I'm suddenly reminded of an episode of Taxi where Louie DePalma (Danny DeVito) explains what love is. He's absolutely right! This is the best explanation of love I have ever heard.
"They're still the Mets. It's the same room. BUT YOU GOTTA HAVE ZINA THERE!"
I turned 60 a couple of weeks ago. I can definitively say that age has never been an issue with me. Whether I was in my 20’s, 30’s, 40’s, and even 50’s, I never dwelled upon my age beyond just acknowledging to myself where I was in life. All those birthdays came and went, and I have few memories of any of them. I never even had a mid-life crisis. People who know me know I’m down to Earth and logical, perhaps to a fault.
I’m having difficulty accepting that I’m 60. I think I know why.
I’m writing this for myself.
I’m publishing this for personal reasons that I cannot
disclose. My legacy right now is
primarily a few YouTube videos I’ve made.
I need to put something out there more personal and more personally
meaningful. I’m very healthy and
strong. I have no cancer, no heart
issues, and all my body parts work. I
don’t plan on going anywhere for a long, long, time. But when I do go, I know I won’t be
remembered.
I swear that I’m not writing this to feel sorry for myself.
I’m autistic. I’m not
“Rain Man” but anybody who understands this and met me would realize I’m
“somewhere on the spectrum” as they say.
Ten years ago or so, I would have been labeled as someone with
Asperger’s Syndrome. As I understand it,
that term is being used less and less.
It’s not like I really keep up with this stuff, however.
What is it like having Asperger’s? I’ve read and heard some explanations that
never really satisfied me. So I’ll give
you mine. As someone with Asperger’s,
life occurs on the other side of a screen and I’m primarily an observer. I only
partially understand what’s going on the other side of the screen because my
brain has problems processing information from my senses. I see people interacting and it’s all a big
mystery. Blending in with and being part
of a group of people is a natural thing for most human beings. For me, it’s next to impossible because I
can’t process new information on the fly.
I have to analyze everything before I can understand it. Therefore, if I’m exposed, I’ll do everything
to go back in front of the screen. In
other words, I tend to not play well with others and come across as shy and
awkward. People I knew or know may
remember me for saying inappropriate things at inappropriate times. There is an ever-growing list of people who
used to be in my life whom I have alienated and will have nothing to do with
me. If I had any empathy, I’d actually
care.
Ah empathy! It’s
often explained that people with Asperger’s lack it. For the most part, that’s fairly accurate. Viewing a sick child or injured animal will
make most people sad, even if it’s not their child or pet. That really doesn’t happen with me. However, over the years, I’ve learned to “fake”
it because I know I’m supposed to feel this way and will be scorned if I don’t. Deep down, I really am a cold-hearted
bastard! Or am I?
If I lack empathy, why do I still mourn for a dog I lost 24
years ago? Why does the memory of the
vet inserting that injection into him haunt me to this day? Why do I lie at night wondering where my
brother is as he is one of the forementioned people whom I’ve alienated and is
no longer in my life?
I’m getting better all the time, but Asperger’s will show
its ugly head now and then, even at age 60.
I try not to and don’t often think of my childhood, but I’ll
make an exception today. I didn’t know
why I was not like the other kids. I had
very few friends if any. Most kids just
saw me as that weird kid who kept to himself and was kind of dumb and
klutzy. There were few who could match
me at math or could spell as well as me.
Yet I didn’t get good grades. I
never wanted to learn what the teacher was teaching. My parents didn’t know what to do with me. All they knew was that I “wasn’t applying
myself”. I got repeatedly berated and
punished. They made me feel worthless.
It got worse as a teenager.
I never partied. I never
dated. I couldn’t even talk to
girls. I went through high school angry
and scared because I was repeatedly reminded that my future relied on my
schoolwork. I was screaming on the
inside, but no one heard me because there was nothing to hear.
Going into my 20’s found me convinced I had no future and I
was a worthless human being. Those days
in the early ‘80’s found me providing food services at Magic Mountain. Rumor has it I went to college, but that was
such a waste of time that I barely remember it and mostly refuse to acknowledge
that I ever went. I didn’t learn a thing
except that I’m stupid.
