Paul Ryersbach wrote:
>In my opinion the answer is clear in the director's cut: Deckard is a
>>replicant. (...) I do not think this was in the originally released
>version and in my view was one of the factors that made the director's cut
>a much more
>complex and interesting film.  But it has been awhile since I've seen
>either cut.  Does anyone else agree with this?
 
I agree with everything, except with the idea that the director's cut is
more interesting. The other cut (let's call it producer's cut) tells the
story of a man that discovers more humanity in replicants than in humans,
even falls in love with a replicant. In the director=B4s cut we are told
about the feelings of a replicant. How possibly would we know something
about those feelings without the aid of a human mind? And why should we
care about it? The director=B4s cut becomes the story of replicants told by
replicants. Then is trivial that they fall in love to each onother, and
nothing really disturbing happens, while in the producer=B4s cut it does.
By the way, what if I manage to convince Riddley Scott of the soundness of
the above paragraph? Then he can make another version, perhaps called
"seconds thoughts of the director" cut. This would probably open the gate
for an endless chain of cuts. The result will be that nobody in this list
or elsewhere would be able to discuss about Blade Runner, because everybody
would be talking about a different version. I don=B4t like director=B4s cuts=
,
in particular this phony one.
 
Quintin
 
El Amante / Cine Magazine
Buenos Aires
Argentina
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]