(USA 1982/1991/2007 114m) DVD1/2
Moonbeams on the shoulder of Orion
p Michael Deeley, Ridley Scott d Ridley Scott w Hampton Fincher, David Webb Peoples novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” by Philip K.Dick ph Jordan Cronenweth ed Terry Rawlings, Marsha Nakashima m Vangelis art Lawrence G.Paull spc Douglas Trumbull
Harrison Ford (Rick Deckard), Rutger Hauer (Roy Batty), Sean Young (Rachael), Daryl Hannah (Pris), Edward James Olmos (Gaff), M.Emmet Walsh (Bryant), William Sanderson (J.F.Sebastian), Brian James (Leon), Joseph Turkel (Tyrell), Joanna Cassidy (Zhora),
Blade Runner is a film that will either entrance or infuriate and probably as many people don’t respond to it as do. But this could also be said to be true of Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. For a sci-fi film to become a classic, it must first pass through that darkest of tunnels – cinematic cultdom. In its original cut, the film was at best a cult classic. In Ridley Scott’s director’s cut, which was surely the only major one in history to be shorter than the original (by two minutes), it becomes a classic. Period.
In Los Angeles in 2019 we find the earth radically altered. Many of the intelligent minds have moved off the planet to “off worlds” where they are supplied special slave labour, in the form of the Tryell Corporation’s series of Nexus androids, known as Replicants. These androids are programmed to have everything but human emotion, but with that itself also acquirable in time, a self-defence mechanism is included whereby the Replicants self-terminate after just four years. A group of six Replicants escape the off world to come back to earth to try and get the process revoked so they can continue to live. The law enforcement authorities recruit a seemingly retired assassin, known as a Blade Runner, to ‘retire’ (ie. kill) the Replicants before they achieve their objective.
Blade Runner’s debt to Stanley Kubrick is well noted, with the Replicants themselves seen to be showing more emotion than the humans and Scott even casts Joe Turkel (from Kubrick’s Paths of Glory and The Shining) as the mastermind behind them. But above all this, Blade Runner is an updating of film noir, though a new type of noir. The old style voiceover applied to the original cut just didn’t work and its removal, and that of the upbeat original ending, provides a grittier, more realistic coda. The gigantic pyramidion structures in L.A. resemble the Aztec Pyramids of the Sun and Moon at Teotihuacan, rising towards a heaven they have now glimpsed, leaving behind the old world. Emotions are dispensable, people mill around after a ‘retirement’ in the street, then are told to “move on”. Humanity itself is seen to be relative and human beings themselves capable of great cruelty. We know this already, but it’s as if we’re seeing this through the eyes of an alien species and it’s all the more cutting. Like HAL drained of his memory banks by Dave Bowman in 2001, Batty just squats, alone in the rain on the rooftop, knowing it’s “time to die.” In his first scene, Deckard states “I was quit when I came in here, I’m twice as quit now.” By the end of the film, we know he’s quit and, courtesy of the symbolism of the unicorn dream, also have doubts as to Deckard’s own humanity.
Though Alien was a landmark in sci-fi and he has scored recent popular successes with Thelma and Louise and Gladiator, this remains Scott’s masterpiece, a dark, noirish vision of hell on earth, bleakly scored and quite awesomely photographed by Jordan Cronenweth. Furthermore, after the recent mixed bag that was the other Philip Dick adaptation, Minority Report, it seems all the richer two decades on. If some aspects of the film’s futuristic vision date badly (Young’s shoulder-pads, the corporation logos staying the same as in 1982), the same was also true of A Clockwork Orange, but it didn’t make it any less of a film. Besides, there’s something quite comforting about coca-cola remaining the same (always coca-cola, indeed). As to whether androids dream of electric sheep (or unicorns, come to that), I can only repeat the words of Jiminy Cricket, “a very lovely thought, but not at all practical.”
Click on names for archives
Writers/Founders
Interesting that you stress the Kubrick influence– it’s there, somewhat, but not very strong in a visual sense at all. Bertolucci’s “The Conformist” was also a strong influence on the film, as well as the dreaded George Lucas (Scott’s talked candidly about the inspiration he got from both “Star Wars” and “THX 1138”, as much as anything from “2001”). Obviously, however, film noirs played the biggest part of his imagery in the film, from the smokey rooms, venetian blinds and art-deco decor to hardboiled guys in trench coats and tough-cookie dames. Fritz Lang’s influence, especially, is evident throughout– especially his monumental “Metropolis”.
One of the most telling things about this film, I think, is the reason Scott took the job. At one point, he was going to helm an adaptation of Frank Herbert’s “Dune”, but pulled out when his brother died. From what I remember, Scott’s said that he joined “Blade Runner” to keep him busy while in the midst of his grief, and that sense of mourning can be seen throughout the film. With the short-lived Replicants, it’s very much a story about mortality, and the preciousness of life. Deckard’s unicorn isn’t so much a symbol of an existential identity crisis, as much as it is a reminder that he, like everyone else in the audience, is going to die, and relatively soon, in the grand scheme of things.
As for other PKD adaptations, Linklater’s “A Scanner Darkly” is pretty spot-on, if you can accept the “Waking Life”-style rotoscope animation. It hews a little too close to the original book at times and therefore doesn’t really show the same imagination as Scott’s masterpiece, but it’s a perfectly fine way to experience Dick’s story, and neither the cast nor director’s work can really be faulted. “Minority Report” is pretty much a waste of time, though.
Oh, and I hate to be a stickler, really– but the line is “Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion” (which then goes on, “I watched C-Beams glitter in the dark near the Tanhausser Gate”, which is where the “moonbeam” thing probably comes from). And when it comes to shorter director’s cuts, there’s always Scott’s own “Alien” remix from a few years back, and the Coens’ recut of “Blood Simple”.
Agreed, but not wanting to be a stickler, I believe it’s Tannhauser.
Apparently we’re both wrong– Peoples wrote the line as “Tanhauser”. But then again, all that means is that either he got it wrong, or the people who built the damn gate did. Either works for me.
