Study Questions for Blade Runner
Paul Guyer

I have seen this movie 4-5 times, but this is the first time that I have
seen it since reading the book.

1.  I have always liked this movie.  There are many concepts that became
clearer after reading  the book.

2.  I thought that the ending totally detracted from the entire message of
the movie.  Throughout the movie  the question of what is alive is asked, as
well the question of the value of life.  To see Decker take a romantic
interest in Rachel was exciting and new, as it made me wonder about what it
takes to satisfy our individual definitions of "love."  However, I think
that the ending would have been much more powerful and thought provoking if
the movie did not answer what happens after she gets in the elevator to go
down.  If the movie stopped there, then I would have to ask myself, "Did she
live?"  If she did die, then there would be the question of how Decker would
deal with her death?  Will he mourn for her?  Would he do the pseudo romantic
thing and die while protecting her from the other cop (I can't remember his
name.  He was played by Edward James Almos)?  Was her death important if she
never was really alive?

3.  Viewing the movie this time really made me think about whether a human
can really love an android.  What is it that attracted Decker to Rachel?
Was it her innocence?  Was it her vulnerability?  Could it be that he thought
she might be loyal to him?  The other idea that I was pondering was the
question of whether Decker was really a human, or was he an android?  He did
keep a collection of photographs, which he apparently prized.  He also took a
real interest in the photos of the androids.  Also, in the beginning, we are
told that he no longer works for the police department.  Did he ever work for
the police department, or were his memories of that job just planted in his
processor?  Would it be easier for Decker to fall in love with Rachel if he
was an android?

4.  I felt that one area where the movie fell short was in the treatment of
the classes.  In the book Isador (Salvador (?) in the movie) is a chickenhead.
The movie completely eliminated this class of humans.  I thought that part of
what made the book so interesting was how easily Isador related to the
androids.  Both were seen as classes below the standard human level, and both
seemed to naturally attract each other.  In the movie, the chickenheads are
not there, and Isador is replaced by Salvador, who is almost the opposite -
he is intelligent and accepted by society.  The movie failed to establish any
clear class lines, other than the one between humans and androids.  I didn't
see any ethnicity or sex conflicts, as most characters were Caucasian males.
The only real age issue was that of the limited life of an android which was
implemented to keep them from developing emotions.  This idea of a limited
life seemed to be the only connection between the androids and Salvador.
Salvador had a condition which caused him to age much faster, presumably
reducing his life expectancy.

5.  The audience is probably going to be a middle class, Caucasian, and male.

6.  The theme of the story pretty much is what life is and how it is viewed
from different perspectives.  To Decker, human life is important, and android
life moves from a position of unimportance to importance as he becomes more
aware of their patterns and behaviors, especially the collection of
photographs (which is a common link between Decker and the androids).  The
product of his change from uncaring to caring (w/ respect to androids) is his
emotional feelings towards Rachel.  From an android perspective we have Roy
(?) who is some sort of military model android who is programmed to kill.
He doesn't show much concern about death, as we see when he brutally kills
his creator and Salvador.  As he becomes more aware of his mortality/impending
shutdown, he starts to realize what it is to have life, and this transformation
is completed with his unexpected rescue of Decker ledge on the roof.