Last movie watched...

[JOE SOAP]

Eh?

Whatever the Director has gone with is correct.  We seem to be mixing a couple of other ideas in here.  If Ridley created the movie with Deckard as human then he is human.  Then if some time later he re-edits a Director's Version where Deckard is still human then he is still human.  Fair enough, if he changed it in the Director's cut so that Deckard is now replicant but ultimately Ridley cannot be wrong.

But Ridley didn't create or make it all by himself- at least two writers wrote the screenplay, based on Dick's book, and all with the intention that Deckard is human and wrote it to suit that idea, which I believe is the angle that makes it a stronger film. Ridley Scott's retro-active 'dicking' around with that fucks with the story and the moral questions it raised- Deckard is shagging a robot. I think Scott misses the point of why the story works.

To be honest I don't believe Ridley was too interested in the minute mechanics of the story back in 1981 but happy enough to keep a generally vague and uncertain feeling about it all as long as he got his visuals the way he wanted which was what he was more interested in. He was a different type of film-maker then and a little more abstract. The less he tends to be involved in the writing and development of his screenplays the better the films tend to be.

[Recrewt]

Eh?

Whatever the Director has gone with is correct.  We seem to be mixing a couple of other ideas in here.  If Ridley created the movie with Deckard as human then he is human.  Then if some time later he re-edits a Director's Version where Deckard is still human then he is still human.  Fair enough, if he changed it in the Director's cut so that Deckard is now replicant but ultimately Ridley cannot be wrong.

But Ridley didn't create or make it all by himself- at least two writers wrote the screenplay, based on Dick's book, and all with the intention that Deckard is human and wrote it to suit that idea, which I believe is the angle that makes it a stronger film. Ridley Scott's retro-active 'dicking' around with that fucks with the story and the moral questions it raised- Deckard is shagging a robot. I think Scott misses the point of why the story works.

To be honest I don't believe Ridley was too interested in the minute mechanics of the story back in 1981 but happy enough to keep a generally vague and uncertain feeling about it all as long as he got his visuals the way he wanted which was what he was more interested in. He was a different type of film-maker then and a little more abstract. The less he tends to be involved in the writing and development of his screenplays the better the films tend to be.

When I say correct, I mean - he is correct what the setup is in the movie.  Some people have suggested he is wrong about his own movie.  Ridley is the Director and it is his job to visualise the script and create the movie.  The result of the authors work is the book, the result of the screenwriters work is the script and the result of the Directors work is the movie. 

I agree with a lot of what you say but when he created the original, Deckard was human with a suggestion of replicant.  Time moved on and when Ridley did the directors cut he decided that actually Deckard was a replicant and changed the movie to suit that.  Some folks may not like it but Ridley is correct in what Deckard is in these movies. 

[Dandontdare]

I think it's a HUGE stretch to assume that finding the origami unicorn on the doormat confirms that not only is Deckard a replicant but that Gaff knows about his dreams - that may be one interpretation, but it's by no means certain. I always saw it's only narrative function being to tip off Deckard that Gaff is pursuing him, I've never heard this theory about him knowing Deckard's dreams before.

[JOE SOAP]

Ridley is the Director and it is his job to visualise the script and create the movie.  The result of the authors work is the book, the result of the screenwriters work is the script and the result of the Directors work is the movie.

In blunt terms it is that way but for Blade Runner I don't think it's a clean-cut as that: Scott was hired by the studio to direct the film as much as the screenwriter was hired to write the film and none truly own the work. Unless the director is the sole author of the work, which Ridley is not, then neither roles can be completely compartmentalised and divorced from the final product. It might be that Scott's later interpretation is different to what what was originally intended by the primary creatives but their opinions, as much as Scott's, are valid in regards to the final product, which is still too vague to be decisive about, in my opinion.

