3x3: Best Unanswered Questions

[corsair]

I hate that people still think this. The movie as shot makes it clear that Deckard is a replicant. It isn't even a question! It's a stated fact! Urk. Gah. Blurgle. Stupid Harrison Ford. Ugh.

-Tom

Which version "as shot"? Original theatrical? Non-director's director's cut? Director's cut not-titled-as-director's cut but "final cut"?

Proper Dickian paranoia is that the apparent answer should shift depending on the cut. There is no other answer.

[Tom Chick]

I'm well aware of all the hints in the film that point to him being a replicant.

Hints? They're hints in the same way that the butler doing it at the end of a murder mystery is a hint! This isn't an assumption or a hint or an unanswered question. Being subtle isn't the same as being ambiguous and it certainly isn't the same as being an unanswered question.

Anyway, I don't mean to pick on you, but I consider this one of my "Han shot first" issues. :) It sounds like we agree, but you don't share my righteous indignation over people who have watched Blade Runner the wrong way because of the stupid theatrical release. Not to mention Harrison Ford being all stoned out of his gourd and missing the point and having no compunction about mentioning this in interviews. Stupid actors.

-Tom

[Tom Chick]

Which version "as shot"? Original theatrical? Non-director's director's cut? Director's cut not-titled-as-director's cut but "final cut"?

I hate to get all semantic on you, but all versions of Blade Runner were shot the same way. :)

The movie Ridley Scott shot has no ambiguity about whether Deckard was a replicant. The theatrical release muted the point so that it's arguably an unanswered question. But Ridley Scott's intended cut, and the one eventually released as a director's cut, clearly answered the question.

-Tom

[corsair]

I hate to get all semantic on you, but all versions of Blade Runner were shot the same way. :)

That may have been the way you were referring to it, but I put "as shot" in quotes to make it clear I was referring to the more broadly applicable "as presented" (cut). So, your semantics go down in flames!
:-)

The movie Ridley Scott shot has no ambiguity about whether Deckard was a replicant. The theatrical release muted the point so that it's arguably an unanswered question. But Ridley Scott's intended cut, and the one eventually released as a director's cut, clearly answered the question.

-Tom

I agree - but at the same time, I also agree with Ford on the original theatrical version. But then again, I only recommend one version of the movie as the definitive and proper version, and that's the Final Cut.

Still, I think Dick would be happier if the answer was left as ambiguous.

[Tom Chick]

That may have been the way you were referring to it, but I put "as shot" in quotes to make it clear I was referring to the more broadly applicable "as presented" (cut). So, your semantics go down in flames!

Wait a minute, you trumped my point by changing the meaning of the word "shot"? That's some pretty impressive rhetoric, sir!

But, yeah, it's a bit unfair for me to whinge about Blade Runner given that no one has officially abolished the theatrical release yet. I've been furiously writing letters to Diane Feinstein to get her to sponsor a bill to that effect. So far, she hasn't gotten back to me.

-Tom

[Mike O'Malley]

This is a silly thread, but:

What was in the box in Pulp Fiction?

[Penny Dreadful]

I thought it was a light bulb.

[corsair]

Wait a minute, you trumped my point by changing the meaning of the word "shot"? That's some pretty impressive rhetoric, sir!

I didn't change to word so much as broadened the discussion to bring greater clarity. Since you didn't specify which cut you were referring to, "as shot" was meaningless. Which is why I keep placing the phrase in quotes.

But yeah, impressive rhetoric indeed. ;-)

But, yeah, it's a bit unfair for me to whinge about Blade Runner given that no one has officially abolished the theatrical release yet. I've been furiously writing letters to Diane Feinstein to get her to sponsor a bill to that effect. So far, she hasn't gotten back to me.

-Tom

Try Barbara Boxer. She sometimes actually reads her email (and responds!).

[corsair]

This is a silly thread, but:

What was in the box in Pulp Fiction?

A yellow light bulb.

Though I suppose you meant in that in a less literal fashion...

[Tom Chick]

I didn't change to word so much as broadened the discussion to bring greater clarity. Since you didn't specify which cut you were referring to, "as shot" was meaningless.

