Rage, Rage Against the Dying of the Light
Blade Runner: The Final Cut / Ted Boynton
[*SPOILER ALERT* This review covers the plot resolution of this film in detail. If you haven’t seen it … well, geez, get busy already, it’s been 25 years.]
The initial theatrical release of the iconic sci-fi film Blade Runner crept into theaters 25 years ago, captured the imaginations of rebellious geeks everywhere, then slunk away into the night as a commercial failure. Featuring striking, creative visual effects and a dark vision of 21st-century urban dystopia, Blade Runner earned a long second life as a cult classic, loved for its beautiful cinematography and its brooding fusion of genres, something along the lines of Casablanca by way of A Clockwork Orange. With a limited theatrical run in November and December and a December 18 DVD release, Blade Runner: The Final Cut now supplants the 1992 “Director’s Cut” as director Ridley Scott’s true original vision, restoring several key sequences and sprucing up the visual effects with a remastered cut.
Blade Runner, based loosely on the Philip K. Dick novella Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, is at once a rousing film noir and a deep meditation on the essence of humanity. Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), an L.A. cop in the year 2019, roams a rainy urbocalypse seizing in its death throes as its populace flees darkened, polluted Earth for space colonization. Deckard works as a blade runner, hunting down escaped “replicants,” bio-engineered humanoids developed by the monolithic Tyrell Corporation for off-world slavery. Scientific mastermind Eldon Tyrell (Joe Turkel) continuously improves the replicants to be stronger, faster, and tougher than their human masters, then sends them into space as soldiers, laborers and prostitutes.
Ah, yes; what could possibly go wrong with this plan? As the superhuman replicants become more sophisticated, they develop emotions and begin to rebel against their human masters. Police Captain Bryant (M. Emmet Walsh) assigns Deckard to hunt a gang of escaped replicants, a new model so advanced that Tyrell implanted false memories to stabilize their emotions, as well as a four-year lifespan in case they radically destabilize. After learning of their imminent termination dates, the replicants return to Earth to unmake their doom, led by combat prototype Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer, in a career-defining performance).
Complicating Deckard’s arduous task is his awakening conscience, spurred by his emotional relationship with Tyrell’s assistant Rachael (Sean Young). Deckard first meets Rachael to research the escapees, but they are both surprised to learn that she is also a replicant, Tyrell’s closest approximation yet of a human. Thematically, Blade Runner turns on the axis of Deckard’s transformation as he falls in love with Rachael and comes face to face with the superhuman fury of Batty and his replicant lover, Pris (Daryl Hannah).
The history behind this 2007 release is somewhat tortured. The widely reviled 1982 theatrical release departed sharply from Scott’s desired structure with a tacked-on, upbeat ending and a Ford voiceover narration removing most of the subtlety and nuance of the film — imagine Bogart intoning at the end of Casablanca, “I had to let her go because we weren’t meant to be together.” Ugh. Scott adamantly opposed both alterations, but Warner executives imposed them after the film was already in the can. Ford has famously claimed that he intentionally botched the line readings because he agreed with Scott. Unfortunately, since no studio exec can resist a ham-fisted punch in the audience’s face, the narration stayed in.
Although Blade Runner did not perform well at the box office, the film maintained a steady underground popularity over the next decade. In 1992, Warner released a “Director’s Cut” deleting Ford’s narration and featuring the ambiguous ending favored by Scott; funny how studio whores get religion when there’s an untapped marketing opportunity. As the story goes, Scott was unable to oversee the 1992 edits while directing Thelma & Louise. Instead, a film restorationist re-cut the film based on Scott’s notes and storyboards.
The result was a solemn, murky masterpiece housing both a smart action flick and a grim meditation on compassion and self-knowledge. Blade Runner’s evolution is intriguing because the quality of the story has improved over the decades. It may be heresy to say so, but even the deeply flawed 1982 theatrical release surpassed Dick’s 1968 novella, which comes off as a brilliant conceptual foundation supporting a pretty average pulp detective structure. The 1992 revision accelerated the film’s ascension as a classic, and long-time fans as well as newcomers are likely to enjoy Blade Runner: The Final Cut for its subtle but important improvements.
Still far superior to the 1982 film, Scott’s Final Cut judiciously extends scenes here and there to build context and enrich characters without significantly lengthening the film. Some changes allow a better understanding of the plot, as with the extended opening scene in which Deckard’s predecessor falls prey to a replicant while investigating the escape. Other minor alterations add context, like extra details provided during Deckard’s dossier review of the escaped replicants. Scott also used newly available technology to sharpen the effects and resolve the continuity errors that plagued the film, such as Bryant’s erroneous miscount of the escapees during Deckard’s initial briefing.
The truly critical changes, however, relate to Deckard and his relationship with Rachael. The most crucial is the famed “unicorn” interlude, omitted from the 1982 version and sharply truncated in the 1992 cut, in which Deckard experiences what may be an implanted memory of a galloping unicorn. In 1992, Deckard experienced the vision as a dream; in 2007, as an eyes-open memory. When another cop later indicates an awareness of this vision, it indicates that Deckard might be a replicant, fueling the ambiguity and mythology of the film. Scott also lengthened several interactions between Deckard and Rachael, enhancing a relationship critical to the film’s central themes of compassion and empathy.
