Review: Blade Runner

25th Anniversary Final Cut – review by Rob Nijman

In the early eighties, I missed the theatrical release of Blade Runner as my parents were in the midst of conceiving me. Then I missed the 1992 Director’s Cut, as I still wasn’t allowed to watch certain movies after ED-209 went all Siegried & Roy in Verhoeven’s Robocop. Neither have I seen attack ships on fire, nor any C-beams near the Tannhauser Gate – glittering or otherwise.

I was there for the 25th anniversary’s Final Cut though, when I – almost as old as the movie itself – finally met Deckard and Batty. You people wouldn’t believe what I’ve seen. But I’ll tell you anyway.

Blade Runner is possibly the best thing ever to happen to sci-fi. That includes 2001, Aliens and of course Alien. While the former had Douglas Trumbull to provide the special effects and the latter had the Great Scott himself for production design and direction, Blade Runner is a co-production of these extraordinary visionaries, which gives it the edge over both. It has effects that stand the test of time, while its Los Angeles has never looked more impressive, or indeed more prophetic, in its rainy, greasy bleakness.

The plot of Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep needs as little introduction as the word replicant does. More Human Than Human is as much a fixture of literary or cinematic sci-fi history as 1984‘s Newspeak or 2001‘s “open the pod bay doors, HAL”, and although the Tyrell Corporation could have been spawned by Orwell, it’s in Scott’s 2019 where it reigns.

The future as portrayed in sci-fi: mega corporations, enhanced differences between the upper and lower classes, flying cars. Interspersed with unique-to-this-particular-universe elements, such as the near-Tolkienian lingo of the LA streets – a hodgepodge of English, German and Hungarian as invented by Edward James Olmos – and the near-total disappearance of animals.

The animal absence is an obvious analogy for the state of the planet. Ecological disasters, overpopulation, heavy industry, the vastness that is the world of Blade Runner (in themes, places, visions) touches upon many present day problems. Off World is simply inevitable – the On World is too crowded, too used up, too greased out. Is there anything you’d like to say, Ridley..? There is much more to the story though.

“To stumble upon plot logic seems absurd with a movie that is more about vison.” Quoted here is Roger Ebert, being wrong when it comes to form over function and alleged shortcomings of the story. As visionary and breathtakingly awesome the movie looks, it’s all about how the movie feels as well. Essentially, and besides the aforementioned about it not being easy being green, the story is about relationships. Identity, interaction and what it is to be human. Replicants are ‘born’ with artificial memories, and have four-year lifespans because otherwise they might evolve into actual humans, with thoughts, ideas and, god forbid, rights. An essential part of K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream. In Blade Runner, it results in close-quartered, stage-like interaction – where the story is alive with the sounds of introspection and the ‘what makes us human?’-debate that is part of the replicant plot-device.

To complete the picture of a could-be world, Scott took the story outside, where he had to create a credibly suitable environment for post-modern Cityspeaking metropolitans, electronic animal life, and more human than human inhabitants looking like Sean Young. The fact it delivers on that ambition is why Blade Runner is visually awe-inspiring also – Ridley Scot and Douglas Trumbull, together with production designer Lawrence Paul created a prophetic box-o-rama truly magnificent. They made Do Androids Dream come alive in so many ways, you hardly need a voice-over to navigate its bleak and existential waters…

I won’t further explore the voice-over debate touched upon by that last remark, as Frank Darabont already said everything there is to say about that:

The movie, originally titled Dangerous Days (dodged a bullet there), is heavily influenced by film noir in order to put the finishing touch on an already unique picture. Indeed, Ford’s Deckard is essentially Marlowesque, while Hampton Fancher (one of the screenwriters) had Robert Mitchum in mind for the protagonist. Ford, as the perpetually smirking presence, could not have been cast better. His reluctant, tired-of-it-all hero is effortless – not unlike Indy and Han.

Rutger Hauer meanwhile was never more commanding, a towering blue eyed blond who is as much an embodiment of genetic (cybernetic?) perfection as Daryl Hannah is, while Sean Young IS Rachael – as K. Dick agreed when he saw some footage before his untimely early demise in March of 1982. “How did you get into my brain…?” he reportedly asked Scott in complete awe after screening ten minutes of the unfinished picture. And well, if I was ever to fall in love with a droid… – besides the chick from Weird Science, that is.

The actual falling in love bit was with the overall performance though, on and off screen. The Final Cut is an enhanced version with respect to audio and video, but with the awesomeness that was Trumbull’s and Scott’s combined vision intact. No need for CGI additions, Blade Runner is perhaps the last of the great non-CGI movies. I hope the next version is this one, replicated. I don’t expect him to improve upon it, anyway, as I don’t think it can be done – but then again, who does..?