0264 | Blade Runner: The Final Cut

Despite my familiarity with Blade Runner this was the first time I’ve had the pleasure of watching it on the big screen. I couldn’t pass up the latest opportunity to see the re-released Final Cut version, which is currently doing the rounds in a few UK cinemas, and it has made me think even more highly of Ridley Scott’s dystopian sci-fi thriller (though, in truth, I’ve long considered it one of my favourite films anyway). There isn’t actually much difference between Scott’s Final Cut and the earlier Director’s Cut from 1992; it’s more a polishing of a few bells and whistles, as opposed to a drastic reinvention of the material, but 33 years after it first appeared in cinemas the English director’s vision of a futuristic city – the setting is Los Angeles in 2019 – remains fascinatingly plausible and as visually-arresting as it gets.

For the uninitiated, in this world the haves have fled a seemingly environmentally-ravaged and over-populated Earth – hello Elysium – to set up ‘off-world’ colonies, adverts for which loom ever present in the permanently dark skies above LA (along with the giant logos of more familiar products; Scott, who had a background in advertising, uses product placement in a creative way throughout). The have-nots remain below, as do others who choose to stick with the crowds and the constant rain; most people live their lives outside on the neon-lit streets, where Asian food and culture is dominant, and many buildings appear to be condemned or near-uninhabitable. Those wealthy or lucky enough to be able to spend their time higher up – in mega-skyscrapers that burst through the clouds – are able to enjoy a little sunshine, but for everyone else life looks relentlessly cold, damp and miserable. Simply being alive appears to be an achievement.

Scott’s adaptation of Philip K. Dick’s novel Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep? leans heavily on hard-boiled gumshoe noir, both in terms of production design, characterisation and plot. The main protagonist is retired cop Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), a Hammett-esque heavy-drinking, mac-wearing cynic who predictably cannot resist the lure of his old job when his former supervisor Bryant (M. Emmett Walsh) comes a-calling. Deckard is a retired ‘Blade Runner’, a specialised hunter of replicants, which are biologically-engineered beings built for war, work and pleasure that are also capable of developing their own feelings. Four of these replicants have staged a mutiny and have returned to Earth, where their presence is illegal, in order to seek extra life; as a security measure each model has been fabricated with an in-built lifespan of four years, but Deckard’s job is to hunt them down regardless.

Though the core plot is simple, and easy to follow, there are complicating factors (and be warned, if you have never seen the film, that spoilers follow): Deckard falls in love with a beautiful replicant named Rachael (Sean Young), an employee of the Tyrell Corporation, the company that made the four rogue models. Meanwhile there is the suggestion that Deckard is himself a replicant, and that his memories are implanted. Famously the Director’s Cut included a unicorn-featuring dream sequence that pretty much confirms this, but there are other less-celebrated and more subtle signifiers that also suggest as much, most of which existed in the original cinema release: Scott and editors Terry Rawlings and Marsha Nakashima went to great lengths to link Deckard and lead replicant Roy Batty (a scene-stealing career peak for Rutger Hauer) during their climactic fight, for example, especially when Deckard tries to repair a hand with broken fingers and Batty tries to fight against impending death by driving a nail through his own palm.

Interestingly, with the Final Cut Scott emphasises the presence of the film’s religious links. If Batty is the film’s Jesus figure, as well as its vicious antihero, then Tyrell (Joe Turkel) is more clearly treated as a representation of God (and, extending the theme, chief engineer JF Sebastian (William Sanderson) fulfills the role of the Holy Ghost). When Batty finally meets his maker, Tyrell is even confirmed as such, as the replicant demands “I want more life, Father.” This was a risky move by Scott, as in earlier versions the line is “I want more life, fucker”, and it’s one of the most-quoted and loved by fans, but I think both versions work just as well as each other. (Incidentally that line is delivered in front of the watching eyes of Tyrell’s owl, a guardian of the underworlds in ancient Egyptian culture, and a protector of the dead.) I am a fan of the enhanced religious subtext in the Final Cut, but primarily because it still remains a suggestion throughout; it doesn’t intrude too much.

Scott’s latest version plays around with dialogue elsewhere. The action shifts briefly to a North African / Middle Eastern district of Los Angeles, and the original cinema release and 1992 Director’s Cut both included an out-of-sync scene featuring Deckard and an Egyptian snake salesman. For the Final Cut Scott tried in vain to find a suitable ADR track, and eventually employed Harrison Ford’s son Benjamin – a chef by trade – to lipsynch; Benjamin Ford’s lips were even superimposed over his father’s, which I think is a nice touch given the film’s concerns with artificiality. Elsewhere the death of deadly replicant Zhora (Joanna Cassidy) is improved by the removal of the head of an obvious stunt double (ouch!), which is in turn replaced by Cassidy’s (double ouch!), and enhancements were made to some other visual effects. The film’s much-celebrated score by Vangelis – which still sounds fresh today – has also been tweaked, though not in any way that would be considered substantial.

