Blade Runner

I find it interesting how the major theme in Blade Runner is about not defining the other and not accepting notions inherently given to you, and how that is reflected contextually.  There is a definite bias felt against the replicants by the humans.  They are seen as inferior because they are perceived to be lacking in genuine emotional depth.  So they are treated like slaves, and dealt with with pretty severe animosity by most everyone.  It seems that because it was decided that it was a bad idea to have replicants among the humans in society, comprehension of these robots is never even thought of to be a valid endeavor.  The humans, essentially the creators, hold an attitude wherein they know anything and everything about their creations.  This turns out not to be the case at all.  The preconceived notion that these replicants lack empathy and emotion turns out to be false.  And although this is an established theme in the film, its interesting contextually how the humans are not even fully aware of their creations.  Having said this, I realize that not everyone in society could know this, and aside from their actual creator it is hard to fully comprehend, however, if you (society) are going to take such a stance of superiority against  (and in contrast with) beings other than you, then there absolutely should be an effort to make up your own mind about those whom you are treating so poorly.  Especially since the whole notion of superiority could go hand-in-hand with a sense of ownership and creator-ship.  I guess I'm now just playing into the already-established theme but my point is this: It's interesting how we as humans could create something without realizing the full potential of it.  We assume as if we have complete and utter control of our creations, and this movie challenges that.

Blade Runner: Are Androids Worthy of Symapthy?

Blade Runner utilizes the setting of a complex, futuristic world to pose an age-old question in a fresh way: are ‘we’ different from ‘the other’? In the end, the audience (hopefully) comes to realize that the differences between the humans and the Nexus 6’s are in fact, a falsified construct of man. The humans are often seen as heartless, and in a few select scenes the humanity of the androids comes to light—predominantly in the scenes with Rachel, but also Batty’s highly poetic death. However, the issue with the film, I feel, is in the portrayal of the four rogue Nexus 6’s. We, the audience, are to believe that these androids deserve to live because they are equal to humans. Herein lies the source of my one problem with the film—as hard as I tried, I couldn’t feel a strong sense of empathy for the four main Nexus 6’s—not because they are ‘other’ to humans or because they are artificial beings, but because none of them were rich with redeemable values. The androids run an exact parallel to humans in in that they are manipulative, militant, and have no qualms using others as a means to an end. The exception here is Rachel, but without the imposition of the Blade Runner task force, she would have gone on ignorant and unharmed for some time. I feel that the sentiment of Blade Runner would have been better received if the androids were likeable, or at the very least not manipulative, murderous cads. Should the unfair treatment of the Nexus 6’s as a class exonerate these four androids of their crimes—crimes for which any human would receive like punishment?  To what extent should they be sympathized with?

-Annie Nowak

Blade Runner

Prior to watching the film in class, I had already seen Blade Runner once before. Though I thought it was equally weird with some bad acting the second time around, I enjoyed the over all concept. The whole deal with the replicant Rachel being an experimental replicant, giving her memories, opens up a door to asking ourselves the question of what's actually real? Did that really happen? Am I really here? Now, I hate philosophy, and would rather just accept everything at face value for what it is, then try to ponder about "the meaning of life" and all these questions that can't truly be answered. However, I felt that the movie did an interesting job of showing how regardless of whether or not something or someone is "actually" real, no other person or thing is able to really judge and define what qualifies as real.

Kate Hinnant

Blade Runner

Blade Runner was quite an interesting film. I actually really enjoyed it, especially considering that sci-fi is not exactly my favorite movie genre. However, the fact that there was a deeper meaning behind all the "high-tech" futuristic technology really caught my attention. I love how the film ultimately conveyed the question: what does it really mean to be human? No one person, race, culture can specifically define what it means to be human. If you ask a number of people what they believe being human means, you would probably get a variety of answers such as humans have feelings, their own ideas, a conscious, and so on and so forth. Yet, the fact that these answers are going to vary from person to person shows that beauty of being human which is individuality. Sure we all may have similar aspects, but we are all different in personality, expression, and emotion. So although these replicants were designed by "humans" the film showed that they were able to form feelings and emotions. An example of these emotions seen in the replicants would be when Rachael begins to cry after realizing that she is a replicant, when Batty mourns the death of Pris and saves Deckard from falling off the roof, and even when Deckard runs away with Rachael because they have fallen in love. Overall, I really enjoyed the film and I think it even instilled a little bit of the idiom: "Don't judge a book by its cover."

