Controversies in Blade Runner

Blade Runner is that unique science fiction film.  It’s ground-breaking in a way that is similar to how 2001: A Space Odyssey is ground-breaking.  Most films up to 1982 that envisioned the future typically portrayed it in one of two ways.  One way was to show a highly technologically advanced future.  These films commonly had a sterile and de-humanized tone to them.  2001 is probably the classic example of this, but there are others such as Metropolis, Fantastic Voyage, Silent Running, and the Star Trek films.  

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

Replicants aren’t androids as typically shown in film.  They aren’t computers with mechanical bodies and limbs.  They are organic.  They are grown.  We soon learn they are slaves grown primarily to assist in space colonization.  They are probably used to doing dangerous jobs that humans shouldn’t do.  They also are used as soldiers in warfare and as sex dolls.

Leon

Pris

Zhoura

Roy

You might be tempted to think that the movie takes place solely in 2019.  The very first scene takes place in November, 2019, but there is a clue that the latter part takes place in early 2020.  Check out Roy Batty’s incept date.  Four year lifespan, remember?

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

There’s the “eye” thing.  Replicants seem to show dark or reddish eyes at times.  When we first see the fake owl, we see that the eyes are completely, unrealistically red.  We can take this as a clue that red eyes indicate a manufactured life form.

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

Now the arguments that Deckard is human.  I have only two.  One is that if Deckard is a replicant cop created to hunt and “retire” other replicants, why doesn’t he possess their superior strength?  Each of the replicants in turn beat the crap out of Deckard.  

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.  

1982's Blade Runner: The Theatrical Cut

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.

1992's Blade Runner: The Director's Cut

In 2007, a “Final Cut” was released.  This was basically, a re-mastered version of the Director’s Cut. 

2007's Blade Runner: The Final 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.

Two criticisms

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 Deckard's screen

As Zhoura appeared on the printed photo

Deckard's photo analyzer used in the film

The more modern appearing version from the deleted scenes

But these are small criticisms in what is truly a fantastic piece of cinematic art.

Paradise? A Brief Analysis of the Descendants

https://youtu.be/R4cs13_lysE

Alexander Payne’s 2011 The Descendants is a very worthwhile film to see about a family dealing with tragedy.  A father and his two daughters very suddenly must deal with the loss of the mother.  Each family member goes through an emotional journey.  Each one deals with the loss in their own personal way.

I’ve mentioned this in other Payne analysis, so you may already know that Payne films are very character-driven.  Payne doesn’t make action films, biographies, historical epics, comedies or romantic comedies.  In fact, his films are difficult to categorize.  If I had to, I’d classify them as “slices of life”.  He metaphorically uses a microscope and focuses on several people and their interactions in a given situation.  As someone who’s seen his share of gun fights, car chases, explosions, and superheroes, I find Payne films to be refreshingly different.

Going back to The Descendants, I should mention that this movie takes place on the Hawaiian Islands.  But that’s not that important, you see, because Matt King tells us that living in Hawaii is not that big of a deal.

“My friends on the mainland think that just because I live in Hawaii, I live in paradise – like a permanent vacation.  We’re all just out here sipping Mai Tai’s, shaking our hips, and catching waves.  Are they insane?  Do they think we’re immune to life?   How can they possibly think our families are less screwed up, our cancers less fatal, our heartaches less painful?  Hell, I haven’t been on a surfboard in fifteen years.  For the last twenty-three days, I’ve been living in a paradise of IV’s and urine bags and tracheal tubes.  Paradise?  Paradise can go fuck itself.”

Something I believe a lot of viewers missed in all of this is director Alexander Payne uses a plot device known as “the unreliable narrator”.  When a story’s narrator is also one of the characters, then we should know not to completely trust the veracity of the narration as it comes from a perspective of bias and ignorance of not knowing everything that is going on.