There are sublime moments littered throughout the film. You probably know them as well as I do. The first twenty minutes, during which this futuristic place is established and explored, is the highlight for me, beginning with the initial belches of fire from giant smokestacks and the slow zoom in to Tyrell’s pyramid-like headquarters, where Leon (Brion James) is undergoing a ‘Voight-Kampff’ test, a method used to identify replicants. The groundbreaking work of the special effects team has ensured that Blade Runner’s vast cityscape of flying cars, giant buildings and video adverts looks fresh today, while many contemporary films in the early 1980s presented visions of the future that are barely-credible thirty years later. The basic-looking monitors date the film, and the flying cars may not exist yet, but it’s interesting that a number of western and eastern metropolises have taken on many of the features of Scott’s Los Angeles in the years since the original cinema release.

Its influence on countless dark sci-fi thrillers since is obvious, but just recently I watched Ghost In The Shell, a Japanese anime covering similar ground that included a matching fascination with mannequins, dolls and eyes. Both films share a bleak, downbeat tone, and both tap into the loneliness experienced by some people in cities, despite the fact huge numbers of fellow citizens mill around them. JF Sebastian is the only person living in his building and engineers robotic toys for company, for example. Deckard lives by himself, miserably tapping away on the piano as he makes his way to the bottom of yet another bottle. Tyrell is wealthy but is seen alone in bed in a giant penthouse above the clouds. In this cold, lonely film they are characters who are just existing, rather than enjoying life; the script repeatedly points out that Batty has experienced far more in four years than any human will in a lifetime. How depressing it all seems.

Few films hold my interest if I’ve watched them more than five times, but I never switch off from Blade Runner, despite my familiarity with the material. It’s always a pleasure to immerse oneself in Scott’s fantastical world: the wealth of ideas (both fresh and stolen) always impresses me, the soundtrack gives me goosebumps and the acting is extremely enjoyable to watch (particularly Hauer, but Young uses an icy exterior to mask interior doubts and hurt superbly and Ford is at his weary, half-defeated movie star best). A fine science fiction film, then, but also a gripping thriller and a poignant tragedy. Aside from a scene in which the convergence of several major characters in a small part of the city at the same time stretches plausibility a little too far (yes, even in a picture containing flying cars) it is near-faultless.

Directed by: Ridley Scott.
Written by: Hampton Fancher, David Peoples. Based on Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. Dick
Starring: Harrison Ford, Sean Young, Rutger Hauer, Edward James Olmos, Daryl Hannah, Brion James, William Sanderson, Joe Turkel, Joanna Cassidy.
Cinematography: Jordan Cronenweth.
Editing: Terry Rawlings, Marsha Nakashima.
Music: Vangelis.
Certificate: 15.
Running Time: 117 minutes.
Year: 1982 (Final Cut: 2007).
Rating: 9.5

Comments 7

  1. Todd Benefiel April 12, 2015

    Trying to get caught up on so many things here post-move and return-to-job, but I’m hoping to get things going with the CM site soon. Thanks for remembering it! And I’m actually going to jump ahead chronologically with getting caught up with my fellow-blogger posts, because I just watched this version of ‘Blade Runner’ a few weeks ago, and wanted to comment on at least one review on-time.

    I was amazed, again, at just how great this film looks, and especially now with this new cut. Cool you were able to see it in the theater; I saw the original in a small cinema back in ’82, the first director’s cut on a BIG screen in LA in ’92, and finally saw this version a few years back when it was released on DVD. And like you, I can sit down and watch this again and again, and never grow tired of it.

    AND, I wanted to let you know, in case you haven’t read it: there’s a great making-of book out called ‘Future Noir’, which covers every single aspect of the entire filming process of ‘Blade Runner’. Definitely worth a read.

    • Stu April 12, 2015

      Excellent! Thanks for the recommendation, I’d like to read that. I just joined a new library and they have a good cinema-related section, so hopefully they’ll have it. I hadn’t actually watched the film for a while so it was a surprise to see just how well it has aged; seeing those shots of futuristic LA at the start was something else. If I had to pick ten favourite films of all time this would certainly be in with a shot, so I feel a bit ashamed it has taken me this long to see it on the big screen!

  2. Writer Loves Movies April 13, 2015

    I’ve seen this one a few times, including once on the big screen a few years back, but I’m still not sure I know it closely enough to spot the differences in the re-cuts. It’s a thoroughly engrossing movie though, I always find myself lost in the atmosphere of it.

    • Stu April 13, 2015

      Definitely! I think it establishes the futuristic world so clearly within the first ten or fifteen minutes. I never find myself questioning the whys and wherefores, which I tend to do when watching sci-fi generally. The main differences are between the original and the Director’s Cut, but it’s so long since I watched the original I can’t remember what they changed apart from the bits that are often mentioned!

  3. Mark Walker October 9, 2015

    Shit, man! That’s me just reading this. I stumbled onto it from your Martian review and yet we were already discussing it on your Sicario review. I had no idea you’d already reviewed it. Anyway, you know my thoughts already. It’s a masterpiece!

Get in touch...

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s