Blade Runner and the Problem of Other Minds

The problem of other minds has haunted philosophers for centuries and Blade Runner elucidates the plague of this problem that is, how we can prove or disprove whether a person other than ourselves is a thinking thing, namely a human, or a machine, i.e. a Replicant. A machine is introduced as being capable of measuring responses to questions in such a way that points out a Replicant. The ambiguity of the line between human and machine raises the issue of what exactly makes us human. Such examples of humanity might be self-awareness, rationality, emotional habits, and consciousness. In the movie, however, the Replicants seem to display all of these examples; they are aware of themselves and of their expiration and thus search for someone to reprogram their lifespan. What is more human than recognition of the inevitability of death and fear of mortality? Leon also shows emotional responses to the other Replicants from his generation that have been retired. It could be said that this film accepts that Replicants are thinking things under the requirements of the Turing Test, which states that if a computer can mimic a human such that a ‘judge’ cannot tell the difference between a human and a computer than the computer can be considered as thinking. It would seem that the Replicants in the movie might possibly pass this test.

Blade Runner

Blade Runner was a very confusing and interesting movie for me.  I found it hard at times to follow the plot at  times.  It confused me when Deckard fell asleep and dreamed of the unicorn.  He woke up amazed and confused and went on without thinking on it.  Throughout the movie I was stuck on trying to figure out what the unicorn could possibly mean.  At first I thought it was a representation of something he could not accept to be real like replicants being equal.  Then I thought it might have been a memory of some genetically altered animal and he would reference it later.  Nevertheless, it turned out to be neither.  It took me a second at the end to figure out the hint that Deckard was a replicant.  The figurine of the unicorn and his dream finally connected after all the lights turned on in the room.  The movie intrigue me in every way and captivated me right until the end.

Blade Runner

I really enjoyed Blade Runner! I am an incredibly detail oriented person though and one thing that really bothered me the whole time was the number of replicants that Deckard was supposed to be after. At the beginning of the film, it is explained that 6 replicants escaped initially. One was killed when trying to break into Tyrell Corporation, then eventually Zhora, Leon, Pris, and Roy were killed. Who was the 6th one that was supposed to be with them. They later find out about Rachael being a replicant, but she would technically be the 7th replicant involved in the film, not one of the original ones that escaped and came to earth illegally. Other than that, I feel as though this film was much more thoughtful and poignant than I thought it would be coming into it. There was a great deal of blurring the lines in terms of what it mean to be human, and I think that overall, that was the director's main intention. He wanted to beg the question to the audience as to whether being physically human was enough to make you truly human. As many have been pointing out, it almost seems as though the replicants were the most humane and compassionate in the film and it was the humans that were terrorizing the world in which they lived.

Blade Runner

My favorite scene in Blade Runner occurs when Deckard is sneaking into J.F. Sebastian’s home/empty apartment complex in search of Pris and Batty. As Deckard climbs up the complex’s stairs search lights, from helicopters above, pierce through the darkness. The lighting and sheer dreariness of the building are perfect examples of neo-noir film. Later, once Deckard has reached Sebastian’s apartment, he enters a room filled with robotic dolls and toys. The room is lit neon pink from a bright advertisement outside of the room’s window. Areas in the room not hit by the signs light are murky and distant. The colors and lighting produced in this scene further encapsulate the film’s neo-noir tone. Overall, Blade Runner is a fine film but at times I did have problems with the plot. For instance, why would the Tyrell Corporation make replicants that could not be distinguishable from humans. Despite a few snags in the plot, Blade Runner achieves its overall goal and firmly expresses its messages to the audience.