It was a rocky path, but spending more and more time away
from my parents was the first step. At
Magic Mountain, I started to figure out I had my own identity. This may seem strange, but to me it was a
revelation. Believe it or not, I found
out I had a sense of humor. I learned
how to say things to make people laugh – I never had that before! I think I even got some people to genuinely
like me.
At age 26, I left home.
That’s late for most, but scary for me.
I still didn’t have my act together, but I moved in with someone who
gave a gentle push and helped me tremendously.
It’s too bad that became a relationship that would sour. I still had a ways to go.
Entering my 30’s found me angry and frustrated. I had become a bad person. I was convinced I had no future and was rude
and snarky to a lot of people. I had
become very unreliable. No one could count
on me as I only thought of myself.
Others my age were married and had children. I wanted that too but was clueless of how to
get there. I was jealous. My career at the time was computer retail
sales and I absolutely hated it. I was
such a loser!
In a dead end career, in a dead end situation, in a dead end
life, I suddenly decided to fix my life.
I can’t really explain what the moment was or if it was a moment, a day,
or even a year. With literally no
valuable skills, I developed some. I
mentioned earlier that I was a poor student.
I always hated classrooms and still do. For years, I had dabbled in how to use
computers for video and animation. It
helped me in selling this stuff. Why not
fully dive into it? I’m a good student
when I’m teaching myself and that I did.
I taught myself so well that in a very short time, my skills were
marketable. So marketable in fact, a
college hired me to be a part-time instructor.
I ended up teaching video editing and 3D animation in Hollywood for 2.5
years! I still can’t get over what an
amazing break that was. The school found
out one day that I lacked a college education that they had assumed I had and
they dismissed me.
It hardly mattered.
In my early 30’s, I found myself.
Nothing was going to stop me now!
All the self-doubt and low self-esteem I had all my life were replaced
by genuine drive and ambition. Within
just a few years, I made myself as a respected person in the legal industry and
even got married. Incidentally, this was
also the time I found out I was autistic.
I never knew or even suspected. I
always had just assumed something was just plain wrong with me.
It took me 30+ years to learn what Robert Wilson was capable
of. For me, life truly began at age 30. The Asperger’s never left, but it’s no longer
a mystery or an obstacle, it’s who I am.
I lost my wife to a series of strokes starting 6 years
ago. She’s alive, but she’s so
physically and mentally impaired that she is no longer the person I had
married. She’s now an obligation (I have
to feed, wash, and dress her). I am
essentially a widower. So I’m 60 with
parents who’ve both passed away years ago, a brother whom I haven’t spoken to
for years, very few friends, and there is a person who used to be my wife
living in my house. Yet, I never felt
lonely these past years. That has
changed. “Aspie’s” are used to being
alone. Even among friends, we are always
alone to a certain extent. Loneliness is
a fairly new experience for me. Why am I
suddenly lonely?
...
I’m going to look at two more films directed by Alexander
Payne. They happen to be his first major
film and as of right now in 2022, his most recent film. Let’s first take a look at Citizen Ruth.
This came out in 1996. Laura Dern plays Ruth Stoops. Ruth is despicable. I mean she is a horrible person. She is uneducated, vulgar, promiscuous, and never thinks of anybody or anything but herself. She will ingest just about anything in order to get high.
She is also manipulative. Whenever she is in need or confronted, she will break down into a pathetically false cry for help – promising that she will turn her life around. We know it’s false because she goes right back to being her despicable self as soon as she gets her way. Nobody, and I mean nobody loves or even likes Ruth.
When she gets pregnant and has a judge slyly suggest that
she get an abortion in order to avoid jail, suddenly, everyone is interested in
Ruth. Well, not really. What is really happening is people overlook
her vileness and see her as a cause.
A quintessential mid-American family intercedes and takes Ruth into their home to save her from the abortion she wants. This family belongs to an organization that believes in taking in young pregnant women and convincing them not to have an abortion. This is the place in the film where many in the viewing audience are going to think to themselves “Here we go with a typical Hollywood propaganda film that’s going to shove the pro-abortion narrative down our throats.”
