggle and when does it glorify or desensitize you to personal threats? Let me use a cinematic example of how I think it was done right. At the end of Easy Rider when Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda get killed you get a terrible sense of incomplete finality. You're hear and then boom you're gone. Someone hates you and takes you out. End of journey. Many things left undone. Totally senseless.

I can hardly watch that ending. I think it's one of the most powerful and realistic endings I've ever seen. Blade Runner is another sans the tacked on garbage. The elevator doors closing is enough. It's a somewhat similar ending in that respect. Without sounding elitist it's somewhat of an art vs. entertainment argument and I'm lumping Blade Runner into art. My recent posts clumsily try to point out it could have been much less but, somehow escaped noir, escpaed mystery, escaped sci-fi and became part of our lives. Because somebody, maybe everybody who worked on it, kept it real.

I understand your slight dig on QT and I would think if he would come off a little less smartass he might have the challenging flick you're looking for. Maybe he should take a cue from these movies and have his characters shut up a little bit. He certainly knows how to film a drug scene, however, and Travolta driving around with that glazed smile on his face almost makes you want to check out smack. Of course Uma makes you really not want to check it out.

I agree that the time your talking about was a great time for movies and seemed to be informed by a lot of the exciting experiementation that was taking place in music right before and during those years.

Now about your point about QT falling short of his creative attentions I couldn't agree more and that's what is keeping Pulp Fiction short of being great. You are right on about the POV and Mystery Train is a good example. Let me throw in one of my favorite fucked up suspense movies. Orson Welles' "A Touch of Evil" to me is awesome. It's got Charleston Heston (your mainstream hero type; just like Harrison Ford) in a great role and Welles as a great gray area villian. Mix in cool camera shots (the opening pan is a doozie, plus shots from the hood of a convertible) and now you've got hipster creativity with a cool storyline. Heston's wife on drugs is a little too close to "reefer madness" for my taste but, it still works and makes this sucker one serious darkside journey.

Iiro: I think the director's cut should have worked like this; keep the added footage, remove the voiceover in Bryant's office (it sounds forced, preachy condescending and immediately dated for sci-fi) and cut off that dumbass ride into the sunset. Then you would have it. Calling it a piece of shit though is kind of strange, since it really isn't that much different.

But I'm willing to admit I'm biased, as I said.

We were talking about that old humanism thread. Any takers??

Also, I disagree with your last observation, I think Pris was very much a strict Batty follower like Leon. Zhora I don't know (not much info) but, I get the feeling she may have ditched the others and went to find her own way in the big city.

Tyrell was only toying with Deckard when he had him use Rachel for a VK test. I think the dynamic is more between Tyrell and Deckard with Rachel's charac ter only being used as a device(no pun intended). I don't feel there's any 'using' going on between those 3 in the sense we're talking about.

I do think Pris uses JF to get to Tyrell, in the sense of what we mean by 'using'; whether or not she or Roy chose him is the $64 question. The feeling I had about Pris is that, she may have been a lesser mind than Roy's , but their personalities were similar - both driven and ruthless. I can see why Roy would have felt a kinship with Pris.

My stepson bought a copy of a paintball magazine(he went for the first time and evidently had a ball), while I was leafing through it, there was an art icle about an event held in Florida with a Blade Runner theme. One side were Nexus 6 and 7 models(the experienced competitors) and the other side were the br's. The term they used were the World Police Organization. The thing that caught my eye though, was a photograph of a homemade(?) VK machine which led the article. It wasn't bad looking as far as homemade props go.

Looking forward to the Future Noir book, a coworker's so manages a bookstore and I've already asked her to set me aside a copy as soon as she gets them in.

Right! The origami unicorn! Basically, it seems most people view the unicorn as symbolising the impossible nature of the replicants, which are like the unicorn an invention of man. Also the unicorn was a way of telling Deckard that the cop knew his dreams and memories. You could even argue, semi-seriously, that the only thing that actually happens in the film is the last scene, and everything that precedes it is implanted memory!

