FILM REVIEW: Reflections On Blade Runner (The Final Cut)

[SteveMc 2,674]

 

Blade Runner (1982) 

  I’m pretty sure that I can add little really new on the subject of how Blade Runner is a cinematic triumph.  Transcendent is the word here.  It borrows from but transcends film-noir.  It is science-fiction, but transcends the genre completely.  It is a movie, and thus seeks to entertain, but in doing so transcends this mission entirely.    For me, this is one of those rare films that is absolutely seamless.  It is totally immersive, with all technical elements coming together masterfully.    No other film looks or feels quite like it.  The lighting and camerawork is singular, you can’t quite take your eyes off it.  I especially love how it is integrated to the actor’s movements, like in the shot above, a moment where a flood of light is used to cut within the shot.  The editing itself and the direction are quite nearly perfect, all working towards the singular vision.  The performances and writing are precise.  The story itself serves as a clear stage on which, in and out of the shadows, the real and involving human drama takes place.

 

  And this where Blade Runner really excels.  It approaches Kubrick’s 2001 in terms of existential exploration, and, though by no means uncomplicated, is more approachable, more rewarding even to study.

 

  First things first, is Deckard human?  The answer is yes, even if he is a replicant.  At face value, ambiguity and equivalence is what Scott strives for.  Deckard, like the replicants, does not have much choice.  At the outset, he seems to be living by route, until pulled into action against his will.  As some have noted, we open on him already going through a change, a discomfort with his job of killing replicants that has led him to quit, but not enough for him to take any real decisive step.  Deckard must go through something, then, to separate the man from the machine.  

But, digging deeper, we’ve got to wonder whether the replicants are machines at all.  We see they are unstable, but in that respect perhaps they are more human than some of their cold, monotone creators and masters.    We see them show affection, towards each other and even some affection intermixed with some of the hate they have for others.  Leon is attached to the sentimental value of his pictures (another point of equivalence with Deckard). All this despite the replicants being given a short life span to prevent them from developing empathy, from developing something greater than the sum of their parts, something very human.  Which suggests that, somehow, they are indeed greater than the sum of their parts.   The replicants are trapped by death, something very human, albeit with more urgency.  Certainly, other animals, plants, even whole galaxies die, but with humans it seems to be different.  We know what we leave behind.  And we don’t quite know where we are going.   Biology is lately telling us how our personalities, our identities, our selves are determined by the myriad electrical impulses in our brains.  This seems true, but only partly so.  We seem to be more than the sum of our parts.  In death, we stand to lose a part of ourselves, but not our whole selves.  This loss and uncertainty drives us to find answers.  But, the point here is that the replicants are not robots, they are artificial humans.  However they are created (and the movie only drops a few rather contradictory hints here and there about embryos and fully formed creation), there is implication that, in essence, at the level of soul, there is an equivalence.  At any rate, the replicants are human enough not to know the difference if they are not told, especially if you see things through Scott’s lens of Deckard being a replicant himself.

 

  Dipping into the spiritual or at least the metaphysical when talking about Blade Runner is not unwarranted, since Scott pretty much invites it, nowhere more so than in the scene where Roy meets Tyrell in the latter’s very Vatican penthouse.  Tyrell, wearing a very papal robe, and surrounded by countless candles, proceeds to discuss mortality, heaven, and sin with Roy.  Here, you could frame this as Roy meeting God in the form of Tyrell.  Certainly, Roy is meeting his creator, in a sense.  But Tyrell is not God.  He is a man.  In his creation of the replicants, he claims to have power over life, though not, as it turns out, death.  The fact that he appears almost like the Pope (Roy calls him “Father”), who claims to be the very representative of God on earth, suggests that Tyrell is not God, but only claiming to be.  He is, in effect “playing God.”  He can make problems, questions, but can’t provide solutions, answers. 

As for Roy, I have read him described as a “Christ figure.”  I tend to disagree with this assessment.  For sure, the stigmata Roy gives himself draws parallels, but looking closer I think the meaning is a bit different.  Roy is seeking more life.  This ties in with the Christian proclamation of Christ giving life through the Cross, and, especially the Catholic notion of suffering being central to this life.

The point may be rather bleak, actually.  There are no Christ figures, no white knights, no heroes.  The intention could very well be to say that religion is just human, and that humans are just machines, just, in effect replicants ourselves.  In this view, the soul is a biological illusion.  But, it is a persistent illusion, if so.   

Blade Runner’s world, then would seem to offer almost no hope at all.  Those who seem to have it, have it not.  Death, the finality cannot be cheated.

But what of love?  If anything can transcend humanity it is love.  But love is tainted.

 

  In the “love scene” (or “rape scene” as some would have it), when Deckard compliments Rachel with the statement “you play beautifully” this is his ultimate assertion of her individuality and her humanity, and of his feelings for her.  It is a beautiful moment, but he proceeds to mar it completely.  Is this because of misogyny on Scott’s part?  Is this an expression of how Deckard, low on the social ladder, needs to express superiority and strength on someone?  Or, if we simply dismiss it or go along with it we are missing something the film is saying about humanity?  Rather than negating the compliment that precedes it, Deckard’s forced seduction of Rachel is, in an unfortunate way, something of an expansion on it.  For Deckard, as for much of humanity, sex seems to be the ultimate expression and fulfillment of love.  We make ourselves the centers of our universe and we don’t like it when this orbit is disturbed.  For whatever reason, Deckard is unable to make that key distinction between an ideal of love and his immediate desires.  At any rate, he is no white knight.  But, he is all that Rachel has.  He shattered her sense of identity, false as it was, and now anchors her identity as he limits her individuality.  That Rachel’s relationship with Deckard even at the end of the film is based on her simply repeating and following his commands should not be read as the triumph of some sort of patriarchal fantasy, but as a cold and somewhat sad reflection on the way things are.