I found Blade Runner to be very influential upon the direction that Sci-Fi has taken. The dark cities, constant acid rain, overpopulation etc. Of course these scenarios have been around but it’s this film that set the standard, that impressed my mind on the bleakness of our future. I saw it in the late 80’s just when I was beginning to read William Gibson novels. I know a lot of people that found it quite boring to watch, and that is why it sort of became a sci-fi community only, kind of movie. Either way it does make you think, just like Kubrick’s movies and that is good sci fi…
Blade runner trailer: http://bit.ly/blade-runner
This film would probably be in the top five greatest films of the 80s in my book and in my honest opinion the most influential film of the 80s (hell maybe even of the past 30 years). Every year since, someone wants to put out a dark existential neo-noir that wants to be the next Blade Runner, but fails. Some films do succeed, like David Fincher’s brilliant Se7en, Alex Proyas’ phenomenal Dark City and even last years slightly overrated but all around great Dark Knight, but sadly most films turn out looking like crap, like The Fifth Element, Paycheck, Demolition Man. Of course that’s just the result of a great film and imitators are expected, but no matter how hard people will try, there may never be be film that was able to capture what Ridley Scott did: Make a film that blended film genres, introduce new lighting techniques and special effects that hold up to this day, and create a science fiction film that actually deals with science fiction ideas and existential and metaphysical issues rather than be a blockbuster sensation. Many good things can be said about this film from technical issues to acting (who can forget the Rutger Hauer’s wonderful performance as Roy Batty), but the films biggest impact might have been what it accomplished years after it’s release. After the release of the 1982 version (easily up there when discussing the worst butchering of a great films), the film became one of the great examples of a masterpiece saved because of the home entertainment movement. Its cult status raised higher and higher because of VHS sales and rentals, that soon people wanted to see Ridley’s original vision. This film was saved because of the VHS movement. But even more importantly, the film introduced Philip K. Dick to a wider audience. The great cult science fiction author whose great novel, Do Androids Dream Electric Sheep?, this film was loosely based off, grew a larger cult following with cyberpunk fanatics and a trend of film adaptations followed (Total Recall, Minority Report, Paycheck etc.). Such a masterpiece to this day and Ridley Scott’s magnum opus. Scott sometimes doesn’t get enough credit due to having such an inconsistent film career that included masterpieces/great films like Alien, Thelma and Louise, Black Hawk Down, American Gangster, and Matchstick Men, with the occasional piece of crap on the side, Legend, G. I. Jane, Gladiator, Body of Lies etc. But the man is still one of the greatest visual directors ever. Even his most atrocious projects have an interesting look to them and never sustain very dated look. To some that might not be saying much, but its worth noting. But even if he never makes a good film again, his mark in history has already been set in stone.
Well, Anu, I can’t agree with your listing for Scott. Blade Runner and Alien are exceptional works, probably his only exceptional works. And Thelma and Louise, of its type, was excellent. But I’d take Gladiator – expecially in the extended cut – over anything else you mention. After those four I think I’d take The Duellists or the extended cut of Kingdom of Heaven before Matchstick Men or American Gangster (or Someone to Watch Over Me). Black Hawk Down was a fine technical execise but even emptier than Saving Private Ryan, which is really saying something. I’ll give you shit like Legend, G.I.Jane, Body of Lies, Black Rain and add A Good Year, 1492 (photography and Vangelis aside) and White Squall, while Hannibal was not the absolute failure described.
But yes, Blade Runner and Alien are the ones. Forget the rest, they’re enough.
I think Scott is better director than that. Obviously the main word that would sum up his career would be inconsistent, but at hes one of the few guys who really takes a lot of gambles with each project he takes. The man has explored almost every genre imaginable and while hes never reached the peak he did with Alien or Blade Runner (though I still believe Thelma and Louis was also right up there), I think hes still been able to have a far more more interesting career than most big time filmmakers. I still say that Black Hawk Down was an exception film experience and was not put off by the lack of character development. The film was made to, for the most part, disregard the politics and show the disaster that happened that day and I for one was blown away by it. I also thought it was a far better film that Spielberg’s very overrated cliche ridden Saving Private Ryan (I understand not a popular opinion). American Gangster could also be looked at like one of his gems. One of the much better contemporary gangster films since Goodfelleas (though I didn’t think it was at the same level as Cronenberg’s great gangster film released that same year, Eastern Promises), and while I;m not sure how accurate the film is, I thought the film was brilliantly crafted and very gritty realistic crime thriller that had some of the best set pieces I seen in along time (the Vietnam sequences were just awesome as was the recreation of the Ali fight). He’s even shown that he can take a backseat from the visuals and make a character driven dram like Matchstick Men, a film I still think is an underrated gem with some pretty great performances. While I know those reasons may not be enough to persuade anyone that hes a great director, I still believe hes always an interesting one and one of the few directors of whom I think should be looked at in better light than he usually is.
Talking about Ridley Scott’s best work I’d also mention Alien, and Blade Runner as the only really worthwhile ones, but I’d also add his 30 second spot for chanel he did before those. It’s on youtube (I think a search of ‘Ridley Scott’ and ‘Chanel’ would find it), it’s pretty great, if only thirty seconds.
Can’t beat his Hovis ads.
Never seen them, are the around the interweb? His ad work seems pretty great (from what I’ve seen). His student work is also pretty interesting, and easily seen on those ‘Before they were stars’ type dvds that are available.
Just go on YT and type in RIDLEY SCOTT HOVIS. It’s probably the most famous advertisement series in Britain’s history.
I always preferred his Apple mac commercial.
The “1984” commercial is pretty good, and I might enjoy it more if I weren’t a PC person, myself. I find it immensely funny, by the way, that they started selling the Mac with dire warnings of Orwellian nightmare, but over the years has slowly but surely been turning the world into “THX 1138”. Sooner or later the people working in Apple stores will start sporting shaved heads and ear-tags.
Hardly.
Even talking about Mac computers we can get back to Lucas huh?
If Orwell was alive right now he’d probably be typing his next novel on a power mac.
Jamie, I think he’d be too freaked out by the built-in webcams to even go near a Mac. We are the dead.
