Bladerunner (1997)

[Brian G Turner]

Bladerunner

Watched the "director's cut" DVD the other night. Still a great classic film. Funny - barely seems at all dated. Darn good - I may even consider it the best SF film made so far...

 

[nemesis]

Re:Bladerunner

And it is.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Re:Bladerunner

I was actually quite impressed with how well it hadn't dated. I almost swore that some of the backgrounds were CGI!

I think I see what people mean about the directors cut as well - it's a whole lot more moody without the character narrative explaining every little piece of information. Perhaps even gives it a more open genre, though I won;t make an argument of the issue.

Darned if I know what the brief unicorn shot while 'Rachel' plays the piano is for. Unicorn symolism isn;t familiar. All I remember is that only a virgin suppoesedly could ride one. But this one was free...symbol of freedom?

Ah - speaking of which, the dove at the end - always thought it represented peace. Maybe was the original narrative distracting myself. Then my girlfriend pointed out that the symbolism would probably more appropriately related to that of the soul, of being imbued with spirit, hence the desire to live - and then the transcendence of continued existence. She stated it better that I, though - not just a pretty face!

 

[McMurphy]

Spearheading the Symbolism of the Unicorn

I was actually quite impressed with how well it hadn't dated. I almost swore that some of the backgrounds were CGI!

I think I see what people mean about the directors cut as well - it's a whole lot more moody without the character narrative explaining every little piece of information. Perhaps even gives it a more open genre, though I won;t make an argument of the issue.

Darned if I know what the brief unicorn shot while 'Rachel' plays the piano is for. Unicorn symolism isn;t familiar. All I remember is that only a virgin suppoesedly could ride one. But this one was free...symbol of freedom?

Ah - speaking of which, the dove at the end - always thought it represented peace. Maybe was the original narrative distracting myself. Then my girlfriend pointed out that the symbolism would probably more appropriately related to that of the soul, of being imbued with spirit, hence the desire to live - and then the transcendence of continued existence. She stated it better that I, though - not just a pretty face!

In the Blade Runner Director's Cut a dream and a miniature of a unicorn are present. These are interesting images considering the tone of the movie is dark and violent. The contrast between the tone of the movie and the imagery of the unicorn is important because it's the director's attempt at clueing us in.

The fact that the two proceeding miniatures (the chicken and the matchstick man) before the one of the unicorn have meanings that are easy to guess move viewers to speculate if the unicorn is an artifact of symbolism. What the unicorn is representing may not be so easy. The chicken, the first miniature of the movie, is made in the office of Deckard's boss. When Deckard tries to refuse the job of hunting down a new batch of replicants, the chicken is used to poke fun at Deckard's reluctance. The matchstick figure of a man is crafted when Deckard's relationship with Rachel and the violence heats up. Like I mentioned before, the meaning of these miniatures are straight forward, but they are important because the director probably did this purposely to draw viewers' attention to what the unicorn may or may not mean.


What does the unicorn symbolize? The first clue is the dream Deckard has while sleeping at the piano. His dream is of a vital, white unicorn running through a green, lush landscape. Deckard is probably dreaming of what he wants his life to be like. Deckard wants freedom from his job, his dark, oppressive surrounding, and, most importantly, from his impure, meaningless life. This is why the unicorn is white (purity) and why the landscape is lush (lively and rich of meaning). At the time Deckard dreams of his freedom, he doesn't know how it can be achieved. That is where Rachel comes in literally and figuratively. She, through Deckard's compassion and sexual interest towards her, starts to help Deckard see the way.

