MovieChat Forums > Blade Runner (1982) Discussion > Tears in the Rain speech

Tears in the Rain speech

posted 8 years ago by EyeInSky
14 replies | jump to latest

I've always wondered if Rutger Hauer's speech at the end related to actual REAL memories of his past, or if they were implanted memories... which was typical for most replicants to be "engineered' with.

Taking this a step further...

If the memories are implanted (false) memories, it's not hard to imagine the scientist-engineers who created these false memories could construct a complete fantasy... like a space battle that happened near the constellation of Orion (or, perhaps, the notion of inter-dimensional space travel via wormhole gates). I say this because in the director's & final cut versions there is confirmation of a dream sequence with a UNICORN!!! And we all know Unicorns aren't real. Yet Deckard has these powerful dreams of a unicorn and his police partner just so "happens" to create an Origami of a unicorn (as if he was "in on it"... having knowledge of Deckard being a replicant).

Personally, the story works SO MUCH BETTER with Deckard as a human... killing replicants and feeling justified as if they were "lesser beings" (when, in reality they were not and Deckard himself was living a more empty life). I like the ambiguity and doubt of "what if" Deckard was a replicant (but the answer still lies with most likely a human). The director's cut with added scenes sort of nails the point home that he is now most likely a replicant (but still enough doubt yielding the possibility of being human).

Anyway, the point of my question is Roy Blatt's speech an ACTUAL TRUE LIFE MEMORY or was it a FALSE IMPLANTED memory? It seems his speech to Deckard would be more poignant if it was a glimpse of his real past versus something fabricated.

[–] BB-15 8 years ago

by EyeInSky;

"I've always wondered if Rutger Hauer's speech at the end related to actual REAL memories of his past, or if they were implanted memories... which was typical for most replicants to be "engineered' with."

With certain Phillip K Dick stories and a dramatization based on them, the reader / viewer cannot be sure.

For instance with "We Can Remember It for You Wholesale" and the film based on it, "Total Recall", it cannot be known for certain what is an implanted experience vs. one that is being acted out in the physical world.

BB ;-)

it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈

[–] EyeInSky 8 years ago

Hi BB,

Good call with Total Recall. The best part of the movie was not knowing which experiences were real and which ones were the implanted ones. It seems to me the focus of Blade Runner was the struggle of humans vs. replicants plus the ambiguity of Deckard himself. But given the book's title: "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" I guess there very well could be a scene in the story where one of the replicants talks about his 'electric memories'.

So I'm asking you directly - how do YOU interpret Roy's final speech?

Do you think the scene works better if these were things that actually happened during his 4 year life? And the "you people" he stated refers to humans blissfully ignorant to the horrors that go on outside of earth?

Or does the scene work better if Roy himself believes so strongly that his memories were true, when they really aren't? And even if it is assumed they were implants, it still doesn't take away the power these memories must have had on his persona... and how "brightly driven" he was compared to others without these memories.

Thoughts?

[–] BB-15 8 years ago

by EyeInSky;

"So I'm asking you directly - how do YOU interpret Roy's final speech?

Do you think the scene works better if these were things that actually happened during his 4 year life? ...

Or does the scene work better if Roy himself believes so strongly that his memories were true, when they really aren't?"

Until you brought up the idea of Roy's memories being implants, I hadn't considered the idea.
I had always believed that Roy had seen the things in his final speech.

Your idea is still intriguing.

So, I'll need to mull over what Roy's final dialogue and ask, 'could this have happened to him?'
I might do a Google search and check out some Blade Runner wiki / forum sites about this.

Anyway, I'll think about it.

BB ;-)

it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈

[–] EyeInSky 8 years ago

I suppose I should strike that notion because (if memory serves correct) didn't the beginning of the movie inform us the replicants were used as slaves outside of earth? And due to their unreliable emotional state they were banned and assigned to be executed (I mean... retired)? It's quite possible many of the visions of his memory could have been implants but since most were shipped in other galactic regions I think the best conclusion is that his heroic speech was based on real events.