Another level that all of the origami stuff works on is that it is a metaphor for post modernism. Ramble City discusses in great detail the way in which rubbish exists in the streets, and the wya it is recycled. Recycling is one of the key forces of post modernism. The origami pieces are all made of discarded rubbish, the chicken is a cigarette paper from Bryant's ash tray, the match stick man was also a piece of rubbish. Perhaps what is most interesting, although I am uncertain if I am remembering correctly, the chewing gum paper belonged to Gaff, and thus is the only structure made by Gaff from his own rubbish. It is this that sums up the replicant most of all, because it is a more personal and immediate recycling.

The whole Gaff being or not being a replicant debate reminds me of a narrative problem in Highlander, where the presence of McLeod severely agitates one of the policemen. This always bugged me, because it seemed a little too animal. Also there is a scene where the policeman and McLeod exchange glances, and it seems some important knowledge is being exchanged. I always wondered if somehow the cop was aware of what McLeod was, and McLeod knew the cop was aware. Just wondered if anyone knew what I was talking about, 'cos this has bugged me for a few years now!

It occured to me that in movie you don't necessarily relate to the main character. In books you are dictated to in the first or second person and therefore, you are forced to get inside the main characters head and view things from their perspective. This doesn't automatically occur in movies but, in the noir format you usually have a main character that is a substitute for our perspective by default. I feel they accomplish this by surrounding that character with many over-the-top characters. This is purposely accomplished in Touch of Evil with, Orson Welles, Janet Leigh and Dennis Weaver acting just on the border of parody, with twisted, jerky performances. Compare that to Batty, Leon, Pris, Tyrell and Rachel and you find that Deckard's perspective is the only "center" of this movie. In TOE Charlton Heston plays Vargas, a Mexican drug enforcement agent that gets sucked into a web of corruption. Heston plays the role in a high moral, macho man fashion and yet pulls it off without being preachy. In fact Orson Welles steals your affection for Heston as the bigotted and corrupt Captain Quinlan. This guy should be utterly contemptible but, very much like Batty he shifts the movie to his perspective that steals the spotlight for a moment and makes you challenge all your assumptions. There is no black and white answers. Only gray. KATE: Here's where your humanism thing comes in to play because noir and BR seem to suggest that the ends may justify the means and that's a hard concept to grasp (cont.)...

KATE: I don't know if that's an argument for or against humanism but, I think it is for because most of humanism is a manifesto of individual triumph over society. Of course as Vargas and Deckard prove it takes a lot of lucky breaks.

There are other similarities between BR and TOE. One is it's gritty realism on the sets and another is the undercurrent of xenophobia and racism. In TOE music blares. The Latin rythms of the seedy Border town (thanks to a brilliant bongo infested Henri Mancini score, I told you this movie is hip) and the hard bop of American Jazz serve as an unsettling soundtrack for viewers who were probably upset by Bobby Darin. BR achieves this too through an unsettling score by Vangelis which is ironic in itself, because most of Vangellis' music is like pure novacaine.

Couple this with foreign languages and foreign culture references laced throughout both movies and you feel like a stranger in a strange land (sorry Robert). I admire both movies for showing a realistic side to racial tension without the pandering or preaching that usually goes on. Oh and the final kicker is both movies are laced with dialogue that is awe inspiring in it's simplicity. When Vargas shouts at Quinlan, "police work is only easy in a police state!" you get the feeling that the lines between black and white are the sole property of bad guys and anti-heroes, they are there for the people trying to make sense of it all too. Is that noir?

TOM: When I saw Criterion's Laser Disc it had the voice-overs and tacked on ending. I believe they are still selling it on their homepage. I have no idea if this is the same Criterion LD or not but, since it mentions Syd Mead's drawings I assume it is. Here's the web page where they sell it:

http://www.voyagerco.com/CC/ph/p.bladerunner.html

Sorry to hog the board. You guys take over...

Legend has it it's from Legend. Pun intended. That was that dorky Tom Cruise movie. Which I've never seen the whole way through. Nick, if it's your first time through the BRDC what is your impression?

Adrian:

Interesting story. Linda Rondstadt as the ultimate black haired woman?!? Do you know what PKD thought of Sean Young? She makes a good choice since Rachel throws a sheep off the roof, it must not of been much of a stretch to cast her, because if I recall she left some dead animal on James Woods (actor) doorstep?

