Yes, though it is significantly different than the film.
Yes, the original novel is quite interesting, one of Dick’s better efforts, but it bears almost no resemblance to the film. Dick was writing about one thing; the moviemakers borrowed one central plot element and made a movie about something else entirely. They’re both worthwhile, but in completely different ways.
In my opinion, it’s intended to explain some of the details of the setting and the story to the mainstream audience the movie was never intended for.
Example: Toward the beginning, when the Edward James Olmos character interrupts Deckard’s lunch at that noodle diner, he speaks this strange pidgin language we can’t quite recognize. In the director’s cut, he says something, we strain our ears, and then Deckard responds, clearly having understood. In the narrated version, during the pause before Deckard responds, there’s a bit of narration that explains (paraphrasing from long-ago memory; I couldn’t find an actual transcript on the web) the other cop is speaking the lingua fraca of street crime, a jumble of various tongues that every good cop knows.
The overall effect, rather than explaining plot points, is to emphasize the detective-noir tone of the movie, and to turn it into The Big Sleep with flying cars. That was already present as a visual theme, obviously, but the narration just hammers it home. In my opinion, it narrows the film’s focus, making it an exercise in genre style and distracting from the exploration of identity that actually forms the film’s core.
It’s interesting to see the contrast, and there are certainly people who prefer the version with the narration to the version without, but in my experience those are the filmgoers who, as I said, don’t like ambiguity in their storytelling and want to know within five minutes who they’re supposed to be rooting for throughout the movie. I’m not suggesting they’re wrong; I have argued in other threads, mostly on the subject of horror movies, that there are two general preferences for storytelling, and that’s all they are, preferences. Those who need the movie to tell them how to think and feel about the characters and the story like the narration. Those who don’t, don’t. It’s as simple as that.
Roy does do some pretty nasty and pointlessly cruel things. So you can’t really sympathize with him as a hero. He’s definately complex tho.
That’s not quite how I remember it. Olmos (playing Gaff) walks up to Deckard at the noodle bar, says some gibberish, and Deckard calls the noodle chef over to translate, prompting one of the movie’s more famous lines, in a thick Asian accent:
“He say, you Brade Wunner.”
In addition to be the only time the movie’s title is used (as far as I recall), the line itself has been parodied elsewhere, including one MST3K bit when they were watching Godzilla fight some knife-headed monster. This reduced me to hysterics, but I digress.
Anyhoo, Deckard says to the Chef: “Tell him I’m eating,” which suggest he doesn’t understand Gaff. Only in the voiceover does Deckard explain that Gaff is using “cityspeak”, a mixture of “German, Japanese, what have you” and adds that he can understand it, but can’t want to be bothered. In fact, he never really does talk to Gaff throughout the entire movie, though there is a moment of hostility/hatred when Gaff taps Deckard on the shoulder with his cane and Deckard grabs it angrily.
At the end of the movie, though, it’s clear Gaff can speak standard English when he wants to (“You’ve done a man’s job, sir!” and “It’s too bad she won’t live, but then again, who does?”)
I think setting up the film as a futuristic noir story actually emphasizes the “deeper” aspects of the movie. The voiceover is a key aspect of striking that tone. The non-story aspects need the story to hang off of… making the main story more ambiguous just draws attention your away from the more reflective stuff.
-fh
Yes, your recap sounds familiar; I think you’ve got it right. (It’s been a few years.)
I was just remembering a moment when the narration served to provide background about something that wasn’t explained in the story, and on that level it’s true. There are probably better examples in the film, though.
Now I want to see it again.
Cervaise, while I agree with your analysis of the film, I have to say that there are parts of the narration that I like, and am sorry weren’t included on the Director’s Cut. I liked his opening comments as he’s reading the newspaper, and I like what he says about Bryant, but the rest of it, I can do without. Either way, the film works. Frankly, I think that any version of Blade Runner is the second best science fiction movie ever made. (2001 being the holder of the number 1 slot, IMHO.)
cuauhtemoc, the movie and the book share many of the same elements, but are, as has been pointed out, substantially different in many ways. One of the things that I love about Blade Runner is that even though it deviates from the book (for example, in the book, Deckard’s married), it stays true to the spirit of the novel, unlike the film version of Starship Troopers which bears about as much relation to the book as my ass does. (IMHO, anything I pulled out of my ass would be better than that film.)
This film has been my favorite even before it was released. I first encountered it when a series of previews were shown at a science fiction convention in Los Angeles. I was a senior in high school at the time, and I recall thinking “This is the type of film I want to see, not Star Wars” (please, no protests from Star Wars fans)
I have seen this film in movie theaters countless times, and even went to the “Directors Cut” special showing at the Castro Theater in San Francisco, second of 2 premiers. When I’ve seen it most recently, during the seduction scene there is a round of hissing and booing during the brutality. It seems to read as a rape, or at least forced sex, and unfortunately has the movie convention of the woman submitting, then responding enthusiastically.
Because the characters are mean to resemble, but not actually be, human, (the test to reveal a replicant is based on evoking an emotional response) it can be easy to reinterpret the scene as Baldwin did, that Deckard is attempting to prevent her from hiding from her own feelings. The world created by the film creates a wholly realized world that seems to have rules borrowed from but elaborated on our own society.
One can interpret this scene in a negative light, but I’ve found that one of the surprising things about this film is that many who are fans have added their own backstory, and this allows the characters actions to be rationalized any number of ways. In fact, the fact that there are “branching realities,” such as the ongoing debate that Deckard is a replicant or not, enrich the experience of watching it. It’s my opinion that because this question is never fully answered, but may in fact be true, what may be happening is that both Deckard and Rachael are learning “on the job” and don’t yet trust what they feel, or even that they feel anything. (I understand the genesis of the story is how the Concentration Camp officers had to sublimate their own emotions while performing their duties in order to keep from being disturbed by them.)
