Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[rms]

You read this scene so literally...

Rachel has no idea she's an android. Deckard, at first, has no idea that she's an android. That's the gambit. What are the stakes here? What's going on in this scene? Why does the business care whether the test works?

Are you talking about Tyrell making it more and more diffulcult to spot replicants? I agree, that's why Tyrell asked at the end of it, "how many questions does it normally take? (20-30), but you did over 100 for Rachel?" It's clear that's the direction their going

I do think Deckard knew she was a replicant to start though. But no evidence or whatever to support it, other than his character.

I'm sorry, I don't think I'm being clear. I'm saying that the desire for realistic sex means that it makes perfect sense that customers would want realistic androids; and the more human they appear, the better. Fake vaginas might work great, but they don't compare to the "real" thing. Does this make sense? You've been claiming that sex doesn't necessitate that the androids look like humans. Well, it might not necessitate it, but it certainly makes them more marketable!

Well we agree here, my point of identification was more of put a barcode on the bottom of their foot or something, not necessarily put a fleshlight inside an android body.

As far as the merits of the film go, I disagree with you entirely. Visually, it was a whole new bag of cats. It certainly is uneven, but I feel that this lends to its overall sense of uneasiness. Its dark tones, its noir aspects... all of this goes to create a truly original SF experience that hadn't been seen on-screen until then.

I tend to think that when a film's best credentials are its visuals or audio experience, then it lacks everywhere else. It's darkness was annoying to say the least. The obvious dark over tones + rainy weather never stops until he kills Roy, and then the sun shines when he and Rachel are leaving. Some of messages sent visually are really weak and annoying, similar to the dove scene.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well we agree here, my point of identification was more of put a barcode on the bottom of their foot or something, not necessarily put a fleshlight inside an android body.

Seems like that would ruin the experience for foot-fetishists.

I tend to think that when a film's best credentials are its visuals or audio experience, then it lacks everywhere else. It's darkness was annoying to say the least. The obvious dark over tones + rainy weather never stops until he kills Roy, and then the sun shines when he and Rachel are leaving. Some of messages sent visually are really weak and annoying, similar to the dove scene.

In this case, the film's visuals and style were original, and in fact inspired an entire tradition of SF cinematography to follow. You finding them annoying doesn't detract from their noted historical influence, which is what you originally were questioning.

You asked why the film is so famous. Well, it doesn't matter that you don't like certain aspects of it; what matters is that others noticed a certain interaction taking place between elements of the film and older cinematographic techniques that hadn't been incorporated into futuristic SF film. Blade Runner established a new aesthetic.

 

[rms]

I think calling those original would be an exhausting process. Isn't it just a noir film set in a new world? Dark and gloomy, all the time? I don't think I questioned it's historical influence though?

Its been awhile now, but I wanted to know why people would think of it as a top20 film, not why it's famous

 

[Einherjar86]

From many critical perspectives, influential originality identifies a film as being qualitatively "good"; after all, if it wasn't aesthetically appealing, then why would it have so many imitators?

I don't need to pursue the exhaustive list of its original contributions because others have already done this for me. The description alone, "noir set in a new world," should be your first clue. It's the precedent for what critics now call "future noir." Its vision of the urban metropolis foretells what critics will later say about postmodern hyperspace and other notion of advanced technological capitalism.

Your problem with androids all looking exactly like humans seems like a pesky subjective issue that can a) be explained off in numerous hypothetical scenarios, and b) isn't central to the film's primary concerns, which is thus why it doesn't bother to offer an explanation.

 

[rms]

From many critical perspectives, influential originality identifies a film as being qualitatively "good"; after all, if it wasn't aesthetically appealing, then why would it have so many imitators?

Don't know of that many imitators?

I don't really want to delve into a list of subjectively and objectively good film lists, as it would kind of be ridiculous. Blade Runner is definitely considered one of the best SciFi films of the 20th century and I just don't see it, and those lists can be talk of subjectively--which I don't really hear arguments for

Its vision of the urban metropolis foretells what critics will later say about postmodern hyperspace and other notion of advanced technological capitalism.

