Blade Runner (Ridley Scott, 1982)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
exte
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: NJ

#1 Post by exte » Wed Apr 20, 2005 8:15 pm

Well, try not to have any 'noir' expectations or anything else, and just take in the elegance, beauty and poetry of the movie. If you can't do that, just drop it. Not every masterpiece is for everyone.

cbernard

#2 Post by cbernard » Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:06 pm

Don't drop it. Blade Runner grows on you. And yes, the noir aspect is only part of what makes it tick.

The key to the film is the fact that the real hero of the story is Roy, not Deckard. Deckard is like a one-man Greek Chorus with a gun. In a way, that's why I prefer the theatrical release with its clumsy narration and "happy ending" (happy for whom?) to the director's cut.

User avatar
lord_clyde
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:22 am
Location: Ogden, UT

#3 Post by lord_clyde » Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:29 pm

It's a great tragic film and boasts some of the most unique sci-fi visuals ever seen on film. It is also the first film to receive the 'director's cut' treatment, or at least Scott coined the term I believe. And as soon as all the legal issues are out of the way Warner should release that double disc set they've been promising!

And if you like the Simpsons check this out.

User avatar
devlinnn
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:23 am
Location: three miles from space

#4 Post by devlinnn » Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:21 pm

It is also the first film to receive the 'director's cut' treatment, or at least Scott coined the term I believe
Yet as we now know from various interviews over the years, Ridley Scott had nothing to do with the 'Director's Cut'. It was what the Warner marketing department used to describe the re-release, and is probably one of the major reasons why there has been great dispute over the as yet unreleased special edition (ie Scott does not want the 'Director's Cut' to be part of it.)

User avatar
exte
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: NJ

#5 Post by exte » Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:34 pm

Yes he does want it in there. He wants all three versions. I never read that anywhere, and I certainly never read that it's Scott who's holding things back. It's a rights issue from what I understand, and it's supposed to be a three disc, at least.

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

#6 Post by Andre Jurieu » Thu Apr 21, 2005 12:12 am

exte is correct. Scott wants all 3 versions of the film to appear on the "Special Edition" DVD of the film - the original theatrical version, the "director's cut", and a 3rd version he has assembled over the years (much like his new version of Alien). The legal issue that is holding up the "Special Edition" of the DVD has to do with the producer who holds the rights to the original version.

As for a thematic focus, the film pretty much centers itself around the notion of existence, and what exactly it means to exist within modern society. The noir style is just a method of visuals, but Blade Runner should not be held to the strictest rules of noir. I think Peter Wollen wrote an essay recently about the film being mis-classified as pure-noir. He seemed to believe the most impressive aspect of the film was its atmosphere and the fact that it set itself in a broken and decaying Los Angeles(?).

EDITED, because I'm a moron who constantly forgets to include "negatives" in my sentences.
Last edited by Andre Jurieu on Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
devlinnn
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:23 am
Location: three miles from space

#7 Post by devlinnn » Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:08 am

I had read the three versions that would be in the set would be the original theatrical cut, the new Ridley Scott cut, and a workprint cut from the early 80s. I'll try tracking down more info. But I'm sure Scott was holding back giving over his new cut due to the 'Director's Cut' issue. (We know now however Warner will just be releasing a 2-disc set of the 'Director's Cut' with doco.)

User avatar
dvdane
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:36 pm
Location: Denmark
Contact:

#8 Post by dvdane » Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:47 am

It is also the first film to receive the 'director's cut' treatment, or at least Scott coined the term I believe
It was not the first film to recieve directors cut, and as Devlinn says, it was a studio decision to call it so, even though Scott also had a saying here. The reason why its called "directors cut" is simply because it was a fitting term.

According to directors guild, once the studio has finished a film, the director may alter it, do his version of it, within three weeks, and his cut has to note on significantly differences.
I just watched this recently and I can't understand why this is considered a classic.
Several reasons, the first is that "Blade Runner" was the first film to approach replicants as humans and not robots. As replicants genetically are humans, just superior, existential and religious themes could be smuggled into the story, from simple notions such as "do replicants have emotions and conscious thoughts?" to complex notions as "does replicants have a soul?" By them being artificially created and setting an expiration date on them, it also adresses issues of genetical ethics.