Metropolis

During our viewing of Metropolis, I found Lang's depiction of women especially interesting.  Lang expresses the "otherness" of women in the two stereotypical representations of femininity, the Madonna and the whore.  The duality of Maria nicely mirrored the other contrasts in the film, such as black and white, the head and the hands, and the physical separation of the cities.  As part of the working class, the real Maria represents the "hands," preaching peace and advising the men to wait for their savior, whereas robot Maria is a product of the "heads" to use for their own means.  For the majority of the film, Metropolis is fundamentally a city of men.  The thinkers are all men, and the workers involved in the rebellion in the catacombs are also all men.  Maria, both real and robot, is essentially only a tool in the film.  As a real woman, she preaches passivity and for the workers to wait for their savior, who turns out to be Freder.  After she is turned into a robot, she is used by the rulers of the city to instigate chaos and bring the workers' city to ruin.  As a woman, Maria is ineffective on her own, and it takes Rotwang and Freder to complete the action she provokes.  Overall, Metropolis gives us a unique lens through which to view the role of women as perceived in twentieth-century Germany.

Blade Runner

I really enjoyed watching Blade Runner. We talked about this in class, but my absolute favorite scene was the roof scene with Roy Batty and Deckard. I found out that the actor who played Batty improved some of his lines including the "tears in rain" part which makes me love it a million times more. Honestly I think Batty's character, although a replicant, was the most human out of everyone. Of course, the roof scene for example. But also when he is grieving over Pris' death. He shows so much emotion. He touches her cheek and looks at her face as she's lying there dead on the ground and then touches the blood on her body and slowly stands up. You can see the terror and sadness in his face and eyes. He starts to cry as he rubs her blood on his face. You could tell how much he really loves her. This is my second favorite scene. And then, he doesn't even kill Deckard to get revenge but saves him from falling off the roof. I think by the end, Batty was more human and more real than any of the humans in that film. 

Metropolis

Being the first silent film I have ever seen in black and white, Metropolis was quite clear in distinguishing the barriers and differences between the working class (the hands) and the elite/wealthy (the head). I found it interesting that the city of Metropolis was divided into two parts: the city above ground where the elite lived, and the city below ground where the workers lived. In a sense, this metaphorically represents the connection between the working class and the high position jobs of CEO's in real life. It often occurs that there is little communication between the two, and the film portrays that the lack of communication obviously creates problems between the classes. In the film, Maria, one of the worker’s daughter, portrays peace and innocence throughout the film. She seeks to find a mediator (the heart) between the workers and the elite of Metropolis, and this where Freda Frederson comes in. Freda, the son of John Frederson (Master of Metropolis), falls in love with Maria and in the end he helps Maria achieve a better balance of communication between the head and the hands. Ultimately, the moral of the story is that communication is key for everyone. And I have to say that the ending definitely got a chuckle or two out of me, partly due because of how the film portrayed the workers as complete idiots during the entire revolt, but once the classes came to an agreement the worker and John Frederson shake hands and the screen showed a sudden "THE END". Definitely the old fashioned way of ending a film.

Metropolis

To me, the most notable aspects of Metropolis were the high contrasts; visually and contextually.  The proletariat working class all stood in drab, dimly-toned uniforms, with drury head-hung looks upon their faces.  Te thinkers on the other hand, wore nice suits and held their heads up high, never sulking.  The aesthetics of both groups paired perfectly with their respective emotions.  Even geographically, the Thinkers resided way up high in their skyscrapers, while the workers retreated back to their own separate domiciles far below ground level.  The contrasts of these two groups were as plain as can be with very little ambiguity.  It was black and white.  I think it's interesting how such a highly dramatic movie like Metropolis could be simplistic in form.  Maybe its also an attribute of silent films in general.  There's little room for ambiguity in that sort of narrative because every emotion needs to be expressed without sound.  I think that is also why there is rampant over-acting in most earlier films.  Just to be clear, I'm not mentioning this to serve as some sort of detriment to the film, in fact just the opposite.  I think that such high contrasts focus your attention more on what is happening sub textually.  Because there is not much ambiguity in the story-telling, it opens up your analytic eye to examine the consequences of the actions taking place in the movie.