Webcams in macs are not state controlled OR company operated. They are a user controlled feature (as everything is with a mac) so I’m not sure Orwell would have minded (he was if anything not a simpleton so he’d see this difference). If anything the ease and user friendly features Mac products offer have shown to have limitless possibilities (even providing coverage or a non-covered almost revolt in Iran), remember Orwell wrote more books for the people about large governments (and the positive possibilities), he wasn’t a state fearing ideologue conservatives today like to paint him as (and ‘real smart’ HS sophomores)… one would need to read some of his non-1984 or Animal Farm work to know this (something you have admitted in the past to find ‘boring’). If anything Orwell perhaps might have hates how macs are made and disposed of, but that’s more a condemnation of our highly industrialized society not the features on an Apple Macintosh computer.
I’m seriously not a Mac salesman I just know a good product when I use one, and a poor, amateurish argument/conclusion when I hear one.
I suppose we can all sit around and dream computers away and be luddites, but then that would rob the world of Lucas’ life’s work (and render you virtually speechless when talking film).
Jamie, I’m glad you included the line “I am not a Mac salesman” because you almost had me fooled…
Though I obviously know enough to function on and become addicted to the Internet, relatively speaking I’m a bit of a Luddite so I can’t speak to the Mac’s technical virtues. But I own one, and I like it. Let’s face it, Macs are much prettier than PCs.
By the way, as far as social critiques disguised as dystopian visions, I’m much more of a Huxley guy than an Orwellian. Not that I believe Huxley was a better novelist than Orwell; his ideas and enthusiasm keep spilling over narrative discipline and tend to turn his books into essays disguised as stories. But truth be told, I love him for that very quality. And in addition to the fact that Brave New World seems much more attuned to the actual direction the world was heading into, it has a metaphysical quality which absolutely thrills me.
“Webcams in macs are not state controlled OR company operated.”
C’mon, Jamie. That’s just what they WANT you to believe…
In all seriousness, say whatever you want about how benevolent Apple is. I don’t buy the argument any more than I buy their products– ’nuff said. Let’s move on before this gets out of hand. We’ve had fights on this site over directors and films, but the last thing we need to drag in here is the Mac-vs.-PC debate.
Yeah, I didn’t want to act like I was a super Mac guy, but to say the built in webcams equal ‘1984’/’THX-1138′ is absurd at best, I’ll leave out the ‘at worst’ for the children in the audience.
Book for book I’m not sure how I lean, as all the Orwell I like is the non-futuristic stuff like ‘Coming Up for Air’, ‘Road to Wigan Pier’, and ‘Down and Out in London and Paris’. So I like his novels set in reality. Plus I do really hate how conservatives have latched onto him, completely oblivious to ALL his other work. It’s really quite preposterous.
Vision’s of the future in literature… I like the Orwell and Huxley better, but ‘Jennifer Government’ seems pretty articulate and realistic to me. Plus I’ve read Clooney and Soderberg have purchased the rights–it could make a pretty fantastic film.
Ah yes, the computer argument should be put to rest, after all MovieMan admits to not being a computer guy, and Bob admits to never using a mac or mac products. I try to stay away from arguments where I’m against arguments from ignorance…
Man– I’ve always found “Brave New World” to be a little optomistic in its portrayal of a crass, ugly dystopia. Yes, its Soma-fueled orgies, juvenile sexual-politics and competitive, impersonal cultural drives are all somewhat horrifying, but it’s a lot better than Orwell’s Two-Minute Hates and endless millitarism. I’d rather live in Huxley’s world, where I could always find drugs or sex to dull my malaise, or at worst find myself shipped off to a free-zone in the jungle, than in under the surveilance and intimidation of Oceania’s Thought Police. Still, my favorite dystopia will always be “THX 1138”, where Lucas provides the one route neither author allows us to believe in– escapism.
(My apologies, Jamie, but I had to go there.)
By the by, have you read “The Island”? I keep hearing that Huxley wrote that as an afterthought to “Brave New World”, attempting to imagine a genuine utopia instead of just settling for a nightmarish one. I’m somewhat burned out on the more famous novel, but I might consider starting to revisit the author via this lesser known work…
“…and Bob admits to never using a mac or mac products. I try to stay away from arguments where I’m against arguments from ignorance…”
OH, NO YOU DIDN’T. I’ve tried Macs in the past, Jamie. The grad school I attended favored them to PC’s, so using them was more or less necessary for me to get ahead. Still, I’ve never been comfortable with them at all. At first it was just the little things– the subtle differences in the keyboard that kept screwing me up, the fact that their mouses (mice?) only have one button on them– but after a long enough time, I’ve grown to distrust their discomforting ubiquitousness, and the pretentious, condescending attitude that its users (and its ad-campaign) promote.
I’ll stick to my PC’s, thank you very much– granted, that’s because it’s what I’ve grown up around since early childhood. Just like my relationship with the Catholic Church and the Democratic Party, I’ll always be a loyal, if occasionally disgruntled Windows user. I’m too stubborn to change on any of my party lines (or appreciate anymore backhanded comments), so let’s just keep to our own camps on this argument from now on. Capische?
“I’d rather live in Huxley’s world”
Well, that’s my point, Bob – we kind of do! At any rate, it’s less the predictive power of Huxley’s novel which wowed me as the metaphysical aspect – I never would have suspected that BNW was essentially a spiritual parable, but it is, and it led me to his other work and the conclusion that he’s one of those people – writers, artists, musicians, filmmakers – who feel like they’re “mine.” I haven’t read many of his novels, I’m more a fan of his essayistic work (not that the novels weren’t essayistic too): Doors of Perception, Heaven & Hell, The Perennial Philosophy. Frustratingly, I’m not particularly articulate on the subject of his appeal to me, at least not at the moment. It’s something about the coexistence of the classical and the mystical in his work I suppose.
And Jamie, just to be clear I’m pro-Mac. It’s just that, as a non-computer person so to speak, I don’t have much to add to the argument.
“Well, that’s my point, Bob – we kind of do!”
And a fair point at that, too, sir. Frankly, though, if we do wind up living in Huxley’s world, it wouldn’t really frighten me all that much. It’s Orwell’s reality that I’m more and more frightened we’re living in, to a certain degree.
At any rate, I love Orwell’s work as much for the everyday poetry of his language as his politics. You’ve given me some even more good reasons to revisit Huxley with the mystical side of his writings, however, so I’ll keep an eye out for him the next time I browse a bookstore. Well played!