[–] Lucky_Man 8 years ago

I think the implanted memories came later. I was under the impression that Rachael was the first and the only to have them.

I believe Tyrell explained that the implanted memories were supposed to be a cushion to soften the experience of the newfound emotions the replicants were capable of feeling.

I'm pretty sure Roy's speech was about actual events he had witnessed and his coming to terms with his own mortality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2uOzV4glRs

[–] edisonnosidE 8 years ago

I think the implanted memories came later. I was under the impression that Rachael was the first and the only to have them.

Yes Tyrell did say that, "Rachael is an experiment, nothing more."

This is in conflict with the claim by Ridley that Deckard is a replicant. If Rachel is the first and only replicant with implanted memories, where did Deck-Rep get his? Why would they put another 'experiment' out on the street as a blade runner? It doesn't follow, doesn't make sense.

Despite all the various claims and evidence, I still view Deckard as human.
But, what the heck, it's a movie, a story, not real life; we can each view it as we choose. There's no 'right' answer.

Impossible is illogical.
Lack of evidence is not proof.
 +  = 

[–] Lucky_Man 8 years ago

Deckard is absolutely human.

I think Ol' Ridley just thought it was a novel idea post facto and since the film doesn't really refute it at all, he ran with it. Maybe trying to add depth that really wasn't necessary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2uOzV4glRs

[–] EyeInSky 8 years ago

I agree

[–] DrAndreiSmyslov 8 years ago

I've always wondered if Rutger Hauer's speech at the end related to actual REAL memories of his past, or if they were implanted memories... which was typical for most replicants to be "engineered' with.

It would seem odd they implanted memories of a replicant's combat past into a replicant that is combat trained and he already knows he is a replicant. What would be the point, to feed the replicant's ego he had a grand military career?

There's no reason to think off world battles were not really taking place. Bryant describes a few of their military skills. Seems like there was plenty of REAL battle action going on, so the need to create "imaginary battles" in a combat replicant's mind seems nonsensical.

I got the impression implanted memories were used only for replicants they were trying to fool they were human (Rachel, Deckard). They were never trying to fool Roy what he really was. If Leon had implanted memories, why were those "precious photos" so important to him? Because he had no past, he was trying to build his own memories.

Edit: My apology, I missed your later post where you state best conclusion is that his heroic speech was based on real events.

-------------------------
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces.

[–] EyeInSky 8 years ago

I'm under the belief with the memories being real.

Hypothetically speaking though... I suppose it might be a reasonable idea to implant a skill set of memories into a soldier - so they have instinct & feelings of what tactics work and what doesn't while out in the battlefield.

The replicants also were far from emotionless. They seemed that way many times, but when faced with death they all showed fear. Roy also showed love and compassion (not just for Rick but also Pris when she was "retired").

[–] LetThemEatCake01 8 years ago

There is nothing to suggest that he wasn't talking about real memories of things he saw. Plus it is stated in the film that they don't have false memories, only rachael's kind does.

[–] lubin-freddy 8 years ago

Did the Nexus 6 have implanted memories? Or was it just being tested with Rachel, as a prototype?

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

[–] jbaddock 8 years ago

Real or otherwise, they would presumably have to have some basis in reality, otherwise what would be the point? Following from this, one thing that I've always wondered is this: who or what were the battles with? There's a hell of a backstory in there, when you think about it.

[–] rgarrett99 8 years ago

For all of us, the past doesn't exist. All we have are memories -- mental impressions. Where they came from isn't important. For all we know, ours (humans') are implants. They're just images we carry in our minds, not things in themselves. Same for Replicants.

They have their memories, and those memories will be lost, just as ours will, and what difference does it make whether they were implanted or the traces of actual events we supposedly underwent? Their preciousness, our attachment to them, and the utter tragedy and seeming meaningless of their loss, are no less for them than for us. Pain is pain; sadness is sadness.

This seemed to be what Roy was telling Deckard and helps explain why he saved him. Roy, unlike Deckard, understood that, as conscious beings, they were the same. Both clung to life for the same reasons, and both were capable of self-sacrifice, and for the same reasons.