Site Updates
News in Short
Soap Box Poets
Viewers Views
Message Board
Autographed Items
Terms of Use
Views from Viewers

Blade Runner              
                                                         Page #7

"How can it not know wha it is? "

"Thanks to checking the “Future Noir” book again, I realize that I jumped too quickly in giving victory to the blue corner regarding the screenplay. Though Hampton Fancher saw Deckard as a replicant, David Peoples…didn’t! His intention was to show that we are all programmed Replicants and Humans alike, and as one half of the credited writers, I’m happy to say…he’s in the red corner keeping us company. He goes on to say that because Ridley (missing the subtlety of Deckard’s final monologue) then got himself fired up with the idea of Deckard as a Replicant, he (Peoples) decided to… just let it go at that." MikeP

"Okay, contrary to my usual self, I have maintained silence regarding the Blade Runner/Replicant discussion. I have not and probably will not ever read the book(s) although I have looked through the various versions of the screenplay. I have watched the original (Narration) version of the movie only once and did not like it. As a matter of fact, after only one viewing (too many years ago) of the original, my initial thought was that Roy Batty was one mean son-of-a-bitch. First impressions .. Later I saw the director's cut of the film and liked it much better. I also carefully watched Batty and it dawned on me (duh) that Batty only wanted what we all want .. a fair chance at life. His visit to Tyrell (his 'father') was very clear and concise. Batty wasted no words. He said "I want more life, fucker!" Upon learning that more life for him was an impossibility, he killed his "father". It dawned on me then that more than a violent reaction to the news Tyrell gave him, Batty may have acted out of compassion for his kind and hoped to prevent more of his kind from being created. He didn't even live his full four year lifespan because as his 'father' had told him, he had 'burned very brightly'. I am in agreement with Rutger that the film should have ended with Batty's monologue at the end. I have always felt this way. As to the debate of Deckerd being a Replicant, I fall on neither side of the debate because honestly, I felt that either way, Harrison Ford's portrayal of Deckard was ho hum at best. I really don't know if that was the case because Ford was much younger then or if he just didn't care for the movie. His lackluster performance in the film can make you see both human and replicant in him. (Don't get me wrong .. Ford has done some good movies and I do not dislike him as an actor) He simply could not stand up against an actor as brilliant as Rutger is. (Yes, I am somewhat biased, but have ALWAYS felt that Rutger was the shining star in Blade Runner.) This is THE year for Blade Runner. A celebration of 20 years of a film that is as impressive to watch today as it was 20 years ago. I sat in the 59th street theater in New York and watched the film for the first time on the BIG SCREEN. It was totally awesome. Rutger and Joe Turkel were sitting somewhere on back in the theater watching as well. Yet .. when the final monologue came and Batty recited the immortal words that no Blade Runner fan could ever forget, tears ran down my face as Batty said the words, "Time to die..." and his head slowly lowered to his chest. For me, the movie ended right then and there. The lights came on and it crossed my mind, 'How stupid is this! You know Rutger is in the theater, yet you cry when Batty dies." I listened and laughed with everyone else as Rutger and Joe went through the Q&A session and then we left the theater. I was standing outside on the sidewalk talking to Miss G. And JoAnn and Rutger walked up. I didn't see him at first, my mind still on the last Batty scene and then he leaned close to me and asked, "Are you okay?" I managed a smile and said, "Yes, but you made me cry again!" He smiled one of his beautiful smiles and kissed me on the cheek. This is the magnificence of a character named Roy Batty and a man named Rutger Hauer." Jan

"Rain (for me) adds to its appeal; a nice contrast to hot and and humid and dry earth turning to dust. Love weather, love rain, its drama and permutations - e.g., torrential downpour in penultimate BR scene, Roy's agony causing not only us but sky to sob in sympathy and rage and setting stage for final scene (disregarding, a la RH and Jan, the Deckard nonsense that follows) in which Roy for a moment comes to terms with himself and his death and his connection to life and the rain becomes gentle and tapers off in quiet soft weeping." Susan