As yet another side reference, the book “Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner” by Paul M. Sammon, refers to antagonism between Harrison Ford and Sean Young, who was very inexperienced. Supposedly the brutality that Deckard shows Rachael was scripted, but not as rough, and during the filming Ford either ignored or snubbed Young.
For being very thorough, including a discography of the various forms of the original soundtrack albums, and the difference between versions (the book refers to 8!) it would be worthwhile to find a copy if you’re at all a fan.
Well, at least one thing he does is cruel and pointless, I’ll give you that. When he apparently kills William Sanderson’s character* offscreen, I’ll admit that was pretty rotten. But I can’t really be outraged by anything else he did. When he crushed Tyrell’s skull with his bare hands, all I could think about was how this was the man who sold him into slavery. It was an act of revolution as well as an act of revenge. As for the people he must have killed when the replicants escaped from their spaceship, they were fighting for their freedom. In the modern world, nobody would blame a slave for rising up against his masters.
And as long as this thread is still somewhat about sex, remember the sweet kiss between Roy and Pris in J.F.'s apartment? How’s that for a contrast? On one hand you have Deckard throwing his love-interest around like a ragdoll. On the other hand you have Roy expressing his love gently and tenderly to the woman in his life. He may not exactly be a “hero”, but he’s okay in my book. Especially compared to Deckard, who’s basically a dick.
Oops… the asterisk inside the spoiler tag:
*I’d like to know if anybody can look at that guy and not think “Hi, I’m Larry, this is my brother Darryl, and this is my other brother Darryl”. 
Boy, THAT puts a new spin on the movie! 
RE the Dekker-Rachel rough love scene… uh, no one’s made a Howard Roarke-Dominique Francon comparison yet
Whatever happened to Sean Young’s career after that? It seemed she was destined for great things but a big career never materialized.
Wow – I’d like to make a movie that still inspires this kind of debate over twenty years after it came out!
I can see both sides when it comes to the narration. I still prefer the Director’s Cut version, but the narration does add a film noir touch, and makes some things clearer.
The opening scene to the movie still gets to me – the vast cityscape of enormous towers and canyonlike streets, under an orange haze, with Vangelis’ wonderful synthetic music. Much imitated since.
For some reason, I’ve adopted the line, “Let me tell you about my mother.”
I want to own the thaetrical version and not he director’s cut. Is there any DVD release which has it?
No. When the “uberedition” comes out, it’s supposed to have both versions on it, but when that will be, I’ve no idea.
This is somewhat off-topic (but still on-topic) but I had to share–I have been a “Blade Runner” fan long before the film was released. I’ve really enjoyed reading everyone analyze it. Very enlightening, even though my friends and I have disected this film through the years.
When they were shooting “Blade Runner” in downtown L.A., some of my friends dragged me to the location to see a bit of it film (and to catch a glance or two of Harrison Ford). They were BIG Harrison Ford fans (borderline obsessive, I almost think) and I was along for the ride. Didn’t even know what film it was, just went along for a lark. It was in the middle of the night, on 3rd Street (where the Bradbury Building is, where J.F. Sebastian lives in the film).
I have to say, it was a really, really interesting experience. They had those “smoke pots” (that give off a smoky haze, for atmosphere) so everything smelled different and musty. The area was set up so completely, with so many props, etc., so the whole area had a real Blade Runner “atmosphere”. Daryl Hannah’s (Pris’s) extra told us that the director was a stickler for detail–that even the magazines on the newstand had authentic titles that would be appropriate for the storyline. And you know, I felt that when I was there. It was so dark, so gloomy, so grungy (downtown L.A. is already like that). I sat in a science-fictiony “Blade Runner” prop bus that was away from the immediate shooting and for a moment felt transformed into that world. I really did! There was so much detail, so much atmosphere, such a “vibe” there, it was easy to get caught up with it. (And I hasten to add here, I’ve seen a lot of movies and shows being filmed, but never did I get such an intense “vibe” as with “Blade Runner”.)
It was cool. I decided right then that the atmosphere in this movie was so strong, so real, that I already knew it would be a great movie and I hated having to wait for it to be finished and come out in the theatres.
And I was right. And it took forever for them to finish that thing (so it seemed). For instance, they shot the scene where Pris was accidentally-on-purpose “waiting” for Sebastian to come home and discover her all forlorn and hungry in front of his apt. That short scene took all night. Over and over and over again they shot that damned scene.
Okay, sorry for the tangent, but I usually don’t have an opportunity to ramble on about that pretty interesting night.
She acquired a reputation as a psycho and got marginalized by the industry. To some extent, it was deserved (a few years later, she dressed in a leather catsuit and borderline-stalked Tim Burton pursuing the Catwoman part in the Batman sequel), but it was also partly a campaign of character assassination by Hollywood wingnuts like James Woods, who’s a legendary wacko. The sad truth is, Hollywood is much, much more tolerant of unpredictable eccentricities, even violence, from its male actors than its female actors. If Meg Ryan attacked another driver and smashed his windshield with a golf club, she would be branded a loon, and it would be years before she got another major role in a studio production. But Jack Nicholson does it, and to many people it just makes him a bigger star. Massively unfair, yes, but unavoidably true.
There does seem to be a double standard. Just look at Martin Lawrence. Or don’t.
Well, judging from Ford’s current taste in women, he probably though Young was too chubby.