Blade Runner (Ridley Scott, 1982)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Message
Author
cbernard

#26 Post by cbernard » Sun Apr 24, 2005 5:44 am

One fascinating aspect of this thread has been the raising of crypto-religious imagery and themes. Yet if you look at a range of sci-fi authors (and I'm not that knowledgeable in this area) for the most part you find the material frequently verges on "metaphysical" but very rarely into strait out religion. Dear old Carl Sagan even raises the flag for atheism in another Warner title CONTACT. Unfortunately the movie goes all weak in the knees putting poor Jodie Foster through some sort of inquisition over her disbelief in God (would this realistically happen even in America?) Maybe I am reading this wrong and the trial sequence is meant to show the power of the Totalitarian religious right??

I do think in Philip Dick's titles on flm (and the Aldiss/Kubrick/Spielberg AI) invocations of godly aspiration, resurrection etc are made very much in the absence of god or religious belief. Another thread altogether might be the so-called "religious" or spiritual cinema of Bresson, Dreyer, Ozu, even Rossellini. Any takers?
Well I think a film can tackle religious themes without getting tangled up in religion. That is...the church doesn't have a monopoly on Christian/Catholic thought, if you know what I mean. You can work out all of these issues in the realm of atheism, agnosticism, secularism, etc. In fact it's probably wise to do so.

I don't think Contact went weak in the knees. It was pretty ballsy, what it ended up doing with regards to spirituality and religion. Just my opinion. Also Jodie Foster was never better.

User avatar
Polybius
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:57 pm
Location: Rollin' down Highway 41

#27 Post by Polybius » Mon Apr 25, 2005 1:53 am

cbernard wrote: He's set up as a wise, hard-boiled noir hero - although his total reliance on the Voight-Kampff test sets him apart from instinct-centered noir heroes like Philip Marlowe and Sam Spade - but he's repeatedly made out to be a sucker.
I like, or at least take seriously, most of your analysis here, but I have one tiny quibble. Marlowe is often just as much of a boob.

He gets the job done, most times, but he often winds up with someone (one of the cops, some miscreant he's bundling off) having a few yuks at his expense and suggesting he wise up and play ball. His refusal to do so is ultimately noble, but he doesn't spend a lot of time patting himself on the back for it, and it's often costly for him, emotionally as well as financially.

Deckard's bad qualities you describe are a little more Mike Hammer than Spade or Marlowe 8-)

User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#28 Post by Fletch F. Fletch » Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:57 am

cbernard wrote:From the first scene with Deckard, in which his total ignorance of the city's language (that mix of German, French and whatever else) hinders him from communicating with Gaff
That's not true. In the theatrical release, Deckard's voiceover narration makes it clear that he's hip to Gaff's lingo:
That gibberish he talked was city-speak, guttertalk, a mishmash of Japanese, Spanish, German, what have you. I didn't really need a translator. I knew the lingo, every good cop did. But I wasn't going to make it easier for him.
In that case, he was just being a pain in the ass to Gaff.

cbernard

#29 Post by cbernard » Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:18 pm

You're 100% right! I forgot about that, how embarrassing. I suppose I got carried away with stating my case - another viewing would have cleared things up. In fact I should check the film out one more time - theatrical version - before writing more on it.

Polybius: cheers for your Marlowe comment. Perhaps I'm too enamored with what Howard Hawks did with the Big Sleep to see any chinks in the character's armor. I read the novel of The Big Sleep as well as Lady in the Lake, and around that time I also read Red Harvest. Chandler's Marlowe didn't make as big an impression on me as Continental Op, who I found extremely, if refreshingly, nasty, even more so than his film counterparts, Clint Eastwood and Toshiro Mifune. But I take your point, and thank you again.

User avatar
Polybius
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:57 pm
Location: Rollin' down Highway 41

#30 Post by Polybius » Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:51 am

It's a minor one, but I'm glad.

I've had to keep my Marlowe insights sharp in defending Altman's The Long Goodbye against people who think they're Chandler purists solely on the basis of seeing The Big Sleep.

