.jpg)
The newly restored and, at long last, director-approved final cut of Blade Runner is playing in theaters in New York City and I had the chance to see it with an audience a couple of nights ago. My initial reaction was relief that the dreaded voice-over was completely absent, as it should be. Once I was able to settle into my seat without having to hear "the charmer's name was Gaff" I knew the rest would be gravy, and so it was. I'm happy to report that this restored print of the film looks completely amazing -- the restoration is as clean and clear as any I've ever seen.There have even been some touch-ups and a bit of re-shooting, although to what purpose I don't know. The new end credits give a big thank-you to Joanna Cassidy for agreeing to do some kind of re-shoot work, but if no one ever told me it had been done, I'd never know, so it must be some little thing that had been eating away at Ridley Scott.
This final cut isn't just a restoration of the visuals, though -- it's a plot restoration as well, and one that I find completely stupid and unnecessary. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then I don't know where you've been for the last twenty years, so I have no compunction about spoiling it for you. Ridley Scott feels that Deckard, Harrison Ford's Philip Marlowe of the future, is a replicant, just like the replicants he's chasing. It was always his prerogative to think this, even though it doesn't fit into the framework of the story, but now he's made his interpretation of it the definitive one. Instead of the film ending with Deckard spiriting Sean Young to safety in the woodsy wherever, he now learns that a vision that had haunted his dreams, of a galloping unicorn, is known to his fellow Blade Runners. They know he's a replicant, and they'll be coming for him. As this realization dawns on Deckard at the end of the new cut, he grabs Sean Young and slams the door closed -- smash cut to end titles.
Others have already done a detailed analysis of why this makes no sense whatsoever within the logic of the story, so I'll confine myself to why it doesn't make sense dramatically. Throughout the course of the movie, Deckard tracks down and kills replicants, one in extremely cold blood -- the Joanna Cassidy scene. Cassidy's fake-snake-wearing stripper character has done no harm that we see -- she may have killed some people while escaping a slave colony, but big deal -- and as soon as she realizes that Deckard has come for her, she takes off running for her life. She runs as fast as she can just to get away from him, and he chases her, gets a bead on her and shoots her square in the back. It's an incredibly cowardly moment that sort of makes me hate Deckard for the rest of the film. Suddenly turning the hunter into the hunted in the last reel is emotionally awkward, to say the least. It's a classic example of a twist for a twist's sake, and it's a shame Scott doesn't understand that.
The two major changes between the original cut and that other director's cut and this cut are the removal of the voice-over, which is an enormous plus, and the 'Deckard is a replicant' addition, which is an enormous minus, so I'm tempted to say that the final product is a wash, but there's something about seeing the film on the big screen that forces me to retain good feelings about it. Logical flaws and structural flaws aside, watching it is a pure experience-- this is a film that I believe truly ranks near Metropolis in terms of true visual wonderment. Consider that shot of Deckard eating noodles in the lift as it casually motors away -- that alone is worth the price of admission. The towering images of the Japanese face peddling God knows what kind of product is also incredibly iconic at this point -- what is she selling, anyway? And who is she selling to? Anyone with money is already away in the colonies, so who's buying? So many questions arise while watching, and so few answers are given.
There's no question it's Blade Runner, not Alien, that Scott will be remembered for. That's not a slap at Alien, but movies like Alien and Pulp Fiction, which spawn an entire copycat genre, pay a price for that level of influence. They lose a tinge of their specialness. Blade Runner is one of a kind in every way, with a marriage of music and imagery that has never and will never be repeated. I could hear one bar of the Blade Runner theme and know what I'm hearing. I could see one frame of the film and identify it. That's how deeply it gets under your skin and stays with you after you watch. I'm hard pressed to think of a favorite scene, but if you insist, I think it would have to be the scene where the creeps Roy Batty and Pris put the screws to the creepy J.F. Sebastian, while all of his insanely creepy 'toys' look on. I don't know why, but watching that scene always makes me want to hop the next shuttle to the off-world as soon as possible.
Insert Caption: The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian_thumbnail.jpg)
SCOOP: Spider-Man 4 and 5 Might be Shot at the Same Time!
