Film: Blade Runner
Sep. 2nd, 2010 07:11 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
livReasons for watching it: I watched Blade Runner years and years ago (when I first met ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
lethargic_man in 1998, in fact), and I wanted to see it again to see if it matched up to my memory. The thing that made me get round to it finally was reading Philip K Dick's Do androids dream of electric sheep, which has a very, very different atmosphere, but I wanted to compare the two when both were fresh in my mind.
Circumstances of watching it: I wanted to spend an evening watching a DVD withjack, and there wasn't anything else in my (rather paltry) DVD collection that appealed to both of us and we hadn't already seen, so Jack was willing to go along with my Blade Runner rewatch scheme.
Verdict: Blade Runner is a seriously mind-blowing film (and nothing at all like the book).
It turns out that I have very clear emotional impressions of the film from more than a decade ago, even though I didn't remember the actual plot. One of the things that's really amazing about it is how atmospheric and just visually impressive it is – with 20-year-old special effects technology! I felt absolutely drawn into the world, even though I often didn't really have a clear idea what was going on. There are things from the book that aren't really explained, but are just in the background, like what happened to all the animals, so you just get a world where, inexplicably, people spend a lot of money and effort making totally realistic artificial animals, and are expected to have hysterics over items made out of leather, but it all just contributes to the atmosphere of a weird future, complementing the powerful visual elements extremely well.
In general I love the way that the film doesn't explain stuff. It's really complex and thought-provoking, but it leaves the viewer to form theories and doesn't bludgeon you over the head with how ambiguous and philosophical it is. You're left wondering who and what is real, and which side is morally right, yet you don't get anyone talking to camera about what a big moral dilemma it all is. I'm really glad I hadn't seen it recently when I watched Inception, because everything that's good about that film is vastly, amazingly better in BR, which dates from 1982.
It's very well acted; I love the way that the replicants, though played by human actors (CGI wasn't that good in those days!) are subtly alien. Harrison Ford is fantastic in the lead role; I mean, duh, nobody is surprised that Ford is a good actor, but it's a really complex, nuanced role and he really carries it off superlatively well. One of the things fixed in the directors' cut compared to the original cinema release is the relationship between Deckard and Rachael; in the original it reads as if he more or less assaults her and then she randomly falls in love with him, which (surprisingly enough) is one of my least favourite tropes. Here you get actual character development, but it's by no means a saccharine or cliched romance.
On the down side, I found the ending a little anti-climactic. It should have ended with Batty and Deckard on the roof together; there had already been a scene where Deckard and Rachael discussed whether they had a future together, so there's no need to revisit that ambiguous outcome. Though one benefit is that they've made the climax less irritatingly christological in its imagery, so I suppose that's something, and the happy lovey skipping into the sunset bit from the original has gone.
All in all I completely see why this is a classic film! When I saw it for the first time it was about the fifth feature film I'd seen in my life, so I had nothing to compare it with, and although I'm by no means a sophisticated viewer now I have a lot better idea what the fuss is about. If for some strange reason you haven't seen it, you definitely should. It certainly prompted a lot of discussion and speculation after we saw it!
Do androids dream of electric sheep? is impressive in an entirely different direction. It's a grim dystopian future much in the mould of 1984. Deckard is a second-rate cop rather than a ultra-brilliant one, and the whole theme of the book seems to be that whether or not he succeeds in his mission, the only development is that it becomes increasingly obvious to both him and the reader that absolutely everything is fake, as symbolized by the electric sheep in the title. The stuff with the empathy machines is really weird and I'm not sure I quite get it, but adds to the generally depressing atmosphere. Although it's a very down-beat book, as with the Orwell dystopia there are some really powerful images, particularly the recurring theme where "kibble" is gradually taking over the world. I also liked the character of JR Isidore, and I think it's a shame that the film made him into an eccentric genius instead of a person with intellectual disabilities; there aren't enough of those portrayed positively in films. In some ways it seems like the kind of book that would appeal to readers of lit-fic as much as SF; you could easily see all the world-building as metaphorical, and the tone of the writing is very literary.
lethargic_man in 1998, in fact), and I wanted to see it again to see if it matched up to my memory. The thing that made me get round to it finally was reading Philip K Dick's Do androids dream of electric sheep, which has a very, very different atmosphere, but I wanted to compare the two when both were fresh in my mind. Circumstances of watching it: I wanted to spend an evening watching a DVD with
jack, and there wasn't anything else in my (rather paltry) DVD collection that appealed to both of us and we hadn't already seen, so Jack was willing to go along with my Blade Runner rewatch scheme. Verdict: Blade Runner is a seriously mind-blowing film (and nothing at all like the book).
It turns out that I have very clear emotional impressions of the film from more than a decade ago, even though I didn't remember the actual plot. One of the things that's really amazing about it is how atmospheric and just visually impressive it is – with 20-year-old special effects technology! I felt absolutely drawn into the world, even though I often didn't really have a clear idea what was going on. There are things from the book that aren't really explained, but are just in the background, like what happened to all the animals, so you just get a world where, inexplicably, people spend a lot of money and effort making totally realistic artificial animals, and are expected to have hysterics over items made out of leather, but it all just contributes to the atmosphere of a weird future, complementing the powerful visual elements extremely well.
In general I love the way that the film doesn't explain stuff. It's really complex and thought-provoking, but it leaves the viewer to form theories and doesn't bludgeon you over the head with how ambiguous and philosophical it is. You're left wondering who and what is real, and which side is morally right, yet you don't get anyone talking to camera about what a big moral dilemma it all is. I'm really glad I hadn't seen it recently when I watched Inception, because everything that's good about that film is vastly, amazingly better in BR, which dates from 1982.