The narrative embraces the very nature of science fiction, which first and foremost is Dick and not Scott. Where Scott comes in is in the mise-en-scene, as he above all is a visual filmmaker. The visual design of the film is breathtaking, a bleak view of the future, while imitating "Metropolis", adding a Freudial context to its design, where the lowest level of the city represents the lowest of human emotions, while the top, almost phallic pyramid-like buildings, represent the intellect.

User avatar
exte
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: NJ

#9 Post by exte » Thu Apr 21, 2005 2:44 am

devlinnn wrote:(We know now however Warner will just be releasing a 2-disc set of the 'Director's Cut' with doco.)
Got a link? I thought I was up on the latest Blade Runner dvd news. In fact, it sadly wasn't even asked about at the latest WB chat, right?
including Tyrell who is in love with Roy
This is the first I've heard of this. I've seen the movie many times and never once picked this up.
where the lowest level of the city represents the lowest of human emotions, while the top, almost phallic pyramid-like buildings, represent the intellect.
Phallic?

User avatar
perybo
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:28 pm

#10 Post by perybo » Thu Apr 21, 2005 3:07 am

Here is a link to one of all the sites about BR. The link leads to a part that discusses the SE. Latest info is not very new but still some interesting things if You have not read it.

User avatar
lord_clyde
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:22 am
Location: Ogden, UT

#11 Post by lord_clyde » Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:35 am

It was not the first film to recieve directors cut,
I guess what I really meant to say was that this was the Director's Cut that made the term famous. Out of curiosity, could you give some earlier examples of a director releasing a different version of the film than the theatrical cut?

User avatar
dvdane
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:36 pm
Location: Denmark
Contact:

#12 Post by dvdane » Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:34 am

Phallic?
As like Phallos, like the embodiment of power, ever read Freud? 8-)
Out of curiosity, could you give some earlier examples of a director releasing a different version of the film than the theatrical cut?
I do not know when the rule for directors cut was added as a rule. Originally the Screen Directors Guild was formed in 1936 to ensure minimum wages and working conditions, and at that time directors were under contract and only few directors enjoyed the priviledge of both name above the title, Frank Capra was the first, but his films were subjected to what the producer wanted as a final cut.

The rule for directors cut said originally, that the director had six weeks to prepare a cut of the film, and was later changed to be correlate with the budget (today its 6-20 weeks depending on the budget).

There were directors who had final cut rights before SDGA was formed, like Chaplin or Griffith, but the first director under the rules of the SDGA to be given completely freedom and final cut rights was Orson Welles with "Citizen Kane", as far as I know.

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

#13 Post by Andre Jurieu » Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:23 am

dvdane wrote:There were directors who had final cut rights before SDGA was formed, like Chaplin or Griffith, but the first director under the rules of the SDGA to be given completely freedom and final cut rights was Orson Welles with "Citizen Kane", as far as I know.
But is "final cut" really the same as what is now thought of as a "director's cut"? It seems that a director's cut now just means an alternate cut of a film that the director of the film prefers over the one that was released theatrically - and often implies that the director did not have "final cut" for the theatrical version. Maybe that's not what the Director's Guild originally intended the term "director's cut" to mean, but it does appear that is what the term is thought to mean today.

User avatar
exte
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: NJ

#14 Post by exte » Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:57 am

I haven't studied Freud forwards or backwards, but it's the first time I hear of the penis or phallus or anything phallic being credited as the intellectual center. Granted you said "almost phallic pyramid-like buildings." I disagree that they look phallic and that phallic objects represent the intellect.

Here's a good example of something phallic:

Image

vs

Image

I mean to me, they just look like pyramids. I certainly could buy that they represent the nerve centers of the city. They just don't look like (or almost look like) two giant erections, that's all.

cbernard

#15 Post by cbernard » Thu Apr 21, 2005 11:27 am

Well, things can be phallic in spirit, if not letter (i.e. image). What Tyrell does as an inventor/tycoon reminds me of Brad Pitt's line in Fight Club (in response to Ed Norton's description of his father): "Fucker's setting up franchises."

You don't have to do much reading into the kiss. It's all right there. Roy kisses his own God (compared to whom he is a far superior being) and destroys "Him." If you don't wish to read the kiss as sexual - whatever - you don't have to. But it makes for an interesting horror flick parallel, with that genre's sex-followed-by-gruesome-violence pattern.

