Monday, July 2, 2018

Blade Runner: Tears in the Rain

Blade Runner is a film I hold in considerable affection and yet it is not great movie.  For that matter it's not even a good movie.

But it is a very influential one.

Everyone knows that it has problems.  It's just that it's hard for anyone to agree on what they are.

The trouble is that each of the major cuts is drastically flawed in it's own way.

In the original theatrical version, you have a bad narration, that was inserted post production. It felt awkward and tacked on (more on that later).  Later cuts remove the narration but insert a heavy handed and fairly major plot change that wasn't even hinted at in the original version of the film.

There are other worries as well, for one thing, no chemistry between the leads which is understandable because Harrison Ford and Sean Young hated each other.  Frankly, I didn't like Sean Young's performance but in truth I was never a fan of her's to begin with.  And then there is Harrison Ford's weird little bit of performance art in the strippers' dressing room.  Seriously, what was that pervy nerd thing about?  The exposition scene between Deckard and his boss was dumb, Deckard was the best Blade Runner out there and he didn't know replicants only have a four year life span?  I can go on but you probably have a list of your own.

It's strengths are equally well known.  The stunning visuals set a film school standard.  The secondary, concurrent story line with Roy Batty is clearly the film's greatest strength leading up to his confrontation with Deckard and the famous Tears in the Rain soliloquy. Some of which was improvised by Rutger Hauer himself.

Blade Runner has a lot of good and plenty of bad but how did it all get there?

It's time for a quick history.  Alan Ladd Jr briefly became a Hollywood wunderkind in the late 70s by dint of two decisions, first he green lit Star Wars, then fought tooth and nail for it when the studio wanted to shutdown the production due to over runs.  He followed that one up with green lighting Alien.  With two big wins under his belt he decided to hang out his own shingle.

When he left Fox he started the Ladd Company.  Sadly the butchers bill came due with Blade Runner.  Ladd  okayed a a script treatment for Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.  It was clearly going to need a better title* but a SciFi noir premise had real potential. Ladd knew he had a handful with Scott but the results so far had been correspondingly rewarding.

Scott works in visuals and Blade Runner's visuals are the best thing in the movie.  However they are NOT all that original.  A lot this film's imagery is owed to another film with strong cineamatography and a weak storyline.

Friz Lang's Metropolis (1927)

There are other shots that are pretty similar but you get the drift.  Scott also hired Syd Mead to do the design production and Mead is strongly influenced by Metal Hurlant's art work.  Cyber Punk was warming up in the batter's box although in this case it's safe to say that Blade Runner was the catalyst for the literature and not the other way around.

Production proceeded.  A working print was delivered.  Troubles began.

The film confused the hell out of the test audiences.  So a decision to insert first person narration was made and that decision is a lot more defensible than a lot of people think.  First person narration in a noir detective story has a long tradition going back to Phillip Marlowe.  It could have worked but it had two major problems, first; the scripting for the narration was clunky and heavy handed. The worst examples were Deckard "explaining" why Roy Batty hadn't killed him and Rachel suddenly having an unlimited life expectancy. Second; Harrison Ford deliberately did a shitty job with the read.  Neither he nor Scott had agreed with the decision to add the narration and Ford was hoping that his performance was so bad that they wouldn't use it.

They did.

When the film was released it tanked at the box office.  Mainstream critics didn't like it because it made them think that is always painful for stupid people.

Production cost: 28 million.

Box office take: 27 million.

It slunk out of the theaters and began a march towards obscurity.

And then it was released on this new fangled thing called video tape.  It still didn't make a lot of money for the producers because in those days a video of a film would cost $50 to buy,  in today's money that is about $125.00. So most of us just rented. However, Blade Runner couldn't stay on the shelves at the video rental stores.  Science Fiction fans all got around to seeing it eventually.  They discussed it with each other at length, had arguments about it's influence on Cyber Punk.  It started showing up in film schools.  It started to inspire other works.  Akira in particular, owes a lot to it. In short, it became a classic.

And then the real problems with it began.

Ridley Scott is very good at making his works difficult to defend.  The stuff that comes out his mouth wasn't what you had in mind when you were being amazed by his visual.