It's very well acted; I love the way that the replicants, though played by human actors (CGI wasn't that good in those days!) are subtly alien. Harrison Ford is fantastic in the lead role; I mean, duh, nobody is surprised that Ford is a good actor, but it's a really complex, nuanced role and he really carries it off superlatively well. One of the things fixed in the directors' cut compared to the original cinema release is the relationship between Deckard and Rachael; in the original it reads as if he more or less assaults her and then she randomly falls in love with him, which (surprisingly enough) is one of my least favourite tropes. Here you get actual character development, but it's by no means a saccharine or cliched romance.
On the down side, I found the ending a little anti-climactic. It should have ended with Batty and Deckard on the roof together; there had already been a scene where Deckard and Rachael discussed whether they had a future together, so there's no need to revisit that ambiguous outcome. Though one benefit is that they've made the climax less irritatingly christological in its imagery, so I suppose that's something, and the happy lovey skipping into the sunset bit from the original has gone.
All in all I completely see why this is a classic film! When I saw it for the first time it was about the fifth feature film I'd seen in my life, so I had nothing to compare it with, and although I'm by no means a sophisticated viewer now I have a lot better idea what the fuss is about. If for some strange reason you haven't seen it, you definitely should. It certainly prompted a lot of discussion and speculation after we saw it!
Do androids dream of electric sheep? is impressive in an entirely different direction. It's a grim dystopian future much in the mould of 1984. Deckard is a second-rate cop rather than a ultra-brilliant one, and the whole theme of the book seems to be that whether or not he succeeds in his mission, the only development is that it becomes increasingly obvious to both him and the reader that absolutely everything is fake, as symbolized by the electric sheep in the title. The stuff with the empathy machines is really weird and I'm not sure I quite get it, but adds to the generally depressing atmosphere. Although it's a very down-beat book, as with the Orwell dystopia there are some really powerful images, particularly the recurring theme where "kibble" is gradually taking over the world. I also liked the character of JR Isidore, and I think it's a shame that the film made him into an eccentric genius instead of a person with intellectual disabilities; there aren't enough of those portrayed positively in films. In some ways it seems like the kind of book that would appeal to readers of lit-fic as much as SF; you could easily see all the world-building as metaphorical, and the tone of the writing is very literary.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-02 09:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-02 10:15 pm (UTC)I actually read the book years before the film, and no, I did not recognize it because it IS that different, and actually altogether more optimistic.
I think Roy Batty's character and his final little soliloquy is one of the wonders of the film...and more so because he made some of it up himself.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-03 06:45 am (UTC)You think the Deckard of the film is ultra-brilliant? The only reason Zhora didn't kill him is because she freaked out about the noise (or possibly because she didn't have the strength), Leon would have killed him but for Rachael, and Baty could have killed him if he'd chosen to. It seems to me he's got the reputation he does despite his actions, probably just because he does actually survive.
The stuff with the empathy machines is really weird and I'm not sure I quite get it, but adds to the generally depressing atmosphere.
You need to read the short story now "The Little Black Box", which is about how Mercerism arose. It'll do your head in (surprise surprise, for a PKD story).
Have you noticed how Dick put the manufacture of replicants into Jewish hands, but Ridley Scott took it away again. I don't know enough about Dick to know whether he was playing with a golem allusion or whether there's subtle antisemitism there, or it's just a cigar.
Finally, there's an excellent Blade Runner site I've been recommending
people for years; all kinds of interesting stuff there (lots of
symbolism I wouldn't have picked up on on my own). I'd certainly have pointed you at it in 1998 (I can see I pointed
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-05 07:13 pm (UTC)It is, as I may have said recently when I saw the so-called Final Cut, immensely worth watching on a big screen, because the visual detail and solidity are even more impressive when you can see it in that much detail.
I think the thing the ending really absolutely needs that would be lost by ending where you suggest is the ambiguous implication of the origami unicorn. I read Gaff's origami as his way of being nastily snarky pretty much all the way through - the chicken when he's suggesting Deckard might be scared to come back to work, the very priapic little man when he's being dismissive about Rachel - and combining the unicorn with "but then again who does" and Deckard's unicorn dream suggests to me that he might well know Deckard is a replicant and be taunting him; Harrison Ford's face there I can read as realising that.
I realised when I watched it the last time how influential it was on me theologically; it's definitely a Revolt of the Angels redaction, Roy Batty's careful misquote of William Blake shows he's conscious of that. (One of the few things I dislike about the newer cuts is that the de-muddied sound removes the lovely ambiguity of whether the end of the "I want more life" line is Batty addressing Tyrell as "father" or just swearing at him.) I think the sympathies there sank in and came out in Armageddon Dreams.
I am also rather drawn to the notion of it as a Wizard of Oz redaction - Leon is in want of a brain, Roy Batty is in want of a heart, Pris says in so many words she only wants to go home, which leaves Zhora as the Cowardly Lion, and considering her big scene involves running away and being shot in the back, that works for me. This may well be just hypertrophied pattern recognition, though there was, iirc, an earlier draft of the script in which the Tyrell Batty kill is a replicant and the real Tyrell is cryonically frozen, which would make him even more of a man behind the curtain.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-06 03:07 pm (UTC)
I've never seen a photograph that makes London look so science-fictional!