Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:05 pm by dmohrUSC
All due respect to Kipple (which is a great deal), I?m definitely with msgeek and ridleynoir on this topic & respectfully disagree with the ?rape? interpretation of this scene ? it?s not rape if the person being approached says ?no? repeatedly and insistently, which Rachel definitely does not do ? she acquiesces to his advances, and eventually even tells Deckard ?put your hands on me? entirely of her own volition. Obviously, Deckard?s rough/macho romantic approach or technique is very un-P.C., not to mention totally un-Cary-Grant-esque, and sure, some might find it in bad taste. Still, given the stated 'evidence,' I?ve no idea how this scene would possibly be construed as ?rape? in a court of law. What the scene is about is (replicant or not) Deckard?s breaking down Rachel?s mental and emotional barriers, and helping her to get in touch with her ?human? (or ?more human than human?) feelings and sensations.
But Kipple brings up a good point, and I personally think the scene is dramatically one of the strongest scenes in the entire movie because it *is* uncomfortable for a lot of reasons (even if Rutger Hauer tried to trivialize it in the ?On the Edge of BR? doc as Ford?s ?f*cking a dishwasher?; going by that interpretation, Hauer?s Roy was also just another lumpen dishwasher who was dating yet another dishwasher in the movie as well).
I think the scene totally succeeds at getting at the main question at the heart of the movie: what does it mean to be human? If an artificially-genetically-created individual resembling a human being that is not truly ?born of woman? exists as an adult, what emotions and sensual experiences are they capable of? Is it replicants' right to have access to experiencing emotions and sensual experiences that human beings do? Furthermore, what other rights do replicants have, or should they have ? any? None? The movie doesn?t offer all the answers to these questions (nor should it), but in asking these questions, it makes for genuinely thought-provoking adult entertainment.
(I also definitely think one of the more disturbing and compelling elements of the movie is its labeling of Pris as ?a standard pleasure unit for off-world colonies? ? i.e., many female replicants are being created solely for sexual servicing of off-world human workers, and without any rights of their own. Who knows what Pris, Zhora, and other female replicants have had to endure in the off-world colonies, where they are basically part of an industry of sexual slavery?)
Like all of Philip K. Dick?s stories, BR isn?t G or PG-themed Disney material; it deals with darker, ambiguous and contradictory issues, and is probably most appreciated by people who like their sci-fi more adult, complex, challenging and ?uncomfortable? in nature. So (again, with all due respect to kipple) to suggest re-editing this particular scene in order to make it a less uncomfortable experience for the audience honestly leaves me feeling far more uncomfortable than anything in the movie itself.