At the end of a lot of his cases, Marlowe actually reminds me more of Rick Blaine "A guy standing on a station platform in the rain, with a comical look on his face, because his insides have been kicked out."

User avatar
exte
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: NJ

#31 Post by exte » Thu Apr 28, 2005 1:31 am

There is some really good discussion here, and I was wondering if anyone could recommend any must-read books on Blade Runner regarding some of the ideas and arguments brought up here. I already have a few, including Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner and Blade Runner: The Inside Story. If there’s any I absolutely should add to the collection, it would be great to know... Thanks.

User avatar
King of Kong
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:32 pm
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

#32 Post by King of Kong » Thu Apr 28, 2005 4:24 am

Well, when I studied the film a few years back, I found this little book to be extremely valuable - it'll tell you everything you want to know about Blade Runner including the production process, the differences between the 2 released versions and the big philosophical issues explored.

Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner

cbernard

#33 Post by cbernard » Thu Apr 28, 2005 7:11 pm

First off-topic: Well, Bogart's Marlowe does get a clean, professional-grade ass-whooping...

Marlowe seems to be the kind of character that's been left to filmmakers to reinvent as they see fit. As you note, there's a great distance between a Bogey Marlowe and an Elliot Gould version. Dare I say after only reading two Marlowe books that he's a kind of blank slate - not a bad thing - and his only significant features are the ways he's "savvy," the ways he isn't, and something about having been in the war at one time. On the other hand, Hammett's heroes are less passive, more tainted by the events of his stories, less a cool observer than an active player. This is loud and clear in Red Harvest and even The Thin Man. (The latter isn't as nasty as HARVEST but it's dirtier than the famous film version.)

And then on-topic: I've had to break up my latest BR viewing into segments in order to attend to more pressing matters. But here are my alternating takes on the Gaff entrance:

First, in the director's cut, the meaning is not clear. Deckard seems neither dumb nor savvy. The whole thing plays like a wink wink to the audience that doesn't take.

In the theatrical release, his line about "I wasn't going to make it easy on him" is said prior to landing on the police headquarters building, and the focus has already shifted from their interaction to the spectacle of the city from an airborne perspective. It's one of those awkward mis-timings in the narration that probably bugs people less than Harrison Ford's delivery or the lumpy prose he's been called upon to deliver. Still, one cannot help but to love a line like "Sushi - that's what my ex-wife called me. Cold fish."

The spoken narration actually makes Deckard seem like more of an ass. But the absence of it keeps the viewer from being tempted to entirely downplay the importance of Roy's story. I mean, if one character narrates throughout the whole movie, he dominates the whole movie. If nobody narrates, it becomes less of a situation where anyone is dominating anything. And Deckard becomes more of a time-clock punching schlub than an Indiana Jones superhero.

cbernard

#34 Post by cbernard » Sat Apr 30, 2005 9:10 pm

JF Sebastian - poor sucker.

My recent viewing reinforced my interpretation of the "why did Roy save Deckard" question. The notion that he did so because he suddenly and finally realized the beauty of life is out of the question. Saving Deckard is clearly a gesture towards godliness and self-love. All the more so because it's a gesture of mercy. And he takes his sweet time. Saving Deckard allows Roy to exhibit a whole array of superhuman qualities - the computer precision necessary to calculate the last possible second that he could catch Deckard by the wrist; the endurance to withstand both the ebbing of his life force and the (self-inflicted) pain of the nail in his hand - hmmm, a recreation of classic Christ imagery???? - and the strength required to lift a rain-soaked adult male from a crouching position. (Plus he lifts with his back, not his legs, which many a workplace safety supervisor would frown upon. But fuck it, he's a Nexus 6.)

My esteem for the film flourishes with each viewing.

User avatar
exte
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: NJ

#35 Post by exte » Sun May 01, 2005 12:28 am

cbernard wrote:My esteem for the film flourishes with each viewing.
Exactly. I just got a new tv and can finally watch dvds with component input. The increase in detail is amazing, so I was popping in different movies, and was blown away by that scene in Blade Runner. Nearly every shot has something so beautifully evocative about it, (which is true for every scene in the movie) especially the placement of a light source or a slowly spinning fan. The framing and mise en scene is just so wonderful, I'm amazed every time. Ridley Scott is/was a genius in that regard. He should return to science fiction.

