Blade Runner
Filmed in 1982, Blade Runner has come to be seen as one of the greatest movies in the last 30 years. It was a failure on it's theatrical release and with Ridley Scott unhappy with the theatrical releases, he had spent 25 years refiguring the film to something he could finally be happy with. Aside from the theatrical versions, there have been both the 1992 Director's Cut and the 2007 Final Cut.
The film was based on Philip K Dick novel, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?", but they acquired the name of Blade Runner through a William S Burroughs novel called "Blade Runner (a movie)." Both novels are science fiction novels but with radically different plots. They chose to run with Philip K Dick's novel about a bureaucratic detective chasing and killing off androids for a living whereas William S Burroughs' Blade Runner is also set in the future however it deals more with a medical apocalypse.
Ridley Scott had originally rejected the film after finishing Alien because he didn't want to be seen as to be a sci-fi director. However with the death of his brother he reconsidered the script due to the prevailing mood he found in the script and something that could be worth fleshing out onto the big screen.
The film itself is set in a bleak and cold futuristic world. Pyramid shaped buildings spew fire up into the sky, Buildings are lit with bright, garish neon lights, There are TV screens advertising Coca Cola, TDK, Atari and set in 2019. From the sky looking downwards, this could be viewed as a mesmerising verdict of what the future could be. As cool and seductive as is humanly possible but we only have to watch later on to know that all is not totally as idyllic as we would hope for in a future world. Roads lie in near ruins. The pavements are crowded with people bustling about to get to their destination who don't always speak the same language. Smoke billows from underneath the road and more often than not it frequently rains. This is the future, ladies and gentlemen.
The story that follows in the film is that Rick Deckard ( Harrison Ford ) is a retired cop who was the best at seeking out and "retiring" replicants. What "replicants" are essentially are an advanced form of androids that look, speak and do everything as humans do but without the capacity to have any sense of human emotion and devoid of memories. This cannot be done with the naked eye alone and the replicants must be put through a simple lie detector test. However, replicants are getting very advanced these days and with the advent of memory implants it can be harder to tell if someone is human or merely a replicant. Deckard is on the hunt for four replicants after a former colleague had been shot while given a lie detector test to one of the replicants.
If we just step back a moment to take all this in, it shows quite clearly how ahead of it's time it was. Overpopulation, pollution, cloning, multiculturalism, these are topics which have been on the agenda for the last few years. If ever a film was a crystal ball into the near future, this was the film that initiated it. Just look at the cityscapes that are shot from the ground rather than the sky, this could happen in any town or already has if one was to look at the likes of modern Tokyo. Ever since the case of Dolly the sheep ( quite ironic really ), we know that cloning is not a mere fantasy with which can run thousands of second rate sci-fi novels but something that could become a future reality. As in the case of Roy Batty ( played by Rutger Hauer ), as he delivers his famous "tears in the rain" speech, it makes you question what makes humanity and if a future were to evolve from which humans and androids were working side by side, how could we tell the difference and what would cast us as an authentic species to that which is a replica of us and of course if Deckard is really human or whether he is merely a replicant as well. These questions that will perplex the viewer with each viewing.
Depending on which version of the film you get, there will be flaws to the film. If you were to watch the original theatrical version of the film, you would be treated to a rather iffy voiceover by Harrison Ford and a rather tacked on "happy ending." This was a request by the film's backers and as such it can be taken as something you either love or hate. Much of what the voiceover does is outline what you can already see with your eyes. Ridley Scott has since come back to the movie a couple of times and with that, in the 1992 director's cut and again in the 2007 apparent final cut, he has done away with the voiceover and the film backers' request for a happy ending. As such, the film takes on an ever more mysterious and complex layers with which to channel into.
The film wasn't a critical success back when it was originally released. Roger Ebert for instance claimed that while the film was visually stunning the "human story" was rather thin and flimsy. Which to some extent misses what the film was about in the first place. However, Ebert has gone onto admit that
"This seems a strange complaint, given that so much of the movie concerns who is, and is not, human, and what it means to be human anyway."
However, as we have seen, critics have warmed to the film more than 30 years on and while some may not fall totally in love with the film, they will admit to "admiring it at arm's length." With the advent of video and later DVD, it has given the film an enduring popularity that has gone from strength to strength. They can pick and choose which format they prefer in the comfort of their own home, the original theatrical version that burst out in the cinemas back in 1982 or the more ponderous, dense 92 director's cut or go with the final cut with which Ridley Scott himself champions.
It may not have been a critical nor commercial success at the time but Blade Runner has proved far more influential than could possibly have been imagined at the time. As has been stated, the advent of video made it possible for directors to give their vision of what they had planned to make of the movie. With this creative freedom brings more choice to consumers. Visually what was seen in this movie has been copied endlessly by so many other sci-fi genre movies. A film that has easily influenced the cyberpunk movement in sci-fi. You read the likes of William Gibson's Neuromancer and you will find it's descriptive scenery so indebted to the visual set up created in Blade Runner. This is a worthy testament to how influential the film has been. Considering only 4 years beforehand, there was Star Wars, this was a film that was breaking boundaries both in concept and visually. It is with that, however, that the film has stood up well to the test of time and, no matter which version of the film you watch, you're sure to have an opinion on.
