Holee Shit, Blade Runner

[featherynscale]

I just saw the director's cut re-release of Blade Runner. I had not seen the film before (although I did read the story last year...) and every time I say that to somebody, they go, "WTF? You haven't seen Blade Runner? How could that be true? It's so very you!"

And, now that I've seen it, I had to ask myself "Holy shit! How could I have not seen this movie?". I mean, really, I've spent 25 years of my life having not seen Blade Runner, and it is so very very fucking me. It expresses practically the whole of my aesthetic preferences. It asks Probing Questions About What It Means To Be Human. It is chock full of moral ambiguity. You don't really know what happens to the hero and the heroine at the end. And, a guy fucks a robot(!!).

Anyway, I feel enriched by the experience.

Comments

[greektoomey.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, I didn't phrase that very well. Allow me to ask the question again.

Are you sure a guy fucks a robot?

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

No, I'm not sure about that either. :)

[greektoomey.livejournal.com]

Remember how Deckard convinced Rachel she was a replicant? The story of the spider outside her window?

Okay, now remember Gaff's line, "Too bad she won't live. Then again, who does?" What do you suppose that means? And do you suppose the origami unicorn that Deckard found as he and Rachel were leaving his apartment was in some way related to Deckard's unicorn dream?

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

I think that the thing that makes it most ambiguous is the bit where Rachel asks him if he's ever had the test and he doesn't answer. I think the unicorn was for the viewer, not for the character, though. I think it just happened to be that. Her presence at his apartment is more than enough to justify Gaff having been there to poke about, though he could also have been casing Deckard.

The thing about "Then again, who does?" I took to be commentary on mortality generally, but again, could imply that Gaff knows something Deckard doesn't.

Could go either way. I've just got this thing about people fucking robots...

[greektoomey.livejournal.com]

Deckard's Unicorn Dream was not included in the 1982 release. Its addition to the 1992 re-release was most significant because prior to that, Gaff's origami unicorn did not import anything, it was just random. However, if Gaff left a unicorn because he somehow knew about Deckard's dream...

Remember Leon's "precious photos"? Notice how Rachel also carried around at least one photo? Did you give any thought to Deckard's collection atop his piano?

Finally, do you remember the police precinct Deckard worked at in the novel?

Not that I'm trying to rain on your cyberfetish parade. Are you familiar with Hajime Sorayama?

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

I think the photo thing is pretty thin... The unicorn thing, I will admit to not really getting, so I'm willing to be wrong about that.

I actually don't recall the precinct off the top of my head, but could go dig it back up.

Also, no, I am not knowing Hajime Sorayama. Should I be?

[greektoomey.livejournal.com]

Sorayama is an explicit pin-up artist, his specialties are bondage and robots. If you're to have any kind of proper cyber fetish, you should definitely check his shit out.

Regarding the Nature of Deckard, I strongly recommend that you read the book again, then watch the movie again. There is much less ambiguity in the book, if I recall correctly. It's been many years since I read it.

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

Now that I've looked him up, yeah, I have seen some of his stuff before, just didn't attach the name to it. I actually like his bondage stuff better than his robot stuff. (Though recommendations of robot pinups are always welcome...)

I try to consider the book version of anything and its film version to be sort of similar stories that happen in parallel universes. I remember coming away from the book with a sense that Deckard was a replicant, certainly. The film-Deckard is iffier, I think.

[greektoomey.livejournal.com]

It's true that the addition of ambiguity is one of Ridley Scott's greatest contributions to the story, and establishes DADoES? as one of very few P.K. Dick stories that gained something significant in the translation to film.

[greektoomey.livejournal.com]

Unrelatedly, did you notice that the shadows moved in the photo of "young Rachel" and her mom when Deckard looked at it closely?

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

It seemed to me that that happened at several points when he was looking at photos, but I could never tell if that was actually happening, or if my brain was moving things randomly.

[greektoomey.livejournal.com]

Ridley Scott is crafty devil.