It does seem this way.
This “wholesome” family seems to be exactly how pro-abortionists would
portray such a family. They are
dysfunctional. They are not the clean,
god-fearing, All-American nuclear family they seem to be on the surface.
The mother and father are always praying and singing and praising God and working religion into their common speech.
Then you get the doctor and nurse always smiling and treating Ruth like a child. The head of the anti-abortionist organization is clearly not the wholesome man of God he portrays.
Yes. You can see
these people seem to be an amalgam of stereotypical anti-abortionists. This movie reeks of modern Hollywood
filmmaking.
Or does it?
We get to
see the other side too. Ruth ends up
with the pro-abortionists and we can see they’re just as fake. They perceive themselves as at war with the
other side.
Just like the anti-abortionists, Ruth becomes a cause to the pro-abortionists. They’ll support Ruth’s decision as long as she chooses abortion. They soon figure out she is a worthless, scum of a woman. But they take advantage of her desperate situation.
Ruth ultimately miscarriages which would nullify the whole debate except that, Ruth being Ruth, doesn’t tell anyone and gets away with $15,000, no abortion to deal with, and no causes to suffer through. She will go back to her previous life.
Harlan, the man she effectively stole the money from, knew who she was.
Again, this is not about Ruth. Ruth is merely a vehicle whom the story uses
to present the abortion issue to the viewers.
It can even be said that the movie itself, exploits Ruth to present an
idea. Some may argue that Citizen Ruth
is a pro-abortion film. Some may argue
that it’s an anti-abortion film. People
see in films what they want to see. I
personally think it’s neither. It just
presents the issue and gives us something to think about.
Then you have Paul Safranek played by Matt Damon. He, like Ruth, finds himself in the middle of two sides of an issue. Paul is not a horrible example of a human being as is Ruth. Paul just happens to be the blandest human being on Earth. Paul doesn’t stand for anything. He’s the proverbial reed floating downstream and goes where the flow takes him. To be fair, his wife Audrey Safranek is just as boring as he is.
Throughout the film Downsizing, Paul is bombarded with other
people’s opinions. He in turn, is
influenced by every single one of them because he can’t think on his own. His
friend encourages him to downsize and live in Leisure Land.
Paul does this. The saleslady
flatters Paul because she knows exactly how to manipulate him into upgrading
his purchase. This makes Paul a perfect
vehicle to put the viewers through the climate change issue.
The act of downsizing is a fictional near-future process of shrinking people down to 5 inches tall in order to deal with world problems such as pollution and over-population.
The trailers for Downsizing led the public into the belief that this would be a goofy comedy with small people in a big people world. People went into the theater ready to laugh at over-sized objects and unusual ordeals people five inches tall would have to deal with. Instead, they left the theater scratching their heads wondering what they just witnessed.
The many negative reviews and poor box-office numbers show that people don’t like being bamboozled. Also, many felt they were deliberately deceived into watching yet another propaganda Hollywood flick meant to shove left-wing perspectives down their throats.
They were mostly right.
Downsizing, indeed, does seem to preach about the human race needing to do something now before it’s too late. In this fictional future, the downsizing process is the solution, but the tipping point has already been reached. Now, we’re doomed.
Since Downsizing puts the viewers in the perspective of
Paul, it’s easy to fall into the same trap he does. That is to take everything presented at face
value. We already know that Paul is
easily impressed. The downsizing process
amazes him. He is thrilled to meet the
surviving Vietnamese woman who had 15 minutes of fame. He is starstruck with meeting “Little
Ronnie”, the first small-born person. Of
course, he is impressed with Dr. Jorgen Asbjørnsen, the scientist who invented
downsizing. He and his coalition of 26
Nobel Prize winners all deemed that an extinction level event was
inevitable. That was certainly enough
for Paul. He buys the tale completely.
Would you buy this story?
I ask because in the real world, we are being repeatedly told that 97%
of scientists in the world agree that a climate disaster is upon us. So, does the typical movie viewer get
influenced by statements like this? Are
many or most of us like Paul?
