For today's blog, I thought I should do 'Blade Runner.' As touched upon in previous blogs, I feel it is equally important to write film blogs that are more difficult to write about, than the ones I find easy to discuss. Today is one which I slightly struggle to write about. As much as I LOVE sci-fi films, I always find it difficult to finally bring myself to sit down and discuss not only the events that occur within films of this genre, but the overarching ideas and theories that encapsulate the stories told. It is not a genre that comes naturally to me.
'Blade Runner' is a film I watched for the first time last year. It had been on my list for quite some time as many had recommended it, it is directed by the extremely talented Ridley Scott and it was highly rated amongst many film critics and cinephiles. To me, I think that is what slightly ruined the experience of the film for me.
Personally, I feel that I had hyped the film up so much in my head that when I finally came to watch it and didn't feel like it personally connected with me, I felt almost ashamed. Silly to say but I felt that the pressure to like it so much almost destroyed the potential magic the film could have brought to me. Don't get me wrong, I am all here for singing the high praise for films that one enjoys, but at the same time, I felt that the high reputation it had, impacted my overall experience.
So here I am, writing this film blog to describe why I didn't feel it connected with me as much as the way it has entranced so many others. Another thing that should be noted before I continue, is that I am still yet to watch the most recent film ('Blade Runner 2049'). For a while, I put off writing a blog about the original 'Blade Runner' as I felt I had to watch the most recent one in order to fully offer my opinion. However, I thought I might as well dive in, and then I could potentially write a separate blog for the new one in an attempt to discover whether my opinion of the overall 'franchise' has changed in any way.
I can see that I have digressed slightly and so I will get into things. Anyone who reads these blogs regularly will understand I have a tendency to rant but I will now get back on track. The film, released in 1982 is a science fiction film based on the book 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?' (by Philip K. Dick), and follows the story of 'Deckard,' played by the amazing Harrison Ford. Deckard is a retired 'Blade Runner' who subsequently comes out of his retirement to hunt and kill 4 replicants who have stolen a ship and have come to discover their creator (The Tyrell Cooperation) and demand to have a longer life span; they only live for 4 years to prevent them from uprising. The term 'replicants' applies to the android-like people that inhabit this futuristic world. They have been created to complete difficult and dangerous tasks for humans but as a result of a war occurring before the film, have been moved to separate colonies out of harm's way. I assume many readers will have watched the film but as always I need to give context to those that haven't or even for those that feel they have forgotten the plot to some extent.
The first thing that is noticeable visually about the film, is the rich and captivating colour scheme presented with the neon lights in the film, thus making it almost hypnotic to watch. However, these bursts of colour directly contrast to the consistent dark and gloomy atmosphere created with the dreary rain that occurs throughout the film. The majority of the film is set in a dark and bleak atmosphere which parallels with the isolated life that Deckard leads as a lone 'Blade Runner.' He is established as a character that doesn't have any friends or relations and this is reflected in the environment he inhabits. Whilst there are occasionally bursts of light, the majority of the film is dark and reflects the lifestyle Deckard has had to lead as a 'Blade Runner' hiding in the dark in order to get his job done.
As well as the short bursts of neon light, the cinematographer Cronenweth uses the brief flash of white light within the film to further assert the futuristic environment of the story - the flashes representing the flying crafts as they pass over the buildings within the film. Overall, this asserts the environment of the story and in a way represents the restricted feel of this new world. It seems as even when one is indoors, you are still always aware of the world outside and it seems you are always being watched. It is claustrophobic and inescapbale.
Additionally, Scott uses the cinematic technique of red eyes to indicate whether an individual is a replicant or not. After reading on the technique used, it is described by Cronenweth that "One of the identifying characteristics of replicants is a strange glowing quality of the eyes. To achieve this effect, we’d use a two-way mirror — 50% transmission, 50% transmission, 50% reflection — placed in front of the lens at a 45-degree angle. Then we’d project light into the mirror so that it would be reflected into the eyes of the subject along the optical axis of the lens. Sometimes we'd use very subtle colored gels to add color to the eyes."* It seems this technique has raised multiple debates as many argue what the point was in using the interviews within the film to determine whether an individual was a replicant, but as Scott has mentioned, the red eyes are for the audience not for the characters.** It is a technique used for the audience only and acts as a dramatic device to engage the audience further. To me this is quite clever and adds an extra level of complexity to the engagement level of the audience. Here the audience knows something the characters are completely unaware of and it is made obvious that the characters are unaware of this. Normally within cinema, when the audience knows something the characters don't, we just watch it occur but here we are constantly reminded and in a way that connects the audience more with the story occurring.