It's not at all meaningless. My point is that the creative intent of Blade Runner when it went into and through production was that Deckard was a replicant. That's how the movie was shot. Hence my statement.

"Shooting" is a very specific part of the creative process of making a movie. "Editing" is another very specific part. I'll give you three guesses where the ambiguity was introduced.

-Tom

[Tom Chick]

What was in the box in Pulp Fiction?

42.

-Tom

[Dave Markell]

I've been furiously writing letters to Diane Feinstein to get her to sponsor a bill to that effect. So far, she hasn't gotten back to me.

-Tom

Try Barbara Boxer. She sometimes actually reads her email (and responds!).

That's odd. I've had much better luck with Feinstein than Boxer. I've written extensively to both about online poker, and Boxer has rarely bothered to toss even a form letter my way. Feinstein always responds, though I don't like the responses.

[Pogue Mahone]

"Shooting" is a very specific part of the creative process of making a movie. "Editing" is another very specific part. I'll give you three guesses where the ambiguity was introduced.

I freely admit that I am not an "inside baseball" kind of guy when it comes to how movie magic is made. But I have to wonder, is this a significant question? What I mean is, does the ultimate authority of creative intent rest on the actual creator, in this case Ridley Scott? Wherever it was introduced, the original theatrical cut does allow for that ambiguity, apparently at Scott's behest.

[corsair]

It's not at all meaningless. My point is that the creative intent of Blade Runner when it went into and through production was that Deckard was a replicant. That's how the movie was shot. Hence my statement.

But not as such as played by the actor, so was Scott perverting Ford's performance from the word go, something he decided upon at a later date, or maybe something he wasn't sure about himself until actually presented with the opportunity to make a firm decision? So, "as shot" is still not really relevant. Directors often shoot alternate endings and interpretations and only really decide in the editing process. Now, if Scott has consistently and always said that he always intended Deckard to be a replicant, then you have a clear point. But he was far more ambiguous himself about that until he got around to later versions as I recall it (correct me if I am wrong on that point).

Edit in: Phillip K. Dick's viewpoint
The purpose of this story as I saw it was that in his job of hunting and killing these replicants, Deckard becomes progressively dehumanized. At the same time, the replicants are being perceived as becoming more human. Finally, Deckard must question what he is doing, and really what is the essential difference between him and them? And, to take it one step further, who is he if there is no real difference?

Harrison Ford notes that in discussing the character with Scott, they agreed that Deckard was not a replicant.

Now, Ford may have remembered things incorrectly, and Scott may have not wanted him to play it that he was (Dickian mind-fuck) and deliberately told him the opposite of what he intended, or Scott may have changed his mind at some point without bothering to inform Ford (mind fuck or simply didn't think it important to note, or just plain forgot he told Ford otherwise). But what Ford states is more in line with what Dick notes, so it seems that at least one point that was the concept. I think it is a more profound human commentary. Now, it's clear in the final cut that Scott portrays Deckard as a replicant, and all in all, I believe that the director's story is the one that counts rather than some second-guessing apparatchik, but why people are confused on the point is because I don't think Scott came out definitively at the time of the original release that he intended Deckard as a replicant.

[Tom Chick]

I freely admit that I am not an "inside baseball" kind of guy when it comes to how movie magic is made. But I have to wonder, is this a significant question? What I mean is, does the ultimate authority of creative intent rest on the actual creator, in this case Ridley Scott? Wherever it was introduced, the original theatrical cut does allow for that ambiguity, apparently at Scott's behest.

You're absolutely right. But the point I was making is that as shot, Blade Runner has no ambiguity about whether Deckard is a replicant. The script and the footage Ridley et al. shot clearly indicated that Deckard had been incepted (ha ha) with unicorn dreams that Gaff knew about. That's no more ambiguous than the reveal of the killer in a murder mystery.

But corsair said that "as shot" can also mean "as presented". I thought he was just joking, but he apparently wasn't. So I can't really speak to his point except that I disagree. Shooting a movie is a very different process from showing it in a theater, and things can change in the process. The theatrical release makes it ambiguous that Deckard is a replicant by omitting the unicorn dream.