Cinematical Seven: Disney's Awesome Live-Action Kid Adventures
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
10-26-2007 @ 9:41AM
Cincinnati Mike said...
Aside from the new improved visuals, I think I might stick with the 10th anniversary cut. This was original "director's cut" that, if I rememeber correctly, was cut by some third party, then described to Ridley, who gave his okey-doke. Again, the voiceover is gone, but this one only HINTS that Deckard might be a skin-job. I like the hint better.
I think it was Ebert who asked the question back in the 10th anniversary days: all you purists seeing it for the second time who are so much happier with the voiceover gone--would you have understood the story without the VO the first time? I have to admit probably not--tho I am happier without it.
Reply
10-26-2007 @ 9:46AM
The Addict said...
While I can understand your disagreement with the "Deckard is a replicant" idea, it's not a new concept for the final cut. Scott had made allusion to it in the director's cut as well, throwing subtle hints at it throughout the film, but never outright saying that it's true; the ambiguity is something I love about this concept, where one can think about it either way and make the argument as to why. I personally side with the "is a replicant" side because that leaves the dark ending that goes along so well with the rest of the film's tone.
Reply
10-26-2007 @ 9:47AM
The Addict said...
I've never seen the original cut of the movie, but I've always understood the D.C. fine without the voice over.
Reply
10-26-2007 @ 9:49AM
Max said...
Call me crazy, but I've always preferred the voice-over version. The movie does play like a classic Marlowe movie, and one element of that is the Marlowe voiceover, describing what was going on in his character. I can't imagine "Farewell my Lovely" without Robert Mitchum's voice over. It sets the tone as a seamy detective noir. This combined with the dystopian future was breathtaking back in 1982.
I thought the "director's cut" was still good, but it definitely lacked that 1940's feel I was first attracted to.
Reply
10-26-2007 @ 10:04AM
Mr. R said...
Blade Runner is a phenomenon in the sense that few movies have been re-cut so many times, maybe worth a list to find out which others were too. I think every new cut should not discard the last, you can buy the entire set and appreciate each version in it´s own right and make up your mind. I personally like the who knows deal that had been going on for years, was he or not a replicant. Sometimes, with jewels like this, you might just get to choose.
I hope some fan re-cut is done in the future to see yet again, another version.
Best movie ever...
Reply
10-26-2007 @ 10:26AM
Cincinnati Mike said...
I think I was 16 when I saw the original in the theater. I had never heard of Raymond Chandler or Phillip Marlowe or even Robert Mitchum, so the noir element of the voiceover was lost on me. Possibly one reason there is so much V.O.-hate is not just that it existed, but that Harrison Ford himself hated the idea, was jealous that Ridley was spending all his directorial energy on Darryl Hannah, and so he deliberatly gace a shitty read on the V.O. That's the rumor, anyway.
Reply
10-26-2007 @ 10:28AM
E said...
You can definitely see where Joanna Cassidy reshot footage was added. In Zhora's death scene, instead of seeing some person that is not Joanna with a bad wig you see Joanna Cassidy doing her own stunts although looking a little bit older.
Reply
10-26-2007 @ 11:12AM
Akbar Fazil said...
Cincinnati Mike, that is nothing but rumor and in no way the truth of what happened with the creation of the voice over.
Do yourself a favor and read "Future Noir" It is a great book (getting a re-print this year IIRC) that explains everything you ever wanted to know about the making of Blade Runner.
Reply
10-26-2007 @ 11:18AM
Rich said...
Does it make sense that Decker is a replicant? It sure does, both in the movie and the book. I am a little disappointed Scott, took a stand on that, I would have left it more ambiguous.
And call me crazy, but I like the VO.
Reply
10-26-2007 @ 11:41AM
kevin kearney said...
It's as if you haven't even seen the Director's cut that's been out for....oh wait, you haven't. You run a movie blog, by the way.
Reply
10-26-2007 @ 11:49AM
Jonesy said...
Blade Runner is opening in more theatres over the next several months. If it's anywhere near you, get out and see it on the big screen.