What do you mean by postmodern hyperspace, how humans utilize space?

Your problem with androids all looking exactly like humans seems like a pesky subjective issue that can a) be explained off in numerous hypothetical scenarios, and b) isn't central to the film's primary concerns, which is thus why it doesn't bother to offer an explanation.

I largely disagree here, it is a central point of the film. The blending of humans and replicants is central, and the question of it starts at the beginning 'It is called retirement, not killing'. The film does not execute this distinction realistically/logically or Scott's vision in that direction at all, in my opinion.

The film does not tackle an issue of blending humanity between 'artificial' and 'natural' rather just display a crime noir that isn't that good in that regards. It tried to tackle many different facets to be good, and failed.

 

[Einherjar86]

Don't know of that many imitators?

It has many imitators, and that is something you can read about on its Wikipedia page.

Almost any depiction of a future metropolis in film since Blade Runner owes part of its imagery to the film. Cities in The Matrix, in Watchmen, in Ghost in the Shell, the descriptions of cities in Gibson's Neuromancer, Spielberg's Minority Report... the mix of technological expansion and urban decay was solidified and canonized in Blade Runner.

I don't really want to delve into a list of subjectively and objectively good film lists, as it would kind of be ridiculous. Blade Runner is definitely considered one of the best SciFi films of the 20th century and I just don't see it, and those lists can be talk of subjectively--which I don't really hear arguments for

I'm not entirely sure what you just wrote. Look, this is the deal: you can disagree over what those critics say is "good" about the film; but you aren't considering the film's cultural impact, which seasoned film critics are doing. You're considering purely what you don't like about the film, and what you can't understand about it; and that isn't how art works.

What do you mean by postmodern hyperspace, how humans utilize space?

It's from Fredric Jameson's Postmodernism; you can read about it online, tons of people have commented on it. It's an immensely influential concept in cultural studies. Basically, it theorizes the subsumption of the human body to forms of media and urban architectures; in other words, a displacement of the human subject from its built environment.

You might say that living in a postmodern hyperspace makes one feel like an android...

I largely disagree here, it is a central point of the film. The blending of humans and replicants is central, and the question of it starts at the beginning 'It is called retirement, not killing'. The film does not execute this distinction realistically/logically or Scott's vision in that direction at all, in my opinion.

You're being unclear, and I think you're confusing yourself. The film is concerned with the human/nonhuman distinction. It doesn't care about petty details such as why the company chose not to distinguish its products. If the company did do that, then there would be no question in the first place since the markings would make it obvious! The film wants to explore the metaphysical or transcendental idea of what "the human" is, and whether or not we can distinguish between something that looks human but isn't, and something that is human.

The quality of humanness can't be reduced to markings or lack thereof. The question of what makes us human is something that we hypostatize as an interior essence, something substantive within us. The film presents a scenario in which it is possible to make things that look exactly like humans but aren't. The problem lies in making that distinction. It's a philosophical question, not a fucking film error.

The film does not tackle an issue of blending humanity between 'artificial' and 'natural' rather just display a crime noir that isn't that good in that regards. It tried to tackle many different facets to be good, and failed.

This is laughable. According to several more credible sources than you, it succeeded. Your arguments aren't coherent, and you're focusing on details that are both tangential to the film itself AND easily explainable if we're already permitting a hypothetical future scenario.

 

[rms]

It has many imitators, and that is something you can read about on its Wikipedia page.

Almost any depiction of a future metropolis in film since Blade Runner owes part of its imagery to the film. Cities in The Matrix, in Watchmen, in Ghost in the Shell, the descriptions of cities in Gibson's Neuromancer, Spielberg's Minority Report... the mix of technological expansion and urban decay was solidified and canonized in Blade Runner.

Well influence versus imitation here, but whatever. I never debated its cultural impact. Minority Report is based off a Dick story as well, and does he delve into the imagery of cities in his novels? Do other dystopian future novels do this as well? I'm sure there is some world building that was already in place before Blade Runner was put to film.

