Score : 9/10
Year : 1982 (1992 Director's cut)
Country : USA
Language : English
Duration : 1h57*
I had tried to watch Blade Runner a 2 or 3 years ago, and ended hiding behind
my knees for its majority, as my wife had warned me that it was a graphic
movie. It sure is, but not in its entire duration, as my anxiety had made me
believe, back then.
Now, with CBT (which I'll discuss in a proper entry on my mental healh blog), I
have arrived to a point where it was time to try rewatching it, with a small
exercice as you'll read in the approariate entry.
My review, therefore, isn't the usual, because my vision was blurred for all
those graphic scenes, and thus, I missed portions of this movie.
Nonetheless, i wanted to discuss it in this partial review, as follows:
Blade Runner uses about half of the story of Philip K.Dick's Do androids dream of electric sheep? published
in 1968, which had placed the plot in 1992. Once that year had passed, many
editions changed the story to 2021.
Ridley Scott's chosen date for the story is November 2019. The police hires a former officer, to find and "retire" a group of Replicants - a sort of android clones who stole a ship in space and have come to live, underscover, in Los Angeles. These clones have been manufcatured by a corporation for some decades, and uses them as slaves. Much like the novel from which this movie is inspired, they aren't seen as living beings, and killing them isn't regarded as murder, but as retiring them from service.
Blade Runner concentrates on about half of the plots described in the novel ; it doesn't tell the parts where Rick Deckard wants to retire again and own a real animal instead of the fake ones that are available in this dark, post-war future ; it doesn't tell the part about the futuristic religion Philip K. Dick invented for his story, but remains truthful to the rest of the story and raises the same existential questions :
What is it to be human ? what defines us as living beings ? What is our relationship to machines, and where does one end, and the other starts ?
It also reiterates the questions about empathy and compassion raised in the novel, and juxtaposes cold-blooded, legally justifiable killing, to frustrated and regretted, passionate murder... This is where bloody, graphic elements had to be shown, to stress these messages, and showcase the cautinary nature of the movie, and the novel from which it was inspired. So, despite my own sensitivities, this graphic level was necessary, I suppose - and it could have actually been even more graphic, as some scenes are only heard and not shown!
There are a total of 8-10 such graphic scenes in the movie, depending on which of the 5 versions you're watching. At any event, it rated aptly Rated-R for violence, some nudity and other elements which may or may not disturb viewers (cursing, drinking, smoking).
Cinematography is clearly delibrate, mixing a very dark atmopshere throughout - all scenes are shown as an eternal night, perhapse to remind of the heavy, toxic clouds left after the war and described in the novel... Yet, despite this omnipresent darkness, there are bright colors, and clever usage of light, within this darkness.
The overalll look mixes egyptian-inspired buildings, with postappocalyptic, dreary atmosphere, and realistic futuristic looks, such as bilboards with ads everywhere, a densly packed urban area, with buildings and boats alike... Abandonend, broken buildings are shown, just like young, unsupervised children, trying to occupy themselves in the streets.
It is also a respectful hommage to the 1st feature length Scifi movie, Metropolis, with, for example, a character who lives, detached from the rest of the population, high up in a building with a guarded access...
Dialogues are apt and well delivered, with a cosmolotian mixture, though the majority is in English. This includes some dialogues in German, Cantonese, Japanese, Hungarian and Arabic.
Acting is superb and believable, and includes very complicated, dysfunctional moments, which are actually rather disturbing.
Although there is some nudity, it isn't shown as hyper-sexualization, and makeup makes characters look very real, without the usual glam.
In general, Vangelis' score is superbe, again in the same vein as Metropolis, with instrumental music throughout, although not symphonic per se. There were a couple moments where I felt the music was slightly too happy/romantic for what was going on, but it didn't deter, nor did it last. The score is an integral part of the film.
Blade Runner makes one think, with its existential, philosphical questions ; it couldn't, but be violence, bloody and graphic, yet very eloquent in its messages. In this director's cut from 1992, th enarration from the US thatrical release have been set aside and replaced by an on-screen text to explain the main plot ; some scenes have been expanded slightly, to explain later scenes ; others have been refocused to change the point of interest shown, either making a scence a bit more or a bit less graphic than in the other altenrate versions of the film. Details are explained on IMDB for those interested.
Finally, despite my own sensitivity, with makes me view Blade Runner with a partial omission in those few graphic scenes which I couldn't, yet, fully see, my overall appreciation for its making has to be tempered to its uniqueness, innovation and influence on other movies which came after, and based on the respectful nods to previous must-see sci-fi features, such as Metropolis, and 2001, a Space Odyssee. Blade Runner's action is wholly centered on Earth, with characters that are either human, or Replicant, and asks many questions, some of which aren't fully answered, letting us, viewers, come up with our own theories.
I recommend to anyone to read the original Philp K.Dick's novel, preferably with his intented dates, and then contast and compare to Blade Runner's stream-lined stories. It is a must see movie for any Sci-Fi fan, but with a warning as to its violent and graphic nature.
Casting includes : Harrison Ford, Sean Young, Edward James Olmos, Rutger Hauer, Daryl Hannah, William Sanderson, et al.
Comments
Post a Comment