Roy saves Deckard because Deckard is a puny, pathetic little runt. Follow Roy's life cycle (to include his chain of thought), and you have the film's core.

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

#16 Post by Andre Jurieu » Thu Apr 21, 2005 11:33 am

"Oh, no! My favorite sci-fi film might have a sexual subtext that I don't enjoy!"

Just because it's not completely blatantly obvious, doesn't mean it isn't there. It might just be subtle.

I don't know if there is a sexual subtext to Blade Runner, but I'm not going to dismiss the idea that it might exist just because it's not completely overt.

I'm unsure if the kiss between Tyrell and Roy implies a love between the characters, but it's an interesting viewpoint and one worthy of discussion (though, I have to say, flixyflox reads these types of subtexts very often).

As for the Freudian phallic subtext that Henrik points out, even if the pyramids don't seem all that phallic, the towering buildings that make up the skyline in that screen-capture seem somewhat phallic.
cbernard wrote:Roy saves Deckard because Deckard is a puny, pathetic little runt.
Of course, Roy feels a kinship to Deckard as well, since both are replicants based upon Scott's interpretations and intentions as a director. It's just that Deckard is a puny, pathetic, little runt of a replicant, which is probably why he's able to co-exist so well within the human world that surrounds him.

User avatar
dvdane
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:36 pm
Location: Denmark
Contact:

#17 Post by dvdane » Thu Apr 21, 2005 12:20 pm

First of all, I said almost phallic pyramid-like buildings, note the almost and the pyramid. Second of all, obelisks, towers, skyscrapers and for that sake also pyramids, which at their top has a obelisk, are embodiments of power, in ancient and medieval times noting upon religion, as they "pointed" towards God, and who in modern times note upon achievement, which in a Freudian context again notes on phallos, as errecting a skyscraper, especially to build the biggest, is an architectual contest of who has the bigger...

The pyramid form of the buildings not only rise above the city, metaphorically above the people, but in reference to the arrogant intellect of Tyrell, becomes a modern equivalent of the Olympus, as Tyrell is a "God of creation".

Hence, these pyramid-like buildings represent the generation of life, which is why I say almost phallic.
Roy saves Deckard because Deckard is a puny, pathetic little runt.
That is wrong. Roy saves Deckard because he in his moment of death realises the beauty of life, hence cannot destroy what he lusts for.

About the kiss, it is not biblical, but a display of both love (not sexual) and power. As replicants cannot procreate, they are above sexuality, hence the kiss cannot be read as sexual. I would rather suggest it like the kiss between Michael and Fredo in "Godfather - Part 2", where Michael also grabs Fredo by the head and kisses him on the mouth, then says, "I know it was you".

I have always read the death of both Tyrell and later Roy as an perverted religious trope, because of the dove. In Greek mythology, the dove represents renewal of life, in Christian mythology it represents Gods forgiveness, and in terms the Holy Spirit.

As Tyrell, thru his implants, controls life and death, he can be seen as a God-like figure, before killing Tyrell, Roy infact calls him "The God of Biomechanics", and Roy as his first his son, then later when confronting Deckard as a God-like figure himself, controlling life and death, and as Roy forgave Tyrell for his sins, he now forgives Deckard.
Last edited by dvdane on Thu Apr 21, 2005 12:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

cbernard

#18 Post by cbernard » Thu Apr 21, 2005 2:08 pm

Roy saves Deckard because Deckard is a puny, pathetic little runt.
That is wrong.
Check yourself. It's a different interpretation that's equally valid.
dvdane wrote:Roy saves Deckard because he in his moment of death realises the beauty of life, hence cannot destroy what he lusts for.
He already destroyed what he lusted for once: God.

rskjels
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 6:46 am
Location: Oslo, Norway

#19 Post by rskjels » Sat Apr 23, 2005 8:58 am

I have always thought of Blade Runner as a modern "Tower of Babel" story. The Tower of Babel was supposedly built in modern-day Iraq as ziggurats (with a distinct series of layers in contrast to the Egyptian ones). What happen within the ziggurat? Man creates man - man becomes God. just as the ancients tried to reach God by climing up to him in a ziggurat.

