MovieChat Forums > Edward Scissorhands (1990) Discussion > Edward as a ‘what’ or a ‘he’

Edward as a ‘what’ or a ‘he’

posted 4 years ago by SecondBreakfast (1)
2 replies | jump to latest

In the movie there are several discussions/conversations between other characters who are discussing Edward and it seems that they consider him a human construct: When the women are discussing certain intimate activities they’d like to engage him in or when several people mention knowing “a doctor who could help” even though I doubt a medical doctor could do anything regarding giving him hands, it would require some kind of electrical engineer I’d imagine. Jim, on the other hand, clearly states “He’s not even human” during the argument with Kim.

So I guess my query is: do you think anyone else in the neighbourhood (including the Boggs family) has any notion, like Jim, that Edward is not entirely human?

[–] Costumer (1824) 3 years ago

I'm sure they do.

I might point out that Edward not being human does not preclude being a "he." It doesn't require it either.

[–] cinemacynic (45) 2 years ago

Well said. Just because he isn't human, that doesn't mean that he isn't still a he/him.

Jim's line, "I'm gonna lose you to that? He isn't even human!" I think was meant as a dehumanizing taunt more than anything. It's possible that Jim suspected that Edward wasn't human, but there's no way he could have known for sure....unless he was around when Edward was being created but that's very unlikely.

I'm pretty sure the majority of the townsfolk assumed Edward was human. The only person who might have known otherwise was Peg, because Edward tells her "I'm not finished." But even then, she might have been too scared in the moment to fully comprehend that statement or what it meant.