Blade Runner - The Final Cut (SPOILERS)

[Cary L. Brown]

I agree with almost everything you said, except for this...

If you think that, then you've totally missed the point, which is that you don't have to be biologically human to be a person.

See, central to this movie (though not necessarily to Dick's original work) was that the "Replicants" WERE "human." Genetically engineered, but in every meaningful way they were living, breathing human beings...

To me, the idea that they were treated as "not human" has strong parallels to how black people used to be treated by some people as "not human" and so forth.

This society had advanced to a point where "humanity" had achieved equality... so, then, who can you treat as subhuman? If a group doesn't exist naturally... let's make one up!

In "Star Wars," it's the Clones. "Not really humans" so it's OK for them to be bred as canon-fodder... this isn't exactly an unexplored topic.

The thing that bugs me about this conversation is that some folks keep referring to them as "robots." Well, you might as well call every one of us who holds down a job a "robot" as well.

The core element of "Blade Runner" to me was the moment of REVELATION when I realized that these weren't "villains" or "monsters" or even "robots" but were HUMAN BEINGS, held in slavery and denied any semblence of rights... not because they were really "different" so much as the society needed another excuse for slavery. These were slaves... and they were desperately trying to find lives of their own... trying to find a way to live as what they were... HUMANS.

 

[Christopher]

^^That's what I meant, but you said it better.

 

[DWF]

I thought the movie clearly showed that Deckard was a replicant, he's not in any of his family pictures, he didn't answer Rachel's question about whether or not he took the test, he was also semi-retired at the start of the movie but they were keeping an eye on him.

It's a great looking movie to be sure but I wasn't as balled over by the storyline as others are.

 

[zenophite]

does the final cut finally demonstrate how overrated this movie is?

 

[Deckerd]

The thing that bugs me about this conversation is that some folks keep referring to them as "robots." Well, you might as well call every one of us who holds down a job a "robot" as well.

If you mean me, I was outlining the film studio's attitude, not my own.

All this goes to show how the arguments are still raging about this film. What better way to demonstrate its genius? Ridley Scott is not a great dictator who is telling us how to interpret it. Everyone has their own take, as I said from the start.

 

[Steve Roby]

^Ultimately, any movie belongs to its director, not the writers, the producers, the actors or anyone else.

Says who? It's not 1954, and this isn't Cahiers du Cinema.

Blade Runner is based on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Phillip K. Dick, as per the credits. Significant changes were made to the original source material (and the title was drawn from yet another source), but it is firmly rooted in Dick's original writing, with a couple of scenes that are almost verbatim.

Yep. Hell, KW Jeter's Blade Runner novels just about manage to reconcile the world of PKD's novel with the world of the movie.

I wonder if there are actually people who've seen copies of William S. Burroughs's Blade Runner: A Screenplay and think that had anything to do with the movie, other than the title, which Burroughs actually swiped from a novel by Alan E. Nourse, and which the people making the movie bought to replace the unwieldy title Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (Yes, I have the Burroughs and Nourse books, but I have other books by each of them, too, so it's not just some Blade Runner completist thing.)

 

[Hermiod]

^Ultimately, any movie belongs to its director, not the writers, the producers, the actors or anyone else.

Says who? It's not 1954, and this isn't Cahiers du Cinema.

Because that's how cinema works. A movie is, first and foremost, the work of its director. The director provides the single greatest artistic contribution to a film.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

^Ultimately, any movie belongs to its director, not the writers, the producers, the actors or anyone else.

Says who? It's not 1954, and this isn't Cahiers du Cinema.

Because that's how cinema works. A movie is, first and foremost, the work of its director. The director provides the single greatest artistic contribution to a film.

I'm sorry, I don't believe that. I believe that it CAN be true... but not that it is ALWAYS true.

Hollywood is all about ego... and directorship is the ultimate ego trip. But there have been films where the director basically did nothing but "frame and shoot" while others where the director took the script and basically threw it away, reworking the story dramatically on-set.

Neither of the above, as far as I'm concerned, makes for a "good" director... or a good movie for that matter.

Everyone in a film contributes. Each actor contributes. The screenwriter(s) are, in what I'd argue is the "ideal" situation, every bit as significant as the director(s).

A bad director can ruin anything... or a director can have a personal "style" so unique that it totally flavors everything he (or she) does so that none of their work ever feels unique in any way.

But a GOOD director doesn't allow his personal egotism to cause him to dismiss the input of all the other film's contributors. He simply synthesizes the disparate elements into a cohesive whole... he's the "system integrator."

A good director can do a whole string of movies and have none of them feel "the same" as the others... because each is a synthesis of a different group of contributors, and the director sees all of them as being key contributors... not just stepping stones to "making MY vision!"

