Blade Runner 2049

[Satsuki Murashige]

11 hours ago, Stuart Brereton said:

Yes, I'm not suggesting that he is dogmatic about a 'clean' image, but I think his basic philosophy starts from that point.

I think this is interesting. There are some DPs whose work is so driven by personal philosophy - Storaro, Willis, Savides, Deakins - that hiring them is like casting John Wayne or something. You know exactly what you’re gonna to get, maybe with a different color here or there. But nothing radically different. 

The trouble is when you have an existing property that is also equally iconic and beloved. Then you end up with John Wayne playing Ghengis Khan. Or Tarantino potentially directing ‘Star Trek.’ There’s a fine line there where the end result could go either way.

[Satsuki Murashige]

30 minutes ago, Jon O'Brien said:

But I always found the lead Replicant a bit of a boring case. He was a cranky guy who spat the dummy and murdered some people because he had a legitimately bad deal in life. And at the last moment redeemed himself ... but only just a bit. He didn't do much for me. Too angry, too animalistic, he went on about the grand sights he'd seen but it didn't seem to make him a better person. He ruined his moral situation by lashing out with violence. Deckard of course was hardly an angel .. a paid killer of 'trouble' people.

But to me the real story was Deckard and Rachael. They were two outsiders who found each other. And the CEO of the Corporation was a scary freak. He was the true monster of the movie. That's what it was really about, to me. Those two found each other, and got out.

Sure, Batty may not have been a good person - but he was a person and not a malfunctioning killing machine, as we were led to believe initially, right?

So he and his kind did not deserve to be hunted down and executed, or enslaved to begin with. And if that’s true, then who has moral authority in this world? Maybe Roy did the best he could do, given his circumstances. Food for thought. 

I always think about those little Replicants in JF Sebastian’s apartment. Are they toys? Or people? 

[Jon O'Brien]

Yes, I think you're right. Batty should have been arrested, with dignity and justice, and treated like a person since clearly that's what the Replicants are/were. And put on trial by a learned and fair judge, according to the law. As for who has moral authority, that comes down as always to trust and faith. Rachael is a real person, and you can tell because she can love. That can't really be faked. Or it can for a time but when the chips are down the truth comes out. She was too sincere to be a fake. Even if her memories were fake ones it didn't matter. At the end, Batty showed that he was a real man ... because out of a sort of love, he decided not to kill Deckard. Quite deep, maybe.

Edited June 16, 2020 by Jon O'Brien

[Satsuki Murashige]

2 minutes ago, Jon O'Brien said:

Yes, I think you're right. Batty should have been arrested, with dignity and justice, and treated like a person since clearly that's what the Replicants are/were. And put on trial by a learned and fair judge, according to the law. As for who has moral authority, that comes down as always to trust and faith.

Yeah, but the law in the world of ‘Blade Runner’ is that Replicants are not people and can be ‘retired’ on sight, no questions asked. So if you’re a Replicant or a sympathizer like Deckard, then the only way to stay alive and free is to run, hide, or kill to protect yourself. Which is what all the Replicants end up doing. In such a world, how can the state and its institutions have any moral authority over them? 

It’s a very messy situation, especially with the murders of Dr. Tyrell and JF Sebastian. According to the law, they were not murdered - they were killed by malfunctioning appliances (of their own creation). You can’t prosecute a toaster for murder any more than you can a Replicant.

[Jon O'Brien]

If the Replicants murder, then they are murderers. It doesn't matter who made them, because in the premise of the imaginary film world they are depicted, rightly, as true people. Therefore they must be dealt with as murderers. That's where the issue of trust comes in. Who is the murderer? The State, or the Replicants, or anyone or everyone potentially. It becomes too difficult to figure out. I see themes in today's world where people ask where is basis for moral authority. It's indeed a wonderful question to ask. I must leave it there. After all, I'm only human ? I can't answer these deeply complex puzzles any more deeply for now than I've here attempted to do ?

[Jon O'Brien]

Simply, I see it that the Corporation is the monster. In truth, it shouldn't have created these Replicants. If the Corporation had been morally perfect, or had been guided by truly moral principles, it would have been fine to create them. But the Corp was corrupt because it didn't care about people. Having been made by, in effect, a monster, in their truly awful plight, they murdered to escape. Deckard was put on the case, a mere man. He found love. The two escaped a dreadful world, run by a dreadful Corporate system. That's the story for me. Best wishes! You did make me think deeply about it, though. Thank you Satsuki.

Edited June 16, 2020 by Jon O'Brien

[Satsuki Murashige]

16 minutes ago, Jon O'Brien said:

Simply, I see it that the Corporation is the monster. In truth, it shouldn't have created these Replicants. If the Corporation had been morally perfect, or had been guided by truly moral principles, it would have been fine to create them. But the Corp was corrupt because it didn't care about people. Having been made by, in effect, a monster, in their truly awful plight, they murdered to escape. Deckard was put on the case, a mere man. He found love. The two escaped a dreadful world, run by a dreadful Corporate system. That's the story for me. Best wishes! You did make me think deeply about it, though. Thank you Satsuki.

Thanks for the discussion, Jon. Best wishes to you as well!