What was the meaning of the rape scene? That intersubjectivity in human society is compelled upon us, willing or not we can't be lone islands?
Blade Runner (1982)
What was the meaning of the rape scene? That intersubjectivity in human society is compelled upon us, willing or not we can't be lone islands?
no, the meaning was: this script is boring, we need a sex scene to spice things up
There was plenty of breasts and arse throughout the movie, they had no problems with soruces of visual titillation.
The "romance" was the worst part of Blade Runner. "Hurrr, I saw you a couple of times and barely talked but I'm in LOVE!"
But why did he force her. Yanked her back from the door when she tried to escape, pinned her against the window, and instructed her to verbalise love. It wasn't a mutual falling, she had to be pushed.
She wasn't trying too hard to escape, she wanted it too.
Also yeah this
but I guess it was nice to see her sweet side
So a vindication of social compulsion? The android/replicant, and by extension all people, needs to be compelled in sociability by others to be truly human.
Because he knows she wasn't human so I suppose the morality aspect of it was weakened.
You might find this video essay interesting anon.
I think Deckard/Ford poses a greater challenge for the rape hermeneutic than they pose to Deckard/Ford. Society compels the individual to realise themselves in and through others, you don't consent to being born as a human, you don't consent to society, compulsion is inherent to birth and social life, to interpret life and society as a rape of the individual is a mistake that deprives you of the fullness of your own humanity.
Sean Young was the sexiest woman in Hollywood during the 80's, so it's believable.
>"Hurrr, I saw you a couple of times and barely talked but I'm in LOVE!"
That girl who sat beside me on the bus that one time
there was no rape
Par for the course with Harrison Ford. He's a creep in all his 80s blockbusters.
rape? huh? she was initially reluctant but started making love with him. how is that rape, because he pinned up against a wall? KEK
there was no signed contract by the supreme leader of the global court of roasties
Literally tore her from the door and she tried to escape then pinned her down and made her "repeat after me." Watch the scene again.
Incels don't understand what coercion is. They think all interactions are literal and spoken and about language and not about context, noise, physical actions, power dynamics
I'm not pathologising it, I don't think contemporary discourse has the languague or the concepts to deal with this reality of the neccesity of compulsion in human relations that the 80s movie demonstrates in the scene.
thats called having game
Today she would recall the event under a hermeneutic of rape, as would a contemporary audience.
Shut the frick up, moron.
Stick your fingers in your ears all you want, you know it to be true. Grapple with reality as it is rather than escaping into pretend.
Do you feel uncomfortable that he's abusing a robot?
Why?
Is it because she has intrinsic humanity?
That's the point.
If your concern is about Deckards characterisation, probably a combination of ptsd and dehumanising androids. He's conflicted. He needs to dehumanise her (she's literally not human) because his job is to destroy her type.
Alternatively it was meant to be a sweet scene but Sean Young is just a b***h and Ridley let Harrison go at it
No I think its making a statement about the inherent nature of compulsion in human sociability. To be fully human is to be compelled by others into intersubjective relations with other people.
>Sean Young is just a b***h
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/mar/26/blade-runner-sean-young-interview
It was supposed to be Rachel seducing a bounty hunter to get him out of the business like she'd done dozens of times before. But the writers on tjis movie were moronic
So she's fleeing from genuine recognition human-to-human with Deckard, rather than the instrumental seduction of her previous conquests, and Deckard compels her into that genuine recognition and in doing so fully humanises her.
What? No, the movie writers inverted the scene and therefore fricked it up. In the book he calls Rachel for help because Pris is the same model as her so he's not sure if he can retire her. She takes the opportunity to bring wine and seduce him because no bounty hunter stays at it after getting a taste of Rachel Rosen. And when he rejects her she throws his goat off the roof.
In the movie why do they even meet up? He doesn't need her help with Pris. The scene not only has the initiator reversed but has no reason to exist.
I gave you the reason why. The narratives of the book and movie don't need to cohere, they are different expressions.
They connected instantly because they are the same generation of Replicant, and they both don't know what they are.
She wanted to do something with Deckard, only she didn't know what or how, that's why he tells her what to say.
he wasnt a replicant you fricking moron
oh my sweet summer child
kys
>She wanted to do something with Deckard, only she didn't know what or how, that's why he tells her what to say.
Think this is more a hesitation to engage in genuine recognition of herself through the mind of Deckard, where Deckard the human must instruct/compel her into full humanisation by his human recognition of her through the relation of love and the act of sex grounded in that relation of love as opposed to sex for an instrumental purpose.
The better understanding of the origami dream is the commanality of imagination/inspiration and death with the replicant, hence their full humanisation. Likewise with the commonality of Deckards experience of fear and suffering with the Christ-like Roy.
>They connected instantly because they are the same generation of Replicant, and they both don't know what they are.
And would your sentence be any less true if there was a commonality with humans and androids, if the replicant was truly human. Both recognise themselves in eachother because of this commonality, both need to discover what they are through the mind of other people, recognition in an intersubjective/social relation.