The next time the viewers see the unicorn is at the end of the movie when Deckard and Rachel is fleeing from his apartment. In the hallway, on the ground, is a miniature unicorn constructed from an empty bubblegum wrapper. It's very important that it is made of a gum wrapper---one side paper, the other side tinfoil---because it introduces three possible interpretations. First, the unicorn is simply referring back to his dream. It is a sign to both Deckard and the viewer that his desire of freedom and happiness is actually going to happen. He and Rachel are going to travel together in freedom with whatever time Rachel still has to live. It is a very "happily ever after" ending for a movie so grim, but it is possible due to the graceful images in his dream. Second, the unicorn made from a gum wrapper may also be reminding viewers who holds Deckard's "unicorn". The wrapper is paper on one side to represent the humanity of Rachel, and the tinfoil on the other side to represent the fact that she was created as a replica. Third, and probably the most controversial, the unicorn may be hinting to the viewers that Deckard is a replica. In this case, the tinfoil is representing the fake, replica side of Deckard, the man who has his dream of the "unicorn". In the movie, there is evidence that the director is using imagery a couple times throughout the movie to convey who someone really is. The first miniature was of a chicken to show that Deckard was acting cowardly in some people's eyes. The snake in the dressing room hinted that Zhora was a replica (remember the tattoo?). The third would then be the unicorn symbolizing Deckard as a replica.

It is quite possible that all the interpretations suggested in this post is right (or, to be cynical, wrong). Why would Ridley Scott stop at only one possible meaning of the unicorn? He wouldn't. All well respected and important works of fiction have multiple meanings, and Blade Runner has endured the test of time far better than a lot of science fiction movies in the past. Heck, how many people even bothered watching Mission to Mars that came out less than a decade ago? Enough said.

 

[Foxbat]

Re: Bladerunner

I've always gone with the idea that Deckard is a replicant and the Unicorn is a symbol of that (his dream is part of his memory implant - so outsiders know what he dreams of).

As for the dove - it is the replicant's way of showing his own humanity - and why he should be treated as human. He has the power to destroy the dove but allows his human side - his compassion - to make the choice to let it go. The replicant knows his time is up and destroying the dove will achieve nothing..

Just my own interpretation

 

[Aeolus14Umbra]

Re: Bladerunner

Yes I thought the unicorn was an implanted memory...!? Strangely the "Director's Cut" is 6 minutes shorter than the original...I'm not quite sure what exactly was "trimmed". But I must say I prefer the "film noir" styling of the original, with the Bogartesque voice-over narration.

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

Re: Bladerunner

Totally OT but - the space-ape is back!!!

 

[Aeolus14Umbra]

Re: Bladerunner

Sorry, I ate too many bananas & got a gut-ache!

 

[Brian G Turner]

Re: Bladerunner

I am thoroughly relieved to see that I'm not the only one who really enjoyed the original version, and even prefers it over the Driector's Cut. Got to love the Harrison Ford narration.

As for the cutting down by 6 minutes - I never actually knew that.

 

[Foxbat]

Please post your thoughts, rants, musings etc. here

 

[Foxbat]

Okaydokay, I'll get this one started

I have to confess that I’m not Ridley Scott’s biggest fan. I find that most of his films look great but lack substance. Bladerunner, however, is one of the exceptions and, arguably, his finest film. For me, it’s a work of art. I love everything about this movie – visuals, score, acting, and storyline. It’s just one of those movies that works on all levels – and is quite thought provoking to boot.

Rather than the ‘is he, isn’t he’ tack of the origins of Deckard, I found this latest viewing enlightened me to a sense of ‘full circle’ by the film’s end. Let me explain: we see Leon at the beginning going through his tortoise question. We see the result of that line of questioning. At the end, we have the dove. Roy has the power to crush the dove in his hands but decides to let it go – showing compassion. A replicant that works on an emotional level will be almost impossible to detect. Also, a replicant that is ‘complete’ in this way is, essentially, human. Therefore, ‘retirement’ becomes murder.

Perhaps this is an example of the paradox of our own Humanity? We create or strive to create in our own image and yet, when they become too perfect, too difficult to differentiate from ourselves, we become threatened.

And there you have my latest little musings

 

[Thadlerian]

Re: Bladerunner

Time to resurrect an old thread.