The film was based on Philip K Dick novel, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?", but they acquired the name of Blade Runner through a William S Burroughs novel called "Blade Runner (a movie)." Both novels are science fiction novels but with radically different plots. They chose to run with Philip K Dick's novel about a bureaucratic detective chasing and killing off androids for a living whereas William S Burroughs' Blade Runner is also set in the future however it deals more with a medical apocalypse.
Ridley Scott had originally rejected the film after finishing Alien because he didn't want to be seen as to be a sci-fi director. However with the death of his brother he reconsidered the script due to the prevailing mood he found in the script and something that could be worth fleshing out onto the big screen.
The film itself is set in a bleak and cold futuristic world. Pyramid shaped buildings spew fire up into the sky, Buildings are lit with bright, garish neon lights, There are TV screens advertising Coca Cola, TDK, Atari and set in 2019. From the sky looking downwards, this could be viewed as a mesmerising verdict of what the future could be. As cool and seductive as is humanly possible but we only have to watch later on to know that all is not totally as idyllic as we would hope for in a future world. Roads lie in near ruins. The pavements are crowded with people bustling about to get to their destination who don't always speak the same language. Smoke billows from underneath the road and more often than not it frequently rains. This is the future, ladies and gentlemen.
The story that follows in the film is that Rick Deckard ( Harrison Ford ) is a retired cop who was the best at seeking out and "retiring" replicants. What "replicants" are essentially are an advanced form of androids that look, speak and do everything as humans do but without the capacity to have any sense of human emotion and devoid of memories. This cannot be done with the naked eye alone and the replicants must be put through a simple lie detector test. However, replicants are getting very advanced these days and with the advent of memory implants it can be harder to tell if someone is human or merely a replicant. Deckard is on the hunt for four replicants after a former colleague had been shot while given a lie detector test to one of the replicants.
If we just step back a moment to take all this in, it shows quite clearly how ahead of it's time it was. Overpopulation, pollution, cloning, multiculturalism, these are topics which have been on the agenda for the last few years. If ever a film was a crystal ball into the near future, this was the film that initiated it. Just look at the cityscapes that are shot from the ground rather than the sky, this could happen in any town or already has if one was to look at the likes of modern Tokyo. Ever since the case of Dolly the sheep ( quite ironic really ), we know that cloning is not a mere fantasy with which can run thousands of second rate sci-fi novels but something that could become a future reality. As in the case of Roy Batty ( played by Rutger Hauer ), as he delivers his famous "tears in the rain" speech, it makes you question what makes humanity and if a future were to evolve from which humans and androids were working side by side, how could we tell the difference and what would cast us as an authentic species to that which is a replica of us and of course if Deckard is really human or whether he is merely a replicant as well. These questions that will perplex the viewer with each viewing.
Depending on which version of the film you get, there will be flaws to the film. If you were to watch the original theatrical version of the film, you would be treated to a rather iffy voiceover by Harrison Ford and a rather tacked on "happy ending." This was a request by the film's backers and as such it can be taken as something you either love or hate. Much of what the voiceover does is outline what you can already see with your eyes. Ridley Scott has since come back to the movie a couple of times and with that, in the 1992 director's cut and again in the 2007 apparent final cut, he has done away with the voiceover and the film backers' request for a happy ending. As such, the film takes on an ever more mysterious and complex layers with which to channel into.
The film wasn't a critical success back when it was originally released. Roger Ebert for instance claimed that while the film was visually stunning the "human story" was rather thin and flimsy. Which to some extent misses what the film was about in the first place. However, Ebert has gone onto admit that
"This seems a strange complaint, given that so much of the movie concerns who is, and is not, human, and what it means to be human anyway."
However, as we have seen, critics have warmed to the film more than 30 years on and while some may not fall totally in love with the film, they will admit to "admiring it at arm's length." With the advent of video and later DVD, it has given the film an enduring popularity that has gone from strength to strength. They can pick and choose which format they prefer in the comfort of their own home, the original theatrical version that burst out in the cinemas back in 1982 or the more ponderous, dense 92 director's cut or go with the final cut with which Ridley Scott himself champions.
It may not have been a critical nor commercial success at the time but Blade Runner has proved far more influential than could possibly have been imagined at the time. As has been stated, the advent of video made it possible for directors to give their vision of what they had planned to make of the movie. With this creative freedom brings more choice to consumers. Visually what was seen in this movie has been copied endlessly by so many other sci-fi genre movies. A film that has easily influenced the cyberpunk movement in sci-fi. You read the likes of William Gibson's Neuromancer and you will find it's descriptive scenery so indebted to the visual set up created in Blade Runner. This is a worthy testament to how influential the film has been. Considering only 4 years beforehand, there was Star Wars, this was a film that was breaking boundaries both in concept and visually. It is with that, however, that the film has stood up well to the test of time and, no matter which version of the film you watch, you're sure to have an opinion on.
All parts relating to the background of why Ridley Scott first rejected and then took on the movie and for the backers wanting a happy ending where taking from the making of documentary Dangerous Days. The two quotes are taking from Roger Ebert's article on Blade Runner: The Final Cut which was written on November 3 2007 in the Chicago Sun Times.
ReplyDelete