Metropolis

The first time I tried to watch Metropolis, some years ago, I quickly became frustrated with my lack of understanding of the plot, and slept through the majority of the film. This time around, I still can not confidently discuss the film's meaning, but it's visuals and production blew me away. The film is so striking, in fact, that I think not fully understanding the plot adds a whole different dimension of viewing the film. It's almost like I got sucked into watching something so over my head that it made it that much more believable and eerie. Watching the film with an analysis of production was quite invigorating as well. My first thought was simply the amount of extras that were used in the film. After some research, I found out over 25,000 people were used, and according to most reports they were treated merely as props, being placed in extremely uncomfortable conditions - which is quite ironic considering who they were portraying. Given the time period and the technology Fritz Lang had to work with, Metropolis is a stunning science fiction piece that has cemented its place among some of the greatest films of all time.

Metropolis: A Black and White Reality

The contrasting images in Metropolis, although perhaps due in part by the black-and-white film of its day, symbolize and emphasize the distinction between the dull mindless operation of the workers and the enlightened perspectives of Freda and Maria. As repeated throughout the movie, the mind and the hands must be mediated by the heart. Maria and Freda appear to the audience in white (or light) clothing and fair complexions signifying innocence. Such innocence that has not been tainted by the corrupt system is necessary in order for them to have compassion for both parties in the system and thus act as the heart that unifies the two. The workers and their dwellings are dark, black, and uniformed which relates to their minds which are vacant, empty, and without individual ideas and thus they are willing to follow whoever strikes action at any given moment without any consideration of consequence. Perhaps the conservative reading of this film would suggest that there is no inherent problem in uniformed masses, but only that 'the heart' is needed to represent their needs.

metropolis review

Metropolis was the first silent black and white film that I've seen and honestly, I loved it. I thought I would be bothered by the lack of dialogue, but the music fit just right, and I followed along with the movie without a problem. There was a lot I liked about the movie: the avant-garde style of the times, the story itself, and the immense amount of symbolism and hidden connections. Because the movie did not use dialogue, it was extremely important to show the audience the exact setting and mood through symbolism, camera angle, and other film techniques all of which were used to the fullest potential and only added to the depth of the film. Another thing that I liked most about the film was that the message sent throughout the film resonates even in today's society. The message of finding a balance between the head and the heart of a person or business effects everyone. Although the film was made in the 20's, it is still widely regarded as a classic film and strong message in today's society.

Metropolis

I found this film interesting. I'm honestly still not sure whether I liked it or disliked it overall, but the plot line was at least a bright point for me. I think a great deal of that stems from the fact that I am a huge fan of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. This film came out approximately 5 years before Huxley's novel, and Huxley must have been inspired by Metropolis in many ways. Lang's "Thinkers" are Huxley's "Alphas". The workers in Metropolis are "the hands", whereas Huxley calls them "deltas" and "epsilons". The fact that they are both dystopian pieces from post-WWI Europe might have a great deal to do with the similarities, but they are much too abundant to not be related. Brave New World was a work that was not referenced in our post-movie discussion even though it is a culturally well known piece and an almost straight reproduction of Lang's work. 

Metropolis

Not sure if I'm the first post or I can't see anyone else's. Anyway, I really enjoyed Metropolis as our first film. Especially since I am a business major and can relate to this film with what I am studying in my Business Communications class. We learned about communication in corporations and how the workers have a hard time talking/giving input to the people on top/CEOs. There is barely, if any, communication between them. Metropolis does a great job exposing this problem in our society. There is a separation of the "thinkers" and "workers" with the thinkers living high above ground and the workers down below. This huge separation is there in real life also. Metropolis shows the outcomes of no communication, like the rebellion, which in the end destroyed everyone. The only solution is to have a mediator that can help both sides understand and work with each other. I think today's society could really learn and benefit from this film.

Also, after the explosion in the beginning, what was happening with the workers going into the Moloch? Where they being thrown in or..?? I'm still a bit confused on that part.