To Scott’s great credit, each version of the film presents an enjoyably complex matrix of allusion and metaphor. True to its brethren such as THX 1138 and Alien, Blade Runner echoes their paranoia and dystopic vision, examining societies in which corporate autocrats control the government, privacy and individuality are curtailed, and mankind hurtles toward dangers largely of its own selfish creation. The deeper beauty of Blade Runner, however, lies in the shifting juxtaposition of the moral roles of Deckard and Batty, a break with convention defying even non-traditional films such as Alien.
Deckard exists well outside the usual protagonist rubric, a cop willing to kill thinking, breathing organisms without due process or moral reflection. Ford and Scott sharply delineate Deckard from his adversaries by making him very ordinary, a rumpled, disheveled detective who doesn’t even want his job, caught between fear of his superiors and fear of the replicants. Deckard’s vulnerability defines him as he repeatedly loses his gun during physical encounters with the replicants and invariably gets the living crap kicked out of him. Ford’s great accomplishment in this role, rarely acknowledged, is his stolid, everyman unremarkableness. This is not a world for Indiana Jones; not once does Ford slip into the easy, smirking swagger of Han Solo.
In contrast, Batty and his gang are charismatic, physically perfect killers whose steely drive to live has overcome the artifice of conscience. Only in the final act does Batty’s true character show through in an extended metaphor casting Batty as a Christ-like figure, with Batty becoming the true locus of power in the film. After confronting his creator, Tyrell, in despair over his own betrayal and looming death, Batty meets his mortal enemy, Deckard, and holds complete power to destroy him. Batty has seen the lifeless body of his replicant lover, Pris, and learned of the deaths of his other comrades, all at the hands of Deckard. But the experience of true human loss blossoms as compassion and forgiveness in Batty as he realizes the precious nature of life.
In his final act before his pre-ordained death, Batty saves Deckard’s life, while Batty’s death saves Deckard’s soul. Blade Runner presents one of the ultimate “twist” endings in cinema: While protagonist Deckard survives, the moral center of the film shifts to Batty, who transforms from artificial creation, to fully realized human being, to messiah. (At one point, Batty even drives a nail through his own hand.) Extending the allegory, Rachael presages Deckard’s deliverance as a sort of Virgin Mary, an innocent figure whose love changes Deckard so that he can experience redemption and realize the sanctity of life.
Beyond the biblical allusion, Batty is also conceived as an avatar for mankind in challenging his own maker — a rebuke to the creator for an existence filled with needless loss, painful labors, and unavoidable death. Perceiving the beauty of the universe, Batty cannot passively accept the imminent extinguishing of his spirit. Ironically, while the blade runners use empathy response tests to flush out the emotionally immature replicants, Batty’s altruistic reactions to his fellow fugitives’ plight and his own appreciation of life indicate the replicants have advanced beyond the cold, anonymous world in which Deckard lives.
Hauer nails the part with understated control and menace, while also injecting nobility, pathos, and even whimsy into a difficult role. A gifted villain throughout his career in films such as Nighthawks and The Hitcher, Hauer chills throughout the film but saves his best for the penultimate scene, wolf-howling and taunting the physically inferior Deckard while stalking him through a deserted, rain-sodden building. Knowing how it ends never assuages my dread when I see Batty romping across the rainy rooftops, holding Deckard’s fate in his own doomed hands.
Regrets? Well, I’ve had a few. Despite its overall excellence and recent improvements, Blade Runner still suffers from some innate problems that can’t be cured with extended scenes or touch-ups, though the flaws are generally minor. The film’s primary weakness may be the actors selected for the crucial female roles. Sean Young does competent work as Rachael, imbuing the role with doe-eyed innocence, but she lacks the presence required to believably reshape Deckard’s moral center. Her part is quite scaled down from Dick’s novella, and while Young’s luminous dark eyes and pale, delicate features are physically right for the role, she just can’t own it. Likewise, two of the replicants are played by Daryl Hannah and Joanna Cassidy, leading one to wonder, weren’t Charlene Tilton and Jaclyn Smith available? As with Young, Hannah’s turn as Pris feels underwritten in comparison to the source material, and one wonders how the role might have turned out had Debbie Harry played Pris as originally envisioned.
The production values suffer from some ill-conceived selections as well. Instead of a simple, timeless look for costumes, Scott opted for a few choices that may have seemed imaginative in 1982 but come off as laughable now. For example, while Young’s clothes generally suggest a 1940s look — a reasonable choice for sci-fi noir — she appears in a series of high-collared overcoats evoking Ming the Merciless in drag, not to mention a hairstyle suggesting a Dagwood comic strip. In designing Deckard’s work clothes, the costumers drastically undershot 2019 and ended up in a 1987 Chess King bargain bin, all maroony/purplish shirts and ties in mismatched patterns. And while the score by Vangelis generally embraces a classical 2001: A Space Odyssey sound, there are unfortunate lapses, like the cheesy Kenny G-esque sax music during a love scene between Deckard and Rachael.
