The allegory of humanity, freedom and memories.

Blade Runner 2049, Denis Villeneuve

The sequel to the cult classic Blade Runner has been a critically acclaimed masterpiece. Its satisfying cinematography coupled with the amazing music scores by Hans Zimmer isn’t the only reason it’s arguably one of the best sci-fi of the decade.

It’s the allegory the movie is.

The most fundamental idea of the movie revolved around what makes us human.

“Mere data makes a man. A and C and T and G. The alphabet of you. All from four symbols. I am only two: 1 and 0.”

Joi, when says this, changes the central idea of what we considered humanity since the beginning of the prequel, Birth was the fundamental required to draw the line between a machine (replicant) and a human. One was made, the other born.

Yet Joi, an AI companion, threw light upon a narrative which was more familiar with our lives. The difference between a human and a machine was not whether the birth of one was natural but the encoding of the man. Replicants and humans had the same encoding. A-T-C-G whereas Joi, an AI, constituted of binaries, 0 & 1.

She forgets The birth divide between the replicants and humans, “mere data makes a man… the alphabet of you.’’

She defines humanity as DNA. She shows us how absurd the idea the of soul from birth sounds from the perspective of something which wasn’t even brought to life like either of the sides in the conflict of humanity.

“‘K’: I’ve never retired something that was born before.

Lieutenant Joshi: What’s the difference?

‘K’: To be born is to have a soul, I guess.

…

Lieutenant Joshi: Hey! You’ve been getting on fine without one.

‘K’: What’s that, madame?

Lieutenant Joshi: A soul.”

Joi’s words make us question the preconceived notion of K and probably all of the ‘worlds’. That the difference between man and machine is soul, and the made don’t have souls.

This notion, maintained by Wallace and the authorities comes into danger when the fact is disclosed that a replicant can have the ability to birth.

Since birth gives soul, the idea that replicants are machines falls fragile. It makes the idea of a ‘disposable workforce’ in the words of Wallace, sound more like slavery than like the fundamental structure to maintain civilization.

“Every leap of civilization was built on the back of a disposable workforce.”

This sounds morally abhorrent when the workforce is enslaved instead of assigned like machinery.

Which brings us to the allegory of freedom.

The central plot, that is LAPD aiming to kill the child of the replicants in order to maintain the, dare I say, ‘illusion’ of inhumanity in replicants.

The idea that the leak of the fact that replicants can birth breaks the ‘illusion’ that what replicants are subjected to is equivalent to what computers are. This, as Joshi informs, would break the order in the worlds.

She mentions the necessity of a wall, the wall between replicants and humans. Between man and machine. The wall here being the illusion that replicants are machine.

“The World is built in a wall that separates kind. Tell either side there’s no wall, you’ve bought a war. Or a slaughter.”

The lack of the illusion, the wall, would break order. Freeing the enslaved replicants would doom the worlds Wallace has so proudly created.

This teaches us something fundamental about freedom. About society and its relation with freedom.

Should the idea of freedom be above all, even of it means the collapse of a society?

Should freedom be the central tenant of a civilization? Is the idea of disposable workforce like Wallace mentions, not based on the history of humankind?

Can a society even survive without the contribution of a ‘disposable workforce’?

This brings us onto the second allegory based on freedom.

Revolution.

The replicants are fed the idea that they aren’t human. The idea, internally, justifies their lack of revolt against the enslavement of their kind.

When a section of replicants come to know of the probability of them having ‘souls’, the metaphor of humanity, sparks the revolution against the enslavement contrary to their indoctrinated beliefs that they aren’t human.

The indoctrination is apparent in the ‘baseline test’. Wallace claims that replicants lack all humanity, but if they do, the baseline test is void of any reason.

Of course, this isn’t the case, replicants are human and the baseline test a tool for internalizing that they aren’t human while also working as a tool to kill all replicants who explore their ‘soul’.

This experience, this exploration brings a quote from Camus to mind,

“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”

And this is exactly what defying the baseline test does. It shows that the very existence of a replicant who explores his soul is an act of rebellion against the society. Warranting death.

The third allegory, Memories, questions the intrinsic nature of humanity.

Now how is it different from the first one? Till now, I assumed that the metaphors of souls are objectively human. I assumed that humans are human due to their soul.

But what makes a soul, human? What makes a conscious being a human?

Why is it that killing someone in their coma is considered murder?

A part of the answer is memories.

Humans have memories, what they do and how they grow is based on those memories.

I am something because I remember being it, and I changed into the other thing because something didn’t work.

But what if I told you, your memories aren’t yours?

What if they’re crafted, what if they’re someone else’s?

Does that void you of the validity of those memories? Does it matter if you physically lived those memories?

The memory of the horse leads K (or Joe) to believe that he is the son of Deckard. But, he isn’t.

Those false memories guided him to a certain point since memories make or change a man, K trusted his memories. It guides him to the very climax of the movie.

Doesn’t that make K the owner of the memories? Does believing that the memories you know belong to you essentially makes them your memories?

Of course, later when he realizes those memories are actually of Dr Anna, he stops using them as guidance. He instead chooses his recent memories as guidance, His intimacy and relationship with Deckard, despite what the false memories ask him to do, he doesn’t kill Deckard.

“Every memory has a piece of its artist.”

And if every memory does indeed have a piece of the artist, does the artist become a piece of the host of the memory?

Did K become Anna? Was his soul Anna’s soul?

The ambiguity of memories and humanity is something to ponder upon.

Blade Runner 2049 was truly a classic, the questions it posed and the preconceived notions we have about humanity it shattered goes on to show the amount of work in it.