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.