I hear you, though one could make the argument that with Orwell’s world, at least you know you’re lost (well, I know they’re supposed to be brainwashed but on some fundamental level a human being knows when it’s unhappy) whereas in Huxley’s world you don’t, which is arguably worse…
As for Orwell, don’t get me wrong, I enjoy him too. Animal Farm is one of my personal favorites – I love the fusion of highly topical (at that point) political references with a childlike fable. I sadly have not yet read many of the works Jamie celebrates though I very much want to, being (however intermittently) something of a political animal.
I reccomend “Keep the Apidistra Flying” as a starter– it’s a nice change from his more famous, bleak works, a genuinely moving and funny little social comedy. “Homage to Catalonia” is one I’m working through every now and then, at the moment. There’s also a good small publication of “Why I Write” and a number of other wartime essays of his.
Actually, the fact that “Black Hawk Down” is “emptier” than “Saving Private Ryan” works to the film’s favor. Unlike the WWII film, there’s very little that’s presumptive or sanctimonious about its depiction of combat– Scott doesn’t heroicise or romanticise his soldiers in the same way that Spielberg does. Indeed, the fighting in his Mogadishu is often so intense that it’s next to impossible to tell what’s going on, half the time. Only at a handful of key, brief moments does Scott linger on the moral superiority of their cause, and self righteously point fingers at all the usual suspects in Washington for not letting them do what they needed to do. In the end the film contents itself to merely ignore “politics” and wax poetic/nonsensically about how nothing else matters but what happens on the battlefield, or something. It reveals a stern, strict heart that honors servicemen, and tells pretty much everybody else to shut up and sing. It may seem like the same thing as Spielberg’s syrupy reverence, but it’s far less enchanted and sentimental, which is one of the things that gives it such a disturbingly conservative edge– it takes itself with deadly seriousness.
An interesting reading of Black Hawk, Bob. Whatever one thinks about the merits/demerits of militarism, I find a genuinely militaristic film – a relatively intelligent one, at least – compelling. Whatever my own values (and they’re admittedly a bit scattered across the political map, which is how I like them) I find traditional conservatism – as opposed to self-serving have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too neoconservatism and self-righteous knee-jerk liberalism – sorely underrepresented in contemporary cinema. It was kind of a mainstay of old Hollywood (sometimes mixed in with actively progressive elements – see It’s a Wonderful Life among others). I wish there was more of it on the screen, which is one reason I found Dark Knight intriguing last summer.
As for Private Ryan, the film gets unfairly knocked. I think it may be a very great movie. Few can write off the overwhelming power of the first 45 minutes, which should be enough to ensure its place in film history. But what really seems to rub people the wrong way is that it’s simultaneously a very traditional, classic war film but also a raw, violent, “authentic” look at combat. I guess some find this hypocritical – how else to explain its dismissal when most of the same viewers probably accept classic war films and violent “authentic” ones as well (just not, apparently, in the same vehicle).
I find it a rich, rewarding experience – an investment of modern cinematic consciousness in old American and Hollywood myths, and a revelation of the immediacy and shock of the experience underpinning those old myths.
Short and sweet. I don’t think Allan has ever exuded more passion for a film in so few words. His obvious LOVE for this film is infectious and it warrants me to revisit this movie with open eyes. I agree totally on the influences he speaks of here and the way this film has changed the way we view and make sci-fi these days. Yes, the influence of Kubrick , as well as Lang (good point Bob) are all over the place, but I think that Scott’s own personal history is what raises this one higher in terms of pure emotional aspects of the genre. The theme of mortality and unfairnes of it as we grow closer to understanding it are rare, but penetrating, and exhalting all at once. At first I thought Allan placed this one too high. The more his essay causes me to think about this film, the more I’m thinking he placed it right. How many essays make you review your own judgements?
Allan rightfully sites the image of Roy (Rutger Hauer) kneeling at the edge of the roof, overlooking the world he loves, as he accepts his end like the rain that soaks him and washes things clean for other new beginnings. Its probably the image and the moment that made me realize this film was going way beyond the typical sci-fi mold. Hauers performance is electrifying and sorrowful all at once. His eyes and consistant tilting of his head reveal his innocence and wonder in all he takes in. The synthesiser heavy score by Vangelis keys just the right notes of longing and despair, but with an intentionally “inhiman” quality presiding over it. If there is one thing I always thought flawed the film, then it would have to be Harrison Fords wooden central performance. Whether his character is human or not, the actor plays it so ineffectually as to not give us even a slight idea for where his center comes from. I always thought a tougher guy and a younger actor would have served the character better. IMO.
I agree with all you say here. Rutger Hauer’s performance in this prompted me as an adolescent to seek all his other movies (which are pretty hit and miss–at least his english roles, save the original ‘The Hitcher’ which I like).
I agree about Harrison Ford (as you could say what you have about him here for just about any picture he’s been in), it seems weird to picture anyone else in this role then him, just on the shear number of times I’ve seen it. But another better suited actor would have been worlds better.
I actually have to disagree with you on Ford, Dennis. I always found his Deckard pretty much spot on as a depressive, punchdrunk detective who’s ambivalent about his job enough to stay his hand from assasinating the android he loves, but not the ones he might possibly feel sorry for. There’s an exhausted, out-of-breath note in his performance that’s at once exhilerating (it makes all those chases and bloody scraps with Pris and Batty all the more real, to listen to him wheeze) and sad– at every turn, you can see he knows just how wrong his job is, and yet he does it anyway, as though he has no other choice. As though it’s just his programming.
His earliest scenes in the movie are what makes the role work, for me. From the noodle bar to Tyrell’s office, Ford’s demeanor is such an epitome of film-noir “Private Eye” in the mold of Bogey’s Marlowe that you can’t help but look at it in a self-conscious register. His co-players help to bring this out, too, like Walsh’s Bryant and Young’s Rachael, acting out their parts as stiffly and classically as though they were animatronic recreations of Hollywood pictures. I especially like his sickly, smarmy affected character as he tracks down Zhora. He’s not just playing a detective– he’s “playing detective”.