Truth will out, however, and Blade Runner’s champion bloodline prevails, recalling a royal lineage of smoky-cool sci-fi running through Alien, The Terminator, Brazil, and myriad lesser efforts such as Outland. This ancestry begat the most beloved sci-fi of the 90s and aughts, such as The Matrix, Gattaca, and Serenity; all of these have more in common with the misty darkness of Blade Runner than with the pulp Western rubric of Star Wars. While George Lucas’s original classics are firmly enshrined in our film Valhalla, Blade Runner: The Final Cut should secure the place of another, darker warrior.
Blade Runner: The Final Cut is currently playing a limited release at arthouse theaters. Blade Runner: The Collector’s Edition releases on December 18, 2007 with a monster set of five discs, four different versions of the film, and various tchotchkes, all in a silver replica Deckard briefcase. Until further notice, Ted Boynton is under his bed hiding from Roy Batty.
Secret Shame -- Celebrity Edition | | Grace is Gone
Comments
Great review Ted. Oddly enough, I've never seen Blade Runner in its entirety. This looks like the opportune time to drop some $$ and actually buy one of these "Super extended, primo director executive special edition cut" dvd's. I usually feel like there's a studio exec with his hand in my wallet whenever I pick up one of these. I'm sure I'll get that same feeling when I buy this one, but at least it feels like I'm getting a reach around at the same time.
Posted by: Manny at December 6, 2007 2:49 PM
I remember seeing this in my Film Lit class in high school, but not much stands out in memory. Great review though, I'll have to pick it up at some point after the new release.
Posted by: Gabs at December 6, 2007 2:56 PM
That was absolutely fantastic. Well done, and thank you.
Posted by: ian at December 6, 2007 2:57 PM
Great review. I generally avoid overpriced super-duper editions (Criterion Collection, I'm looking at you), but I might give this one a shot.
As for the "Deckard is a replicant" theory, which I've heard Scott is in favor of... I'm not wild about it. For one thing, I don't see why he would keep getting his ass handed to him in the fights if he was. More importantly, as another reviewer noted, it would make Batty's rescue of him more of a "we take care of our own" thing than the Christ-like selflessness you bring up.
Posted by: Todd at December 6, 2007 3:20 PM
Awesome review.
Posted by: ajax19 at December 6, 2007 3:26 PM
Blade Runner has always been on my 'deserted island' list and I was disappointed with the director's cut release, so this sounds promising.Also...Outland!!!I loved that movie!
Posted by: brite at December 6, 2007 3:30 PM
I saw Blade Runner when it first came out and hated it. Granted, I saw it in one of those huge old theaters which had been converted into a multiplex, but they had never changed the seats, so I was in the the first row, very left hand side seat (exit door right in front of me), and the screen was very small and up to the right. It was like lying on the floor under your TV, with the screen all distorted like that.
I think it's time I watched this movie again, but I'll wait for the newest version. Thanks for the review. I suspect the costumes will give me the same giggles that watching the old 1930's Flash Gordon serials does.
Posted by: BWeaves at December 6, 2007 3:34 PM
I've tried to see and like this film in both the theatrical and director's cuts to no avail. This review makes me want to check this final (?) version out and see how THAT feels. Kudos.
Posted by: Armando at December 6, 2007 3:36 PM
Yup, it is heresy. I could not sit through this film because I love the book so much. I read it on the way to an ecological conference and it made me so sad that I nearly cried (apparently the perfect context for the book is going to go discuss how our planet is going to hell). Not a lot of books make me cry. The movie left out everything I thought was important in the book. Maybe I'll try this new version just out of curiosity.
Posted by: Anne (in Reno) at December 6, 2007 3:39 PM
I just saw this movie recently and I though that it was so cheesy. Now I know why. I'll need to see this version.
Posted by: Agent Scully at December 6, 2007 3:41 PM
It was totally worth seeing again on the big screen. It's a masterpiece, although I took some issue with the absolutism in this version over whether Deckard was a replicant or not. I preferred a more ambiguous ending.
Posted by: Henry at December 6, 2007 3:42 PM
Blade Runner was ahead of it's time in terms of space shit. It remindes me of Space 1999, love Harrison Ford in most shit he do. Back in the day that Sean Young was a lil hot piece of ass, i'd tap that ass if I could.
Posted by: Pookie at December 6, 2007 3:54 PM
I guess I'm supposed to comment on the film, or your review, but really? I just want to vent: who decided to release the DVD the week before christmas?? Now I have to haul my ass to the store because Amazon keeps telling me it won't arrive in time for christmas. I mean, jeez, even you said "it's been 25 years" already.
Also, sean young went to my high school
Posted by: amanda at December 6, 2007 4:08 PM
Thank you , i judge people on whether or not they love this movie as much as i do ---- a true way to evaluate intelligence immediately --- this movie re-defines the term "classic" - my latest copy on on order--
Posted by: marcia at December 6, 2007 4:09 PM
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shore of Orion. I watched C-beams ...glittering in the darkness at Tan Hauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time like tears in rain.