God punished man by creating languages and creating confusion amongst man and at street level in Blade Runner, there is a lot of languages and confusion.

User avatar
solaris72
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:03 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

#20 Post by solaris72 » Sat Apr 23, 2005 12:24 pm

Yeah, that's certainly an interesting take on it, but personally I think the whole "Tower of Babel" thing is a bit played out in science fiction, as is anything else that was done as far back as Metropolis. Of course, there are other, less well-tread mythical areas Blade Runner also makes use of, e.g. book of Revelations, the "faithful" (the well-off economically and genetically) ascending to heaven (the off-world colonies) while the others are left behind.

User avatar
porquenegar
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:33 pm

#21 Post by porquenegar » Sat Apr 23, 2005 12:55 pm

This is the first I've heard of this. I've seen the movie many times and never once picked this up.

What else do you make of the kiss before the killing of Tyrell?
Have you never read the Bible?
Do mean Judas' kiss? If so why not be more direct and say so?

User avatar
Gordon
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 8:03 am

#22 Post by Gordon » Sat Apr 23, 2005 7:57 pm

Great discussion.

To me, Batty appears to be a Zarathustrian figure, decending from the cave (Off World) to bring a message, a philosophy to Man, who will one day be superceded by the Ubermensch (human-manufactured androids?) who will hold dominion, not just over this planet, as we do now, but over the galaxy and these descendants will one day see C-beams glittering in the darkness at Tannhauser gates, or something even more beautiful. There is definitely a Nietzschean influence in the philosophy of the book and film.

Deckard's life is spared, after all he has done, because he is an untermensch - an underling - and the comparitively intellectually and physically superior Batty - an Ubermensch - holds the position of 'Guide' to Man, who must overcome himself and achieve a greater level of Being.

User avatar
dvdane
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:36 pm
Location: Denmark
Contact:

#23 Post by dvdane » Sun Apr 24, 2005 2:46 am

To me, Batty appears to be a Zarathustrian figure, decending from the cave (Off World) to bring a message, a philosophy to Man, who will one day be superceded by the Ãœbermensch (human-manufactured androids?) who will hold dominion, not just over this planet, as we do now, but over the galaxy and these descendants will one day see C-beams glittering in the darkness at Tannhauser gates, or something even more beautiful. There is definitely a Nietzschean influence in the philosophy of the book and film.
That is the same misinterpretation of Nietzsche that the Nazis suggested (thanks to rewritings by his sister), reading "Ãœbermensch" as a "Above", a supreme being, noting on genetic and mental supremacy.

"Ãœber" is not to be translated "Above" but "Over", as Nietzsche talks about "Ãœberwindung des Abgrundes" and "Ãœberwinding des Lebens", both in Ecce Humo and in Also Sprach Zarathustra. The idea is, that what seperates man (here overman), is that he has a will of his own. What seperates mensch from Ãœbermench is "die Weltsehle" and being aware of it.

Central to Nietzsche was here the rejection of Christianity as a "slave religion", who forced man to live according to a set of moral laws and then to be awarded in the next life. However when Nietzsche said that God is dead, he was not suggesting nihilism or atheism, but rather that what the church was preaching was in direct opposition to what Jesus had said. Nietzsche suggested, that rather than a set of absolute dogmas, man should first give up these ideas, then as he had no values should reevaluate morality and freedom, hence become free (Ãœberwindung), and finally emerge as an Ãœbermensch.

As we are in the Criterion Forum, Criterion has recently released a very Nietzschian film, pure Transcendentialism, with "Der Junge Törless", where Törless begins to question absolutes (most directly thru mathmatics) and moral values and finally emerges as an Ãœbermensch, having evaluated morality for himself.

In "Blade Runner" there is no notions of Nietzschian philosophy nor Transcendentialism. Roy is to begin with consumed with hatred, but realises, that it all has been in vain, as it hasn't enriched his life. It appears more as an elegy or Greek tragedy.

What has enriched his life is what he has experienced:

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attackships on fire on the shoulders of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the darkness at Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain. Time to die.

Followed by Decker who said:

I don't know why he saved by life. Maybe in those last moments he loved life more than he ever had before, not just his life, anybodies life, my life. All he wanted was the same answers the rest of us wants: Where do I come from, where am I going, how long have I got.