 

[DWF]

I'm sorry, I don't believe that. I believe that it CAN be true... but not that it is ALWAYS true.

In the end it's the director who's responsible for the movie, which is many of them don't like their names being on edits of movies that they didn't approve of. And in many cases it's the director who's the greatest force in the getting the movie made in the first place.

 

[Harvey]

I'm sorry, I don't believe that. I believe that it CAN be true... but not that it is ALWAYS true.

You're right. And, because this is a Ridley Scott film, it's true. And I don't say this because I have unlimited adoration for the man (he's made his share of stinkers in addition to the great stuff). I say this because he's a control freak of a director who gets his hands into every part of production. Post-production was originally torn away from his hands, but in the Final Cut, he has control of that, too.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I'm sorry, I don't believe that. I believe that it CAN be true... but not that it is ALWAYS true.

You're right. And, because this is a Ridley Scott film, it's true. And I don't say this because I have unlimited adoration for the man (he's made his share of stinkers in addition to the great stuff). I say this because he's a control freak of a director who gets his hands into every part of production. Post-production was originally torn away from his hands, but in the Final Cut, he has control of that, too.

And that's kind of the point of having the various versions of the film, isn't it? Ridley gets to do his "closest to purely Ridley's version" of the film... still isn't 100% "all him" but still...

SO... maybe in the "Director's Final Cut" Deckard is a replicant, but in the other versions, he's not?

 

[Harvey]

I'm sorry, I don't believe that. I believe that it CAN be true... but not that it is ALWAYS true.

You're right. And, because this is a Ridley Scott film, it's true. And I don't say this because I have unlimited adoration for the man (he's made his share of stinkers in addition to the great stuff). I say this because he's a control freak of a director who gets his hands into every part of production. Post-production was originally torn away from his hands, but in the Final Cut, he has control of that, too.

And that's kind of the point of having the various versions of the film, isn't it? Ridley gets to do his "closest to purely Ridley's version" of the film... still isn't 100% "all him" but still...

SO... maybe in the "Director's Final Cut" Deckard is a replicant, but in the other versions, he's not?

I haven't even seen all of the theatrical cut (the voice over is really, really hard to listen to), but that seems reasonable. Which is not to say that Ridley doesn't have his hands all over the theatrical cut, too. But the devil is in the details, and the details are what set the two versions apart.

 

[Brent]

From a storytelling standpoint, I think the irony of the machine teaching the man about humanity to be more powerful. Deckard operates like a robot, worn-out, unfeeling (very much the film noir hard-boiled detective) but through his experience with Roy is able to regain his emotions and perhaps begin to appreciate the Replicants as sentient beings (as Rachael is). Such a rooftop change of sentiment would also explain well why he decides to be "finished" with being a Blade Runner. Personal preference, of course, but I feel the end of the film has more meaning with Deckard as a man and not a Replicant.

Yeah, I just got done watching this movie for the first time in years, and the overall sense to me was that Deckard was human. I think fans have gotten a little too carried away over the years looking for tiny little "clues" that say otherwise, but the movie doesn't really seem to be hinting towards that at all. There might be a tiny bit of ambiguity about it (as Ford rightly believed there should be), but that's about all.

As for the movie itself... I have to say I'm still not all that crazy about it. I get that's it's film noir, but Ridley Scott seems a little TOO focused on the style and atmosphere here; there's not much of a story, and the movie doesn't really explore it's themes in any real or interesting way. We see a few glimpses of humanity and emotion in the replicants, and we're made to wonder who else could or couldn't be one... but that's about it.

I'm a big fan of this subject matter, but the movie just doesn't give me a whole lot to chew over or think about afterwards. Certainly nothing like what BSG has done with the idea. Or even TNG with Data.

I agree with you. I just watched the Final Cut for the first time. I see nothing that points to Deckard being a replicant. To me, he is human, all facts point to this. He got beat up pretty bad by the replicants, could not hold is own, definitely did not seem like a replicant by any means.

I also agree that while the movie is entertaining, it is heavily focused on the visuals and atmosphere, and the story isn't followed through on enough. It is like the story took a back seat to everything else. I still very much enjoyed the movie though.

 

[QuasarVM]

Am I the only one who thinks there are WAY too many versions of this film?

I loved it when I saw it in the theater. Ford's narration was meant to invoke the old film noire detective films...and it did a decent job of that. So, by today's standards it may appear "cheesy" but if you go back and look at the films that influenced it, it's fine...

I like Blade Runner because, like 2001: A Space Odyssey, it lets you fill in the gaps for yourself...makes you think about the film. Is he a replicant or isn't he? Etc..

Well, you decide!

I don't need the film to spell everything out for me...and it's, in a way, kind of insulting that they went back and dumbed down the film for the little mo-rons who can't use their brains and their imaginations!

Grrr...

