05 Nov NOIRVEMBER: Blade Runner

Old Opinion: A near unrivaled classic that has defined science fiction filmmaking for 40 years.

New Opinion: No substantial change, though I begrudgingly admit that there are dated aspects gradually making it slightly less enjoyable…

Even the most skeptical critics (Darryl Mansell chief amongst them) will admit that Blade Runner has secured a place in cinematic history. The 1982 release has, in the intervening decades, come to define decades worth of science fiction filmmakers; DVD director commentaries for sci-fi films almost always cited the influence of Blade Runner on their own efforts. Returning to the film today has been a reminder of all that is truly remarkable about the film, while simultaneously revealing a few cracks in the veneer. Not dealbreakers, but enough that honest evaluation demands they be acknowledged. Nonetheless, Ridley Scott’s second major masterpiece (after Alien) is an essential cornerstone of the foundation that is science fiction cinema.

Before talking the good and bad, it’s important to talk versions. There are, essentially, five version of Blade Runner:

1. U.S. Theatrical edition: Scott was forced to make some changes to the film to appease WB, most notably Harrison Ford’s narration, meant to hold the viewer’s hand through the experience.
2. Workprint version: A pre-release, unfinished version of the film that was included in the 5-version Blu-ray box set in 2007.
3. International version: Scott’s preferred version in 1982, unmolested by WB execs.
4. Director’s Cut: Scott pioneered the idea of the Director’s Cut with this version, which was a polished, slightly altered cut of the International version.
5. The Final Cut: Scott’s 2007 edition of the film, which contains the best (and final?) form of the film.

For this review, I rewatched the U.S. Theatrical edition, which I had only watched once prior in 2007 before seeing the Final Cut in theaters. I’ve seen the Director’s Cut a couple of times, and it was the first version I ever saw, having bought it on VHS tape in…1995-ish? I’ve never seen the International version but have watched the Final Cut several times.

In honor of the film’s 40^th anniversary, I watched the Blu-ray version from the 2007 box set. And at the request of Mr. Mansell, I share my most current thoughts on this masterpiece.

First, I want to note the best parts of the film, so here’s a solid bullet point list:

• Vangelis’ music is incredible; a blend of electronic and orchestral ambient beauty, it defined the tone of the film. And given the grimy city setting, the score consistently reminds the viewer that there is simply more to the film than a depressing visual pateen. In 1982, electronic music was still a rarity, and to blend it with an orchestra and have it so beautifully entwined with the visuals and themes of the film is essentially perfection.
  
• The cinematography and visual effects are both top-notch, and Scott’s detailed remastering over the years has allowed the film to continue to impress, particularly in 4K HDR. These two are intertwined, because the so many (if not almost all) of the visual effect in 1982 were performed in-camera; there was no CGI as we understand it today. Scott’s mastery of technique is evident throughout the entire film, but only if you want it to be! The best effects support the story and performances, and should you allow yourself to be engrossed in them, the cinematography and visual effects simply fade into the whole. But closer evaluation reveals a remarkable level of skill in both areas that remains a masterclass to modern filmmakers.
  
• The world-building, or “lore”, of the film was ahead of its time in many ways. There are two areas that I want to note. First, the city setting of 2019 Los Angeles is a completely and wholly rendered world. Everything you see was thought out and the product of the filmmakers’ considerable efforts to present what they thought was a viable, realistic portrayal of the future that diverged tremendously from Star Trek’s polished sheen of a future. Though technically unconnected, Scott’s Alien and Blade Runner both present a down-and-dirty future populated by characters run down by rampant capitalism and social poverty. The completeness of the world of Blade Runner set a high bar that few films succeed in duplicating it, much less replicating with original lore.
  Second, the story of the film is a 40’s detective noir set in the (then) distant future. And despite the radically different setting, Harrison Ford’s Deckard is straight out a detective serial from decades before. Deckard anchors the story, and the audience’s lack of familiarity with the future setting is balanced by the instantly recognizable classic noir detective that Ford plays with near perfection.
  
• The underlying themes of the film are much greater than the story utilizing them, yet they never overwhelm the story. There are two prominent themes that are infused throughout the story: slavery and the humanity of clones. A blade runner is a cop charged with hunting down and de-activating ‘replicants’, whose presence is illegal on Earth. The relatively simple story of the film revolves around Ford’s Deckard, an experienced blade runner, hunting down and retiring 4 replicants.
  However, the existence of replicants is immediately highlighted as a type of slavery. In fact, the film’s entire world is structured around the historical acknowledgement of a dark truth: every successful civilization is founded on slavery—utilizing free labor to build the wealth of the conquering class. Replicants are merely implied as the first form of slavery that utilizes artificial life. The corporation that creates replicants attempts to sever the moral connection between replicant and the forced labor they perform across the whole of human civilization across the galaxy.
  Of course, this leads to the second theme: the humanity of the replicants. They are artificially created, but (in a scientific fact that escaped me for many years), they are still genetically modified clones of humans. They possess almost every critical physical, mental, emotional, and intellectual aspect of human beings, albeit in heightened forms, depending on their individual purpose (soldiers, pleasure models, hard laborer, etc.) They are endowed with self-awareness, creativity, and a desperate drive to survive and be free. To the empathic, and hopefully average viewer, they are clearly sentient beings whose rights should be considered. But the entire story is about how the replicants are killed without remorse or even a thought for the morality of ending them.
  As noted, these themes are intrinsically infused into the entire film. To the great credit of the filmmakers, these themes exist behind the story, teasing the interested and inquiring viewer with much bigger ideas. But they never overwhelm or eclipse the story—they serve it. And the added depth of the ideas makes the film itself a much greater intellectual exercise than might otherwise be on display.
  