Many discuss the relationship between Deckard and Rachael (portrayed by the wonderful Sean Young) and how at the beginning of the film she is unaware of her status as a replicant. As the film progresses and she begins to form a relationship with Deckard she comes to recognise how her memories are not completely hers and that she has been manufactured by the Tyrell Cooperation. Whilst beautiful, their relationship is significant as the audience are left considering whether the two individuals are really are feeling these emotions of love towards each other if she physically doesn't even have a subconscious. Amongst all of this is the backdrop of Deckard's role as a retired 'Blade Runner' whose purpose and job is to kill people exactly like her. In my opinion, I found their relationship beautiful but felt that their situation was not as fully explored as I would have liked. I guess that's one of the aspects of the story I feel the film lacks to delve into. Introducing a relationship as significant as this is impactful but when it is not as fully explored as you are expecting, you are left feeling almost let down by it. Then again, this may be the writer's craft and I guess Scott did not want to make the film seem too 'romancey,' but in my opinion, it would have been more interesting to explore that relationship a bit further. It's not like the sci-fi genre doesn't allow space for it - 'Star Wars' perfectly thrived off this subplot with their characters. One must also keep in mind the fact the film was released in the 80s and attitudes towards film were subsequently different, but once again that shouldn't really impact the way romance is presented within the film.
Something I did really find interesting within the film was the use of the little unicorn placed by Gaff for Deckard to find. This symbolic moment really shocks the audience as it is when the pin finally drops that maybe Deckard's memories aren't actually his own and that potentially he is also a replicant - he just doesn't know it yet. It's bizarre how such a small object can cause such a big reaction of shock as you begin to wrack your brain to see what you have potentially missed in amongst the craziness of all the action. Scott's craft is really demonstrated here because without any character saying anything, the audience immediately knows what it means and is equally shocked. That's the one thing I will say about this film that I really liked.
The whole film deals with quite complex ideologies and concepts, I applaud that but I felt somewhat underwhelmed by it all. I think the biggest thing was the fact that Deckard is a character who has been ordered to kill 'human-like' individuals and with that comes the moral question of is this right or wrong and the following guilt that arises. To me, this is such an interesting concept that is explored within the film but at the same time, I felt that it wasn't explored enough. However, I understand it is hard to include this as well as all the fight sequences occurring and the inclusion of Deckard's relationship with Rachael, without resulting in a film that drags on and on.
Overall, I think the concepts behind the film are definitely interesting and I'll admit it is such a visually artistic film, it just didn't click with me and I was left feeling disappointed by that. I appreciate the craft of it as I am a huge fan of Ridley Scott's work and I did feel the story is an interesting one, but at the same time I just felt somewhat let down by the film. Another thing I felt less inclined to like, was the multiple different endings. I have only seen the director's cut, however know there are multiple endings out there that overall contribute to the interpretations of whether or not Deckard actually is a replicant or not. To me, releasing the multiple endings just fuels the confusion and I would much rather they just stuck to releasing one version and leaving that to be ambiguous.
If you haven't seen the film and after reading this feel it may not be the type of film you like, I implore you to watch just purely to form your own opinion of the film. As I have mentioned, the film is beautifully crafted but just wasn't right for me. That may not be the case for whoever is reading this. If you want to leave a comment below then feel free, you might find someone who feels the same way, or even disagrees, which is okay too. In my opinion the best time to watch this film would be mid week when you need something to settle down to and take the edge off whatever tasks you have to keep up with during the week.
Quick Trivia:
The term "replicants" is used nowhere in Philip K. Dick's writing. The creatures in the source novel are called "androids" or "andies".
The ending title sequence in the theatrical cut of this movie contains un-used footage from "The Shining (1980)." These were extra shots of the main title sequence, although none of the shots contain the road that was seen in "The Shining" (1980).
This is Ridley Scott's favorite movie of his own. The Final Cut released in 2007 is his favorite version of this movie.
After Philip K. Dick saw Harrison Ford as Rick Deckard on-set, Dick declared: "He has been more Deckard than I had imagined. It has been incredible. Deckard exists!"
To ensure that he didn't have to wear a hat in this movie (having just come off Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), Harrison Ford went out and got a contemporary haircut, for which director Ridley Scott didn't care, but with which was essentially stuck.
Sources:
Director: Ridley Scott
Cinematographer: Jordan Cronenweth
Certificate: 15
Genre: Action, Sci-fi, Thriller
Stream: Now TV (UK)