I'm not entirely sure what you just wrote. Look, this is the deal: you can disagree over what those critics say is "good" about the film; but you aren't considering the film's cultural impact, which seasoned film critics are doing. You're considering purely what you don't like about the film, and what you can't understand about it; and that isn't how art works.

I'm pretty sure I understand the film, and I haven't seen you do say anything that has left me dumbfounded. I also have not questioned its cultural impacts or significance in SciFi making, i'm sure Alien, 2001 Space Odyssey and Metropolis had a bigger impact than Blade Runner. But I don't feel like doing the research to justify it either way, so basically I don't care and accept that it morphed SciFi films in whatever way.

I am asking what people like about the film, usually if an average guy says I love this film because of the characters, the story etc. But the qualities that I see here are "it has good music and good cinematography". Citizen Kane is considered the greatest film of all time, but on a personal list I do not like it. Personal tastes vs. Ranking important cultural films is the distinction I have been trying to make here. What do people like about the film?

It's from Fredric Jameson's Postmodernism; you can read about it online, tons of people have commented on it. It's an immensely influential concept in cultural studies. Basically, it theorizes the subsumption of the human body to forms of media and urban architectures; in other words, a displacement of the human subject from its built environment.

You might say that living in a postmodern hyperspace makes one feel like an android...

Sounds interesting enough, maybe I can find it somewhere.

You're being unclear, and I think you're confusing yourself. The film is concerned with the human/nonhuman distinction. It doesn't care about petty details such as why the company chose not to distinguish its products. If the company did do that, then there would be no question in the first place since the markings would make it obvious! The film wants to explore the metaphysical or transcendental idea of what "the human" is, and whether or not we can distinguish between something that looks human but isn't, and something that is human.

I never doubted that the film is concerned or presents the idea of humanity between androids and humans, but I do not think it explores that point to an interesting degree. If Deckard really was a replicant or wanted the audience to see that, Scott could have explored it. Rachel's the closest to the distinction, and she is in the film for maybe 15 minutes. Roy at the end presents himself as human, even after he doesn't really act human prior to that. That's my concern. I don't feel it explored it well enough. I haven't read anything from you or IMDB forums(i'm so film cultured!) that make me question my understanding of the film.

Just because the film wants to explore a point, I don't think it makes it infallible to reason. As I asked before, no other SciFi films, to my knowledge, truly creates the androids to be exactly like humans. Blade Runner tried this, and I don't think Scott did it well, or made it the focal point of his film. If the film was similar to Her or something else that was more in his cultural time, then I could agree that he was after that aspect.

The quality of humanness can't be reduced to markings or lack thereof. The question of what makes us human is something that we hypostatize as an interior essence, something substantive within us. The film presents a scenario in which it is possible to make things that look exactly like humans but aren't. The problem lies in making that distinction. It's a philosophical question, not a fucking film error.

Yes it presents but does not explore. My point the whole time.

This is laughable. According to several more credible sources than you, it succeeded. Your arguments aren't coherent, and you're focusing on details that are both tangential to the film itself AND easily explainable if we're already permitting a hypothetical future scenario.

What sources are you referring to, I would really enjoy to see a different perspective.

 

[Einherjar86]

Here's a passage from a paper by Neil Badmington. This is just one example (among many) of how critics have seen the film explore a complicated issue:

Blade Runner’s voice-over appears to bring humanist order to a potentially posthumanist film by making Deckard the guide, the centre, the privileged speaking subject. I think, though, that a close reading of what Deckard actually says reveals that the humanist model of subjectivity is, against all odds, disrupted by the voice-over. (Because I wish to engage at length with Deckard’s words, a transcription of the voice-over is given as an endnote to this essay.)

...

Policing the line between human and inhuman, in other words, requires emotionless behavior. In this respect, Deckard’s narration voices a curious contradiction: blade runners ought to be emotionless in their pursuit of individuals who are deemed inhuman precisely because they are emotionless. The human, that is to say, must become inhuman in order to serve and preserve the distinction of the human.

