The LA Times has a nice story in this morning's paper about "Blade Runner," which is being released this fall in its third incarnation - I am a bit unclear on what is so new about this one except that it's remastered and just happens to be coming out on the film's 25th anniversary. Still, it means the movie will show for an entire month at a theater delightfully close to the house. Huzzah! How many showings can I cram in?
In the Times story, the reporter says this and drops the topic, without citing a source: "The paper unicorn shaped by Olmos' character, for instance, telegraphs to the audience a huge plot point: that Ford's character, Deckard, is himself an android." This prompted me to set down the paper and begin ranting to Art Boy about how sick and tired I am of all this "Deckard is a replicant" business. People think they're so smart because they thought of this cra-azy twist. What is the point of the movie if Deckard is a replicant? The entire film contrasts Deckard, with his crappy overcoat and nasty stubble and near-total lack of conscience, with the gorgeous and noble replicants. Our creations are more beautiful than we are, is the unsettling point of the film. If you take that central conflict away, the movie is pointless. It would be like (here I brandished a piece of bacon at Art Boy, who flinched) if you went around saying the real point of "Gone with the Wind" is that Scarlett was really a Yankee all along. It's just dumb.
Anyway, I got around later on to reading the other Times, which also has an article on the movie. And they address the Deckard-replicant issue head-on -- they even quote Ridley Scott saying, "Yes, he's a replicant. He was always a replicant." God-fucking-dammit. I hate being wrong.
Still... their explanation is actually fairly convincing. They make a good point that Deckard does show some flickers of conscience and is no more loathsome than the other human characters. I think my movie is better, though.
Do I like the movie less now? Hmm. Multiple viewings will be required to determine the answer to this question.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I'd venture to say that there are plenty of humans hanging around that still make your point. One of the things that makes the movie worth re-watching are the multiple layers. And the replicants aren't all that noble, what with their habits of brutally killing folks and all. Not that I'd argue any of this if you were waving bacon at me.
Christy and I just watched this the other night because she hasn't seen it and wanted to check it out. Funny to have a newer take come out at the same time. It'd be awesome to catch it on the big screen!
You should come up for a viewing sometime this month. Art Boy, it turns out, hasn't seen it since 1982 -- the original cut. I haven't even seen the original cut.
Yeah, the replicants are brutal, and the other humans are pretty nasty. It just changes the dynamic as I had always read it. Then again, I haven't seen it for a while.
i think the theater should place little oragami animals on the auditorium seats between showings...
Post a Comment