 

  The ending is uncertain, as it always is when what it means to be human, physical, spiritual, is in flux.  Rachel may not live.  If she does, she will be hunted.  Is there hope at all?  Well, if there is, it is in how Deckard has developed over the course of the film.  He is now a man with the will and fight to be in charge of his own fate.  He has seen the replicants fight to the last breath to be in charge of their fate, and to make the fate of others part of their own, even if it all is ultimately futile.  But, then again, it may not be.  Deckard’s last words and actions in the now seem to suggest a move in this direction.  Perhaps the replicants have taught him something about being human.        

[A24 4,328]

 

On 6/3/2019 at 4:57 PM, SteveMc said:

 

As for Roy, I have read him described as a “Christ figure.”  I tend to disagree with this assessment.  For sure, the stigmata Roy gives himself draws parallels, but looking closer I think the meaning is a bit different.  Roy is seeking more life.  This ties in with the Christian proclamation of Christ giving life through the Cross, and, especially the Catholic notion of suffering being central to this life.

 

 

Actually, what they say is that Roy transforms from a Fallen Angel into a Christ figure. BTW, is Blade Runner the only movie where the protagonist's life is saved twice by his antagonists? With that in mind, it's strange that in the sequel Deckard can't stop wanting to kill replicants, even when all the odds are against him. It's one of the things in BR 2049 that totally made no sense.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Are we sure Roy is the antagonist in Blade Runner though?

[SteveMc 2,674]

Perhaps there are no hard antagonists or even protagonists in the story. Tyrell, for example, seems in a way just as much an antagonist as Roy.  And, I find Deckard only really becomes a protagonist, in the traditional sense, in the final couple of scenes.

 

Does not make BR 2049 any better, though.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,508]

It's interesting to note that this is a film that is lauded universally, but which, in 1982, was vilified by critics, and ignored by the public. What happened?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Blade Runner 2049 might turn out to be the better film!

[A24 4,328]

On 8/23/2019 at 10:20 PM, Richard said:

It's interesting to note that this is a film that is lauded universally, but which, in 1982, was vilified by critics, and ignored by the public. What happened?

 

People were expecting a different film and so they watched Blade Runner with the wrong mindset, at least those who had a mind. 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,508]

He-he. Agreed. Also...Harrison Ford. Audiences were expecting a sort of Han Solo/Indiana Jones 2, which is a shame, as it is, by far, the finest film he'll be connected with -  including E.T.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Better than Raiders? Surely not?

[Jurassic Shark 12,033]

On 8/23/2019 at 10:20 PM, Richard said:

It's interesting to note that this is a film that is lauded universally, but which, in 1982, was vilified by critics, and ignored by the public. What happened?

 

Some critics at the time of the original premiere quite enjoyed it. For example. Roger Ebert gave three out of four stars:

 

https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/blade-runner-1982-1

[Naïve Old Fart 9,508]

Oh. That's good to know. BLADE RUNNER was accepted far more graciously, in Europe. We understand that sort of thing, you know.

 

 

On 9/16/2019 at 11:03 AM, Stefancos said:

Better than Raiders? Surely not?

RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK is a fine film, Steef, to be sure, but it can only stand in awe of the achievement that is BLADE RUNNER.

Or, to quote the bard from Swindon, Andy Partridge: "Icarus regrets, and retires, puzzled".

[A24 4,328]

On 9/16/2019 at 12:40 PM, Jurassic Shark said:

 

Some critics at the time of the original premiere quite enjoyed it. For example. Roger Ebert gave three out of four stars:

 

https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/blade-runner-1982-1

 

Have you  read it? While Ebert did give it 3 stars, he wasn't really all that positive. Ebert said it's a failure as a story and that the movie isn't interested in Roy Batty or the replicants. They are merely standard villains. Actually, Ebert only admired the look of the movie but he clearly didn't understand it all that well. 

 

However, in fairness to Ebert, that was the case with most viewers who watched it for the first time. A lot of people changed their mind after multiple viewing, Ebert was the last reviewer to give it a maximum amount of stars.

 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Well, the story isn't exactly the movie's strongest suit.

[A24 4,328]

I don't think the movie could have done so well over the years based only on its looks. It's what lies beneath the story that people picked up on during subsequent viewing and why the film has earned its status as being one of the best science fiction movies ever made.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

I'm making a distinction between the really interesting thematic subtexts/characters and the noir mystery plot that interesting stuff hangs on for much of the running time.

[Jurassic Shark 12,033]

21 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

 

Have you  read it? While Ebert did give it 3 stars, he wasn't really all that positive. Ebert said it's a failure as a story and that the movie isn't interested in Roy Batty or the replicants. They are merely standard villains. Actually, Ebert only admired the look of the movie but he clearly didn't understand it all that well. 

 

However, in fairness to Ebert, that was the case with most viewers who watched it for the first time. A lot of people changed their mind after multiple viewing, Ebert was the last reviewer to give it a maximum amount of stars.

 

 

I've read it, but three stars is nonetheless three stars.

[A24 4,328]

17 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

I'm making a distinction between the really interesting thematic subtexts/characters and the noir mystery plot that interesting stuff hangs on for much of the running time.

 

I understand, and I could be wrong, but I think I'm beginning to see subtext as being inevitably connected to the story. I was the first one to say that in Blade Runner the story is merely a bonus but now I'm not so sure anymore.

 

12 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

I've read it, but three stars is nonetheless three stars.

 

True. During the '80s, a lot of people thought he kinda hated the movie, but that was never the case.