I agree with a lot of what you say but when he created the original, Deckard was human with a suggestion of replicant.  Time moved on and when Ridley did the directors cut he decided that actually Deckard was a replicant and changed the movie to suit that.  Some folks may not like it but Ridley is correct in what Deckard is in these movies.

In fairness to him - unlike other directors - I don't believe Scott, being respectful of the work, changed much or enough in The Final Cut to decisively conclude that Deckard is definitely a replicant (the unicorn is still a vague abstraction as are the amber eyes) and the main reason why many have come to the conclusion that Deckard is a replicant is because Ridley stated it much later on in interviews but the writer(s) - and even the two lead actors, Ford & Hauer - still have a different opinion on that- are they any less valid?

They were all primary contributors to the film and since the narrative end-result is primarily, in this case, both the screenwriter's and director's work, Scott's opinion is still really only his own and the 'pedestalling' of the director's vision and his opinion over everyone else's is more the cause of journalists (yes, blame them) and is not Scott's fault or indeed the whole picture. Even in its 'final' state, the film does not come down solidly in favour of either conclusion anymore than previously released versions, so it's anyone's to decide.

[von Boom]

I think it's a HUGE stretch to assume that finding the origami unicorn on the doormat confirms that not only is Deckard a replicant but that Gaff knows about his dreams - that may be one interpretation, but it's by no means certain. I always saw it's only narrative function being to tip off Deckard that Gaff is pursuing him, I've never heard this theory about him knowing Deckard's dreams before.

I agree. If Gaff knew Deckard was a skin job why tip him off? Just waste him and collect the bounty.

[JOE SOAP]

I agree. If Gaff knew Deckard was a skin job why tip him off? Just waste him and collect the bounty.

You could equally conclude Gaff is a replicant himself or he's a human who empathises with Deckard's plight as an innocent replicant, if we are hypothesisng the plot and not the theme to that degree.

[JamesC]

I think it's a HUGE stretch to assume that finding the origami unicorn on the doormat confirms that not only is Deckard a replicant but that Gaff knows about his dreams - that may be one interpretation, but it's by no means certain. I always saw it's only narrative function being to tip off Deckard that Gaff is pursuing him, I've never heard this theory about him knowing Deckard's dreams before.

I agree. If Gaff knew Deckard was a skin job why tip him off? Just waste him and collect the bounty.

But that's assuming that the whole thing isn't just an elaborate set up to try to catch some extremely dangerous replicants as quietly and with as little fuss as possible. Before the other replicants went on the run there may not have ever been a Deckard. Maybe his whole life is an implant. Maybe he and Rachel will die 5 minutes after the credits roll and leaving the unicorn is just a sick little joke.

[TordelBack]

[Draws in breath through teeth] Now what you've got there mate is yer classic polysemous signs in a contested text. I can get you the signifiers secondhand, but your mediations are barely articulated and your totality is absent.  I'd leave well alone meself, find yourself a cheap structuralist analysis instead. [tuts]

[Spikes]

Some people have suggested he is wrong about his own movie. 

Some people suggested he was wrong to give a set-in-stone answer to a question, that was invented by him, about something that doesnt actually exist in the film.
In regards to this particular matter its purely his opinion, and carries no more weight than anyone else's.


Left one way or the other, it all actually works for me. And makes for a better, more layered, viewing experience.
I still dont think any cut leads you to the conclusion that is Ridley's supposed preference, though.

[Recrewt]

In fairness to him - unlike other directors - I don't believe Scott, being respectful of the work, changed much or enough in The Final Cut to decisively conclude that Deckard is definitely a replicant (the unicorn is still a vague abstraction as are the amber eyes) and the main reason why many have come to the conclusion that Deckard is a replicant is because Ridley stated it much later on in interviews but the writer(s) - and even the two lead actors, Ford & Hauer - still have a different opinion on that- are they any less valid?