In fact, IIRC, whether Deckard is a replicant isn't even really an issue in the theatrical release, is it? Gaff just happens to leave an origami unicorn in Deckard's apartment as, what? A present? To show he was there and let Deckard and Sean Young escape? Because he likes unicorns?

-Tom

[Tom Chick]

Now, if Scott has consistently and always said that he always intended Deckard to be a replicant, then you have a clear point. But he was far more ambiguous himself about that until he got around to later versions as I recall it (correct me if I am wrong on that point).

Wait, so you're saying the original shooting script of Blade Runner was intended to be ambiguous, and that Ridley Scott changed his mind for the director's cut? And you know this how?

For the record, I'm just talking about what I know from interviews with Ridley Scott and the director's cut he made once he was out from under the studio interference that was famously applied to the theatrical release. But if you have some other information, I'd love to know about it.

-Tom

[corsair]

That's odd. I've had much better luck with Feinstein than Boxer. I've written extensively to both about online poker, and Boxer has rarely bothered to toss even a form letter my way. Feinstein always responds, though I don't like the responses.

I get more consistent responses from Feinstein, but always a form letter. Boxer has given more specific answers, but also ignores more questions without even bothering with a form letter. I imagine that when you have a state the size of California whining at you constantly that personal responses aren't much of an option (unless you are rich and powerful).

But it was meant as humorous in any case.

[Pogue Mahone]

It's been a while since I saw the theatrical cut (is it even still available?) but I recall thinking the unicorn origami was a bit of a non sequitur, because it hadn't been seen or discussed before. Then, of course, the director's cut introduced that dream, so that's that.

[corsair]

Wait, so you're saying the original shooting script of Blade Runner was intended to be ambiguous, and that Ridley Scott changed his mind for the director's cut? And you know this how?

-Tom

No, I was challenging you to provide a quote from Scott dating to the original release that he intended Deckard as a replicant. As I recall it, he was ambiguous, but I am not stating that as an absolute and invite anyone to chime in with evidence either way.

[Kelly Wand]

Also, why's the teenage daughter in Poltergeist in Poltergeist?

[corsair]

You're absolutely right. But the point I was making is that as shot, Blade Runner has no ambiguity about whether Deckard is a replicant. The script and the footage Ridley et al. shot clearly indicated that Deckard had been incepted (ha ha) with unicorn dreams that Gaff knew about. That's no more ambiguous than the reveal of the killer in a murder mystery.

But corsair said that "as shot" can also mean "as presented". I thought he was just joking, but he apparently wasn't.

Why would I be joking? I mean, there's three different cuts, which have provoked different responses. And no, I don't mean "as shot" means "as presented" - I mean that your use of the phrase wasn't as appropriate to the question asked as "as presented" (as cut).

So I can't really speak to his point except that I disagree. Shooting a movie is a very different process from showing it in a theater, and things can change in the process. The theatrical release makes it ambiguous that Deckard is a replicant by omitting the unicorn dream.

In fact, IIRC, whether Deckard is a replicant isn't even really an issue in the theatrical release, is it?

Yes, it is. It has been a constant issue pretty much until Scott declared that the Deckard really is a replicant with the release of the Final Cut. Especially with Ford stating that he wasn't (until Scott definitively saying otherwise) - the point being that not who is the replicant, but who is the more human? Deckard is less human than the replicant, until he learns how to be human from a replicant. And with Phillip K. Dick, not being sure of where reality truly lies, ambiguity is perhaps more appropriate than a clear cut answer either way.

Gaff just happens to leave an origami unicorn in Deckard's apartment as, what? A present? To show he was there and let Deckard and Sean Young escape?

Yup. There was no "unicorn dream" that was omitted from the standpoint of anyone who saw the film on it's original release. There was only the story as presented in the theater.

[Pogue Mahone]

Hey, what was up with the end of Black Hole? The part where Maximilian Schell's face appears on that sinister flying robot in that hellish panorama? Wait, is this the part where Tom tells me it's a metaphor?

[Anonymgeist]

Charles Ives in The Thin Red Line.

More seriously, The White Ribbon is probably my favorite, followed by The Thing and Take Shelter.

[Anonymgeist]

Then why all the misdirection? My recollection of Zodiac is that while it might have an opinion -- also like the Paradise Lost documentaries -- you don't get a clear answer. But I'll have to see it again. I just remember being profoundly frustrated in a mostly good way.