Time to die...
*wipes tear* *grabs beer*
BEST MOVIE EVER
Disagree with that, and we are gonna have. a... situation.
*shifty eyes*
Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 6, 2007 4:23 PM
Excuse me if this post is wildly tangential, but I was struck by the very first sentence of Mr. Boynton's review...
I was a sophomore in high school in 1982, and I certainly don't remember any "rebellious geeks".
In fact, the term "geek" wasn't even used in popular slang at that point in time, a "geek" was still just another term for "circus freak".
They were called "nerds" and "spazzes" back then, and they weren't this monolithic cultural subset that we think of today...The nerds of that era were heavily maligned, and tended to avoid the general population at school as much as possible, which is likely still true today, and will remain true 25 years from now...
"Revenge Of The Nerds" happened along in 1984, but it was just some sort of Hollywood fantasy, because in reality, there was no revenge, no "geek rebellion" in the real world...There were a very small handful of "nerds", and if and when they congregated, they did it in the safety and obscurity of somebody's basement or bedroom. They didn't go to dances, sporting events, or any of the other typical school social functions. It was simply too dangerous. The predatory jocks always fed on the physically weak, you know?
At the time of it's release, BLADE RUNNER was really nothing more and nothing less than a mainstream Hollywood film, starring one of the hottest movie stars of the era, and if success was expected, it was because of Harrison Ford and the fact that he was in that other futuristic sci-fi movie franchise that happened to do pretty damn well at the box office.
The fact that BLADE RUNNER was a commercial disaster reflects the simple fact that there was no "geek culture" worth taking seriously in 1982, and nobody except hardcore sci-fi fans had even heard of Philip K Dick at that point in time.
In fact, I would argue that this idea of a mythical, monolithic geek subculture is mostly just a myth, even in 2007. The geeks themselves keep perpetuating this myth within the narrow confines of the internet, convincing themselves that they ARE monolithic, and that they DO matter in the larger scheme of popular culture.
I don't believe this to be true, just like the vast majority of young people in the late 1960's and early 1970's were NOT hippies, or involved in the counterculture movement in any manner. It makes for nice copy, and allows those involved to feel good about themselves, but beyond that, sorry - for better or for worse we live in a world that homogenizes as much as possible for consumption by as many as possible.
Posted by: Mohaski at December 6, 2007 4:28 PM
Throughout the 90's, it should be noted, a great many people felt that the 1982 cut was superior, if only due to the atmosphere the narration gave it.
While you dismiss it handily, I feel a complete overview could not entirely ignore this 'school of thought' regarding the various editions. Hamfisted blow to the face or not...
Posted by: Spike at December 6, 2007 4:28 PM
You know how this film was SOLD, for me? That scene, where Ford (motherfucking HAN. SOLO.) he's buying the noodles, and he's approached by Castillo. The look on his face, the weariness, the way he turns his head and he reluctantly decides to go with him.
ACTING!
Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 6, 2007 4:35 PM
See, it's just that awakening in Deckard that you described, dazedly comprehending someone who was DESPERATE to live, who loved life enough to save another, while Deckard's been deadened "sushi" just going through the motions of breathing....well, that only works if Deckard is a human. A machine's gonna teach a machine that life is great and precious? There's absolutely no poignancy in that. So fuck Ridley Scott, I don't care if he directed it, Rick Deckard is a profoundly affected *man*. There's nothing interesting about his relationship with Rachael otherwise either.
And there's my futile gripe.
As for the voiceover, I absolutely love the weariness of it, and I think it gives some more color to the character rather than being corny exposition. And I just really like some of those lines! What can I say, I dig the overt noir PI-ness of it. I was overjoyed to see that a theater in Portland scored a print running coincidentally the same week I was going to be there. My host was TOLD: we're going. I can overlook my disagreements with the filmmakers and still enjoy it. And seeing a new print for what must have been my first time in a theater, it didn't matter what my quarrels were, it looked beautiful, my eyes taking in the big grey city, and the utter ridiculousness of Deckard's shirt and Sebastian's jacket. I was also reminded of things I picked up through years of viewing, like waving my fingers in front of my chin when I'm trying to make a decision like Tyrell's "how many questions?" or my reflexive muttering of "that....hurt. That was irrational!" whenever I absentmindedly injure myself.
Of damn course I'm getting the complete five disc set. I want to own the cleaned up, discreetly extended cut, but I also want my "they don't advertise for killers in the newspaper" original (basically the voiceover with the coda chopped off is my ideal). Just too bad Brion James wasn't around for the new documentary.
Posted by: Jay at December 6, 2007 4:54 PM
Posted by: Mohaski at December 6, 2007 4:28 PM
I applaud your post sir.
