Some things about the original Blade Runner that deserve some speculation and discussion:
No one ever really talks about why the Voight-Kampff Test is the way that it is. Consider that it's a series of questions -- impossible questions with impossible answers. And that the point of the test isn't even related to the questions or the answers, but about having empathy -- as long as that empathy is for the right things, the things that society approves of as "human". If you don't have empathy for the right things, the penalty is death.
There is a moment where Deckard hesitates before he fires as he chases Zhora. In that moment, he has a decision to make: Should he fire into a crowd of innocent people to "retire" someone who isn't really a person? That hesitation speaks volumes -- about the society, about Deckard, and about the choices we all make when it comes to how we treat the marginalized.
After all, the only reason replicants get killed in this society is because they're seeking free lives. It's unstated, but clear, that society considers this to be their fault. The blade runners are merely doing their job in chasing them down and "retiring" them. Remember: It is important to have empathy for the right things.
Before Deckard makes Rachael his equal by running off with her (and putting them both into the same predicament), he tries to ensure her safety by keeping her for himself(*). Society tends to treat its underclasses this way, too -- assuring them that the only way to continue their existence is to find a place under the protective wing of one of the powerful.
---
(*) I honestly respect this movie more because it doesn't ask us to find Deckard a sympathizable character. Tough-guy movies frequently show us someone who is doing a tough, regrettable, but necessary job. Deckard, in my opinion, starts there, but grows out of it as the movie progresses -- and not all at once, and not perfectly.
It expects that the audience will think. It asks the audience to participate in the same kind of empathy that the very society it depicts will not -- to attempt to understand a man trying to understand his responsibility as an actor in an unjust culture.
After all, if you see a society like this, the thinking audience member will have to ask herself some uncomfortable questions. Why did people want to own replicants in the first place? Why would it be okay to shoot one in the back? Why would you want to own a gun for that purpose? Why would you want something that would hurt others? What drives you (and society) to find justification for something that ends in suffering and/or death?
That's a lot to ask of an audience, and it certainly makes the movie difficult to describe to people who haven't seen it and/or invite them to join the discussion -- but it's what makes the movie alluring, gorgeous, terrible, depressing, disturbing, tempting, and enlightening, all at once. It's strange for a movie, but it's awfully familiar, and that in a very unsettling way.
There is a moment where Deckard hesitates before he fires as he chases Zhora. In that moment, he has a decision to make: Should he fire into a crowd of innocent people to "retire" someone who isn't really a person? That hesitation speaks volumes -- about the society, about Deckard, and about the choices we all make when it comes to how we treat the marginalized.
After all, the only reason replicants get killed in this society is because they're seeking free lives. It's unstated, but clear, that society considers this to be their fault. The blade runners are merely doing their job in chasing them down and "retiring" them. Remember: It is important to have empathy for the right things.
Before Deckard makes Rachael his equal by running off with her (and putting them both into the same predicament), he tries to ensure her safety by keeping her for himself(*). Society tends to treat its underclasses this way, too -- assuring them that the only way to continue their existence is to find a place under the protective wing of one of the powerful.
---
(*) I honestly respect this movie more because it doesn't ask us to find Deckard a sympathizable character. Tough-guy movies frequently show us someone who is doing a tough, regrettable, but necessary job. Deckard, in my opinion, starts there, but grows out of it as the movie progresses -- and not all at once, and not perfectly.
It expects that the audience will think. It asks the audience to participate in the same kind of empathy that the very society it depicts will not -- to attempt to understand a man trying to understand his responsibility as an actor in an unjust culture.
After all, if you see a society like this, the thinking audience member will have to ask herself some uncomfortable questions. Why did people want to own replicants in the first place? Why would it be okay to shoot one in the back? Why would you want to own a gun for that purpose? Why would you want something that would hurt others? What drives you (and society) to find justification for something that ends in suffering and/or death?
That's a lot to ask of an audience, and it certainly makes the movie difficult to describe to people who haven't seen it and/or invite them to join the discussion -- but it's what makes the movie alluring, gorgeous, terrible, depressing, disturbing, tempting, and enlightening, all at once. It's strange for a movie, but it's awfully familiar, and that in a very unsettling way.
Comments
Post a Comment