Author: Amy Hanna
Before going to see Blade Runner – The Final Cut at Queens Film Theatre, I had no idea what to expect. I am not a real film nut who watches all of the cult classics, now that I think about it, the most serious movie I have seen this year was Barbie. However, after watching Blade Runner I was really surprised at how many themes were stuck in my head. I don’t think I have ever actually watched a movie where I wanted to go home and discuss it with my friends. So watching Blade Runner was a pleasant surprise.
The movie is set in Los Angeles in 2019, where the city is some sort of cyber punk dystopia, just a little bit different from Los Angeles we know from 2019. In this universe ‘replicants’ have been developed, which are recreations of human beings. They are used as slaves for labour in the colonies in space. These replicants do not have emotions, but as there is an assumption that over time they will learn to develop emotional responses, they are fixed with a lifespan of four years. It seems as though four years is enough for the replicants to be out of control however, as there was an off-world mutiny which has led to replicants being banned on Earth. If a replicant is found on earth, they are hunted down and ‘retired’ by Blade Runners.
Deckard, a bounty hunter who used to be a Blade Runner, is forced out of retirement to track down and kill four replicants who returned to earth. The goal of the replicants is to go to the company who created them and ask for their lifespan to be extended.
A theme running throughout the movie that has really stuck with me is the idea of personhood and what actually makes us a human. The replicants are practically identical to human beings, the only real differences being that they are physically much more superior, but lack human emotions. This raises ethical questions surrounding whether the replicants should be given the same rights as human beings. After all, they are made from human genetics and have the potential to learn emotions. So what is it that actually makes it excusable to exploit them?
The key argument throughout the movie for it being acceptable to ‘retire’ replicants is that they do not have emotions. They are not given human rights because they do not react in the way that typical humans do. However, this is not strictly true.
Even though replicants have been designed by humans and have not been created with the intention of having real identities of their own it is evident that they have somehow managed to develop emotions, goals and clear personalties. Take Roy for example, he was designed to be a killing machine. However, at the end of the movie he seems to have a realisation of what it actually is to be human by showing compassion and save Deckard’s life.
Another example is the idea that the replicants are aware of their own mortality. They, just like any human being, understand that one day they are going to die and they want to prolong that for as long as possible. Surely, a being that is aware of its own mortality and struggles with these ideas of death should not be so easily ‘retired’ by blade runners. If the being fears death, could retirement be considered as murder?
If we look at the use of the word ‘retire’ itself, we see how it is clear that even in society at that time, there is recognition that it is not acceptable to kill beings like the replicants. The word ‘kill’ is strategically not used, as this would humanise the replicants and make people realise that the exploitation and murder of these people is unethical.
Replicant’s do not have any form of rights. They are treated as inhuman, despite displaying the characteristics we associate with humans. We feel compassion for the replicants and recognise that this is unethical. However, this should also make us think about the state of human rights in our own world. If we feel compassion for replicants in a dystopian universe who do not have human rights, this highlights the deficiencies in human rights law in our world as not even all people receive these rights today.