This will not be the first time I've wrote this here but I'll repeat it anyway. I HAD A GREAT TIME IN HIGH SCHOOL. I'm talking 1989 to 1992. I don't know how it came about but we had at, OUR SCHOOL, a convergence of most of the "sub-groups." Hip-Hoppers, geeks, dweebs, nerds, doppers, rockers, skaters, bmxer's, cocolos (lots of puertoricans)hot-rodders etc.
You know why? because many of had overlapping interests and just hung out.
It was amazing.
Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 6, 2007 4:57 PM
Huh. We're the same age, Slim? How come I thought you were significantly older than me? Oh this crazy internet.
Posted by: Jay at December 6, 2007 5:02 PM
Oh and for the record, to me Blade Runner works both ways:
Deckart being human: it makes humanity look WEAK, which we are, when we use other beings we think are inferior as tools for either our selfishness(think the the Nexus 6's as slave labor, OR, pleasure, (think the degenerate shit those pleasure models had to endure)
Deckart as a Replicant: How we turn even the most noblest of beings against their own nature.
Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 6, 2007 5:09 PM
I love the new 2007 cut. I saw it twice at the theater. The polishes are terrific; the improvements on the visual effects are particularly seamless. There's nothing like seeing that first sprawling shot of the LA cityscape set to that awesome, booming Vangelis score. And as far as production design goes, I challenge anyone to find a film that can top Blade Runner.
In response to a few of the comments above...
I'm a big fan of Philip K. Dick, and I do enjoy the book. This is one case in which I think the film - although extremely divergent from its source material - is every bit equal and perhaps superior.
If Deckard is a replicant, the fact that he gets his ass kicked can be explained by the fact that he is so completely convinced of his humanity. Additionally, Batty does not necessarily know that Deckard is a replicant, so Batty's motivation need not be compromised. (From an outside view of the narrative, I acknowledge it is not as powerful.)
That said, I do not consider Deckard a replicant, but I appreciate the raising of the question as presented. I do think that ambiguity is maintained in the 2007 version. Ridley Scott can say what he likes, but the film leaves the question open, which is a good thing.
I don't really dig the voiceover now, but at times I wonder if I would have been able to appreciate the newer incarnations as much as I do had I never heard the voiceover so many times as a kid.
I'd be interested in how the Blade Runner fans skew in terms of preference, because there are an awful lot of them who still prefer the original theatrical version. It's unfortunate that there will never be one single masterpiece to satisfy every viewer, but across the different versions even with its flaws the pieces are easily still there to establish Blade Runner as a truly great film and one of the best examples of pure sci-fi ever committed to the medium.
Posted by: Darth Corleone at December 6, 2007 5:19 PM
By the way, that's a good title for the review, but whenever I see that line I hear Rodney Dangerfield reciting it in Back To School. Apologies to Dylan Thomas - I'm such an 80s kid.
Posted by: Darth Corleone at December 6, 2007 5:23 PM
Great review; thanks. I havn't seen this since college and all I can remember was that Hannah slightly creeped me out. Time for another viewing!
Posted by: Kristin at December 6, 2007 5:26 PM
Blade Runner is my all-time favorite movie. I have a long list of favorite movies, but Blade Runner definitively tops it, and as a kid who never saw it in theatres since I wasn't BORN yet, the experience of seeing it on the big screen (on my birthday, no less) was nothing less than profoundly moving. I had the fortune to see it with three people who had never seen it before, and they were as blown away as I continue to be every time I watch it. Can't wait for the collector's edition; and thank you for a thoughtful, detailed review.
Posted by: paquito at December 6, 2007 5:35 PM
One more thing: suppose Deckard is a replicant. If we then were to say that his nature undermines the messages of the film, would we not then be guilty of the same bias and lack of empathy exhibited by the humans in Blade Runner toward the replicants? (It is very ironic that humans lack empathy for replicants yet use lack of empathy as the identifying characteristic that reveals the replicants.) That is, if Roy's experiences and feelings are truly just as valuable as those of any human, then those of a replicant Deckard would be as well. Again, that does not mean that I consider Deckard to be a replicant; I just think that the story can be told at first as if he were a human, and then perhaps the extra layer can be added without losing the original message. Just thinking out loud - I could go on and on about this film...
Posted by: Darth Corleone at December 6, 2007 5:36 PM
BarbadoSlim...
Yeah, unfortunately, in the era between 80-84, our high school was highly stratified and full of subsects - jocks, freaks, heshers, speaks, and yes, even some nerds - and these cliques hardly ever co-mingled, which was a shame in hindsight. I think this highly stratified society within the walls of high school is one of the few things Hollywood actually got RIGHT about the "wonder years" of that era. John Hughes was WRONG about alot of shit, but I do have to admit, there was plenty of truth to the characters in BREAKFAST CLUB...It really was that polarized and stratified back then.
I did a year of student teaching in the early 90's, and the situation you describe is exactly how it was at that school at that time, and to which I must note a bit of envy. I was a pot-smoking jock in high school, and neither the jocks or the stoners wanted me in their group, so I ended up hanging around with the "speaks" (those in drama and band) because they tended not to judge, and their parties were alot wilder than anyone could have imagined.
