Blade Runner (Ridley Scott, 1982)
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.
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.
- lord_clyde
- Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:22 am
- Location: Ogden, UT
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.
And if you like the Simpsons check this out.
- devlinnn
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:23 am
- Location: three miles from space
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.)It is also the first film to receive the 'director's cut' treatment, or at least Scott coined the term I believe
- exte
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
- Location: NJ
- Andre Jurieu
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
- Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)
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.
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.
- devlinnn
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:23 am
- Location: three miles from space
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.)
- dvdane
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:36 pm
- Location: Denmark
- Contact:
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.It is also the first film to receive the 'director's cut' treatment, or at least Scott coined the term I believe
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.
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.I just watched this recently and I can't understand why this is considered a classic.
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.
- exte
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
- Location: NJ
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?devlinnn wrote:(We know now however Warner will just be releasing a 2-disc set of the 'Director's Cut' with doco.)
This is the first I've heard of this. I've seen the movie many times and never once picked this up.including Tyrell who is in love with Roy
Phallic?where the lowest level of the city represents the lowest of human emotions, while the top, almost phallic pyramid-like buildings, represent the intellect.
- lord_clyde
- Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:22 am
- Location: Ogden, UT
- dvdane
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:36 pm
- Location: Denmark
- Contact:
As like Phallos, like the embodiment of power, ever read Freud? 8-)Phallic?
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.Out of curiosity, could you give some earlier examples of a director releasing a different version of the film than the theatrical 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.
- Andre Jurieu
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
- Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)
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.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.
- exte
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
- Location: NJ
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](http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20050421/capt.lon80204211031.britain__lon802.jpg)
vs
![Image](http://www.brmovie.com/Images/Locations/br_cityscape_1.jpg)
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.
Here's a good example of something phallic:
![Image](http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20050421/capt.lon80204211031.britain__lon802.jpg)
vs
![Image](http://www.brmovie.com/Images/Locations/br_cityscape_1.jpg)
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.
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.
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.
- Andre Jurieu
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
- Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)
"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.
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.
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.cbernard wrote:Roy saves Deckard because Deckard is a puny, pathetic little runt.
- dvdane
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:36 pm
- Location: Denmark
- Contact:
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.
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.
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.
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.Roy saves Deckard because Deckard is a puny, pathetic little runt.
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.
Check yourself. It's a different interpretation that's equally valid.That is wrong.Roy saves Deckard because Deckard is a puny, pathetic little runt.
He already destroyed what he lusted for once: God.dvdane wrote:Roy saves Deckard because he in his moment of death realises the beauty of life, hence cannot destroy what he lusts for.
-
- Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 6:46 am
- Location: Oslo, Norway
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.
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.
- solaris72
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:03 pm
- Location: Baltimore, MD
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.
- porquenegar
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:33 pm
- Gordon
- Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 8:03 am
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.
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.
- dvdane
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:36 pm
- Location: Denmark
- Contact:
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.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.
"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.
- dvdane
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:36 pm
- Location: Denmark
- Contact:
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.Dear old Carl Sagan even raises the flag for atheism
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.
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.
Close, but no cigar.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.
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.