I'll give you my impression of Deckard saying "orange body, green legs" during the Rachel interrogation scene. It is mere foreshadowing, in other words a hint of something to come and then when we get to the point where he tells Rachel her dreams it gives us a spot to go back to. It works whether you consciously pick up on it or not. A better example of foreshadowing would be the Unicorn if you believe as I do that Deckard is a man. Otherwise it turns it into irony.

However, this has always beef a goof-up in the movie to me because if this question is directly related to Tyrell's niece why did it show up on the VK test questions? I suppose Tyrell could have "given" Deckard the test questions but, since he entered the room with nothing it doesn't make much sense. I think a better explanation is that they "flew" it in at the last minute to add a little cohesiveness to the storyline. With such little dialogue in the film it works quite well but, doesn't resolve how the question was asked.

I really would like to sell it all en masse, so preference will be given to offers on larger chunks (or all of it).

Here is where you can look at a list. Items are in various conditions. [ITEMS] Please make me an offer; you will be surprised. I will "decide" who gets what at the end of the month most likely.

Jim Devaney -- I believe because in a world where there are no natural habitats, where global ecology has been thoroughly tromped, about the only way you could own an animal is if it were built/engineered. Except for animals that could adapt, maybe, like rats and cats and dogs. . . humans. . .

And I'm really intrigued by your comments about symbolism. . . if Batty is Dionysian (and I agree, although I'd love to hear your justifications), then is Deckard actually an agent of Athena, representative of Apollo, or just a heroic archetype (Odysseus, Jason, et. al.)?

According to Sammon, although hatchets between Ford and Scott have been more or less buried, there was a lot of contention between them about the film, and it woudn't surprise me at all if they disagreed on Deckard's origins and how he should be represented.

I was leaving out, for the moment, Deckard's representation in DADoES for the moment. I'm sorry if I was unclear.

So I think it's very interesting, that, Deckard-like, we obsess on this page with the nature of the replicant (is he a machine or isn't he -- just like Deckard), instead of using it as an index of our own success as human beings.

It's what I meant by technology defining our humanity, rather than undermining it.

Got a couple of quibbles. First off, if Batty is Dionysus, which you put into the anti-law (anti-Apollo) faction (and I'll agree, for the moment), then how do you explain Batty's acceptance of the divine status quo in the end?

I'm not sure I'm necessarily buying the Odysseus/Deckard parallel, either. Ody was by nature an intellectual, a thinking man's hero, whereas Deckard is more or less a martial grunt. I don't see Deckard pushing the "I wanna be immortal" boundary either, in the Prometheus/Odysseus/Gilgamesh tradition. In many ways (including the quest for life) I think Batty is more similar to Odysseus. Maybe Deckard is a reflection of the observer on this journey: like us, along for the ride, and a recipient of the benefits of the hero's (Batty's) katharsis.

But don't let me stop you -- you're on an interesting roll, here!

Maybe it's a Nietsche vs. Jung thing. . . I'm presupposing a Apollo/light/order/life in opposition to a Dionysus/dark/chaos/death. . . but you're right, of course, that Batty's acceptance of death is simultaneously an affirmation of life -- and I'll argue human life, even for him. There are some rants at length about Prometheus and BR in the archives, but it's a thread I'll happily leap on again.

I see what you're saying about Odysseus, and will agree except that I still maintain that Batty is more Odysseus than Deckard is. Maybe where they have the Prometheus traits in common, they overlap, and since it looks like we agree that Deckard is redeemed/resurrected through Batty's death, maybe in some ways they become the same person in their human experience.

About the "I quit" part -- just a reminder that that's classic detective noir style, though. The cop retired because it's too tough, too crazy, or the cop who has had his badge revoked because he's too tough, too crazy.

As a veteran of theater and a bit of film as well, I insist that the director is absolutely the one who is responsible for the message that the audience gets. It is the director who interprets every aspect of the screenplay (sometimes so that it's unrecognizable when he or she is done with it!), who guides the actors' performance, the designers' art, the composer's soundtrack, the angles and points of view of actual filming, and usually is in on or makes the final editing decisions. Whether or not Ford or the screenwriter or Dick or ANYONE else thinks Deckard is or isn't a replicant, Scott did, and the movie ultimately reflects his bias.