Full Theatre List here:
http://movietheatrereviews.blogspot.com/
Reply
10-26-2007 @ 11:53AM
tikirob said...
This is one of my top ten films and it opens here (Portland, Or) today. I will be there.
Rob
http://www.movie-cat.com
Reply
10-26-2007 @ 12:03PM
Cincinnati Mike said...
Er, precisely, Akbar. The "Ford hated it" stuff is on pp 296-298 of Future Noir. Ford's resentment of Scottr's attention to the female actors: page 212. I'm not saying it's gospel, but do spare me the reading assignment.
Reply
10-26-2007 @ 12:25PM
Christopher Campbell said...
E,
While I don't doubt you can spot the new footage of Cassidy's death, I think that if you aren't looking for it, you probably won't notice. I saw the new cut before knowing what was re-shot and I could not tell from just watching. Did you know going into it?
Anyway, the new version, which was digitally scanned at 4x, is so beautifully crisp. And aside from a few obvious dated things, it looks like it was made this year.
Reply
10-26-2007 @ 12:30PM
Nova said...
Deckard being a replicant is hinted to through out the movie (and I've heard many arguments for and against it, so to say he can't possibly be or shouldn't be one isn't correct), but I agree that it should remain ambiguous. Movies don't have to answer every question, a truely good movie leaves you wanting to discuss it afterwards.
I've only seen the director's cut though, so I can't comment on the voice over.
Reply
10-26-2007 @ 12:31PM
E said...
If you've seen the old version enough you could definitely tell . . . .
Reply
10-26-2007 @ 2:00PM
Cincinnati Mike said...
Zhora's death: even on the first viewing of the theatrical original (and stoned out of my mind) it was pretty obviously a stunt double. In fact, I always thought it looked like a dude! Speaking of Zhora...that shower scene was in the spank bank for WEEKS. I bet I'm not alone.
Reply
10-26-2007 @ 2:29PM
Liz K said...
I was angry when I first read here that the ending was changed--but I found out from reading other blogs that the ending in The Final Cut is still the same one from the 1992 Director's Cut, which I consider as the true ending. Thank you, Ridley Scott, for not going George Lucas on us.
And yes, the ending makes sense dramatically (by the way, Dekkard's transformation from the hunter to the hunted had already taken place when he is chased by Roy at the end). Dekkard actually transforms gradually throughout the film, and the audience is led through this transition emotionally--he goes from a callused human cop (which we relate to) to a cold-blooded killer and a coward, at which point we emotionally distance ourselves from him. Then much like the replicants, he begins to regain humanity as he finds love and becomes aware of mortality--at which point we begin to reconnect with him emotionally. The ending indicates that his life will parallel that of the rest of the replicants, who turn into human beings gradually through the course of the film in their quest for a longer life.
I think this ending is also more in context with the environment in which the story takes place as well.
Reply
10-26-2007 @ 3:37PM
Akbar Fazil said...
My point about the VO was that Ford was already done and gone from Blade Runner when he got called back in to record it. There is no proof whatsoever that he gave a bad reading because he was pissed at Scott for attention he gave to Hannah. The voice over was added BACK IN (yes, it was originally there in an earlier script) after the workprint screenings got the studio nervous.
Honestly, I think the VO belongs. Maybe not all of it, but without it I feel we have no tie to Deckard at all and don't care about him. Let alone the whole human/replicant idea.
Reply
10-26-2007 @ 6:27PM
dan said...
Somebody needs to make a chart showing the differences between the three. The original DC, to me, needs no improvement (though I have yet to see the new one.) The ambiguity of Deckard's true nature is nice; it gives us something to argue about and think about - and it drives home the big question: whether self-awareness is a requirement for being human. Coming right out and telling everyone exactly what Deckard is does a disservice to that notion - which I believe is the driving sci-fi, "what if" element of the movie.
The loss of voice-over in the first DC was an absolute godsend. Again, because the voice over took away ambiguity - it took away the key question and most fascinating part of the story. I find it ironic that Scott seems to have moved his new cut toward the same "on the nose" conclusions that the much (and deservedly, in my opinion) hated voice over was added by the studios to facilitate.
Reply