• The cast is terrific, with strong performances all the way around. I would credit good casting and direction. Scott draws out very realistic portrayals of characters that span the range from everyday Joe Citizen to super-strange, barely relatable oddball. All of these characters are blended together in, again, service to the story and never so far afield as to diminish the experience.
  
• Lastly, Scott’s direction and the film editing are flawless. Though tied to the era in which it was made (more on that later), they reminded me that Ridley Scott is a more commercial Terrence Malick. Both directors have a remarkable eye for visual storytelling; Scott leverages incredible production design, while Malick frequently relies on the cathedral of the unaltered natural world. Scott seems to have a more focused purpose behind the stories he tells, and Blade Runner is amongst his very best.
  The editing takes Scott’s visual storytelling and integrates the critical aspects of pacing and scene-coherence. Though there are five versions, which would seem to indicate that perhaps the editing was flawed, the reality I that each cut of the film was the best possible given corporate and financial constraints placed on a film that was initially expected to be a complete financial and critical failure. Scott’s Final Cut is definitely the best, but the flaws in the worst version (U.S. Theatrical) are unrelated to any missteps in direction, editing, cinematography, scoring, casting or performance, or themes.

And that is why Blade Runner stands as a masterpiece of cinema, particularly science fiction.

That said, in watching the film anew, there are a few things that emerge as flaws:

• Having watched the U.S. Theatrical version, the narration by Ford is abysmal. Of course, it was forced by studio executives, and Ford gives a post-final edit additional performance that is laughably bad; apparently on purpose, since Scott and Ford agree it was a terrible idea. The fact that it is absent in every other version makes it an obvious blight. The narration is nothing more than is Exposition 101 for dumb viewers and detracts from the brilliance of the storytelling through visuals. Also, it is tangibly unpleasant to hear Ford use the n-word…yikes.
  
• There are some aspects of the film that are firmly rooted in filmmaking styles of the era (late 70’s, early 80’s). For example, the pacing comes across as slow and deliberate to excess. I happen to feel the same way about rewatching the original Star Wars, but the fact remains that since that time, filmmaking has evolved to more rapid editing, far more camera movement, and more, obligatory action. Blade Runner is an artifact of its time, but through a modern lens, it can be challenging to watch; even boring, if the pacing is too slow to engage the viewer’s interest in its deeper themes and historic technical prowess.
  
• Lastly, there are some costuming and make-up choices that have simply not aged well. Combined with some of the more fringe world-building aspects of the film, it is harder to take seriously. For example, William Sanderson’s Sebastian lives in a run-down apartment building where he is surrounded by what are apparently cloned companions of various shapes and sizes, all looking very weird and unsettling. When Daryl Hannah shows up and alters her clothes and make-up to fit in, it all just looks…early-80’s goofy. There is a certain amount of oddity that is fine, but at some point, I just kind of whispered “This is too much weirdness…” It took me away from the story and distracted me from the film in general. These were artistic choices that were probably fine 40 years ago, but just take me out of the film now. I will admit that some of this is mitigated by Scott’s incredible handling of subsequent edits and remastering for visual and audio improvements that are far superior to anything available in 1982. In 4K HDR, some of these choices are more palatable. The version I watched was 1080p from 2007, so my spoiled eye found it easier to criticize a version that simply looked worse than I am used to by modern standards.

That’s about it. Which, after 40 years and uncountable imitators, is a pretty short list. In fact, by avoiding the U.S. Theatrical Cut altogether, half the problems are solved. In 4K HDR, the Final Cut arguably relieves the last.

Blade Runner still stands up to scrutiny. It may not be everyone’s cup of tea (all films have their detractors, no matter what), but Blade Runner is undeniable in its influence and timelessness. The few aspects that show their age are unquestionably eclipsed by the cinematography, music, and blending of old story with futuristic setting. Ridley Scott has made an incredible number of genuine classic films, but Blade Runner is perhaps his most lauded because of its lasting influence.

Lastly, I would add that one of the greatest things to come out of Blade Runner is 2017’s Blade Runner 2049, which is, in fact, superior in almost every way. It is the rare sequel that builds on the solid foundation of its predecessor, while successfully exceeding it almost every technical and creative area. Without Blade Runner, we would not have Blade Runner 2049, and for that alone, I believe that even Mr. Mansel appreciates the original.

Pros:

• A technical masterclass in filmmaking: cinematography, music, visual effects, production design, casting, thematically infused storytelling, etc. All of these remain near perfect.
• Scott’s incredible focus and talent are proven in his post-Alien filmography.
• The juxtaposition of detective noir with future dystopia is so smooth it seems effortless, though was doubtless anything but…
• It has inspired generations of science fiction, including a superior sequel.

Cons:

• The U.S. Theatrical edition is hard to watch, having been compromised by the studio executives at Warner Brothers.
• The pacing and some of the era-specific costuming and make-up choices are no longer as easy to overlook.

Rating: 5/5
Blade Runner stands as a remarkable cinematic masterpiece. Rewatching it is still a treat for any cinephile. The ability to watch multiple versions, some with commentary by Scott himself, is an entirely self-contained film school.

Review by Jim Washburn