User avatar
Pinback
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:50 pm

#36 Post by Pinback » Sun May 01, 2005 12:47 am

There's also Scott Bukatman's book on Blade Runner from the BFI Modern Classics series. I wouldn't say it was "must-read" though; it left me a little cold. I've only read it once though, and it stands as a contribution to intelligent critical discourse around the film.

User avatar
dvdane
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:36 pm
Location: Denmark
Contact:

#37 Post by dvdane » Sun May 01, 2005 1:17 am

cbernard wrote:It's a mistake to say that Roy saves Deckard because Roy has suddenly - or at any time - acquired an appreciation of someone else's life.

Saving Deckard is clearly a gesture towards godliness and self-love. All the more so because it's a gesture of mercy.
How about actually examinating the film, instead of making your interpretations up as you go, when you now openly contradict yourself.

Are you trying to compete with Annie Mall?

cbernard

#38 Post by cbernard » Sun May 01, 2005 1:54 am

You know, I wanted to flame back, but I'd really just like to know just where you get off telling people to focus on the film while at the same time you develop personal vendettas that mean nothing to anyone. Talk about contradictions.

Also you'll be so kind as to point out where lies the contradiction. And don't take four days to respond, it doesn't help.
Last edited by cbernard on Sun May 01, 2005 2:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

cbernard

#39 Post by cbernard » Sun May 01, 2005 2:02 am

exte wrote:Exactly. I just got a new tv and can finally watch dvds with component input. The increase in detail is amazing, so I was popping in different movies, and was blown away by that scene in Blade Runner. Nearly every shot has something so beautifully evocative about it, (which is true for every scene in the movie) especially the placement of a light source or a slowly spinning fan. The framing and mise en scene is just so wonderful, I'm amazed every time. Ridley Scott is/was a genius in that regard. He should return to science fiction.
He had a great triple-play with The Duellists, Alien, and BR, but his '80s work - Black Rain and Someone to Watch Over Me in particular - created a hole from which he could only crawl to boring Oscar glory, first in honest failure (Thelma & Louise), then in epic failure (1492), then after a break (White Squall and G.I. Jane) a half-success (Gladiator, for which he lost the Directing prize) and two actual Good (if not Great) Movies (Black Hawk Down and Matchstick Men). In short, if you want to know my opinion, his genius comes and goes.

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

#40 Post by Andre Jurieu » Sun May 01, 2005 4:21 am

dvdane wrote:
cbernard wrote:It's a mistake to say that Roy saves Deckard because Roy has suddenly - or at any time - acquired an appreciation of someone else's life.

Saving Deckard is clearly a gesture towards godliness and self-love. All the more so because it's a gesture of mercy.
How about actually examinating the film, instead of making your interpretations up as you go, when you now openly contradict yourself.
Honestly Henrik, I fail to see the contradiction. In both posts/statements cbernard has taken the position that Roy has saved Deckard because he (Roy) feels he is a superior being to Deckard, and can exercise a god-like omnipotence when making the decision to save his (Deckard's) life. An act of mercy, as cbernard describes it to be, doesn't necessarily imply an appreciation of someone else's life, as the action could be conducted out of pity. It seems clear to me that cbernard's position in both posts is that when Roy saves Deckard, Roy believes himself to be a superior being.
dvdane wrote:Are you trying to compete with Annie Mall?.
:shock: Whoa!

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

#41 Post by Andre Jurieu » Sun May 01, 2005 8:24 pm

davidhare wrote:When I recall the rabid blockout to my gay-read of the kiss between Tyrell and Roy...
That's a bit of an over-statement isn't it? We only had one person who strongly objected to that interpretation, and a few others who perhaps questioned it due to their own interpretations, but I doubt very many of us are completely opposed to that reading. Maybe we just don't have very much more to add to your thoughts. I'd have to say your comments make a strong argument that there may be a homosexual subtext to the scene, though I'm not going to say it's crystal clear, considering the biblical interpretation seems to fit the material in a much easier manner.
davidhare wrote:It is - after all only Ridley Scott
I still consider Ridley Scott to be a very accomplished filmmaker, and often I believe he is honestly attempting something greater than box-office success. People can laugh and dismiss me all they want, but Matchstick Men was among my favorite films a few years ago and I believe it does wonders in illustrating generational conflict and baby-boomer guilt. I think my view of Scott's career matches cbernard's, and I'm always interested in seeing how his next project turns out.