I'm sure cliques still exist in high school, but I do believe we've turned a more inclusive corner, and it's good to see...
Again, I apologize to everyone who bothered to read my two posts for taking this thread about BLADE RUNNER (an amazing film) off on this weird tangent...
Posted by: Mohaski at December 6, 2007 5:42 PM
Oh, this is going straight to the top of the list.
I got very into Phillip K. Dick when I was in high school (mid-late 90s, to date myself) and I remember renting the director's cut on video over and over and over. (Having been warned away by many people, I've never seen the original studio cut - sometimes I wonder if it's as terrible as they say. And then I think, "Hollywood. So, yeah, probably." But anyway.) When I got to college I met my best friends at a screening of Blade Runner during orientation.
Anyway, I think I'm blathering on a bit here, but my point is: this is a fantastic, beautifully written review and captures everything I love about the movie. Thank you, thank you, thank you. And now I'm off to find the nearest showing.
Oh. And I guess I should throw in my 2c on the replicant/human question: I always thought the whole point of that ambiguity was to highlight the power of... I don't quite know how to describe it - emotion? Connection? Oh, hell, I can't express myself today. Strike this whole last paragraph.
Posted by: alanna at December 6, 2007 6:17 PM
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, how I love this movie. Every time it rains I think of this movie. (and it has been raining for 5 fucking days here in the garden state)
Well, I could go all obtuse with you all but instead I'll go with...
Every single time Batty breaks Deckards fingers I swear a pee a little in my pants it is so "real". Great scene.
I feel better now, having told that to you all.
judge not.
Posted by: 2manykids at December 6, 2007 6:43 PM
My friend told me that Deckard was a replicant without a set life span. That the unicorn was like his totem animal and that because it was a immortal mythical creature, he would never die. And that Edward James Olmos' character would do the origami/matchstick versions of each of the replicants totems.
I don't know if it is true or not. But, it seemed like an interesting idea.
Posted by: Tanner at December 6, 2007 7:11 PM
It may be heresy to say so, but even the deeply flawed 1982 theatrical release surpassed Dick's 1968 novella, which comes off as a brilliant conceptual foundation supporting a pretty average pulp detective structure.
Dick's novel, not novella, actually has more depth and is less dependent for its effectiveness on its plot than the film. Its minor characters are more interesting than those in the film, such as the
"chickenhead" repairman and it also has intriguing ideas tucked into corners that the film ignores, such as the TV hosts who always seem to be on no matter what hour it is.
Posted by: Peter L. Winkler at December 6, 2007 9:03 PM
A silver briefcase? Really? Sounds like more kipple to add to the pile. Might just be worth it for all the versions on DVD.
This film and its source material I love equally but for different reasons, similar to my feelings for "The Shining". Which is weird considering that tacked-on final shot in the '82 version of Rachael and Deckard driving off in the sunset came from extra footage shot for the opening scenes of "The Shining".
Any "Pushing Daisies" fans out there? I swear the building where Olive Snook lives is the same one inhabited by the toymaker, J.F. Sebastian. We were watching a week or so ago, and when Chuck stepped out onto an ornately ironwork mezzanine, my husband shouted out "Blade Runner!"
Am I right? Same building?
Posted by: Alabamapink at December 6, 2007 9:03 PM
Well, there was a 2000 documentary on British TV called "On the Edge of Blade Runner" wherein Hampton Fancher recalls telling Ridley Scott not to shoot in the Bradbury Building. "Every TV show in the world's been shot in there!". So, I'd say it's likely.
(Ridley said "not how *I'll* do it")
Posted by: Jay at December 6, 2007 9:18 PM
Never one to grow out of a teenage crush, I saw the original version of Blade Runner because a) it was science fiction and b) it was, OMG, Harrison Ford. I saw it with a bunch of friends and I remember all of us going out to eat after and spending several hours in a coffee shop talking about the movie and the story the way you do when everyone's engaged and has differing theories about a movie.
For me it was one of those iconic movies and featured Ford at his best. As much as I loved the original Star Wars trilogies and the shiny happy universe of Star Trek's Federation, the world of Blade Runner felt much more real and believable.
Since then, thanks to my crazy ex, I've seen the director's cut--she used to teach the movie and the novel in her SF class. I liked that version more than the original and I have a feeling, based on this review, I'm going to like the newest version even more.
Posted by: telesilla at December 6, 2007 9:34 PM
A few comments and clarifications in response to a good discussion, for which I thank you all:
1) I am in the sentimental camp hoping that Deckard was not a replicant, but I'm delighted that the debate exists because this film should be shrouded in mystery.
2) Todd and others: If Deckard were a replicant, he probably would have been an older, physically weaker model than the Nexus 6 and therefore could get his ass kicked by one, especially an assassin (Zhora), soldier (Roy), or heavy laborer (Leon). (Though it's still hard to imagine him getting shit-hammered by Pris, a "pleasure model.")