And yet there’s still the notes of regret and sadness everywhere that make him one of the more real characters in the film. His scene with Rachael after the death of Leon is probably his best moment, conveying a kind of depth to his character we hadn’t really anticipated before, a vulnerability maybe even more affecting than the blood he washes from his mouth, or his less than superhuman-physique. Ford’s Deckard is interesting not because we question his humanity, but because no matter what, he’s all too human. He may have very well been built by Tyrell as a test subject, “nothing more”, and the fact that he doesn’t match up to a powerhouse like Roy Batty physically, intellectually or emotionally is key– Hauer and Hannah play their parts like little kids in grown-up bodies (strong influence from “THX 1138” here, in childlike innocence lost in the dystopia of Eden), while Ford and Young play theirs like, well, robots. What makes it work is that we watch as they slowly learn how to be human, how to be a little more like Batty and Pris.
Frankly, I see this as Ford’s strongest performance, or at least one of his finest. Much more affecting and naturalistic than his one-note heroes in “Indiana Jones” or “Star Wars” (I’m a big fan of Lucas, but never really cared for the space-cowboy/Clark Gable bullshit of Han Solo, especially in “Empire”) or even his later, down to Earth roles in the Pennsylvanian romance of “Witness” or the Washingtonian pomp of the Jack Ryan films– movies where he didn’t so much play actual characters as he did various shades of paperback coverboys reigned in to a cinematic vernacular of strong fists and desperate wits. Of all the roles he’s ever played, Ford’s Rick Deckard most closely resembles an actual human being.
I usually find Allan’s reviews interesting and intriguing. But not here.
I disagree with virtually everything about the review.
It it’s not a film to entrance, it hasn’t for me or all that I know. I’m just indifferent to it. It has some marvellous elements; Vangelis, Rutger Hauer’s performance, the visual look of it. But they really don’t amount to much except for Empire-reading movie buffs who don’t read SF (as in “Science Fiction” or even “Speculative Fiction”) and call it “sci-fi” a term that geeky outsiders latched onto 40 years ago who know nothing of the genre. It’s disdained by virtually anyone involved, from writers to editors and is used as a term of abuse. These sparkling elements are all glitter with most of Dicks depth ripped out during the ardous script-writing process and the thrilling, enthraling forward thrust of his narrative clogged up. The novel is not only a thriller but a metaphysical thriller, literally pulling the rug from under the feet of it’s readers.
Kubrick’s ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ had Clarke as a key collaborator.
A film doesn’t become a classic because it’s got a cult, SF or otherwise. The SF genre just draws a feverish devotion because it has paradign shifts that are akin to religous revelations, they evoke a sense of wonder. Some cults are based upon something that is a masterpiece that was missed for a variety of reasons by the populace: ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’, ‘The Outer Limits’, ‘Star Trek’, ‘The Wire’, ‘The Terminator’ and ‘The Shawshank Redemption’ were all that were passed by and then through repeated exposure became or will become regard as classics.
SF film classics not to go through cultdom: ‘The Day the Earth Stood Still’, ‘Forbidden Planet’, ‘The Incrediable Shrinking Man’, ‘Them’, ‘2001’, ‘Planet of the Apes’, ‘The Empire Strikes Back’, ‘The Invisable Man’, ect, ect.
‘Bladerunner’ is simply one of those films built up way beyond it value. It could have been cut further it would have been any better.
A bounty hunts six androids over the span of 24 hours, his payment will allow him to buy a real sheep and hence enhance his status in society. His problem is how to tell the sophiscated androids he must ‘retire’ from real humans.
Blade Runner doesn’t owe a debt to Stanley Kubrick because the idea of the Replicants having more empathy than humans (which was to Dick the key factor to being human) resides in all of his work, ‘Second Variety’, ‘The Electric Ant’ and in particular the short stories and ‘Human Is’ (1955, Startling Stories Winter).
Most of the richness of the book was gutted by incompentent adapters; “Penfield Mood Organ” that induces feelings by availing users of a selection of moods: “awareness of the manifold possibilities of the future” or “desire to watch television, no matter what’s on it” and “pleased acknowledgement of husband’s superior wisdom in all matters”. Dick is a sardonically funny writer. It’s all gone. There are huge gaps in the narrative. What happened to the animals? Why are there electric ones all over the place?
There is even a superbly cinematic scene when Deckard has been arrested trying to apply a psychological empathy test to a starlet and when the questions become risque, she calls the police and he is taken to a ploice station he’s never been to and starts to doubt his own humanity and suspecting that he may be android programed to believe that he is a human bounty hunter. He’s not. All this is replaced psuedo-intellectual symbolistuc posturing with a siully unicorn dream.
Alien is a vastly more coherent work and the only masterpiece in Scott’s threadbare canon. The problem with so many production design or art director autuers is that they never work out the fundamnetal kinks of the rest of the film-making process such are a good script.
‘Minority Report’ is a stretchout of a good though unexceptional Dick short story and Spielberg is at the mercy of his script-writers and his own uncultured and limited universe of ideas.
The difference in the richness between the two is the diffrence between the title ‘Blade Runner’, a meaningless title that was brought from Alan Nourse novel with which it had nothing to do with and the profound metaphysical question posed by the name of the novel ‘Do Andriods Dream of Electric Sheep?’. If an electric construct was so sophicated and displayed sentiant behaviour, would it be more ‘human’ that humans?
Or as Dick put it: “The purpose of this story as I saw it was that in his job of hunting and killing these replicants, Deckard becomes progressively dehumanized. At the same time, the replicants are being perceived as becoming more human. Finally, Deckard must question what he is doing, and really what is the essential difference between him and them? And, to take it one step further, who is he if there is no real difference?”
And before you guys start telling me that novels and films are different creatures, yes and no. Some have to be opened up, new dialogue written, scenes created – maybe because the novel internal and first-person. Ohters, however are cinematic with crisp scenes and dialogue and narrative flow. ‘The Maltese Falcon’ and ‘Rosemary’s Baby’ are two prime examples of novels filmed page for page with even the colours of clothes chosen by the author adhered to.
One day, a smart well-read director not addled by making commercials will adapt PKD and blow the myths of this silly adaption away, so that it can rest with other visually arresting but empty tosh as ‘Metropolis’ and ‘Things to Comes’.
Thanks for the opinion, Bobby, even if to me it’s bollocks and comparing me to the nerds who worship Star Wars goes against everything I stand for! It’s an insult. Excuse the bluntness, but yours demands the same.