Meet Dusan Mirkovic. He is played brilliantly by Christoph Waltz. He sees through all the salesmanship most of the rest of the world succumbs to. He is not small to save the planet. In fact, he despises most small people because he knows that going small for most, is a way to upgrade social standing with the bonus element of believing they are “saving the planet”.
Dusan is small only because he is an opportunist. He figures out that small people are going to have needs nobody else thought of. Dusan is the opposite of Paul, but Dusan seems to see Paul as a challenge. He quickly figures out who Paul is and how malleable his perspectives can be. Dusan becomes a father figure to Paul.
“Dusan will save you.”
Dusan not only saves Paul, he saves the whole movie. He doesn’t believe in all the doom and gloom
stuff that everyone else is being sold.
He subtly guides Paul into thinking for himself. It takes Paul the rest of the movie to
finally realize what he really wants out of life. Dusan is the smartest individual in the
movie.
Let’s take a quick look at “Little Ronnie”, the first person
born small. Paul sees him as a
celebrity. Dusan sees him as a loser who
will likely die of syphilis. This is
symbolic of how Paul was sold, but Dusan understands the truth.
The big explosion that was supposed to occur near the end was a little “pop”. This is also symbolic that the looming big disaster may not be such a big deal.
Like Citizen Ruth, Downsizing presents the issue and doesn’t take a stand. Citizen Ruth is a simpler story, so the message is clearer. Downsizing has the problem that it misled the audience into thinking this was a comedy, or a modern version of the old TV show Land of the Giants. It also has the problem of taking too long to get to its somewhat clouded message. Today’s movie audiences are generally not patient enough to go through all of this.
I have another few points about Downsizing. There’s a dark undertone in the film as
well. Ngoc Lan Tran was shrunk against
her will and shipped to the U.S. in a box to dispose of her. The brief news report hints that this is a
common way governments can get rid of “undesirables”. Not every small person lives the good life. There’s an exposed area outside of Leisure Land
that has become a slum for these undesirables.
Notice how the “big” nurses that are at the beginning of the process are
white females, but the nurses at the other “small” end are black males with
foreign accents.
How can Dusan sell cigars for one dollar each instead of fifty dollars? You’ll think at first that since there is so much less material and that would be true. However, who’s making these cigars? The labor involved would be the same, if not more. Dusan speaks of “tiny Albanians”. It sounds to me like low-wage, if not slave labor in this small world.
The drunk guy at the bar raises some interesting points about small people having the same rights as big people even though they don’t contribute as much to society, overall. Notice how his little rant are common arguments about homeless people and illegal immigrants.
“You’re not buying as many products. You’re not paying any sales tax. Some of you aren’t paying any income tax. I mean you’re not really participating in our economy, are you? In fact, you’re costing us money and jobs.”
One more note. I am
linking similarities between Citizen Ruth and Downsizing. There is a more direct link in that Laura
Dern (Ruth) makes a brief appearance in Downsizing.
 |
 |
| 2001: A Space Odyssey's sterile future |
 |
| Metropolis (1927) |
 |
| Fantastic Voyage (1966) |
 |
| Silent Running (1972) |
 |
| Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) |
Other science fiction films commonly depicted a step backwards. It’s usually humanity trying to survive after some disaster occurred, typically a human-made one. Examples of these are Planet of the Apes, Soylent Green, and the Mad Max films.
 |
| Planet of the Apes (1968) |
 |
| Soylent Green (1972) |
 |
| Mad Max (1979) |
Blade Runner combines the two. We are immersed in an eerie, dark metropolis. It’s very crowded, noisy, grimy, loud, and
rainy. It doesn’t appear to be a very
pleasant place to live. Although it’s
not stated, one gets the feeling that something really bad had happened and
people are forced to live in the urban jungle of Los Angeles or take their
chances off-world as the advertisements in the skies above are perpetually
encouraging. But the technology is there,
also. There are flying cars, computer
screens, huge advertisements of high-tech companies along with space travel and
of course, replicants.
 |
| Gloomy, dark, rainy, Los Angeles 2019 |
 |
| ...with flying cars and high-tech computers |
 |
| With Roy dying "naturally" after 4 years, we can see that the film ends in 2020. |
There are two major controversies in Blade Runner that have
been and will likely forever keep fans discussing and arguing. I’m not going to attempt to deliver anything
definitive, but I will put my perspective of both of these.