"OK, I add my 2 cents. In my opinion, Blade Runner can be interpreted as an allegory. Some light references (well, some also not THAT light) have already been made in previous entries, but I want to draw your attention on how many “religious” references can be found in BR - the close-up of Roy’s eye at the beginning of the movie (God’s eye…), the dove (needs no explanations), the snake (another strong religious symbol – due to a snake all our problems started! right?), Roy sticking that nail in his hand (like a sort of Jesus Christ on the cross…) and so on. So… what if in reality Tyrrel is nothing more nothing less than God – “our” GOD – playing with our lives, no matter if we are replicants or humans – we are all in the same situation – a limited life-span. And it doesn’t matter if it’s for 4 or 50 or 80 years. Someone is sadistically playing with our lives: someone created us BUT NOT TO LAST. – “OK, you’ve come to an end! Stop the ride! NEXT!!!”. Just like simple poor pawns. Remember?, Dr. Tyrrel is also playing chess in one scene! We struggle to survive, to make a living, some are luckier than others, ok, but the end is always that. So, there’s not that much difference between humans or replicants – life ends sooner or later for both. And Roy, facing Dr. Tyrrel, his Maker, says “I want more life FUCKER”. Conclusion? Tyrrel = God / Replicants-Humans (who cares?) = us, the mankind. Having said that, no offence made to anyone’s religious beliefs, anyone is entitled to believe in what they deem more appropriate, without being judged or criticized. Personally, I prefer to believe that there is not “Someone” who is really playing chess with our lives, who really had the brilliant thought of “programming” us - it would be something unforgivable (Dr. Tyrrel gets killed by Roy…). And I envy people who can rely on their faith to overcome terrible moments. But those religious references and symbols in the film are too much teasing…. C’mon, shoot!" Grazia

"OK, off in another direction with this for a little – I like scenic routes! My copy of “Future Noir” just arrived and I am looking forward to diving into it to find out what those who participated felt their intent was after the fact. I am sure bear and others will bear me out here… but those who create don’t always ‘see’ everything they have done! They may believe they have certain intentions which they may or may not have succeeded in communicating. They may believe, in some instances, that they were nothing more than someone else’s tool. Later, they may spy something they did that they may have missed. On top of which, as we can testify here, no piece of art succeeds without the participation of the viewer/reader/listener etc. Their own experience, desire or need. Their perception, their love or anger. Neither creator or receiver step up to the mark without ‘history’. Time and again I write something that although it comes out of me, is not or seems not to be directly my experience, but the experience of ‘fictional’ characters, and yet someone might say…. this is so you. Not for what is obviously there, but for the undercurrents – they are not talking about style but something in the layers. Why “Blade Runner” succeeds is because it has layers, why “Scorcher” does not is because it doesn’t. And of course the greatest stories are those that offer a nod to the ‘universal’ stories some of which Miss G has touched upon. And the symbolism she mentions goes back even before organised religion. There are some pulses that simply exist within us. Tyrell may be Batty’s ‘God’ but for a brief second Batty was Deckard’s ‘God’ he had the choice to let him live or die (human or replicant). Deckard plays ‘God’ at the behest of his employers – who play ‘God’ with him! Which says about ‘God’….. depends where you are sitting (and ‘God’ defined for this purpose as ‘the one who has the power’)! But the fact that BR poses such universal questions is why we are still talking about it. It goes beyond simply the story of characters…. it is in some ways our stories in forms we find more appealing perhaps than the hum drum lives we sometimes feel we lead. We are Deckard under the thumb of a boss who wants it his way or else, Batty who has had a little of the good life and doesn’t want to give it back… etc and so forth. No w/man is an island, and yet all w/men are also islands. In our creative lives (active or passive) we are seeking to connect as well as be entertained. To be told truths as well as lies. To know we don't resonate alone! Anyway this is all far too long….. but no doubt won’t be the last from any of us! You’re not getting bored are ya bear (oops nope that was another movie hehehe!)! You have been living with this for 20+ years one way or another…. and you are supposed to hold some of the answers, which of course you don’t! Who was that….. someone said “It’s just a movie….!!! Cazzie