Allan, your tastes are a million miles away from the nerdy geekdom of the post 1977 Star Wars generation. In fact I actually admire and appreciate the work that you, Sam and this site and it’s contributors have done to re-ignite my partially dormant passion for the movies. I’ve now started to fill in movie gaps, checking out films that I would never have thought of or knew about. You actually remind me of a good friend of mine with similarly eudrite and passionate views. Something that I admire.
The words ‘sci-fi’ though really, really grate the way that they caused a sigh of exsperation with Ray Milland’s Don Birnam in ‘The Lost Weekend’, when the girl at the bar abbreivated ‘Natch’ for natural.
‘Blade Runner’ is one of the films championed by that deploarble movie mag ‘Empire’ and in my opinion it’s minor virtues have balloned to titanic proportions that watching it just doesn’t deliver. It’s ‘cyber-punk’ noirish visual design isn’t enough to justify a travesty of an adaption, a plodding narrative and charactersation. No amount of edits can compensate for what wasn’t filmed. I wondered what was wrong, it was only when I came to know its scripting problems that the whole falls into place.
I first read the novel six years ago and I can still remember the mesmersing effect it had on me, spell-binding me to miss several bus stops and forgetting the world. It is a might work, often voted one of the 100 best SF novels of the century. Yet all the texture is missing, the richness. We’ll have to agree to disagree, like we did with ‘All about Eve’.
I know that you have an aversion to ‘Star Wars’, I actually love ‘The Empire Strikes Back’ (the way that I love ‘The Thief of Bagdad’ and Jason and the Argonauts’). It is probably the greatest space-opera, though it may be matched by Pixar’s adaption of Burroughs’ ‘John Carter of Mars’.
As for Scott directing the 5th ‘Alien’ movie, heaven help us. Will it be called ‘Cheech and Chong visit the Alien’….. 😉
J– Pixar’s Andrew Stanton is helming the John Carter project, but it’s not a Pixar production. At any rate, it should be entertaining enough, but it won’t rise as high as you’re speculating. Lucas already gave the world a game-changer space opera– the ’77 original is the masterpiece, in my opinion; “Empire” is fun and thoughtful, but doesn’t stand on its own at all, and is somewhat overrated (either that or all the others are underrated). And frankly, I doubt that American audiences are really going to be too enamoured of, let’s face it, the adventures of a Southern Confederate hero, especially in the age of Obama. And once the blogosphere wraps its head around the fact that, being a Disney movie, there isn’t a chance in hell of seeing Dejah Thoris in her birthday suit, the neck of this movie is going to find itself snapped like a twig faster than you can say “backlash”.
Seriously. Johnny Reb goes to Mars? Fuck it and the Stars & Bars carrying cavalry it rode in with. It’s got about as much chance for surviving the PC police as Peter Jackson’s “Dam Busters” remake if they’re stupid/stubborn enough to let the dog keep its original name.
Anyway, Scott’s film easily rises above its source material, in my opinion. Dick’s book is dense and cloudy, and while some really interesting material is jettisoned by the wayside, it’s really for the best that Fancher & Peoples focused on the Replicants. All that stuff about mood-enhancers, the television-religion of Mercerism and even the titular electric-sheep would all be better served by a fresh adaptation, one that instead ignored Deckard’s android exploits and bounty hunting. “Do Androids Dream” is a classic of its genre– a bold piece of science-fiction literature that has served as an inspiration to countless writers and artists. But “Blade Runner” is something more– it’s a classic of its medium, a film that has slowly-but-surely earned a devoted following of filmgoers and filmmakers alike. Its initially chilly reception is probably more due to the studio’s manhandling of the material and audiences that weren’t quite ready for the film’s dark themes. And still, it has risen high, and deserves to be called a masterpiece.
Scott’s film is better than Dick’s book– I think very few will argue against that. But I will venture to say, J, that Dick has a far stronger body of work than Scott does, on the whole. At the end of his days, everyone will remember Scott for a couple of movies, but long after his death, the world remembers Dick for much, much more.
PS: just read my original reply, didn’t mean to equate you in anyway with Empire magazine.
Well, if you enjoy the movie more tham the novel, good for you, bob. I’ve always come across the opposite opinion by those that have read and watched the two.
I prefer ‘Empire’ because its richer in texture. The original has a breezy innocence that’s hard to capture, Empire has an emotional and mythical resonance that builds upon Joe Campbell. It also has a bravardo and an emotional climax that makes the original’s special effects climax (amazing for the time) dated.
Bob, as for ‘John Carter’, if it’s not Pixar I have grave doubts about it. I would think that had it been done by them they would have got rid of many of kinks in the orignal material.
That’s the thing, though– without the kinks, it won’t work for the die-hard fans of the Carter series. And with the kinks, it won’t work for everyone else. Stanton’s in a tough spot, I’ll admit, but when you’re in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation like this, there is one very wise and acceptable solution– don’t make the fucking movie. Either make up your own space-opera, and move on.
“Empire”‘s emotionalism is a little forced for me, frankly. The Luke-Yoda-Vader storyline is good, granted– quality, Campbell rich mythologizing– but the Han-Leia stuff is overblown, and I continue to be surprised by how seriously people take it. I prefer Lucas’ juvenile escapism when it shows the confidence to commit to its trappings instead of feeling obligated to add a strained, bickering-partner love story to keep the grown-ups amused.
As for Dick– I enjoyed the novel, but let’s face it, “Do Androids Dream” was not his best work. It’s a great introduction to him, but it doesn’t really hold a candle to “Man in High Castle”, “Flow My Tears” or “A Scanner Darkly”. Like I said, Dick’s body of work is strong– strong enough, in fact, that I can accept the drastic changes that were made to create “Blade Runner”, and appreciate it on its own, without feeling as though it betrayed its roots.
“I prefer Lucas’ juvenile escapism when it shows the confidence to commit to its trappings”
Actually, I kind of agree with this which is why I’ve come to consider Star Wars probably the only true standout masterpiece of the series. It has the best title too, the most gee-whiz without succumbing too pretentious overwinky (yet paradoxically ponderous) serial stylings.
