Print

Print


Sorry about the similar mistake I made to David (from the original quote in
my last message). I never received the original text (it may have been
deleted by my fiance so I took an excerpt from Quitin's post).
 
Anyhow, David's last post on "more human than human" and the interplay
between human and replicant is definitely explored at a greater level in
Scott's cut. In both versions, however, there is an evident fight for
survival from all the four replicants (not excluding Rachel, and Deckard for
that matter) -- a very human trait I would say. Self-preservation is the
name of the game. With that in mind, the notion of the four replicants
searching for their "creator" to prolong their lives (and really for what
reason...the milieu of Blade Runner -- the future -- is not exactly a pretty
picture) and prevent their eminent "expiration" is, in my opinion, a much
more bold human aspect to survive. To a degree, they are more human than human.
 
The fact that Rachel believes she is human, causes Deckard to re-think his
own past and the possibility that he may be a replicant as well. If she
didn't know, how could he? Thus, the unicorn image intercutting his looking
at pictures of his alleged, and questionable, past. As I said before, a
thing of eternal beauty...untouchable, in myth...vision of
perfection..."unreal", perhaps. To further this, the exclusion of Deckard's
narration in Scott's version creates an atmosphere of anti-personalization
and distance for the audience. The viewer is then asked to really decide for
themselves if Deckard could possibly be a replicant. I really believe that
is what Scott was after. If Deckard questions it, why shouldn't we? If the
replicants are more human than human, how can we be sure of anything?
 
Liz Fries
[log in to unmask]
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]