Anyway, Ridley Scott used to be a great filmmaker, but I would say his last good one was Gladiator...

Although I wish he'd get his shot at making his once-planned Alien 5 film.

 

[stj]

By analogy, imagine a story about an anti-Semite learning to overcome his prejudice against Jews. Does it make it more or less meaningful if he discovers he was adopted and his birth parents were Jewish?)

Of course it makes it less meaningful. Since the only plausible motivation for Rachel's instant love for Deckerd is that he knows the truth, it would cheapen their love story, too. It also cheapens Deckerd's desperate struggle for life, if his life is artificial and temporary. It cheapens Batty's moral achievement.

As to the auteur theory, my opinion is that the writer is always the number one artistic contributor, followed by the producer, the cinematogropher, the art director, and the composer. Then comes the director. That's why some Ridley Scott movies are excellent---they have good scripts. Others are not---the scripts weren't good. If the director was the main contributor his output would be far more consistent.
Nowadays lots of directors also act as producers, or writers, cinematographers, art director or whatnot. Their artistic contribution lies primarily in those other roles.

 

[Pilot Ace]

SO... maybe in the "Director's Final Cut" Deckard is a replicant, but in the other versions, he's not?

Winking smilie aside, I've heard a variation of this that I like. I think Paul M. Sammon said it somewhere.

In the original cut, it's ambiguous whether Deckard is a replicant, but in the Director's cuts he is intended to be one.

I agree with you. I just watched the Final Cut for the first time. I see nothing that points to Deckard being a replicant.

Then I must suggest you watch it again. The notion of Deckard being a replicant/human is one of the driving forces of the film once you watch it under more than a passing eye.

Regardless of your conclusion, there are clues for both sides and it factors heavily into the themes of the film.

As to the auteur theory, my opinion is that the writer is always the number one artistic contributor, followed by the producer, the cinematogropher, the art director, and the composer. Then comes the director. That's why some Ridley Scott movies are excellent---they have good scripts. Others are not---the scripts weren't good. If the director was the main contributor his output would be far more consistent.
Nowadays lots of directors also act as producers, or writers, cinematographers, art director or whatnot. Their artistic contribution lies primarily in those other roles.

I'm not a huge fan of the auteur theory.

But, I admit that some films fall under this category. Ridley Scott is one of those directors, certainly in Blade Runner. He nearly crafted the script himself with requiring re-write after re-write to the point where a new writer was brought in after the original to finish it. He participated in nearly ever facet of production--this cannot be ignored.

I disagree with your ordering of artistic contributers as well, but that is a different topic.

 

[Christopher]

I loved it when I saw it in the theater. Ford's narration was meant to invoke the old film noire detective films...and it did a decent job of that. So, by today's standards it may appear "cheesy" but if you go back and look at the films that influenced it, it's fine...

It's not the existence of the narration that's the problem, it's the dreadful way Ford delivers it. It's so stilted it's painful to listen to.

There's also the fact that it completely changes the meaning of the ending of the film. The sense I got of the ending based on the narrated version was the exact opposite of what I got from the non-narrated version, and it was only the latter ending that made any sense to me.

I don't need the film to spell everything out for me...and it's, in a way, kind of insulting that they went back and dumbed down the film for the little mo-rons who can't use their brains and their imaginations!

Aren't you contradicting yourself here? Adding the narration was what dumbed it down by spelling everything out (and doing so incorrectly in some cases). Removing the narration lets the story speak for itself.

 

[QuasarVM]

Nah, I was just saying I "got" the style of the narration based on the old film-noire detective films (It's not awkward or stilted when you go back and watch those old films...or even Dragnet which also had a similar kind of narration)...I am neither for nor against it...with the exception of what you pointed out about the end. I also didn't think it worked *there*.

Otherwise, I was ok with it...I could tell what they were trying to do with it.

But my point about not having things spelled out was in reference to the "Is Deckard a replicant?" issue...I prefer that left vague...

 

[Christopher]

Nah, I was just saying I "got" the style of the narration based on the old film-noire detective films (It's not awkward or stilted when you go back and watch those old films...or even Dragnet which also had a similar kind of narration)...

No, I'm not saying the style of the narration or the fact of its existence was stilted -- I'm saying Harrison Ford's vocal delivery was stilted. He did a bad job from the perspective of how he used his voice -- he was too loud, too awkward, too devoid of nuance or emotion. It was a bad piece of voice acting. If he'd done it competently, I wouldn't have minded the narration's presence, except that it ruined the ending. (And I've heard that he did a deliberately bad job on the narration as a protest for having to do it at all, but that may be apocryphal.)

 

[Harvey]

Ford's poor performance is certainly understandable. The documentary on the disc has a few cuts of him in between line readings, and he's astounded by the lines he's being made to read.