The Han-Leia subplot in and of itself doesn’t really bother me though. I find it kind of charming (though these scenes tend to drag down the pacing a bit) and like the fact that Leigh Brackett contributed to the screenplay – though supposedly they ended up using little of her material in the end.
It doesn’t bother me either, Man, but it doesn’t do anything for me, personally. I can never identify with all these soap-opera “will they or won’t they” romantic subplots– you’d think everyone on this or any other planet would’ve been inundated with enough examples of men and women too stubborn to admit they have feelings for each other when it’s that obvious to just cut all the emotional foreplay and get on with it. It’s also one of the many, many reasons I don’t like “Gone With the Wind”, though granted, that has more to do with the reasons I think “John Carter of Mars” is a bad idea (Damn you, Johhny Reb!).
The original is the strongest, though “The Phantom Menace” is probably my personal favorite, with all its fancy fencing and head scratching politics, so take my words for what you will. And yeah, Leigh Brackett’s draft wasn’t used at all– Lucas wrote the next few himself before bringing Kasdan on to polish it into something more readable– but it was very big of everyone involved to put her name on the script. A very generous gesture, especially considering the money it ensured the family she soon left behind.
Bob, have you read John Baxter’s biography of Lucas? Baxter is a gossip-monger and dirt-digger and tends to cloak his unauthorized biographies in grandiose self-importance (even as he lazily repeats certain phrases and even paragraphs whole-cloths, his editor apparently asleep at the wheel). Yet for some reason – Christmas presents I think – I own both his biography of Spielberg and of Lucas. For all the flaws, there are some compelling insights in both books and I read the Lucas one last summer, which did have a lot of interesting anecdotes.
Man– I doubt I’d find Baxter’s take on Lucas all that enlightening. I tried reading his book on Kubrick, and it wasn’t anywhere near as good as LoBrutto’s. Still, even if it was a complete attack-job on the director, I doubt it could be even as bad as Patrick McGilligan’s “Fritz Lang: The Nature of the Beast”.
Is that the one that accused Lang of killing his wife? That has to be some sort of new precedent for “unauthorized” suppositions…
Lang may very well have killed his wife, she very well might’ve killed herself, and it may have very well been a combination of the two, somehow. My dislike of the book has more to do with McGilligan’s increasingly apparent dislike of Lang’s films, in general. He spends a LOT of time disparaging stuff from his American period, especially the works where he actually exercised greater creative control– films like “Hangmen Also Die” and “Rancho Notorious”, which are among my favorites.
It reminds me of why I like Richard Brody’s take on Godard so much. Yeah, he tends to oversimplify the motivations to the skeleton-key explanation of Anna Karina, but at least he demonstrates a clear love and appreciation for the director’s works, no matter what qualms or comments he has to say about his professional methods or personal life.
Speaking of Nazis (well, not exactly, but I need some sort of transition here) I’m off to watch the second half of Olympia tonight, before it gets so late I can’t get up in the morning (and I have to get up kind of early). “See” you all tomorrow.
Wait, what’s that, Bob? You brought up the Brody book? Christ, man, have you no mercy!!??!
OK, I’ll bite. I found the book fascinating, and as I expressed recently on this site, I’ve warmed up to his Karina-centric theories with recent viewings of early Godard. However, Brody’s perspective on the director is about colder and more cerebral than my own, and as a result I often found it perplexing. He didn’t seem to quite convey the passionate energy which is what I respond to in Godard: often he laid out the films as if they were primarily intellectual exercises. And he wrote off Band of Outsiders too easily, but then it really doesn’t fit into the rubric within which he places Godard’s sensibility.
Still, he obviously loves the movies and his book is indispensible for its anecdotes, its detail, and its analysis of the films. It does bring me to more appreciation of the Godard films which didn’t really work for me on first viewing: My Life to Live (which has grown on me but still isn’t one of my favorites), Contempt (I love Bardot, be it blonde or brunette-wigged, and Coutard’s cinematography, but those are probably the reasons I own it rather than any real passion for what Godard is saying or how he’s saying it), Pierrot le fou, A Woman is a Woman…
The Godard films that clicked with me right away were Band of Outsiders, Week End, La Chinoise, Alphaville, and what I sometimes consider my favorite film of all time, Masculin Feminin. I’ve always responded best to Godard as an impulsive, instinctive “hot” artist, whose films are composed like musical compositions, whose notes are images and colors and sounds; whose scales are concepts, ideas, references; whose tones are the frission of cutting and the highest morality of tracking shots…
I have no idea if those analogies make the strictest (or any) sense as I’m no student of music, but they sounded right at the time…
Brody’s book also made me very curious about Godard’s later work.
By the way– “Metropolis” and “Things to Come” are far more than visually arresting but empty tosh. Lang’s film is a classic of science-fiction, silent cinema and socially-progressive storytelling, all at once. William Cameron Menzie’s anti-war opus is a little strained at times, but a powerful cinematic assault of image and sound, and has a very nice disturbing quality which informs H.G. Wells’ occasionally naive, dangerously fascist-seeming utopianism.
I have not been to the PC since this morning as I have been in a lot of pain, due to severe cramping and binding in my bowel area. Someone is suggestion I may have diavetriculitus (is that spelld right?) as this condition has been recurring as of late. I have has all kinds of help today, including metamucil and depositories…….well anyway, I won’t get any more repulsive, but I am speechless at the ongoing discussion here engineered by Bob, Movie Man, Jamie, Bobby J, and dennis.
Bobby J.’s long dismissal is a stunner, regardless of Allan’s rejection, and everyone else here has really outdone themselves. I need to put together the Monday Morning Diary, and enter some thank you remarks, so I apologize the short shrift. Over the weekend I am usually here for more often, but I’ll still in considerable pain even as I type this.
H.G. Wells the self-important utopian sermoniser wasn’t a patch on young Wells, the speculative turn of the century visionary. ‘Things to come’, despite some spledid visuals and intoxicating reach is clogged up and boring. Korda was in thrall to writers at the time and worshipped at his feet. He should have brought over Orson Welles and adapted the late 19th century Wellisain classics.
