October 14, 2004

RATIONALISTS DON'T KNOW DICK:

Blade Runner: What It Means to Be Human: When it opened in 1982, Ridley Scott’s movie “Blade Runner” was a box office flop. But the world’s top scientists recently voted it best science fiction film ever. Maybe now the film will finally gain the audience it deserves. (John W. Whitehead, 9/15/04, Godspy)

The importance of Blade Runner is that it reaches for higher truths. Thus, it cannot be understood without comprehending the deeply felt moral, philosophical, ecological and sociological concerns that are interwoven throughout the story.

Three key, yet profound, questions contribute to the core of Blade Runner: Who am I? Why am I here? What does it mean to be human? These are the same basic questions that humanity has faced since the dawn of time. The eternal problems in the film are, thus, essentially moral ones. That is, should replicants kill to gain more life? Should the blade runners kill the replicants simply because they want to exist?

Defining what it means to be human provides most of Blade Runner's philosophical focus. This is increasingly the dilemma faced by contemporary society—that is, the most vital question confronting us is how to maintain humanness in the human race in the face of overwhelming technology that tends to dehumanize us.

The film is based on a novel by Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? "Sheep stemmed from my basic interest in the problem of differentiating the authentic human being from the reflexive machine, which I call an android," Dick once said. "In my mind android is a metaphor for people who are psychologically human but behaving in a nonhuman way."

During research for an earlier work, Dick had discovered diaries by SS men stationed in Poland. One sentence in particular had a profound effect on him. That sentence read, "We are kept awake at night by the cries of starving children." As he explained, "There is obviously something wrong with the man who wrote that. I later realized that, with the Nazis, what we were essentially dealing with was a defective group mind, a mind so emotionally defective that the word 'human' could not be applied to them."

"Worse," Dick noted, "I felt that this was not necessarily a sole German trait. This deficiency had been exported into the world after World War II and could be picked up by people anywhere, at any time."

The dilemma is even more acute now than when Dick was penning Sheep for we have moved deeper into the methodological terrain of a new world—one more than ever dominated by what we believe to be the machine. And with the daily bombardment of entertainment distractions, it is no wonder that only a few realize what is happening to them.

The ultimate relevance of Blade Runner lies in its challenge of what it means to be human. It raises the eternal gnawing doubt as to our own humanity or lack of it. These are the same issues raised by the great religions and philosophies of the past.


Mr. Dick, though not always the most coherent of authors, also raised such troubling questions in
We Can Remember It For You Wholesale
(1966), which was made into Total Recall, and the original story on which Minority Report was based.

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 14, 2004 10:58 AM
Comments

Yes, but do they know Dick Cheney?

Posted by: Vince at October 14, 2004 11:38 AM

>During research for an earlier work, Dick had
>discovered diaries by SS men stationed in
>Poland...

About 25 years ago, I heard a radio interview of Phil Dick. While discussing Man in the High Castle, Dick cited this very research and said flat-out "I read their diaries, what they wrote after a day of gassing Jews and filling mass graves. DON'T TRY TO TELL ME THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS EVIL."

Posted by: Ken at October 14, 2004 12:51 PM

Good. Blade Runner is well worth seeing.

Posted by: Ptah at October 14, 2004 1:09 PM

Deckard is not a replicant whatever Ridley Scott says.

Posted by: M Ali Choudhury at October 14, 2004 1:10 PM

I agree with M Ali Choudhury. Scott only decided Deckard was a replicant after two decades of having fans explain away a mistake in the script (6 Replicants). The original idea is far stronger.

Compare Deckard is human, yet he plods through life reacting to things rather than actually doing anything on his own while the Replicants go around acting and living their short lives to the fullist.

That's a much stronger question of what is a human?

Posted by: RJSchwarz at October 14, 2004 1:25 PM

I've watched Blade Runner three times and will do so again. I'm amazed to learn it was a flop.

Posted by: genecis at October 14, 2004 2:10 PM

It's more consistent with Dick's vision that he be a replicant himself.

Posted by: oj at October 14, 2004 2:11 PM

Robert,

Rachael was certainly not your typical A-type personality replicant, but a replicant all the same, it just depends on the imprinting.

In the directors cut, the unicorn dream sequence Deckard has while sleeping at the piano, is the clue, coupled with the manchurian man's oragami unicorn left for Deckard at the end of the movie, of Deckards creation.

So what do you guys think?, is it murder to kill a replicant? Do they have rights? - Perry

Posted by: Perry at October 14, 2004 2:18 PM

And gals, donot want to leave out the gals!

Posted by: Perry at October 14, 2004 2:24 PM

That would be up to their creators.

Posted by: oj at October 14, 2004 2:31 PM

Don't get OJ started on whether or not it was murder to kill Corneilius and Zira at the end of Escape From the Planet of the Apes.

Posted by: Governor Breck at October 14, 2004 2:51 PM

I've asked many, many scientists (colleagues of mine) the question of what the greatest SF film ever is. With rare exceptions, those younger than ~30 say Star Wars, and those older say 2001. I guess I don't hang around with "top scientists" though (are they the ones who were going to investigate the Ark?)...

Posted by: brian at October 14, 2004 7:00 PM

I am Robert. I don't know who RJ is or if he is a Robert, but you can call me Bob.

I always thought that Blade Runner was about life as an associate in a big law firm. After 4 years they turn you off and throw you out.

Forbidden Planet was the best SF movie ever.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at October 14, 2004 8:06 PM

Highly recommended: Dick's 1978 essay How To Build A Universe That Doesn't Fall Apart Two Days Later.

Posted by: Eugene S. at October 15, 2004 3:01 PM

I became a Dick fan in the 90s. The themes of what is real and what is human run through all his works, although is post 1974 stuff became increasingly bizarre after he went nuts. VALIS is almost unintelligble.

I recommend Solar Lottery and UBIK. Also, read the biography by Lawrence Sutin, his life story is as bizarre and interesting as his novels are.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at October 16, 2004 11:02 AM
« BOUGHT OR COERCED?: | Main | SQUARING THE CIRCLE OF ANTI-LIFE: »