Kelly WandBladerunner
August 18th 2006 04:46
A group of replicants escape and return to Earth. A reticent Deckard (played by Harrison Ford) is recalled to duty as a "Bladerunner", a man whose duty it is to "retire" the rebellious androids. That's the story; hero cop tracks down bad robots and kills them. Sounds, um... like a lesser Sty Stallone flick that you'd only watch under duress on a rainy Monday night. Wrong. It is not the story but how the story is approached that makes it such an interesting and must see film.
The first time I saw it was on day one of theatrical release and, I'll be honest, it left me cold. Unlike many people, I didn't mind the voiceovers. I didn't like the tacked on ending that seemed like it was swiped from another film. (Actually, it was cast off footage from Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining").
Many people objected to the violence and the lingering slow motion death throes of the female replicants. Yes, these scenes were grotesque. I didn't mind that because they were supposed to be grotesque. It placed our sympathies firmly with the robots. One of the strengths of this movie is we are made to view the replicant's sympathetically. In many ways, Scott's direction ruthlessly misdirects. The androids dispatch sympathetic characters off screen. Their own deaths are brutally portrayed.
But some parts of the film left a bad taste. Deckard's "seduction" of android Rachel seemed a little too close to rape. In the light of that scene, those lingering death throes begin to be less defendable in terms of misogyny.
And then there's Deckard. He is so cold. He says he's quit but takes little convincing when it comes to repeatedly shooting an unarmed woman in the back. The guy is a Nazi, more than happy to "just follow orders".
Despite these misgivings, the film stayed with me for weeks after I viewed it. I kept thinking about its characters and what its moral stance was. I went out to a suburban cinema to see it again before it vanished. In fact, it was a film I went back to many times both on video and at arthouse cinemas. The nuances of its marvellous score took root in my head. Much of Vangelis' soundtrack work is a tad overbearing. Anyone who has ever been steam rollered by the mock heroics of his "Chariot's of Fire" score may view his name on the credits with trepidation. These fears are unwarranted. The score is atmospheric and achieves its ominous tones by being filled with open space. It is that rare thing; a film that can just be listened to for pleasure. Visually, it was splendid in a world before CGI made spectacle mundane. Even today, you look at the model work and shudder at how much you'd lose of this movie if the computer whizz kids got their hands on this footage.
More importantly, conceptionally, it was a film full of nooks and crannies. No matter how many times I watched this movie, there were new things to find and new ways to consider the story. It was a film of ideas almost explored. A great film somehow lost in a good film. An opportunity missed. My feeling at the time was that Scott had got so wrapped up in the nuts and bolts of his grand vision that he had lost sight of the humans in this world.
And this is not an uncommon failing. No names mentioned, but too many directors have found their way into the Science Fiction on the basis their visual style as opposed to their understanding of the genre being a fiction of ideas. Producers who believe audiences are too stupid to understand anything beyond the lowest common denominator have only aided the process. Unfortunately, it's a self fulfilling prophecy. If you make nothing besides dumb films, how can you expect people to understand anything besides dumb films.
Bladerunner had at least tried to layer its world in moral ambiguity. You were more than a spectator. You had to form your own opinions. This is praise enough and would generally have marked the end of the story.
Then came the strange story of the Director's cut. Apparently, after seeing sneak previews of the film in Dallas and Denver, the studio hated Scott's original film. They thought it made absolutely no sense so they insisted on the voiceover and the revised "happier" ending. They couldn't understand what the god damn unicorn was doing there. Somehow, many years later, a workprint of this early version was accidentally sent out to an arthouse cinema for a screening at a festival. Anyone who saw it was impressed.
Warner Brothers smelled money and agreed that Scott could tidy up the workprint into a Director's cut. Suddenly, despite limited changes (This new version is fifty seconds shorter), we have a completely different beast on our screen. How can these small changes alter the tone of a movie so drastically? Well, mainly because we are now dropped more than just a hint that Deckard may be a replicant as well.
Paranoia was always central to this film. The only real difference between people and replicants in the film is that replicants, despite their schemings and homicidal ways, were a uniformly more attractive and likeable bunch than their human adversaries. They are affectionate towards each other. They are loyal and brave. They are, as their maker Tyrell claims, more human than human.
We are told that replicants have a four year life span because after that time they may develop their own emotional responses. Clearly, these renegade replicants have done just this whilst the character of Rachel has yet to reach this level.
Rachel works as a secretary for Tyrell. Deckard only convinces her that she is a replicant by revealing the content of memory files implanted into her head. The unicorn in the dream allows us to realise that another Detective named Gaff has similar access to Deckard's memories.
In this light, Deckard and Rachel's relationship takes on a different hue. The seduction scene becomes more forgivable because these androids are no longer fully formed adults with the levels of experience we would expect. Deckard is not forcing himself upon a machine designed to comply.
Still, it is not a pretty scene. When Pris and Batty (another two replicants) kiss, they are tender but kiss strangely; like children experimenting with their passions. One finds it difficult to imagine that a love affair would spring from Deckard's mauling of Rachel. Indeed, after being seduced, she has nothing of importance to say for the rest of the movie. She goes to sleep on the couch only to be woken up in the closing scene. Let's face it. From a feminist perspective, this film has some fairly major failings.
It does, however, have a lot to say about who we are as humans. This is a film that deserves multiple viewings because it makes demands on the viewer. I have seen it in cinemas maybe ten times. I have seen it on video and DVD maybe thirty times. I'm not alone.
This film's initial cinema release was a disaster but, over the years, it has made it's money back and then some. In publishing, there are fast sellers and there are best sellers. One day, Hollywood may just work this concept out for itself. Quality can find a marketplace. Just don’t hold your breath waiting.
| 94 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Damo
The first time I saw this film I was impressed with how the film was crafted but disappointed a little with a climax that I wished would continue. After several days the film has a way of bothering the mind and drawing you back to see it again and again. For me it is like visual Shakespeare. The soundtrack by Vangelis has stood the test of time, a tribute to his musical skills.
I do not wish for every movie to made this way as that would over expose the artform but I do wish that more movies had the level of honesty and thought that this movie has had.
Comment by Bob Short
It is funny, however, that of all the music clips I have been asked to make for bands, "Bladerunner" comes up as a word to describe the atmosphere the band is looking for. Maybe I just hang out with the wrong bands.
B
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
They are finally releasing Blade Runner as Ridley always intended this year in cinemas, with about an hour extra. (After all the original version ended with an outtake form Kubrick's The Shining.)
And soon after a 3 disc version on DVD that contains all three cuts of the film.
The book Future Noir the Making Of Blade Runner is one of the most informative film books written. I mention it because it has loads on what will finally come to surface in this new edit. Even if your just a passing fan ofthe film this book is a must read.
Comment by Bob Short
I can't wait to see this new version. I just hope he gets the number of replicants right this time!
B