As for ‘Metropolis’, its visuals are balanced by the sheer stupidty of the thoughts behind it. SF is a thinking genre, and this whole film is resolved by a shake of the hand of the workers and the elites that have oppressed them for eons. A deeply fascist solution. It’s dumb, dumb, dumb and as deserving of the moniker of ‘sci-fi’ as any Flash Gordon, robots carrying scantily dressed women, ray guns blasting nonsense. Wells was more than a little on the ball when asked his opinion about the movie – saying something along the lines of, “it’s the silliest of films”. Socially-progressive? It’s as socially progressive as bankers saying sorry and carrying on as usual. While the working stiffs get shafted. A hand shake……please!!!
Menzies’ deft visualization of war, its build-up and aftermath is enough to make “Things to Come” a viewing treat for me. And while I still think you’re giving “Metropolis” a hard time, I’ll admit it isn’t Lang’s greatest film, merely his most famous. And Thea von Harbou’s script is pretty lightweight on the ideas, when you get right down to it. “The mediator between head and hand must be the heart!” is awfully naive as a sentiment. Still, there’s an incendiary anti-capitalist sentiment that runs deep in the film that can’t be ignored, and probably would’ve been pronounced in a more articulate fashion if Lang had written it himself, instead of his budding Nazi female friend.
Would you agree Bob, that “M” is Lang’s masterpiece? Of course theer are others, including METROPOLIS (this film always left me cold) and DIE NIEBELUNGEN (masterpiece!) and I do feel that THE BIG HEAT makes a strong claim as his greatets American film.
“M” is up there, though at times I feel that people tend to ignore the rest of his work and just focus on that film, which is a shame. “Die Nibelungen” is truly glorious, a wonderfully smart inversion of Wagnerian expectations, and after all these decades still the greatest piece of traditional teuctonic fairy-telling that cinema has to offer (sorry, Jackson and Tolkien). “The Big Heat”, I’m not so crazy about– yeah, it’s hard-boiled and popular, but the performances are stiff as a board (Lang was another director who didn’t work well with actors, although in his case it was due to his domineering personality). Better films he made in America– “Fury”, “Hangmen Also Die”, and “Scarlet Street”, among others.
My vote for career-high? Maybe “Dr. Mabuse, The Gambler”. One of the best articulations of corruptian in Weimar Germany, and certainly the strongest of all his silent-era films. A powerful urban crime drama, spy thriller and artistic achievement.
Bob: I’ll say it here, as I’ve never really said it before but you are one brilliant dude, regardless of who agrees with or who doesn’t. You are a walking encyclopedia as well. I share your passion for NIEBELUNGEN. Yes, M may be too much of a given, but still I cxan’t place it below any other Lang film.
Interesting discussion all round here. I must admit though that I too find Blade Runner to be a somewhat cold work, more to admire than to like. I will accept that commercial cinema does not usually get much more intelligent than this but this is also why a film like Blade Runner gets frankly overrated. I would take Alien over this (in fact I find the entire franchise to be excellent but that’s because there have been important directors for every sequel). Alien is at least as thought-provoking as Blade Runner (I’ve read excellent essays on both films) but it is also better (to my mind) as pure entertainment. But leaving this aside and even as I appreciate the film’s iconic appeal I don’t see what the fuss is about beyond a point. With something like Star Wars I at least know that the film has had enormous impact on a mass scale and so some of the overrating is perhaps to be expected. All of this should not be taken to mean that I am ‘dissing’ Blade Runner. I just don’t consider it a Ben-Hur like (Wyler) ‘great entertainment’ and its ‘deeper meaning’ is a little bit of much ado about nothing. Yes it’s an influential film without doubt, an important film in some ways but I cannot give it too much more. But I could think of many other greater examples of intelligent commercial entertainment that do more than this film.
I’m inclined to agree with you here Kaleem. It’s hugely influential (even the Bradbury Building) where much of it was shot, was also used in Richard Matheson’s “Demon With A Glass Hand,” which was perhaps the greatest single episode of the original Outer Limits. The film is techically brilliant, but it’s tough to warm up to you. It should be noted that Allan saw BLADE RUNNER during his last trip to the states back in December on the big screen. I noticed how mesmerized he was with it.
As you know I was also excited when the big DVD release came out last year. I have given this film a number of viewings but as you say I’ve not warmed upto it and I honestly don’t feel I’m getting more ‘meaning’ out of it.
Harrison Ford though has this gift of being involved in so many iconic films relative to his talents! It’s this film, it’s Indiana Jones, it’s Star Wars. The guy’s everywhere!
I also had a chance to see “Blade Runner” when it made rounds in New York at the Ziegfeld. I’ve had some great movie experiences there– saw “Revenge of the Sith” there a week early (Did I pay a lot? Of course. But hey, it went to a children’s medical charity). Saw the “Final Cut” version of Scott’s masterpiece, and I wish dearly that it would play on the big screen again somewhere. Perhaps best of all, I saw the Roadshow Version of Soderbergh’s “Che” there, and I can’t even begin to describe how good that was. Great venue, all around.
Che was probably the best movie I saw from 2008 (excluding any foreign films that have yet to make it to these shores). The two others I really loved were Goodbye Solo and Waltz with Bashir. But here’s a brief older summary of Che (which I too was fortunate to see in its roadshow glory even if I aged through the film! I once had the chance to see Satantango this way and passed up on the opportunity as I felt I would require Buddhist stamina to survive the experience..):
“An ambitious biopic which presents the great revolutionary’s life as an exercise in iconography. There is a before and after structure to the work which interestingly never captures Che in his full moment of plenitude or right after his success in Cuba. This intelligently creates a gap in the narrative that works especially well if one has seen the roadshow version at one sitting. Che remains enigmatic through the film and yet completely persuasive as a legend in the making. Splitting the difference would seem to be rather hard but Soderbergh does it admirably well (as does his lead actor). Additionally, he also brings a different palette, differing screen ratios, in general a distinct set of visual cues to contrast the film’s halves.”
Fine words. “Waltz With Bashir”– there’s ANOTHER great film I saw at the Ziegfeld.
As I’ve said, I don’t have much time this week to chime in on discussions, but this has been great stuff as I’ve dropped in every now and then through the day to keep up on things. This is a movie that I badly need to revisit, particularly before I get to its year in my own countdown. I was blown away by it the first time I watched it, but Allan’s review here is outstanding and has me looking forward to giving it a reappraisal.