I suggest tipping generously for a few months, then trying it on Halloween while you’re in your Deckard costume.
Well I’m one who prefers the original in a lot of ways, but might as well watch Final Cut between those two.
My favorite Roy Batty line:
“If only you could see what I’ve seen with your eyes.”
I guess it all depends on where you are at, cinephile-wise.
Blade Runner is first, a detective story. Second, it’s a detective story that is very much a film noir. Thirdly, it’s a detective story that is very much a film noir, but is more than that, it’s a future noir, because of the time frame it takes place in.
Some people just don’t like detective stories, and I can respect that. Some people just don’t like detective stories that are film noir, and I can respect that. Some people just don’t like detective stories where the film noir aspect is tweaked into being future noir, and I respect that.
It all depends on what you are into.
I, myself, am not crazy about westerns.
C’est la vie.
Rutger Hauer’s career is not otherwise drek. His performance in the original version of **The Hitcher **was tremendous. He was like some kind of freaking beautiful angel of death.
I’m not a big fan of post-release modification (there was nothing gained in Apocalpse Now Redux and The Godfather is best told in the interwoven fashion rather than in straight chronology, never mind that Han Solo did and should shoot first), but Scott’s Blade Runner: Final Cut is clearly the most superior form of the movie. I never objected to the voiceover as much as many did, but it doesn’t really add to the film, and the space it leaves when removed provides a greater sense of disconnection between Deckard and the rest of the world. Then ending of the cinematic cut is a complete cop-out.
Even if this is Scott’s intention, I think it is wrong. Deckard is clearly not as capable as the other Nexus 6 replicants; he does not have their speed, agility, or strength, and in every case he defeats them more or less by luck, or in the case of Zora, “shooting an unarmed woman in the back.” The film works better in demonstrating the equivalence between humans and Replicants; despite the fact that the latter are manufactured, they’re just as human in their passions and fears as human beings, and perhaps more intensely so for having such limited and definite lifespans. Also, it has some great Paradise Lost references. Brilliant visual film despite its thematic ambiguity and plot inconsistencies.
Stranger
I love Blade Runner, but Edward James Olmos’s best work was in Stand and Deliver.
The Nexus 6 is supposed to be the latest model, though - if Deckard is an older model, wouldn’t we expect him to fare poorly?
Besides which, is there any other explanation for Olmos’s character (apparently) knowing about the unicorn in Deckard’s dreams?
Even if Deckard is a Nexus 6, he is not only supposed to be able to pass as human, he is not to realize he isn’t human. His being vastly stronger and faster than everybody around him would work against that.
There are also strong hints given when Deckhard administers the test to Young’s character. Isn’t Deckhard asked archly if he’s ever taken the test?
That’s not a hint he’s a replicant. It’s a hint that there’s a very fine line between human and replicant and the line is rapidly disappearing. The whole point of the movie (and book) is examining what it means to be human, a point that would be meaningless if Deckard were a replicant. The whole Deckard as replicant deal is just the result of a minor continuity error and a needless distraction from a beautifully crafted movie on the nature of humanity (IMHO).
For anyone who hasn’t seen it before I recommend the version with the Deckard narration. It gives you the gist of what’s going on and some of the motivations of Deckard’s actions.
However any subsequent viewings should be done sans narration. Once you know the musings of Deckard you can then appreciate the sights and sounds of the film more.
IIRC, he was human in the book.
I really like the way you have dealt with this issue. For my tastes, it parallels the issue of where “life on earth” originated when the notion that life here is the result of some advanced race on another planet (or the like) sending seeds or spores or primitive life forms here in the distant past. It doesn’t even address where “life” on that other planet came from.
And if Deckard is a replicant or not, the main issue is as you have said so well.
Deckard as a replicant doesn’t subvert any meditations on what it means to be human. To the contrary, his belief in his own humanity emphasizes the ambiguity of the question.
I’ll sign on with this. I prefer to think that Deckard is not a replicant. I think the plot works better with him as a rather ineffectual drone doing a job that very few people, least of all himself, want to do, and gradually coming to realize the latent humanity in his targets.
Love the film, BTW, in both popular versions.
He was also rather good in Ladyhawke. Its more than a bit silly but Hauer lends it some gravitas. And I was 13… Rutger Hauer on his Friesan stallion… swoon!! Still a sentimental favorite for me.
Seems to me I recall reading somewhere that the number of replicants mentioned in the beginning of the film is one more than we finally get to see, leaving us with the question of whether the protagonist was the final missing replicant.
Roy Batty’s death speech is a glorious word-picture. And nicely delivered.
Here’s a question I have had for years and haven’t been able to answer -
I seem to recall that it was a longer speech in the first version of the film I saw and that it included a comment about either two suns or two moons rising off the shore? horizon? of some planet. All copies of the script I’ve seen don 't include anything like this so I’m wondering if I didn’t “embellish” it. Anyone remember this?
…and I still want to know against whom Roy Batty and the other combat-model replicants were fighting.