It's still amazing

Rating: Null/10 (30 November 2006)

It's still amazing how little some people understand of a film and what kind of comments result from such misunderstanding.
To be honest: I love Blade Runner, so my comment won't be "objective" - if something like that exists... But in previous comments the idea of the film was completely misunderstood. Thats why this film is seen as a film, where graphical/stylistic effects seem to count more then the plot. This is definitely wrong! 1. The uprising of the replicants: It was not an revolt of the 4 nexus6 replicants, now illegally on earth. The uprising took part in earlier years, when replicants were allowed on earth. This lead a general prohibition of replicants on earth. The only place they are allowed are the off world colonies - where they are kept as "working slaves".(There is an incoherency in the film/book, because there is at least one (or two -see below) replicant on earth: Rachael. But that might be a licence for the corporation, that is designing them. Whatever - thats not clear in the film) 2. All 4 replicants seek longer life. Their lifespan has been limited to 4 years (security reasons are one argument; another is their intellectual superiority - incoherency number two) 3. The storyline is not (as usually supposed...) Blade Runner against Replicants, due to a)Rachael. She and Deckard fall in love. Deckard (Blade Runner) himself seems to be a replicant. This is shown in comments of his police superior, which is telling him: "To bad she won't live. But then again, who does?" The second hint Deckard gets is a paper-work, left by the same person. That paper work is mirroring a unicorn, an animal that Deckard constantly dreams of. Due to their programming, replicants have a manufactured memory. Do his "collegue" is telling him, what he had to tell Rachel during their second meeting.
So, lets get this short: The film is working on at least two very philosophical topics. What are the boundaries of "humanity". Is life, that is artificially designed, less valuable than "100% organic" life. In the realization of this topic their are plenty of allusions to points like "fatherhood", the status of God, etc.. Cognitive solipsism and the boundaries of our own perception. Like Rachael, Deckard is (in the end) not sure about his "personality". While he is in the first place referring to Rachael as a "machine", he first looses this idea of his and at the end is completely unsure about his own status. To what extend is it possible, that his memories are just artificially created/designed? Is his personality just a fiction, etc..
Another topic are the citations or the "hypertextuality" of the film. There are bunches of biblical allusions (mostly apocryphic, from the exodus and some from the genesis - mostly transformed, o give them a different meaning) and bunches of romantic references (Blake's "America. A Prophecy for instance). If they are twisted or in versed, they anyhow refer to the books, and kind of actualize their content. So a quite intelligent interpretation of the film would only be possible, if these citations would be considered. They have to be taken serious, or the interpretation of the film will be the usual: "Quite good, but has a focus on the stylish effects and its plot does not go too deep".
Sorry, but films (and their interpretation) depend on the mind, that is willing to reflect on them.
I would love to argue much longer and more persistent on these points but my lack of English sets quite a limitation and the more I write, the more mistakes you will find. So I'l will end with the next full stop.