"Before Ridley screwed around with it" implies that you think that the Director's Cut was "screwed with." Remember that the "original" BR was what was left of Scott's BR after the industry got done with it, and he was dissatisfied enough with it to re-release it the way he'd wanted it. If there is an "original" version, it's the one we've mentioned, the pre-release which was purportedly even more of a departure from your "original" than the Director's Cut was. As its director, Scott was responsible for that version as well, and most people lucky enough to have seen it say it's definitive.

I mean, it's like saying because the tomato is really convinced the chef should have made spaghetti that the salad is not a salad, you know?

Batty's (derived) quote, "Firey the. . ." comes, as we've mentioned, from Blake's America. . . the entirety of the section goes like this:

"Firey the Angels rose & as they rose deep thunder roll'd
Around their shores, indignant burning with the fires of Orc;
And Boston's Angel cried aloud as they flew thro' the dark night.

He cried: "Why trembles honesty, and like a murderer
why seeks he refuge from the frowns of his immortal station?
Must the generous tremble & leave his joy to the idle, to the pestilence,
That mock him? who commanded this? what God? what Angel?
To keep the gen'rous from experience till the ungenerous
Are unrestrain'd performers of the energies of nature;
Till pity is become a trade, and generosity a science
That men get rich by; & the sandy desart is giv'n to the strong?
What God is he writes laws of peace and clothes him in a tempest?
What pitying Angel lusts for tears and fans himself with sighs?
What crawling villain preaches abstinence & wraps himself
In fat of lambs? no more I follow, no more obedience pay!"

***

Any thoughts?

Leo. . . JDevaney. . . yes, yes, yes. . . more myths and BR, please. . .

Paul. . . okay, I have to say it, I'm not especially a Star Trek fan, but your cultural elitism's showing. First of all, Trek is and always will be a TV phenomenon, and still manages to approach the "deep" once and a while anyway. (My all-time favorite episode is the Next Generation one with Picard and the alien: sort of a Gilgamesh meets Enemy Mine thing. It was fabulous.) Blade Runner, on the other hand, started out esoteric and literary (DADoES), and ended up esoteric and literary (let's not forget that we are a cult following, and that BR more or less fizzled in the mainstream). I understand your point about learning Klingon, but there's something to be said for a show that is that long-lived, with some moments of brilliance and meaning, that gets out to so many people, that entertains. No?

. . .I hadn't thought about the idea of memory as the Promethean gift, but rather life in the "I'm born, I'm here, I die" context, or the gift of the experience of existence. But of course, you're absolutely right: existence -- cogito ergo sum; dang, she even says it outright -- is marked, established, by consciousness, which absolutely includes memory. "I know I'm here because I remember being here ten minutes ago." In effect, without memory, we cannot at all be certain of our existence, and as you said, even for us "humans" our memory is so interpreted, re-digested, manipulated and overrecorded, we have the same sort of trouble resolving the state of our being -- or having been, more importantly -- as Rachel did. As you said. God, how totally fascinating. Keep going!

Somewhat related: there was a great play produced in Santa Cruz about a year after the big 'quake called "Living Memories," about how we'd gotten so used to re-spouting the media story about the earthquake we'd abandoned the experience itself in favor of its retelling. An interesting way of distancing ourselves from the disaster, gaining control over it. . . brought sharply back down to earth by the very real reminders of crumbled buildings lying everywhere. cogito ergo sum, and not in a vaccuum, either.

It's interesting that in the "Memories of Green" monologue Batty has a sense of his own memories, his own experience, as inviolate, utterly unique and therefore as mortal as he is. It goes back to what Devaney was saying about the Promethean gift: life is memory. The pauses in the monologue are interesting. . . the emphasis on "you. . . people," a with its inherent irony of a replicant who is by conventional definition not human, not "people," but is explaining his very human, very precious experience of these amazing things. . . or the implied "you" including replicants and humans both. Also interesting -- the pause and emphasis of "I've. . . seen," as if he really really saw them, is trying to get across how important, how valuable life because we are given the gift of experience. . . the emphasis might make us ask ourselves how much we really see, versus how much we take for granted in our short sneeze of a time on the planet. How much we do allow the media to experience for us rather than making our memories uniquely our own? How much is the race to store and make available information tied in with our need to keep our experience, our memories, what we are, who we are, immortal? Just another out there thought from Tannhauser Inc. . . .