It could be argued, of course, that a blade runner should be able to ‘retire’ replicants without feeling a sense of unease because replicants are not human. And yet, the ninth passage of the voice-over, spoken after Deckard has killed Zhora, further describes the protagonist’s anxiety. Again refusing to subscribe to the official discourse, Deckard refers to Zhora as a ‘woman,’ and his repulsion at ‘shooting a woman in the back’ is compounded by his feelings for another replicant (Rachael). This emotional response becomes even more extreme by the tenth passage of the voiceover, in which Deckard’s elegy asserts the lack of absolute difference between himself and Roy. ‘All he’d wanted,’ says the protagonist, ‘were the same answers the rest of us want.’ There is a common quest, a common desire, a common condition.

For more on its influence as a film, this article makes a lot of nice points: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/mythbusters/articles/4218376

 

[rms]

Hmm, never seen the voice-over(I think US Theatrical release?) version, as i've heard it's the worst version of the film.

That article seems to backup what i've said before, in that Scott's world that he created is great/influential but nothing based off character examination or plot, or theme execution.

 

[Einherjar86]

I included the article since Badmington's piece doesn't cover the more cinematographic aspects.

Yes, the first version of the film is the edited one, not the director's cut. I think it speaks volumes that Badmington treats this version (self-consciously too; he admits that he thinks the edited release is unfortunately ignored by criticism) instead of the director's cut. Even in the "worst" version of the film, it still treats its content critically.

If you want to get a feel for the depth of the film, then you can do the research. There are dozens of scholarly articles that unpack the nuances of the film. Unfortunately I can't link them here because they're only accessible via my login credentials for BU. Scholars have discussed it as an exploration of posthumanism, of the legal ramifications for androids, the ontological questions of life and consciousness, empathy, urban and social decay, and more. There are articles published in literary journals, in law journals, in architecture journals... it has been considered as a serious treatment of various issues, both thematic and formal.

 

[rms]

I have usage of the Colorado University online 'library' system, didn't think to check that. What do you recommend? I'd be surprised if we don't share some of the resources

 

[Einherjar86]

I would just go in the advanced search option, type in "blade runner," and set your filters to "in the title."

If you want something specific, I would check out "'How Can It Not Know What It Is?': Self and Other in Ridley Scott's Blade Runner," by Andrew Norris. It was published in Film-Philosophy in 2013.

 

[Dak]

Off youse guys topic: Krugman photobombed a year ago lol:

 

[Dak]

So I thought this was interesting. While I think that carbon emissions maybe play a part in global warming, I don't believe there's any reason to believe they play the main part, or that global warming is a necessarily bad thing.

In the previous few years there was a slight cooling trend, however supposedly, as one of the following charts will show, we had a spike. However, not in the US, which is one of the leading carbon emitters. So one of the reasons that we have all these Americans going "lol global warming" is not because they were mislead by a cold day or Fox News, but because the avg for the year actually was way below avg(Edit: Not only that, but the way below avg was in flyover country, which includes strong Red states and oilfields/refineries). The warming was instead in the ocean. You might say "well that's to be expected blah blah. But why not the same for China or Europe? Europe has slightly less emissions, and China has equivalent, and yet Europe was on fire and China was almost as red. There's much more going on than simple carbon emissions, but carbon emissions are the easiest thing to make a buck on.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2896

https://www.google.com/search?q=global+carbon+emissions+by+country&biw=1920&bih=995&tbm=isch&imgil=xgyOc_RM7jVTBM%253A%253BlFMXv0EW5L0nRM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fen.wikipedia.org%25252Fwiki%25252FList_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions&source=iu&pf=m&fir=xgyOc_RM7jVTBM%253A%252ClFMXv0EW5L0nRM%252C_&usg=__Xyq9jyUkRh_Ya87Vyjg_YT-bMbs%3D&dpr=1&ved=0CDwQyjc&ei=q8e5VLTuAYapNqeRgqgL#imgdii=_&imgrc=xgyOc_RM7jVTBM%253A%3BlFMXv0EW5L0nRM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fupload.wikimedia.org%252Fwikipedia%252Fcommons%252Fd%252Fd1%252FCountries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_world_map_deobfuscated.png%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fen.wikipedia.org%252Fwiki%252FList_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions%3B1577%3B620

 

[Dak]

 

[Einherjar86]

I think it's likely that there is more going on than carbon emissions, but I still feel that even if carbon emissions only account for 30-40% of global climate change it's still worth taking efforts to reduce them.

