BR's Big Rep
When I first saw Blade Runner I didn't think much of it. It then acquired a reputation so I checked it out again, and still didn't think much. It was recently on TV, allegedly the "director's cut" (there are so many versions I can't keep track), so I thought I'd give it another chance. Turned out this "new" version still had the voice-over, so I'm pretty sure it's what I'd seen before. Still hasn't improved.
The movie seems so delighted with its design that it skimps on plot and characterization. (BTW, the replicants can easily destroy Deckard, but over and over they allow themselves to be shot, as if it's a remake of that scene from Raiders.) The story takes place in Los Angeles, 2019. Perhaps I'll watch it again in ten years to see how close it comes.
PS Early on there's a scene with Edward James Olmos where they talk about "skinjobs." I admit that has a whole new resonance today.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:34 AM
7 Comments:
The movie seems so delighted with its design that it skimps on plot and characterization. -- This from the same LAGuy who defends "2001: A Space Odyssey"? BR has far more plot and characterization than that overrated monstrosity!!
*grin*
FWIW, there's an entire Wikipedia article entitled Versions of Blade Runner.
If the one you saw had voice-overs, it was neither the 1992 Director's Cut nor the (extremely similar) 2007 Final Cut.
Plot-wise, the 1992/2007 version has two very major changes compared to the original:
[SPOILER SPACE -- SKIP IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT.]1. The original happy ending is replaced with a darker ending.
2. The unicorn dream strongly suggests that Harrison Ford is himself a replicant. (Ridley Scott confirmed that Ford is a replicant. But in this case, I think that artistically you need to judge the work itself, which remains ambiguous, rather than the work viewed in light of the director's explanation. Even so, the dramatic emphasis on the unicorn at the very end, and Ford's response, make it pretty close to definite.)
A few weeks ago, blogger began deleting vertical space in comments after a closing italic or bold HTML delimiter. I should have realized that this would mean my spoiler space was deleted since I made the warning bold! sorry about that.
When have I defended 2001? I seem to recall attacking it.
As to the (SPOILER) whole concept of Deckard being a replicant, I don't care what stupid idea Ridley Scott supports. It's dumber than Dumbledore being gay. There was a big debate behind the scenes over this concept (which I've heard is not even considered in the original novel). As far as I'm concerned, if it's true, it turns a weak plot into an idiotic one. Scott may like tiresome stunts in place of story development, but that doesn't mean anyone should go along with it. And Deckard's response to the unicorn can easily be read as his reaction to Gaff being there and leaving Rachael alone, and also a recognition that being so close to replicants has gotten to him.
When have I defended 2001? I seem to recall attacking it.
-- IIRC, it was when I argued that 2010 was better than 2001. To me, 2001 is a two-hour movie that doesn't explain itself. 2010 is a two-hour movie that explains itself and explains 2001 as well. Put them together and you get a four-hour movie that makes sense.
(Or, put them together and you get 4011.)
But maybe I'm not remembering our discussion correctly.
As to the (SPOILER) whole concept of Deckard being a replicant, I don't care what stupid idea Ridley Scott supports.... And Deckard's response to the unicorn can easily be read as his reaction to Gaff being there and leaving Rachael alone, and also a recognition that being so close to replicants has gotten to him.
-- Do you mean that it's a dumb plot point, or that the unicorn scene is insufficient to prove it? I think the unicorn scenes, when studied carefully, are pretty clear. The writer sets it up by showing that Rachael is a replicant with fake family memories and musical talent. We then see Deckard at home, and see that he lives alone, with no flesh friends, but he has photos of a family and plays piano. Then the next point is set up when he proves to Rachael she's a replicant by revealing her internal implanted memories to her. Then we see Deckard's dream of a unicorn, and it turns out the L.A. cop gives him a unicorn origami. The only other explanation is (1) bizarre coincidence, or (2) Deckard has told a lot of people about his unicorn dreams, and word of them has spread to the LAPD.
It's dumber than Dumbledore being gay..
-- The difference is that attentive viewers of the 1982 version are led to wonder if he's a replicant (when he gazes at his own family photos on the piano, shortly after exposing Rachael's fake family), so the unicorn (which is, yes, absurdly over-subtle) becomes a confirmation.
But Dumbledore's love for the Nazi wizard is most easily read as simply admiration. Without the author's comment about it, I don't think anyone would have guessed. Even so, it makes sense after the fact.
To me, the most bizarre thing about Dumbledore's sexual preference is that gay activists saw it as a triumph. And yet when you look at it more carefully, it almost looks like something written by an author who considers homosexuality to be a kind of disordered attraction. Dumbledore's infatuation leads him to nothing but bad decisions, and he finally deals with the problem by becoming celibate, at which point he is able to make better judgments about life.
Defending 2001 against 2010 is not the same as defending 2001.
And as much trouble as I have with 2001, I agree with Kubrick--"explaining" what went wrong with HAL destroys the sense of mystery in 2001. Though 2001 was too long and too abstract and too boring and too impressed with its effects, it still leaves an impression. This is why 2010, an unnecessary sequel that ties everything up in a with a bow, is deservedly forgotten.
There was a big debate behind the scenes over this concept (which I've heard is not even considered in the original novel).The novel -- Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep? -- does not consider it. I greatly enjoyed the movie, but (as usual) it comes nowhere near the book for narrative structure.
Post a Comment
<< Home