I recently read Dick’s novel Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep. I was interested in watching the movie Blade Runner. I had seen it once years ago, and it didn’t make too much of a lasting impression, positive or negative. I had the impression that the film was considered wuite exceptional in some circles.
So I rented it the other day - the director’s cut. Thought my 13 year old son would enjoy it. He just finished reading, and thouroughly enjoyed, Dune. When I saw that it was rated R, I decided to preview it, just to make sure it wasn’t too objectionable.
Glad to say I didn’t find anything too objectionable. In fact, didn’t find too much of anyting else either. Is this a great film? Why or why not?
I would sum it up in the words dark and slow. I guess Ridley Scott does a good job of portraying a nasty dark future. But not sure I can appreciate much more than that.
My son has watched it with me - we are up to the part where Daryll Hannah just died. And in his words, “Not much happens.”
The film has a fantastic ambience, a real sense of presence. I know that graphic design students at atleast one university study the movie for the effects of light and shading.
Soundtrack was just as moody - who was that, Jarre?
Some of the acting was terrific, too: the movie has a lot of deep pace which exploits the actors saying nothing, and doing things which give insight into their characters. Maybe your 13 year old isn’t sensitive to it yet. I wouldn’t have been at 13, I’m sure.
(It holds a special place for me, living in Hong Kong, which during the rainy season at night seems just like the movie. I have heard somewhere that HK was an inspiration for it.)
as long as you don’t think of it as the film version of DO ANDROIDS…? L
I love BLADE RUNNER for pondering (and yeah, it is ponderous) the meaning of being human and how human assumption of Divine Creative power might result in that creation going down the path of Lucifer (Roy Batty at one point quotes Milton’s PARADISE LOST comparing himself & his fellow replicants to the Fallen Angels) OR up the path of Christ (Roy Batty’s final appearance with a spike through one hand and a dove in the other, as he decides to let Dekker live, teaching him about life’s sweetness & brevity.
I’ve seen it, and I’ve read the book. The movie suffered a lack of appreciation from those involved in it (Dick didn’t really care how strongly it held to his original story, Ford didn’t really care about the movie at all and went out of his way at times to fuck up his performance).
Still, it has a nice atmosphere to it, and it does blur the line of what it means to be human. Also the issues are still discussed today: the movie/book was brought up in Boston University’s recent “great debate” on human cloning.
mm, I only saw the movie, and i didn’t particularly like it.
it’s nice to see a young Harisson Ford, but the love interest doesn’t strike me as plausible (i don’t find her attractive, she’s got a very 80’s kind of look about her).
Rutger Hauer is nice, but then again, I like Rutger
It does paint an interesting future, dark, as you say. The issue is about what being human really means, as Daniel satates, and I think that that does come accross when watching. Your son was probably disappointed with the lack of speed and special effects in the movie
Saw the movie. The director’s cut is better than the original theatrical cut (there are some subtleties that add to it), but it’s hardly a great film. It’s good enough, but mostly just workmanlike.
Don’t forget that when the movie was made there were serious concerns about the Japanese buying up all of America and their economy taking over the world.
oooh, I totally agree. To me, Ford lost all his charm when he started to take himself seriously as an actor. Back when he couldn’t act, he had amazing characters - Indiana Jones, Han Solo, Deckard - but now . . . Air Force One, Regarding Henry?? C’mon, give us the good old days!
In a way, one could argue that Bladerunner led up to cyberpunk, William Gibson and much of our current culture. The future will have videophones, but of course, they’ll be covered with graffiti.
I was totally taken with it, when it came out. It showed a new kind of SciFi (with Alien), that wasn’t all shiny and positive. About the same time, Mad Max2 came out and the bleak view of the future is with us till this day, in movies and books.
Is it a great movie, or even good? When seeing it today, I don’t think so. But the impact it had, cannot be overrated.
Hmmm. I have very little use for much of Ridley Scott’s work, but I still think of Bladerunner as mostly a Great Film. The Asian imagery, to answer the question from above, suggests an era of Chinese hegemony, as a comment, I think, on today’s pervasive American cultural imperialism. Something you see in that rare example of good SF: an effect is portrayed without much comment, leaving its cause to be worked out by the viewer. A whole backstory of Chinese global dominance forms itself in your mind as you watch BR.
One of the films weaker points, though one of its more interesting points, is Scott’s hamhanded attempt to make it an allegory about Death, with Decker as the Angel of Death, his boss with the thick glasses as God, and the replicants as stand-ins for Human Kind. Falls apart in the original cut though, when Death sleeps with the hot chick he’s been sent to collect, and then escapes with her to the Overlook Hotel.
IIRC, the movie never specified what city it took place in. It may very well have been set in Hong Kong. This would explain some Anglo cops hanging around.
And The Gaspode, Phillip K. Dick, who wrote the novel “Blade Runner” is based on, is consider one of the inventors of cyberpunk.
I took several film courses in college wherein we studied this film in some detail. It’s considered an example of modern film noir, with juxtaposition of light and shadow, no character being completely good or evil, questionable motives all around, etc. I have to agree that the Director’s Cut is very slow moving, and hard to follow.
But Alcibiades explained pretty well this film’s appeal for some people – it’s artistry. It’s one of the few sci-fi films to reach in that direction, as well. It has a plot with a true deeper meaning that it treats seriously, and doesn’t just devolve into laser fights. I can’t say I enjoy watching it that much, but I admire it’s craftsmanship.
I think there’s a clear implication that it takes place in an Asianized America, probably west coast, probably LA. The dark raininess, if such is the case, implies a whole 'nother backstory about ecological disaster.
I also missed direct reference in the movie to the preceding ecological disaster. Thought that explained the environment/mood well.
And I couldn’t figure out the wierd genetic mutants in the one guy’s apartment. Hell, it was too dark to even see them well for one thing!
Hint to Daryl - if you have your opponent locked between your thighs and are raining blows upon his head, do not back up for a tumbling pass to give him time to unholster his weapon. I guess the “entertainment” models were NOT “at least as intelligent” as humans…
I confess that it took a couple of viewings to grow to appreciate the movie. I saw the theatrical release first and thought that it was about as subtle as a hammer to the forehead. Then I saw the director’s cut and began to realize that it was a good movie with a lot more depth to it than the original presented. I felt that the voiceovers in the original version really detracted from the experience. The long sweeping panaramics were interupted by completely needless exposition from Ford. If a movie is going to preach to me about Life and Death, I don’t want it to treat me like a child with the exposition. It is a cerebral movie and the voice overs did too much thinking for you. I think the pacing was about right though to allow you to think about what was going on and catch up in your own mind. And while neither version of the movie was no where close to the short story in tone, I think they still approached the same fundimental questions, just from a different angle. Ridley’s other movie from around the same time, Alien also has slow pacing, but that is what helps build the tension and drama in the movie. It’s a completely different movie from Cameron’s shoot-em-up, fast paced sequel. Watch the movie a couple of times, just give your self a little time between viewings to ruminate upon what was there. You’ll appreciate the little details a lot more too. It’s such a pretty movie it’s easy to see why the tone and feel of it has been ripped off so frequently in subsequent Sci-Fi.