User avatar
lord_clyde
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:22 am
Location: Ogden, UT

#42 Post by lord_clyde » Mon May 02, 2005 1:30 am

Matchstick Men was a fantastic film with an ending that rings very true. I remember a lot of critics attacked the ending (and the film in general), and I also think Ridley Scott is an accomplished director. Blade Runner, Alien, Gladiator and Matchstick Men are all standouts in their respective genres, but I was very dissappointed in Black Hawk Down. Okay, I'm rambling, but Ridley Scott is awesome and I think his brother could learn something from him.

User avatar
dvdane
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:36 pm
Location: Denmark
Contact:

#43 Post by dvdane » Mon May 02, 2005 2:42 pm

but Ridley Scott is awesome
You will not say that after having seen "Kingdom of Heaven"

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

#44 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Mon Jan 02, 2006 12:51 am

I feel as if I'll sound like an idiot after reading such wonderful opinions of the movie, so I'll just come forth with my question. Is there anything new on the horizon for the new DVD? I just saw the Director's cut and was amazed.

User avatar
King of Kong
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:32 pm
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

#45 Post by King of Kong » Mon Jan 02, 2006 1:49 am

We've been waiting and waiting and waiting for that de luxe edition with both versions of the film and copious extras. Whether it'll materialise or not is anyone's guess.

User avatar
Polybius
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:57 pm
Location: Rollin' down Highway 41

#46 Post by Polybius » Mon Jan 02, 2006 7:48 am

We're all basically sitting around waiting for that one producer who hates Ridley so much to die so this can get the proper special edition treatment.

User avatar
perybo
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:28 pm

#47 Post by perybo » Mon Jan 02, 2006 11:00 am

It is Jerry Perenchio who is "the bad guy" in this story. There is a petition online for the release

User avatar
kinjitsu
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:39 pm
Location: Uffa!

#48 Post by kinjitsu » Mon Jan 02, 2006 5:26 pm

From The New York Times archives:

The avidly awaited, definitive version of Ridley Scott's science-fiction classic, "Blade Runner," won't be out on DVD anytime soon for stranger reasons. When "Blade Runner" was being shot in the early 1980's, Bud Yorkin, a veteran television comedy producer, and Jerry Perenchio, now the C.E.O. of Univision, were the film's bond-completion guarantors. When the film went over budget, by contract they assumed ownership of the film. Paul Sammon wrote in his book "Future Noir: The Making of `Blade Runner' " that they hated the film, had bitter disputes with Mr. Scott and tried to take it away from him altogether.

The studio release, in 1982, contained superfluous narration and a tacked-on rosy ending. Mr. Scott removed both when he was allowed to make a "director's cut" in 1992, but it was, by his own account, a rush job.

Three years ago, Mr. Scott announced that he was working on a three-disc box set, which would offer all the versions of the film, including a new and polished director's cut with previously unseen footage and scads of bonus features. Then, at the end of 2001, Warner Brothers, which was planning to distribute the discs, pulled the plug. It did so, according to a producer who worked on the project, because Mr. Perenchio gave no sign that he would let them be released.

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

#49 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Tue Jan 03, 2006 2:30 am

Well, I don't see how Mr. Perenchio's refusal to eat some humble pie is doing anything (but his ego) any good. Needless to say, he would make a ton of money on said release, with the help of anyone who possibly reads this (including myself).

User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#50 Post by Fletch F. Fletch » Tue Jan 03, 2006 1:43 pm

Well, this site has a pretty good history of what's been going on with the DVD but it seems like nothing much has happened since March 2004.

Post Reply