I gotta quit reading this thing when it's late. I can't read these things without wanting to comment (G)

Meanwhile. . . missed the eagle. . . I'll watch for it next time. . . and of course, of course, but reminding you too that that eagle is also the symbol of the sun-god Apollo, whom Prometheus offended in stealing fire (read, as I've suggested, life). . . that same eagle coming each morning with dawn to rip out Prometheus' liver, the "seat of emotions" (Kerenyi), the seat of darkness, of Dionysus, maybe, that viscera that defines us as human, the act of ripping it out (as I've said) making the ultimate delineation between mortal/not mortal, human, not divine. A repeated ritual sacrifice. Crucifixion. Whatever. We did get fire, after all, Deckard received redemption and memory from Batty. . . arguably we were redeemed for past and future sin. . . the real gift being death without death, a witnessing of the preciousness of life, a wince at the brevity of the time we have to collect our memories and find some meaning ("why are we here?") in them before it's all over.

How do you mean that Plato laid the groundwork to finish off the religion of Zeus? Any more than Prometheus already had? I'm intrigued, I'm curious. More, more.

Taking the Milton home to chew on it awhile. Will keep you --er-- posted.

Leo-- I have that problem too, chronic. *grin*

Heresy on my part? Mebbe. I'm just curious what he would resonate with were he to read the Cityspeak archives.

I need to reread FN to see if I can get a better idea of what all his ideas were. I agree with 90% of our threads as to what's in the movie(I don't ex pect anyone to agree with ME 10%*GRIN*)or what it is we see. It'd just be interesting to see where we diverge and where we converge thematically with RS's original feelings. Then again, it's probably just as well that we DON'T know all that he wanted to express on the screen...cuts out the need for free association.

Katharsis, pathos, eros. . . these are all part of the human experience and thus an integral part of our artistic expression. Looking for common threads links each work to its heritage: finding the Platonism, the humanism in Blade Runner, talking about Blake and Milton or the big Norse raven before the snake-scale scene (caught that last night -- interesting) orients us with relation to the work, the work with respect to our culture, and us to our culture again. Then, in discussing it, in searching out a common vocabulary of ideas, we redefine and exlpore it, ourselves, eachother.

In the end, if we don't do more here than Scott intended, what's the point of the discussion? It's that one hand clapping thing: we are not just an audience, but participants in an ongoing discussion about the state of being, being human, being here.

Or maybe I'm just trying to justify the hour or so a day I spend reading and thinking about this web page. grin

Matthew I also noticed the same voices Throuhgout the movie.

So now I'm questioning what I said -- about memory being the precious thing in Blade Runner, the byproduct and proof of life, of existence. Any thoughts? Oh, and I noticed a new birdsign -- the very Viking raven winging its way through the marketplace while Deckard's eating noodles. People stop to watch it. Interesting.

Gaff: You are required to accompany me, sir."

Sushi-master: "he say you under arrest, Mr. Deckard."

Deckard: "Got the wrong guy, pal."

Gaff: "Horse dick! So you say. You are the Blade...Blade Runner."

Sushi-master: "Hey say you Blade Runner!"

Deckard: "Tell him I'm eating."

Gaff: "Captain Bryant ordered me to bring you in."

Deckard: "Bryant, huh?"

Gaff: "Yes."

So there you go.

Was surprised at the part about the conflict-well...

" In the making of BLADE RUNNER, author Philip K. Dick ran into conflict With Director Ridley Scott and Screenwriters David Peoples and Hampton Fancher over the production of the movie and his novel. Philip K. Dick himself described: " I was offered a great deal of money, and a cut in merchandising rights, if I would do a novelization of the screenplay..."

...Goes on to say part of package was to suppress the original novel. This pretty well washes my opinion (that PKD's treatment of reality issues was important to RS) up on the beach. Also enjoyed the essay's look at us, the BR fans but I think she doesn't realize that many of us BR fans are also PKD fans. I think its no problem that movie doesn't follow book more closely. The book is the book-The movie is the movie.

An interesting site with Blade Runner reviews and essays:http://www.cinemachine.com/dblookupa.cgi?isindex=blade+runner&x=499&y=145

Retrofitting Blade Runner has been mentioned several times on this page, however, my local book shops list it as out of print. Does anyone know how and or where to get a copy?