Is Deckard human?
The first one I’ll talk about is whether or not Rick Deckard is himself, a human or a replicant. In a nutshell, here are the arguments that Deckard is a replicant who, like Rachel, doesn’t know because he has fake memories.
 |
| An eye shown early in the film suggests eyes are significant to the story |
 |
| The owl is a clue |
Rachel’s eyes typically appear very dark or slightly reddish. Yet, when we see Deckard performing the Voight-Kampff test, the monitor shows her eye as very green. Maybe it’s difficult to get eyes in replicants to appear as human’s eyes do. The Tyrell Corporation has yet to get that little detail just right.
 |
| Rachel's eyes appear to be red in certain lighting conditions |
 |
| However, the monitor shows Rachel's eyes as green |
And of course, Deckard’s eyes appear dark throughout the film and even show a hint of red in a scene or two.
 |
| Deckard's red eyes |
The next argument is that Rachel asks Deckard if he had ever been tested. This may just have been intended as an insult or maybe she suspects something. “Sushi! That’s what my ex-wife called me – cold fish” remarks Deckard to himself as he eats sushi. This is in the Theatrical Cut where Deckard has an internal monologue.
 |
| "Sushi". That's what my ex wife called me - Cold Fish. |
Deckard notes that replicants seem to be attached to photographs. As he peruses Leon’s photos, we see a myriad of photos on Deckard’s piano, many of them appear to be quite old.
 |
| Deckard's photos |
“You did a Man’s job, sir!” This seems an odd thing for Gaffe to say unless Deckard really isn’t a man.
Then you get the big, perhaps, definitive ones. The versions of the film made after the Theatrical Cut show a brief unicorn dream that links to the origami unicorn that Gaffe makes at the end. Why would Gaffe make a unicorn for Deckard to see if he didn’t know that’s something in his mind?
 |
| Why is Deckard dreaming of unicorns? |
 |
| Apparently, Gaffe knows why. |
Going back to photographs. If you ever have watched the deleted scenes that come with the 4 and 5 disc sets of Blade Runner, you will have seen a photo of Deckard and his wife. If this photo seems familiar, it should. It appears to take place on a porch similarly to Rachel’s childhood photo. This would link Deckard and Rachel even more. Rachel was made in likeness to Elden Tyrell’s niece. Is Deckard also made in the image of a relative of Dr. Tyrell? And finally, Director Ridley Scott himself declared that Deckard is a replicant in an interview.
 |
| Deckard with his now ex-wife. Does this photo look familiar? |
 |
| Rachel and her mother |
The second argument is the important one. The movie Blade Runner is a much more interesting and better film if Rick Deckard is human! When I first heard the theory that Deckard may himself, be a replicant, it seemed intriguing at first. I soon realized that many of the meanings in the film would be lost (like tears in rain) if I believed this. In Deckard’s hunt of the replicant’s, he discovers his humanity in realizing he has feelings for the replicants he’s “retiring”. Like his boss Bryant, Deckard is prejudiced against replicants. In early drafts of the film (shown in the aforementioned deleted/alternate scenes), Deckard and Holden, like Bryant, refer to them as “skinjobs”. This is akin to a racial slur. He uses that word to himself when he’s deciding whether or not to “retire” Rachel in his apartment.
 |
| "She wasn't a woman. She was a skinjob." |
In doing so, he is dehumanizing her so he can work himself up to shoot her. But it doesn’t work. He realizes he feels for her. He also feels for Roy Batty at his end. This journey Deckard makes in initially thinking of replicants as “part of the problem” to outright falling in love with one is meaningless if he is a replicant.
It’s needless to say that I have Deckard as a human
being. This is a major reason why I love
this movie so much. If Deckard is a
replicant, then Blade Runner is just a film of an android hunting other
androids.
Which version?