Matt King Has To Deal With Two Issues

There appears to be two different stories that intertwine.  One is the fore mentioned tragedy with Elizabeth King in a terminal coma.  The other is the King family owning and legally being forced to sell some very valuable Hawaiian property.  The father Matt King, played excellently by George Clooney, is the one who will ultimately choose the buyer of the property.  So, the King family, while dealing with loss, is also about to become very rich.

The story moves along with Matt and his two daughters, Alexandra and Scottie visiting relatives and looking into the man Elizabeth was apparently “seeing” behind Matt’s back.  This has them moving all over the state, among several of the islands.  Around the middle of the movie, they even visit the land in Kauai they will be selling. 

Hawaii

However, there is really only one story being told here.  Matt has alienated his wife and two daughters to such a point where he really isn’t a husband and father anymore.  Matt King’s world for years has been his office.  Note his office is what you would expect from a lawyer’s office.  There’s a big desk and a lot of books.  His wife’s accident expands his world into the hospital.  Again, the surroundings are typical.  It’s in Honolulu, but you’d hardly know it. 

Matt King in his comfort zone - his office

“For the last twenty-three days, I’ve been living in a paradise of IV’s and urine bags and tracheal tubes.  Paradise?”

We can understand why Matt has this point of view as his focus is so narrow.  Notice that Matt makes this comment from his wife’s hospital room. Circumstances are now forcing Matt away from the two environments of his office and the hospital.  Since the movie is shown entirely from the perspective of Matt, we the audience see and hear what Matt had been missing all this time.

The Descendants is the awakening of Matt King to the fact that he is a descendant of Hawaiian royalty and that he and his family do indeed live in paradise.

Notice Matt’s family and friends all seem to be transplanted Hawaiians. Again, Matt has been living in a secluded world.

However, outside of this circle, many of the people they run into appear to have native Hawaiian ancestry.

Going from one island to another is just part of the experience of living in our 50^th state.

Buildings and businesses everywhere remind us of where they are.

And there’s visual and audio everywhere that scream “YOU’RE IN HAWAII!”

During the opening narration by Matt King, we are being shown Honolulu, people in Hawaiian shirts, people living in beachfront shacks, and flowers in hair.

While showing a beautiful view of Honolulu and the Pacific from the hospital window, Matt casually mentions he was on Maui when he learned of his wife’s accident.

A casual drive in the neighborhood reveals palm trees in yards.

“Let’s drive over to the airport, we’ll hop over to the big island and we’ll surprise your sister.”  

Sandal run in tropical neighborhood.

Goat in yard

Return walk reveals Matt’s flowery home.

Hawaiian view/outriggers 

Friends banquet with a lot of seafood.

Hula girl on dashboard

Kauai Sunset

Villa with palms

Portrait by Matt

Enjoying Hawaiian music

The schoolmate's mother hopes Matt doesn't sell the land or at least that the family he sells it to is from Hawaii.

Ancestor portraits

Matt gets up, looks at portraits suddenly realizing their existence.

“We didn’t do anything to own this land.  It was entrusted to us.  Now we’re just… I can’t do it, not going to do it.  I’m not going to sign… I don’t want it to go to Hollitzer.  I don’t want it to go to anyone. I want to keep it… I don’t need a couple of days.  I have the authority, and this is what I want.  We have other businesses that we’re converting into corporations.  We can figure this out… Then I have seven years to figure out how to keep it… People will be relieved Hugh, the whole state.  I sign this document and something that we were supposed to protect is gone, forever.  Now, we’re howly as shit and we go to private schools and clubs and we can barely speak pidgin, let alone Hawaiian.  But we’ve got Hawaiian blood and we’re tied to this land and our children are tied to this land.  Now, it’s a miracle that for some bullshit reason, 150 years ago, we owned this much of paradise, but we do.  And for whatever bullshit reason, I’m the trustee now and I’m not signing.  I’m not signing it. So, if you want to sue me, it’ll just make us closer.”

It took a tragedy and a legal clause to finally awaken Matt King to realize he truly does live in paradise.  Don’t trust the narrator!