View Single Post
Old 11-09-2008, 11:59 AM   #25 (permalink)
james t kirk
Junkie
 
james t kirk's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto
One of the best movies ever made in my humble opinion.

I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned one of the central themes of the movie - the desire for life.

You see, the Replicants as they were designed and manufactured only had a 3 year lifespan. Not much by human standards, but these Replicants weren't human were they? They were disposable people, manufactured beings. We (humanity) are so superior to them we can do with them as we please right? (Sound familiar? We humans have been doing it to each other since the beginning of time.)

Ah, but there's the catch.

Are we so superior to them?

What was their crime? Simply wanting to live? (Something we humans usually take for granted.) Is that a crime worthy of death sentence? - the desire to simply live.

If you've watched the film, you know that the Replicants aren't supposed to have emotions like we do. They've been deliberately manufactured to die after a 3 year life span (humans playing God again) But surprise, they do. They see humans behaving a certain way and they try to emulate us, yet they are awkward at it. But the emotions ARE there. (Eg. the scene where Roy comes back to the J.S. Sebastien's apartment and meets Pris and he kisses her, but he really doesn't know what he's doing, and neither does she, but he kisses her none the less.)

The scene where Deckard chases and kills (in a very cold way, without feeling, without remorse) Zhora in slo-motion - her desire to live is heart breaking to watch. What is her crime? Her simple desire for life? Yet she is sentenced to death and Deckard is the instrument of that death. He kills her, yet he (a human) doesn't give it a second thought. She's not human.

As an aside, yes, I think it important that Deckard is human and not a replicant. He is part of what's fucked up with the human race. There has been discussion (by Scott himself in fact) that Deckard was a replicant. Ford, however, was adament that Deckard be human because audiences need to be able to relate to Deckard. I would agree with Ford, but not for the reasons of necessarily relating to Deckard (since Deckard is really an antihero to me), but to the idea Deckard is flawed, though not so flawed that there ins't hope for him and by default, hope for humanity.

The final scene in which Roy and Deckard go mano a mano is the most fascinating to wach. Here is this Replicant - Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer in his Aryan PRIME) a "combat model" chasing Deckard and conversely being chased by Deckard through this nightime urban industrial building in the never ending rain. Roy has Deckard beat after a long chase. Deckard is trying to KILL Roy, but Roy is more than capable of out thinking and out performing and then killing Deckard. Deckard has lost. In the end of the scene Deckard is hanging by one arm from the precipice of the roottop (now who wants to live? Can you now relate?) and we see Roy walk up to him and look down at him. It's over for Deckard. If the roles were reversed Deckard would have simply stomped on Roy's fingers. But wait, what does Roy do? He pulls Deckard up and saves him just as Deckard was going to fall to his death. Roy (the manufactured being, the sub human, the piece of property that was to be shot on sight) demonstrates the superior trait of mercy. (Something that has never even crossed Deckard's mind.) The scene ends with the two combatants looking at each other and Roy uttering the famous line "time to die" and with that, everything that Roy has ever known in his brief life is lost forever "like tear drops in the rain".

The shot ends with Deckard looking truly humbled yet that moment is not lost on Deckard. There is perhaps hope after all. Salvation.

Last edited by james t kirk; 11-09-2008 at 12:09 PM..
james t kirk is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54