Also, these measurements don't take atmospheric conditions/factors into consideration that have a potentially significant impact on the distribution of global temperatures: jet streams, ocean currents, climatological phenomena, etc. all can have an effect on the distribution of heat in the atmosphere.

 

[Dak]

I had multiple points to that post, but the data given here only supported a couple. One, that all those in the US most likely to deny global warming (as opposed to climate change) had a legitimate reason for doing so based on experience, contra accusations of the mistaking a "cold day for the average", and that carbon emissions don't immediately effect the local climate (unlike some "green measures" like wind turbines). Now I understand that oceans act as a carbon sink, but it also acts as a heat sink in dead areas - such as some of those warm areas - for radiation. How do we know certainly that it's carbon - vs maybe some other sort of pollution? Or maybe it's something else all together? Or maybe carbon from one particular location is worse than others? Etc. Maybe I'd take the "science" more seriously if the "solutions" weren't so obviously self servingly "political."

But all that aside, I have yet to see any argument against climate change other than "things would be different!". So? Warming periods in Earth's history have historically been a good thing. So what if New Orleans or Miami is underwater eventually? What makes those places objectively good?

 

[rms]

I think the problem is that humans think we should live forever and that change is bad. I'm really excited(scared) to see what happens in Greeland/Arctic Circle in like 15-20 years.

 

[Einherjar86]

Maybe I'd take the "science" more seriously if the "solutions" weren't so obviously self servingly "political."

This gets us to the problem of the organization of institutions for scientific research. In the recent documentary Particle Fever, an economist asked a theoretical physicist what the economic applications are for discovering the Higgs-Boson. The physicist answered, refreshingly honest, that there are none. That such discoveries usually do not yield their technological or economic benefits until after their discovery, and thus there is little to no justification for making these discoveries before they're made.

I believe firmly in the maxim that "facts become perspectives once observed." It's impossible to separate the "fact" from the act of observing it. The manipulation of the natural world serves a purpose, and our global culture - which is based on an economy of needs and demands - desires a purpose immediately. The politicization of facts happens de facto; there's no getting around it. The proposed solutions will always be amenable to certain politico-economic concerns.

If we want science to be less so, then we need to foster an environment for it in which it isn't pressured by the quid pro quo of institutional or philanthropic funding. The problem with science carried out within an economic model of immediate practical applications is that it privileges science that only produces results correspondent to the brute facts, or truths, of material reality. Such science is both illusory and detrimental. This is not to say that science can't tell us things about the world, but that truly effective science cannot justify itself purely on the basis of yielding such results. The justification lies in the process being untethered from monetary issues and political programs.

Ultimately, there is no such thing as pure science. Fortunately, that's where the Humanities come in.

But all that aside, I have yet to see any argument against climate change other than "things would be different!". So? Warming periods in Earth's history have historically been a good thing. So what if New Orleans or Miami is underwater eventually? What makes those places objectively good?

I think the problem is that humans think we should live forever and that change is bad. I'm really excited(scared) to see what happens in Greeland/Arctic Circle in like 15-20 years.

I personally have the same response to advanced technological capitalism, as it exists today, which is why I don't count myself a communist or anything like that. I want to see where technology goes.

As far as climate change, I'd like to see measures that force us to be aware of the effects industry has on the environment. This isn't to construct an artificial versus natural dichotomy, because this breaks down rather quickly. But our processes and observations are always having an impact on the world, and it behooves us to consider what may be contributing to certain climatological or environmental phenomena.

 

[rms]

I was kind of pondering this the other day, do you guys think that with the price of oil declining would do more for green energy than anything else? I saw that some important Saudi Oil tycoon was like "It'll never go up again!", so I wonder if now the Exxon's of the world have the same expectations and thus would try and capture the next market (if that market is not natural gas)

No proof or any research done to support my question, but seems like it is going to curve the direction of energy for America, at least