There are certain years that are forever immortalized or synonymous with specific movies, particularly science-fiction. Back to the Future, for instance, has a few: 1985 (present day), 1955 (past), and 2015 (future). Then there's 2001: A Space Odyssey, Stanley Kubrick's quintessential 1968 space adventure.
Next month and year marks when we would have had a futuristic Los Angeles, as seen in director Ridley Scott's bleak and intriguing "tech-noir" thriller, Blade Runner, from 1982. Based on Philip K. Dick's dystopic novel, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?", from a screenplay by Hampton Fancher and David Peoples, the film is a prime example of this particular subgenre, mixing 1980s-based sci-fi with a gritty style of 1940s detective noir. This vision of the future (as in the film) consists of steam, rain, billboard- and blimp-sized ads, flying cars, and neon lights. (Two years later, writer-director James Cameron would follow a somewhat-similar suit with The Terminator, which features only a few scenes set in a dystopic future.)
Screen legend Harrison Ford plays Rick Deckard, a retired cop (and futuristic Bogart of sorts) called back in to his former job, as a "blade runner," to hunt down and kill convicted androids known as Replicants (chief among them the compelling and, at times, frightening Roy Batty, played by the late Rutger Hauer), and which may or may not include the mysterious, bright-pupiled Rachel (played by Sean Young). Replicants look and act like human beings in every way, except for emotions (and with limited lifespans). "Replicants are like any other machine," Deckard tells us, "They're either a benefit or a hazard. If they're a benefit, it's not my problem."
Many viewers (myself included) agree that these are characters--on a quest to find their "creator" (in this case, the mysterious Dr. Elden Tyrell, of the Tyrell Corporation) and seek eternal life against impending death--illustrate the notion of "man playing God," and what it is to be human, what is human and what is not, and what is "perfect" and what is not. Ditto the plots emotional-response tests, mentions of "Off-World colonies," and roles of memories (or "implants"). The electronic score by Vangelis (1981's Chariots of Fire) captures these emotions, and this world, brilliantly, as do the amazing special photographic effects supervised by Douglas Trumbell (1968's 2001: A Space Odyssey).
Many viewers (myself included) agree that these are characters--on a quest to find their "creator" (in this case, the mysterious Dr. Elden Tyrell, of the Tyrell Corporation) and seek eternal life against impending death--illustrate the notion of "man playing God," and what it is to be human, what is human and what is not, and what is "perfect" and what is not. Ditto the plots emotional-response tests, mentions of "Off-World colonies," and roles of memories (or "implants"). The electronic score by Vangelis (1981's Chariots of Fire) captures these emotions, and this world, brilliantly, as do the amazing special photographic effects supervised by Douglas Trumbell (1968's 2001: A Space Odyssey).
 |
| Rutger Hauer |
Released the same year as Steven Spielberg's critical and commercial blockbuster E.T. and John Carpenter's body-horror remake The Thing, Blade Runner (like the latter) was not well-received upon its initial theatrical run. Ford and Scott, for one, didn't like the studio-added element of Ford's voice-over narration and a forced "happy ending."
However, in subsequent years (like Carpenter's film), especially with the release of a 1992 "director's cut" and a 2007 "final cut" (both of which removed the narration and initial ending), the film has gained massive followings and discussions, including the decades-long debate (and possible suggestion) that Deckard himself may or may not be a Replicant. Edward Guthmann of the San Francisco Chronicle wrote (in 1992), "Today, [the film] works better than ever: Scott's version not only has more dramatic integrity, but its visual aesthetic and futuristic vision are more in sync with today's moviegoers."
However, in subsequent years (like Carpenter's film), especially with the release of a 1992 "director's cut" and a 2007 "final cut" (both of which removed the narration and initial ending), the film has gained massive followings and discussions, including the decades-long debate (and possible suggestion) that Deckard himself may or may not be a Replicant. Edward Guthmann of the San Francisco Chronicle wrote (in 1992), "Today, [the film] works better than ever: Scott's version not only has more dramatic integrity, but its visual aesthetic and futuristic vision are more in sync with today's moviegoers."
Rita Kempley of the Washington Post adds, "Grand enough in scale to carry its many Biblical and mythological references, Blade Runner never feels heavy or pretentious -- only more and more engrossing with each viewing."
And the film has had a massive influence on the science-fiction film genre: gritty atmospheres and moods, dystopic, bleak, intellectual, steampunk, cyberpunk (sound familiar?), and an immersive, believable experience. Wrote Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly, "This is perhaps the only science-fiction film [besides 2001] that can be called transcendental."
No comments:
Post a Comment