As I said before, the reason why Roy doesn't kill Decker is not because Deckard is a puny, pathetic little runt, but because he in his moment of death realises the beauty of life, hence cannot destroy what he lusts for, what he loves. Roy is thus giving Decker that second chance that he himself never had, because he was destined to die at a set date, and by letting him live said: Take care of life, love it, as it all will end some day.

User avatar
dvdane
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:36 pm
Location: Denmark
Contact:

#24 Post by dvdane » Sun Apr 24, 2005 3:02 am

Dear old Carl Sagan even raises the flag for atheism
Actually not. The idea in "Contact" is to show two sides of belief. The one side is represented by religion, who has belief and who questions data if or if not they are signs from God. The other side is science, who has no belief, who relies on facts. Sagan then pushes science to an extreme, where there are no facts, where only the scientific intution, the hope, and thus the belief, guides one, and thus shows, that believing is part of being human, be it in God or be it in extraterristial life.

What Sagan attacks is fundamentalism (religious right) and demagogs (the cults), but he embraces the human search for whatever gives our lifes meaning and purpose, and that is belief, in any form.

cbernard

#25 Post by cbernard » Sun Apr 24, 2005 5:40 am

Deckard wrote:I don't know why he saved by life. Maybe in those last moments he loved life more than he ever had before, not just his life, anybodies life, my life. All he wanted was the same answers the rest of us wants: Where do I come from, where am I going, how long have I got.
dvdane wrote:As I said before, the reason why Roy doesn't kill Decker is not because Deckard is a puny, pathetic little runt, but because he in his moment of death realises the beauty of life, hence cannot destroy what he lusts for, what he loves. Roy is thus giving Decker that second chance that he himself never had, because he was destined to die at a set date, and by letting him live said: Take care of life, love it, as it all will end some day.
Close, but no cigar.

Issues relating to the character of Deckard have not been discussed much, here. Putting aside for a moment the "replicant or not?" question, here is a classic movie hero: a wiseacre detective, hard-boiled and streetwise. Also, he's played by Harrison Ford - giving the role a tone and image that begs comparison/contrast with his famous Han Solo/Indiana Jones characters.

Let's make that clear: one does not cast Ford in the lead role of a film without either exploiting and/or (in fewer cases) subverting his "noble" image/features. Over the course of Blade Runner, the treatment of "the Harrison Ford hero" definitely qualifies as the latter. He's set up as a wise, hard-boiled noir hero - although his total reliance on the Voight-Kampff test sets him apart from instinct-centered noir heroes like Philip Marlowe and Sam Spade - but he's repeatedly made out to be a sucker. And it's not like this is readily apparent, either; one approaches the film thinking that it's a mega-budget sci-fi epic with a predictable, normalized pattern of "conflict, overcome by ingenuity and/or strength." But compared to the film's real (one might say secret) hero, Roy, Deckard is shown to be an absolute boob. He's a nitwit, a slob, a chauvinist, a bad liar. He's the clumsiest action star in any Ridley Scott film, and there's some competition from Keith Carradine - in fact, compared to Deckard, Nicolas Cage in Scott's Matchstick Men is like George Sanders. Compared to Deckard, the nebbish Sebastian (played with typical brilliance by William Sanderson) has a quiet, humble grace.

From the first scene with Deckard, in which his total ignorance of the city's language (that mix of German, French and whatever else) hinders him from communicating with Gaff and identifying the Chinese cook as being fluent in English, to the climactic chase/fight sequence, in which Deckard is outmatched in every conceivable way other than his superior lifespan, which isn't even the primary factor in his ultimate survival, Deckard is humiliated in every way short of being kicked in the nuts by a little girl. He defeats the other replicants almost by accident.

It's a mistake to say that Roy saves Deckard because Roy has suddenly - or at any time - acquired an appreciation of someone else's life.

It's a mistake to conflate his personal lust (and murderous greed) for "extra life" with a respect for what someone else has naturally.

He saves Deckard because, in doing so, his mercy is God-like. Not because he miraculously turns into Katharine Hepburn at the last moment and says, "Oh Deck, make the most of your life, as it will end one day." Gah.

Post Reply