They were all primary contributors to the film and since the narrative end-result is primarily, in this case, both the screenwriter's and director's work, Scott's opinion is still really only his own and the 'pedestalling' of the director's vision and his opinion over everyone else's is more the cause of journalists (yes, blame them) and is not Scott's fault or indeed the whole picture. Even in its 'final' state, the film does not come down solidly in favour of either conclusion anymore than previously released versions, so it's anyone's to decide.

Yeah, some of this highlights the limitations of Directors Cuts - the original came out in 82, directors in the 90s and then final cut was a few years back wasn't it?  So, what did Ridley have to work with for the director's/final cuts? Only the stuff that had already been filmed but not put in.  I suspect there was not enough available to reflect his changed opinion. 

I have also seen interviews with Ford where he mentions that he and Ridley discussed this and agreed Deckard was human when filming the original version.  No problem, everyone seems to agree what was the case for the theatrical release.  But when Ridley changed things for later cuts, how much was Mr Ford involved? I suspect - not at all.

On the whole, I am not a fan of Director's Cuts - they are OK if you want to add some extra scenes for the fans but they are limited in how much you can do.  You really have to wonder if all this fiddling has improved anything. 

[pictsy]

Maybe it's the Final Cut I've got lying about somewhere.

I'm still surprised this "is Deckard a replicant" issue is so decisive.  It never showed up on my radar so it's a shock to see the debate still rages on.

I'm not overly fond of directors continuously releasing different cuts of films.  Some one should be slapping their hands and dragging them out of the editing rooms.  In the end I think it only ends up undermining what they had hoped to achieve in the first place.

I understand why directors like to release a directors cut of a film, though and often I prefer the directors vision over the studios.  Not always, I don't like the Donnie Darko directors cut as much as the theatrical cut.

[Frank]

No reason that Death of the Author shouldn't apply to directors too.

Normally, when critically viewing a text, the author, his person, his life, his tastes, his passions, his declared intentions take the spotlight; the author is forced to take sole responsibility for the failure or success of the work. With this viewpoint the creator's work is a direct passage to the creator himself, which seems to take away from the text.

Information not said within the work dictates the work. Research must be done on the era of the writer, the sociopolitical stance of the writer, the context in which the work was written, etc. All of those elements culminate into the limitation and constriction of interpreting the text as nothing but itself.

The text itself comes to seem derivative, extracted from other works. The direct intent of the author may be muddled due to the translation from author to text to reader, the text ending up more of an immense dictionary than anything else. The inability of text to truly capture the passions, humours, feelings, impressions of the author are lost and infinitely deferred due to the subjectivity of the reader.

The reader comes empty handed to the text - it is as if a sculpture, a three dimensional work, is photographed, reduced to two dimensions. So much information is condensed and made inaccessible to the viewer that he must create it anew himself. The origin of a work may lie with the author, but its destination is with the reader ... the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author."

Roland Barthes, The Death of the Author (1967)

Of course, Barthes's own thesis suggests we shouldn't place any importance in what he meant to try to tell us about the respective roles of author and reader when interpreting a text.

[Dark Jimbo]

I've never seen Blade Runner. I'm starting to think maybe I should make the effort. It certainly inspires a lot of passion.

[JOE SOAP]

I'd leave well alone meself, find yourself a cheap structuralist analysis instead. [tuts]

Agreed. The foundations of this build are shaky enough as they stand.

[sheldipez]

It's worth remembering that Blade Runner was yanked out of Scott's hands by the studio before he was finished and neither he nor Ford ever liked the happy ending. Not forgetting the final cut is perfect example of how you use CGI years after a movie is released for a reason, unlike Lucas' tinkering with Star Wars, changes like removing visable wires, correcting out of out of sync speech and digitally replacing the stunt womans face with real actress's face, digitally stabilising the horn stuck on the horse, fixing the matte lines on some shots, fixing the day skyline when it's supposed to be night etc. etc.

I'm not a fan of creators tinkering with their movies years after the fact but I think Blade Runner is a good exception.