3) Batty's Jesus moment with Deckard still works if Deckard is a replicant because (a) it's not clear that there's any way Batty would know that and (b) we're not talking about Terminator "machines" here -- these are artificially bred humans, and one replicant showing compassion to another still supports the theme. But Deckard is human to me.
4) Re "geeks," I feel you Mohaskie, but my post-hoc internet research indicates the term surfaced as a synonym for "nerd" in the 1970s -- not that it matters, as I'm writing in 2007 with a modern lexicon and didn't even consider that issue when I wrote the review. And the hippie analogy really begs the question; once the sub-culture is acknowledged, it exists. I wouldn't call it "monolithic," but the very existence of this website demonstrates some influence.
5) Dick's trade paperback is sitting on my desk one foot away from me; it's 244 pages of large print which took me about five hours to read. Anyone else have an opinion on whether that's a novella? I don't mean to knock Dick's work -- quite the opposite -- I just think this is one of his lesser pieces.
6) B-Slim: The "tears in the rain" bit is one of my favorites too. I always think Batty kind of half-smiles at the end because he realizes the poetry is a little cheesy, even though it perfectly captures the sad beauty of the situation.
Again, thank you all.
Posted by: ted boynton at December 6, 2007 9:49 PM
BSG's mommy?
Having never seen this can another BSG fan give me their take? After 3 seasons of soul-crushing angst will this film seem like a cartoon?
Posted by: Jon at December 6, 2007 11:34 PM
First time I saw it I felt the naritive was crap. Having found out the truth years later made me trust my instincts a bit more.
That was a fantastic review, especially the Christ parallel! Although, Harrison botching the voice over on purpose is not actually correct. The truth being that of the three takes that were done he felt the worst one was chosen.
"If only you could see what I've seen with your eyes."
Genius.
Posted by: djganesh at December 7, 2007 12:36 AM
One of the few SFs that live up to the promise of their ideas. But dammit, when is there going to be an end to versions of this movie.
I think I'll let my replicant watch this one.
Posted by: Janis at December 7, 2007 1:09 AM
the briefcase box set is on order.
timeless, classic film.
fantastic review. well done...
Posted by: idiot dentist at December 7, 2007 2:40 AM
"BSG's mommy?"
In its current incarnation? I'd say pretty much. In fact, when I finally watched some I was surprised by what I'd been missing, since they centered their promotional imagery around Tricia Hefler in that red dress looking like a Maxim cover with glowing red eyes. "Are her eyes really like that? Is this show really that tacky?" I wasn't interested. The cover story in EW last summer made me reconsider, "well *that* show sounds interesting", so I grabbed some torrents and said "OH! This is Firefly Blade Runner with Boomer, Callie and Starbuck! Why didn't they TELL me that???"
BSG *is* a bit more nihilistic (a bit?), the Cylons' motives and methods are more like the Face Dancers and Thinking Machines in the new Dune books (talk about soul crushing angst), but that plain sight paranoia and the "Used Future" and the mixed emotions over artificial/emotional beings, for me at least, owes a whole lot to BR. But the movie's not comparatively soft or anything, it's a different kind of plot and not a war.
Posted by: Jay at December 7, 2007 8:33 AM
great review of one of my favorite (if flawed) films.
i have to disagree with your dismissal of joanna cassidy in the role of zhora, however, recognizing that my fondness for her is at least partially a crush leftover from her days on some crappy helicopter cop tv show whose name escapes me. she was the only actor in 'roger rabbit' who wasn't overshadowed / dwarfed by the surrounding mayhem, for one. she's just always struck me as an intelligent actress...and that laugh.
Posted by: matty blue at December 7, 2007 9:29 AM
(sorry, i deleted part of my original post. continuing...)
i would paraphrase what roger ebert once said about ed harris - she might not make the perfect choices of material, but you know that when you see her, you're in for some interesting moments when she's on the screen. at some point, there will be some spark that shows up in her eyes, and what's on the screen will get a little more interesting.
(fawning fanboy crush stuff is now complete...)
Posted by: matty blue at December 7, 2007 9:43 AM
Last year I had to analyze this film "sociologically" throughout the semester for my sociology class. I had a couple of choices, but I chose BR for Ford. At first I was really pissed because, like why is the future in every movie so dystopic? Why can't it be somewhat normal? What's with the pyramid? And the costumes really got to me (I'm glad Ted mentioned that) Ultimately, rewatching bits of the movie every two weeks became enjoyable. The cityscape of the pyramids against the underground market helped me to see the stratification of society, without the characters needing to specifically state that things were unequal. Scott really provided a whole world and I had so much to work with. I also had to analyze Brazil and Foundation (book) and of the three I ended up enjoying BR the most because it gave me the most to think about.
Posted by: Julie at December 7, 2007 10:38 AM
I saw this movie, and I didn't like it.
(pause as everyone takes out guns and points at face)
But it may have been the time and place that I watched it, it could have been that it got jammed wrongly into the cultural processor at the time, because I was attempting to spackle many of the gaps in my filmic knowledge.