"Great suggestions about Roy from Jan and Grazia.Thinking little.Tyrrel made Roy and replicants and forget about him.Same as 'gods' made us and left our planet too.Tyrrel new what kind he made,that's why he didn't want to see any of them.He was hiding in tower.There is nothing about religion in this movie,there is about posibility to make a human.And as we know already,there IS posibility. The last scene with dove make me cry too Jan you are not alone." Eva

"Seems that Mr. Ford's resolve towards BR is diminishing with time. Here are some snippets from some recent interviews... "Sometimes I'll just accidentally catch something on TV and I'll feel pleased that it's there. Just recently I saw a few moments of "Blade Runner," which I'd never liked in its first version because I hated the voice-over narration. But with this director's cut, I feel a lot better about it than I once did." In the second interview he has this to say about the 'cult' status of Blade Runner and other such films: "What is interesting is that it is not cult. Cult seems to be time-specific. What is interesting to me is the luck of my career. A lot of the films I did early on have become classics. Not because of me, but these films are seen by generation after generation after generation of filmgoers. I am delighted that those films have an appeal. The reason is that they were so outrageously original in their time." Read the second interview here: YES, ladies and gentlemen, he CAN be taught!" Ebooty

"Greetings all! I hope that everything is getting back to "normal" business again, Rutger. It sounds like it was a very big happening indeed, with Starfish fundraising and all. I'm happy to hear that it went well! It's great to see that all the GB:ers coming back here after the BR-convention. Thank you, all event-visitors, for writing in here, telling us non-present what happened. Your writing is very much appreciated by me! About BR being an allegory, religious references and more: I see Tyrell perhaps more as being one of cinema's classical mad scientists, in the same league as Dr. Frankenstein (in various movie incarnations of that story), Dr. Webb (Eric Red's "Body Parts") and Rotwang (Fritz Langs "Metropolis"). They all create own lifeforms, in spite of god's or mother nature's "laws"; they also totally ignore their creations (developing) internal desires and need for a "childhood", "family"/"friends", and/or "memories"/"background". The created lifeform is thus utterly abandoned by their creator (OK, I admit that Roy Batty has fellow replicants as friends and family, thus killing my theory a bit), and left to wallow in a strange and desolate, non-understanding, world. Cinema's mad scientist (at least the above mentioned ones) finally gets punished for it all, usually by having their own creation killing them in a weird twist of a poetic justice of sorts... The possible allegory inherent in BR could thus also be connected to abscent fathers, families, friends, et. al. That is, if we want to read the movie as an allegory for "heavy" issues. And this is, to me, the wonderful context of movies like BR: it's up to the viewer to experience and interpret the story, the characters and the images of the movie. To hers or his own mind, liking and desires... Best wishes to all!" PerPer

"My BR view is that Tyrell plays at being a god, but comes up short. Certainly, as with Frankenstein or Rotwang, he is more interested in what he has achieved than accepting that his creation has a life. To him, the fact that his creations start developing their own emotions is not a wonder to be celebrated, but a problem to be solved. So, he plays with lives and treats humans (e.g. Sebastian) with disdain as well. But in the end he is just a man who has his life radically shortened just like he shortens the lives of his creations. // On another point, yes Blade Runner might be a movie, but it is one that asks us to ponder some eternal questions (some of which are phildickian themes as well) - such as What does it mean to be human? And warning us against losing our humanity." Netrunner

                Page #1     Page #2   Page #3     Page #4     Page #5

                Page #6     Page #8     Page #9     Page #10     Page#11

Views from Viewers List

Visitors since October 29, 1999

I've Seen Films
Rutger Hauer Film Factory
Photo Galleries
Hot Shots
TV Interviews,
  ©Rutger Hauer