Now, let me get into the different versions of the film. June 1982 is when the first “Theatrical Cut”
came out in theaters. It was released at
the same time as ET and did not do very well in terms of the box office or the
reviews. The 1982 version’s signature
difference from subsequent versions is that Rick Deckard narrates throughout
the film. This gave it a 1940’s quality
in a futuristic film. This anachronism
didn’t work for a lot of moviegoers. Also,
the Theatrical Cut is also the only release with the “happy ending”. It shows Deckard and Rachel leaving the city
together with the voiceover stating that Rachel did not have a 4-year limited lifespan
like the other Nexis-6 replicants.
The film’s unique visuals and storyline did resonate with many
viewers. In the ‘80’s, the film began
building a cult following.
In 1992, a “Director’s Cut” was released. It removed the voiceover and the “happy
ending”. It added the previously
mentioned brief unicorn dream that got viewers surmising that Deckard was a
replicant.
In 2007, a “Final Cut” was released. This was basically, a re-mastered version of
the Director’s Cut.
I am aware of the “Workprint” version as well as the “International Cut”. I want to limit my discussion to the Theatrical Cut vs. the Final Cut, which is really the Director’s Cut.
So what’s the better version? If you’ve been paying attention, you probably know I
prefer the Theatrical Cut. After all, it
maintains the ambiguity concerning who Deckard is. Additionally, I realize I’m probably in the
minority here, but I like the voiceover.
Sources report that Harrison Ford hated the voiceover and basically
phoned it in. The funny thing about that
is Deckard is supposed to be tired and bored, so it works. The tone fits and while I would agree that it
doesn’t really add anything to the story itself, being inside Deckard’s head
makes the film unique stylistically.
When I saw Blade Runner in 1982, the origami unicorn that
Gaffe leaves for Deckard perplexed me. Earlier,
we saw a chicken when Deckard was reluctant to take on the four Nexis-6
replicants. The subsequent man figure
seemed to indicate Gaffe’s growing respect for Deckard as he is now conducting
the investigation. What did the unicorn
indicate? The Director’s and Final Cut answer
this, but in taking the Theatrical Cut on its own, it’s not so clear. I was able to come up with my own
interpretation.
I had read Tennessee Williams’ play, The Glass Menagerie
just a few years before seeing the film in 1982. It has an
awkwardly, shy young woman with a collection of glass animals. Among these was a unicorn. Laura, the young woman, has many such pieces,
but the unicorn is unique among them – being the only fictional or unreal
figure in the menagerie. The glass unicorn represented Laura, whose
shyness made her different from other women.
 |
| The glass unicorn from "The Glass Menagerie" (1987) |
The paper unicorn in Blade Runner immediately had me thinking of this play and I made the connection of the unicorn to Rachel. Rachel is not like other replicants. She does not have that four year lifespan. Rachel was unique and Gaffe understood that. That’s how I prefer to interpret the unicorn and it’s the main reason why I prefer the Theatrical Cut.
I’m going to be nit-picky here and point out two flaws that
all the versions of the movie have.
First, this scene with Bryant.
“They were designed to copy human beings in every way
except their emotions. The designers
reckoned that after a few years, they might develop their own emotional
responses. Oh, hate, love, fear, anger,
envy. So they built in a fail-safe
device. (Which is what?) Four-year lifespan."
This is pure exposition.
There is no reason Bryant should have to explain this Replicant 101
stuff to an experienced and formerly retired Blade Runner. This scene should not exist.
 |
| This scene should not exist |
Second is the scene where Deckard is using a computer to examine the photograph from Leon’s hotel room. The image of Zhoura that we see on the screen is not the image that is printed out. Again, referring to the alternate/deleted scenes, there was an earlier version of this scene where the printout does match. I wish they would have just used that one. The one they used isn’t any better in my opinion and it even shows a tube-based screen. The original’s screen appears flatter with a more “matte” quality. Ironically, it’s more modern than the one they used.
As Zhoura appeared on the printed photo
 |
| Deckard's photo analyzer used in the film |
But these are small criticisms in what is truly a fantastic piece of cinematic art.