I just saw Blade Runner, and I thought I noticed something.
At some point, Deckard was talking to a street vendor. He explained how much he wanted, and the vendor kept misunderstanding.
'Four,' Deckard said. 'Two two four.'

Which made me think of an old short story by Stanley G. Weinbaum that I recently read: A Martian Odyssey. In the story, the main character befriends an alien, whom he manages to communicate with to a very limited degree. It learns certain basic words from him, as well as numbers. 'One one two' and 'two two four' are terms the alien uses to explain to him what sort of intelligence the creatures they meet inhabit.

Could this be a deliberate reference?

 

[j d worthington]

Re: Bladerunner

Hmmmm. Hadn't caught that, actually. Could be. I forget the scenarists for Blade Runner off the top of my head; I'd have to check it out, but as I recall, they were certainly of a literary enough turn of mind, and aware of the field, that this is a good possibility....

 

[ravenus]

Re: Bladerunner

On IMDB the writing credits include a Hampton Flancher and a David Peoples.

 

[Cobolt]

Re: Bladerunner

The film is my all time favourite Sci-Fi, it never ages and still to this day there are those who try and produce a film of equal standing or even copying the style of living (Fifth Element).

I have watched this film countless times and an answer to a previous question: part of the 6 minute cut was the ending, the special edition does not include the final drive on the road with Deckard and Rachel.

A guy called K.W.Jeter has written 2 more BladeRunner books, Book 2: Edge of human and Book 3: Replicant Night based on the film.

Interesting books, especially Book 2, takes the characters after the film and worth reading. I am sure there is a Book 4 but cannot remember the title.

 

[steve12553]

Re: Bladerunner

If I remember right, Bladerunner was not a critical sucess. This may mean that overanalyzing it could be fatal. On the the other hand, it was moody and the Science Fiction concepts were very interesting. That's more than good enough for me. I owned both versions on videotape and might do the same on DVD eventually. The difference in the two versions was interesting but definitely not fatal to either.

 

[Tau Zero]

Re: Bladerunner

Still my favorite sci-fi movie. I'm curious, though, why anyone thinks Deckard is a replicant? There's no evidence i can see, while there's plenty of evidence that he is a human:

1. Replicants aren't allowed on Earth.
2. Why would someone make a replicant, put him on Earth and give him a gun?
3. Wouldn't the agency that hunts and kills replicants have a background check on Deckard? Wouldn't they notice if he didn't exist 4 years earlier (at best).
4. Why doesn't he have "super human" capabilities like the others? If it wasn't for a gun, they'd clean the floor with Deckard.
5. Rachel was the first of the generation. She was unique (like a Unicorn). Why would Deckard have the implanted memory technology used on him years before it was invented?
6. Deckard dreams. No where in the movie does it ever say that replicants dream.

 

[Paige Turner]

Re: Bladerunner

I had to have someone point out the unicorn thing to me, after seeing the movie only about a half a dozen times. The thing that put the idea of Deckard's being a replicant into my head was his photographs. Rachel was very attached to—almost desparate about—her photo of "her" with her mother, and Leon went to great risk to try to recover the photos he had left behind. Deckard's place had a very conspicuous display of framed "family" photos. My feeling was that somewhere deep in the subconscious, replicants needed the photos to somehow validate their existence.

 

[Tau Zero]

Re: Bladerunner

I can see your point. I always felt that the replicant needed the pictures because it makes them feel human.

On the other hand, i too have pictures of my family all over place; there's nothing unusual about that.

 

[j d worthington]

Re: Bladerunner

Considering PKD's obssession with epistemology and memory, the nature of reality, etc., I think there's more than that basic level here. He frequently asked the question of how we know anything about anything ... even our own past, memories, and personality. That was something very much retained in the film, I think; and, like his books, it is made to reflect on our own experience and make us question some very basic things about being human that we take for granted....