I remember finding it hokey and depressing. And I'm a fan of Philip K. Dick, I've read not all but a lot of his works, and I tend to shudder a little whenever someone attempts to bring them to the screen. I'm not one of those who instantly reveres the source material as sacrosanct.
Having said that, and having read the superb comments, and this excellent, excellent review, I have to indeed watch it again.
Without sounding like a sycophantic asscracker, that's one of the reasons I so love reading this website. Despite the many, many, many occasions I want to battering ram my skull against the wall with some of the rampant dipshittery that does rear its ugly head in the comments section, you all put up a damn good argument. Consider me swayed, Pajibblers. Consider me swayed.
Posted by: insertclevernamehere at December 7, 2007 12:45 PM
So, I guess I'm the only one who remembers Joanna Cassidy more for her role in Don't Tell Mom the Babysitter's Dead . . .
Posted by: Kitty X at December 7, 2007 2:24 PM
I'm sick of the bitching about the voiceover. I understand voiceovers are perceived as kinda cheesy and pointless, but I don't have a problem with it. I've never actually seen this movie anywhere but on TV (cable), so maybe I would like the non-VO version better, but the VO doesn't ruin it for me.
And I disagree about the female roles. I like the Hannah and Cassidy performances. They weren't given much to do, so there wasn't much to mess up. Sigourney Weaver got almost an entire movie to herself, this one is all about Ford and Hauer. Not a bad thing, just sayin'.
As with most Scott films, the cinematography and art direction alone are worth checking out. Even if I don't love a Ridley Scott movie (I usually do), he gives the audience something gorgeous to gaze at for a couple hours. And that ain't bad.
Posted by: LL at December 7, 2007 5:12 PM
I also disagree about the female roles. True, Rachel doesn't present much of a compelling reason for Deckard's attentions, but I just attributed that to poor screenwriting (sorry Mr. Scott), not Sean Young. Darryl Hannah is terrific, and Joanna Cassidy is too, particularly in this new cut. The original footage of her performing Zhora's death scene (instead of a stunt double in a cheesy-ass wig) totally changes the scene. Instead of a quick end to a baddie, her death is drawn out and touching, and for the first time, you begin to see the replicants as living beings, and blade runners as exterminators, not enforcers. It's absolutely stunning, and the one thing that really sticks with me long after seeing the final cut. So glad you reviewed this.
Posted by: ohgrl at December 7, 2007 7:28 PM
Great review. I actually like the version of Blade Runner with Harrison Ford's narration and tend to like movies with narration. The added exposition is more novelistic. But Brazil sucked.
Posted by: Dan at December 8, 2007 12:04 AM
"But Brazil sucked"
Wow, that was a potential can of whup ass; I think everyone's gone, but that would have made for some interesting dialogue. Throw that grenade sooner, man.
Posted by: ted boynton at December 8, 2007 12:27 AM
I ain't takin that bait.....but you're absolutely right, Ted!
Posted by: Jay at December 8, 2007 1:32 PM
Thanks for the response Jay. I think I'm gonna give this one a go.
Posted by: Jon at December 8, 2007 6:13 PM
Everyone rags on me for this. . . but I hated Bladerunner. It made me want to bash my own skull in.
The characters were bland and flat, and everything looked ridiculous.
I'll stick with the books, thanks.
Posted by: Heather at December 8, 2007 8:12 PM
blade runner is a masterpiece. brazil, also, is a masterpiece.
i just wanted to say that.
thank you.
Posted by: matt at December 8, 2007 10:07 PM
I know this is late, but I couldn't even sit and watch this movie when I caught it on satellite at my parents' place. It was the scene where Ford is testing the woman to see if she's a replicant or something? I watched about 5 minutes and got so bored I went and watched cartoons instead. Just throwin' that out there.
Posted by: Cuno at December 8, 2007 11:03 PM
Barbake-o Slim & Fred Boynt-Boing:
go outside away from a city sometime--it's the SHOULDER of Orion--any n. hemisphere winternight. As for genius? Dick, Scott, LeGuin, Panshin, Wenders perhaps.
Posted by: mazz at December 9, 2007 8:27 AM
Barbake-o Slim & Fred Boynt-Boing:
go outside away from a city sometime--it's the SHOULDER of Orion--any n. hemisphere winternight. As for genius? Dick, LeGuin, Panshin, Wenders perhaps.
Posted by: mazz at December 9, 2007 8:29 AM
Barbake-o Slim:
go outside away from a city sometime--it's the SHOULDER of Orion--any n. hemisphere winternight. As for genius? Dick, Gilliam, LeGuin, Panshin, Wenders perhaps.
Posted by: mazz at December 9, 2007 8:33 AM
Barbake-o Slim:
go outside away from a city sometime--it's the SHOULDER of Orion--any n. hemisphere winternight. As for genius? Dick, Gilliam, LeGuin, Panshin, Wenders perhaps.
Posted by: mazz at December 9, 2007 8:36 AM
Good Review. I loved the '82 verison, but I will watch the DC version when I come back to the States. I agree with all posts supporting the "Decker is Human agrument."
Posted by: G40 at December 9, 2007 7:51 PM