Are
We Human Yet?
Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner (1982) became an almost
instantaneous hit on its release, unlike its novel predecessor, Philip K Dick’s
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? With
the films flashy settings, action scenes and Harrison Ford in his heyday it is
not hard to see how Blade Runner became
such a popular classic. The same cannot entirely be said for Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? A
cult text in its own right, the novel and its genre of Science Fiction never
truly broke the barrier into popular culture. Though it is not hard to imagine
why people would chose to watch a one hundred and twenty minute film over the
labor involved in a two hundred and sixteen page book, the argument can be made
that Blade Runner’s success is
partially due to its ignoring some of the more ethically uneasy elements of
Philip K Dick’s novel. Perhaps uneasy comment on the human tolerance Dick
sought to critique.
There are
obvious arguments which justify the removing of some plot and narrative from
the novel, sacrifices must be made in Hollywood. Though the elements which are
absent in Scott’s adaption severely simplify the complex issue which is
explored by Dick. Essentially Blade
Runner provides us with an action film: Pursue the bad guys, get your
‘girl’. A stark contrast to the more philosophically resounding question posed
to us by Dick: What is it to be ‘human’.
An obvious
contrast from novel to film is in the portrayal of Rick Deckhard’s relationship
with the Nexus-6 model, Rachael Rosen. While the relationship is intact in both
mediums, the difference in depths is comparable to a shower and the Marianas
Trench. The relationship between Deckard and Rachael in the book is source of
emotional conflict on the part of Deckard, this is largely skimmed over in
Scott’s adaption. The sex scene between the two characters in the movie is
underscored by violent tendencies. As soon as Deckard expresses human emotion for an android: “You play
beautifully.” He then proceeds to objectify and thus dehumanize her with what might
well be described as rape. The only questioning of Deckard’s empathy response
comes before this act of violence, reducing its poignancy, in the form of
Rachael asking: “You know that Voigt-Kampff test of yours? You ever take that
test yourself?” Thematically in the film placing Dick’s central theme of
humanity second to the more marketable sex.
In the book the
consummation between Rachael and Deckard opens far more complex questions
regarding Deckard’s empathetic response and strongly contributes to his rising
conflicts regarding the humanity of androids. Unlike in the movie Rachael takes
control of the encounter: “‘Goddamn it, get into bed,’ Rachael said. He got
into bed.” (Dick 171) An act which in the film would have strengthened the
assertiveness (and thus individuality) of an android in a way that is not
through means of violence, other androids in the film have exercise their free
will only through violent acts, albeit of self-defense. The book also uses the
physical similarities between Pris and Rachael to further deepen the question
of justifying ‘retirement’ of the androids as the sympathy the reader fosters
towards Rachael is imaginably, visually extended to Pris. It is ironic that the
visual medium does not capitalize on this easily portrayed plot device.
Scott’s adaption
also works less towards emphasizing the partly cyborg nature of the human race
existing in 2020. Mercerism in Do
Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Is a religious and thus inherently human practice (community supposedly
being an exclusively human trait) though it is perpetuated by the use of a
piece of technology called an Empathy Box. This piece of technology is accepted
into the human sphere and in many ways Dick seems to subtly downplay the
mechanical aspect of it, referring to it as a: “mood organ” (Dick 2) even
allowing it to inflict physical pain when merging. In the text this widely
spread practice goes towards blurring the distinctions between human and
machine. This distinction clearly being integral in the moral justification of
retiring androids, it is only subtly hinted at in Scott’s adaption.
After sifting
through the ‘personal’ items of retired Nexus-6, Leon Deckard uses a voice
activated machine to investigate an image for clues pertaining to the location
of the other androids. This merging between human will and technology gives the
viewer an image of Deckard as a cyborg. Though this scene is almost tediously
lengthy given its simplistic narrative function-allowing these thoughts to
potentially arise in the viewer-it is lacking the same potency as Mercerism in
breaking down these human distinctions. Utilizing technology to complete a job
is not a foreign observation for viewers, though as a fundamental item in the
pursuit of religious fulfillment it is relatively shocking concept to
audiences.
One final plot
skimming which lightens the moral grey zone of Deckard’s retirement is in the
portrayal of Luba Luft. Granted that with 6 androids to retire the viewer
cannot be allowed 20 minutes per character, the entire duration of the film
would be lost to character development. Though Dick’s portrayal of Luba Luft
places her firmly in the artistic world-a sphere which is universally accepted
as being exclusively human- for regardless of how sacred an owl might be has it
ever appreciated the human creation of art? This firmly humanizes the Nexus-6
range, considerably more than their engagement in the sex act. Dick’s Luba not
only acts as a tool of art, a singer (purveyor of exclusively human emotion)
but can be inferred to be in herself a work of art, Elldon Rosen the artist.
Blade
Runner excludes this character from the artistic world,
although one could argue that ‘exotic dancing’ is as much an artistic
expression as opera it does lack a certain cultural superiority. In this way
the film trades the characters potential for beauty and emotion for a
considerably more marketable sex appeal. When Deckard remarks: “You’d be
surprised what a guy would go through to get a glimpse of a beautiful body.” An
audience of both film and text might imagine David Webb Peoples at a desk
rapidly typing and recasting Luba’s character, for she does serve to be little
more than a beautiful body in the film. Even in her death, in the film she
falls into the typically aggressive role, while the book allows her one final
glimpse of individuality and humanity:
“One
of them on each side of her they prodded her in the direction of the museum
elevator. Luba Luft did not come willingly, but on the other hand she did not
actively resist; seemingly she had become resigned. Rick had seen that before
in androids, in crucial situations. The artificial life force animating them
seemed to fail if pressed too far … at least in some of them. But not all.”
(Dick 116)
A passage that could just as easily
be applied to a human under duress as an android, the fight or flight instinct
being historically well documented in life, human or otherwise.
Even in the
subtle change of term from Android to Replicant the audiences positioning
towards these other-than-human objects is shifted. English Oxford Dictionary
defines an android as: “a robot with human appearance” a definition of what it/
they are, with the implication of
Replicant-a copy, an artificial recreation- being a definition contingent upon
what it/they are not.
By no stretch is
Blade Runner a bad film. Wining two
Oscars and a parade of other accomplishments and nominations, it is a
wonderfully crafted film. It is an action film. It has big names, sex and
fighting. As a stand-alone piece it is superb. Alas, the film’s success in comparison to its
far more ethically intriguing predecessor, Do
Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? provokes interesting questions about the
desire of the audience. Perhaps film’s popularity given its ignoring the books
more incriminating assertions about human tolerance and humanity is more
telling of human ignorance than the book itself.
Works Cited:
Dick, Philip. K. 1968 Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? New
York: Ballantine Books
Blade
Runner, Scott, Ridley. Warner Bros, 1982. DVD
No comments:
Post a Comment