Having watched it recently along with listening to the commentary tracks (highly recommended, btw), it seemed clear to me that the movie is pointing pretty strongly towards Arthur Leigh Allen as the killer, but I'm actually quite glad that it never came out and said it explicitly. I mean, given the nature of the actual events and considering that it's unsolved and will likely remain so, it'd kind of ruin things to nail it squarely to one person. At the very least, it'd run counter to what Fincher seemed to be going for.

[Tom Chick]

I mean, there's three different cuts, which have provoked different responses. And no, I don't mean "as shot" means "as presented" - I mean that your use of the phrase wasn't as appropriate to the question asked as "as presented" (as cut).

I find conversations work best if you respond to what people "say" rather than what you "wanted" them to "say".

At any rate, if you have some source that shows Blade Runner didn't originally present Deckard as a replicant, I'd like to see it. Until then, I maintain that Blade Runner was written, put into production, and shot as a movie about a guy who is a replicant.

-Tom

EIDT: Corsiar, if you spend 60 seconds looking into the issue, it's pretty easy to find something like this, where Ridley Scott tells the New York Times, "Yes, he’s a replicant. He was always a replicant".

[Tom Chick]

Having watched it recently along with listening to the commentary tracks (highly recommended, btw), it seemed clear to me that the movie is pointing pretty strongly towards Arthur Leigh Allen as the killer, but I'm actually quite glad that it never came out and said it explicitly. I mean, given the nature of the actual events and considering that it's unsolved and will likely remain so, it'd kind of ruin things to nail it squarely to one person. At the very least, it'd run counter to what Fincher seemed to be going for.

Right, but you don't think that qualifies as an unanswered question? What kind of murder mystery doesn't decisively out its murderer? I agree it's intentional, and it makes Zodiac stand out, but I also stand by it being an example of an unanswered question in a movie.

-Tom

[JPR]

I think saying, "no one can be positive, but we have arrived at this as the most plausible answer" is pretty decisive for a non-fiction movie with a serious take on the matter.

And the fact that they use different actors as the killer in each murder scene speaks to Fincher putting the viewer in the [uncertain] shoes of an investigator, not to the filmmakers hedging.

[corsair]

I find conversations work best if you respond to what people "say" rather than what you "wanted" them to "say".

Then you might wish to consider trying it (see below). And for the record, I was trying to get clarification on what you were referring to, rather than presuming what you were referring to. Not the same thing as what you are claiming.

At any rate, if you have some source that shows Blade Runner didn't originally present Deckard as a replicant, I'd like to see it.

This is now the second time I've noted that I already asked you the reverse previously. I didn't say I had the definitive answer and invited evidence otherwise. Still waiting.

Until then, I maintain that Blade Runner was written, put into production, and shot as a movie about a guy who is a replicant.

Except in the versions where it wasn't.

EIDT: Corsiar, if you spend 60 seconds looking into the issue, it's pretty easy to find something like this, where Ridley Scott tells the New York Times, "Yes, he’s a replicant. He was always a replicant".

I could swear I asked for a quote from Scott at the time of the original release (see top). I take it the sixty second didn't include the time to read the actual request...

See? Snarkiness breeds snarkiness. :-)

Oh...and do I need to explain that Scott taking 25 years to answer the flipping question kind of explains any lingering confusion? Which also explains why I asked for a quote dating from the time of the original release...

[Anonymgeist]

Right, but you don't think that qualifies as an unanswered question? What kind of murder mystery doesn't decisively out its murderer? I agree it's intentional, and it makes Zodiac stand out, but I also stand by it being an example of an unanswered question in a movie.

-Tom

I'd say it counts as an unanswered question (and, as a big fan of the film, I was glad to hear it come up on the podcast), but I think the film comes as close to providing a firm answer as the circumstances allow.

[Tom Chick]

Then you might wish to consider trying it (see below).

Sick burn, bro! But by all means, keep sharing this crazy insight you have into the mind of Ridley Scott and everyone who filmed some mysterious ur version Blade Runner that no one will disprove the existence of. Also, Bigfoot.

-Tom