There was a fan theory that cropped up that Deckard himself was replicant.  Now this seemed like a pretty stupid fan theory for a shitload of reasons.  It was inconsistent within the story.  The other replicants beat the shit out him constantly.  There were no hints that he had any doubt that he was human.  And if he was a replicant it drastically undermined the ending.

Roy Batty was reaching for his humanity and found it at the end.  That only worked as a juxtaposition if Rick Deckard was a human who had lost his humanity.

Problem.  Scott decided he like the idea and he proceeded to George Lucas the fuck out Blade Runner by inserting that stupid unicorn scene.  Special note: that scene was unused footage from Legend (which was shot THREE YEARS LATER), making it's addition even more ludicrous.

Nobody involved in any aspect of the production thought that Deckard was a replicant including Scott.  Not the screen writers.  Certainly not Harrison Ford, he's very clear on that subject.  He feels the Deckard-Replicant thing undermines his performance.

Although Ridley Scott wasn't saying anything about it at the time, he is saying a lot now. And what he is saying is damn near grounds for a competency hearing.

"Oh, it was always my thesis theory. It was one or two people who were relevant were... I can't remember if Hampton agreed with me or not. But I remember someone had said, “Well, isn't it corny?” I said, “Listen, I'll be the best f#@king judge of that. I'm the director, okay?” So, and that, you learn -- you know, by then I'm 44, so I'm no f#@king chicken. I'm a very experienced director from commercials and The Duellists and Alien. So, I'm able to, you know, answer that with confidence at the time, and say, “You know, back off, it's what it's gonna be.” Harrison, he was never -- I don't remember, actually. I think Harrison was going, “Uh, I don't know about that.” I said, “But you have to be, because Gaff, who leaves a trail of origami everywhere, will leave you a little piece of origami at the end of the movie to say, ‘I've been here, I left her alive, and I can't resist letting you know what's in your most private thoughts when you get drunk is a f#@king unicorn!’” Right? So, I love Beavis and Butthead, so what should follow that is “Duh.” So now it will be revealed [in the sequel], one way or the other."

Yes, that was really Ridley Scott.

* In case you are wondering where the title came from, it was some book about smuggling Mexican switchblades over the border.  They bought the film rights just to use the title.  A warning to authors everywhere.

UPDATE:  The sons of Plinkett appear to agree with me.

Second UPDATE:
My footnote about the title is wrong.  Not Mexican knife smugglers.

The title came from a William S. Burroughs treatment of an Alan E. Nourse novel that no one has read for nearly half a century. 

My actual point about that being a warning to authors everywhere stands.

NEXT:  Catalines critiques Blade Runner: 2049


ghostfromplanetspook said...

Maybe the sequel will get the Prometheus treatment and be edited to make everyone a moron for the sake of time.

Mr. Bee said...

The LA Times criticism of the original was that the point of the movie was "slavery is bad" and therefore trivial. That didn't kill the popularity of the movie though. It was unpopular because it was a complete downer with an all too obvious slapdash attempt to save it with footage taken from "The Shining" and a voice over that Rachel is a new type replicant with a longer lifetime.

Chris Lutz said...

I never minded the voice over. My biggest problem is Deckard is supposed to be good at his job and he gets beat up by all but one replicant. Rachel saves him once. Priss has him but decides to perform a gymnastic routine. Roy decides it's time for his death.

The whole Deckard as replicant theory annoys me to no end, but some fans live by it.

Misha Burnett said...

First, the title came from the E A Nourse novel about outlaw doctors in a dystopian world where medical care is rationed by the State.

Second, in the Philip Dick novel, the main theme was that replicants could be programed so that they did not know they were replicants. There are two police officers who work for different departments, and they know that one of them is a replicant, but not which one.

So if anyone involved with the production had read the book the film was based on, they would have realized that, yes, Decker was a replicant.

Pavlosky Ufanov said...


Dude the movie doesn't even hint at Decker being a replicant, and we're talking about the movie, not the book.

The only hint at Decker being a replicant is the stupid director's cut with added retcon.

And as a movie it suffers for it.

Accept that the novel and a movie adaptation are completely different things and move on.

The movie is not that great anyway, and the novel is not Philip Dick's best.

Cataline Sergius said...

@Misha Burnett

Do you honestly believe for a second that anyone involved in that production read the book?