Luke
stu-kicks
CibbuanoBlade Runner
October 27th 2010 09:38
I think Blade Runner is at least important in terms that it pretty much defined what a Director's Cut can be. The controversy surrounding the way Ridley Scott's new cut changed the meanings behind the film still reverberates amongst critics, students, fans and even the cast (Harrison Ford still disputes any notions that his character might be a replicant). That aside, Blade Runner also remains a highly seminal piece of sci-fi film noir, and still looks great some thirty years after its production.
Deckard (Ford) is a semi-retired 'Blade Runner', a detective/bounty hunter-like figure who tracks down and 'retires' rogue replicants. Replicants (derogatorily referred to as 'skin jobs') are human-like artificial life forms (it isn't 100% clear if they are purely robotic or not) with a lifespan of just four years. Sometimes they develop a more than cursory self-awareness and approach human levels of emotional maturity, which can lead them to abandon their designated jobs in favour of free will. This is where Deckard comes in, and in this case he must track down a gang of four replicants who seek a 'cure' to their short lifespans - a mission that will bring him face to face with the enigmatic replicant Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer).
There's a lot to consider in Blade Runner. On one level it's a shadowy, gritty film noir with more than a few stylistic nods to the genre... Deckard is a Hammettesque hero in a shabby overcoat, Sean Young plays a femme fatale-ish character complete with 1940s hairdo, and Ridley Scott (for the most part) wisely opts out of futuristic fashion designs in favour of more endurable 'style'-based clothing in order to hit those film noir notes that help keep the tone serious. The future is given a neo-Tokyo look, with Asian diners and multi-level streets. In this sense Blade Runner uses a contemporary but forward-thinking landscape (the real Tokyo) as a template for a realistic-looking future. Harrison Ford is also just the right person to keep such a potentially lofty or arthouse experience firmly grounded (witness the sequence where he impersonates the 'morality committee').
Beyond this, Blade Runner also examines the relationship between science and nature. This is a world where animals barely exists (real snakes are said to be ridiculously expensive). Into this gap steps the replicants - the progeny of humankind and the next step in evolution (not the use of the word 'nexus' throughout the film). To make the point clearer, Roy Batty even howls and moans like a distraught wolf at one point.
Then there's the idea that Deckard might be a replicant himself... we're never really told anything about his past, his family photos look downright inachronistic for some unexplained reason, and then there's all that stuff with the unicorn (nevermind the fact that one of the other characters challenges his ability to determine if someone is a replicant or not, quote "Did you ever take that test yourself?") The line is further blurred via the relationship between Deckard and Roy Batty in the respective hero and villain roles. Deckard is shown unheroically shooting a female replicant in the back as she tries to escape from him - she never tries to kill him, and her only crime is to be an escaped replicant. The line is further muddied in the final scenes, with the film reversing the trope where the hero is shown saving or trying to save the villain. Deckard is left confused by the film's climax - it's less a man finding his humanity and more a case of someone who had their very existence shaken to the core. In my mind, Deckard is clearly a replicant.
So why did Ridley Scott stop making films like this in favour of more by-the-numbers productions with widespread appeal (EG. Robin Hood, American Gangster, Kingdom of Heaven, etc, etc)? His impending return to the Alien franchise doesn't seem to be a very promising indication of any kind of creative renaissance. Blade Runner however is a beautiful piece of exciting science fiction that ruminates on mortality, playing god and identity. There aren't many other films that approach the same level of synthesis between legitimate mainstream thriller and intelligent sci-fi concepts. It's quite simply one of the best science fiction films ever made.
| 173 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
Comment by Spring-Heeled Jack
Over.Exposure
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
Comment by Mountain Fog
Infognito
Screen Trek
QUOTE ME NO QUOTES!
I agree, it is one of the all time greats in sci fi, head and shoulders above the rest, the art direction and cinematography were fabbo, yet, I still put 2001 over all others, for its time, its longevity and its breathtaking realism, space is silent...
I worked with Rutger Hauer, on Salute of the Jugger, which, well, was rather awful I felt, at the time, I should go back and look at it and see how I feel now...
Anyhoo,
cheers
fog
Comment by Sim1
Fish on Film
The Lives and Souls of Bella-Mae
(P.S.: Read the book and you will see that Deckard clearly is NOT a replicant...
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
My affection for Blade Runner is too strong to write an objective review so I have avoided it. Just saw it again recently on the bigscreen and it still dazzles with dark visuals and ambiguous character actions.
I much prefer the idea of Deckard as a replicant, makes the finale even more powerful.