The Eye of the Beholder: Blade Runner January 27, 2007
Posted by ghostof82 in : Film General , trackbackThe beauty of BLADE RUNNER is that, by either omission or design, so much is left unsaid, so many hints and clues unexplained. On casual viewing much of this is missed, and I believe this is why the film was so ill-received back in 1982. Over the years since, and the inevitable repeated screenings on television and home video formats, these hidden hints etc. become easier to see. ‘See’ being a very interesting word here, because sight and vision is the very heart of the BLADE RUNNER experience.
It is no accident that one of the very first shots in the film is that of a giant disembodied eye staring back at the viewer, as if the film itself is confronting the viewer, demanding some kind of subjective response, an echo of the end of 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY where the gaze of the Starchild confronts the audience, announcing, as it were, (and again, like 2001) that only by looking will the viewer really seewhat the film is and what it has to say. This is not a film that rewards if only watched passively, letting the film do all the work of entertaining the audience as mainstream films usually do. Instead, BLADE RUNNER only truly rewards when you work at it. It engages and even demands your own input, your subjectivity. BLADE RUNNER is a cinematic Pandoras Box, and also perhaps a Voight-Kampff machine in itself. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and so it is with BLADE RUNNER.
And here is the power of the film, the reason why so many fans are still watching it, still discussng it. More than twenty years since first watching the film during its initial cinema release, even now it still has something different to offer each time, not because the film has changed but because I have. Experience of BLADE RUNNER is so subjective that over time as we change so too does our interpretation of the film. Get five fans of the film in a room discussing it and chances are that all five see it differently, as if they have all seen a slightly different movie. Not something that happens with STAR WARS. BLADE RUNNER is not just a piece of Hollywood entertainment, it is, I believe, inspite or perhaps even because of its flaws, a major work of art.
You carry BLADE RUNNER around with you, you see echoes of it around you in the world you live in. LA 2019 is not “..a galaxy far, far away…”it is just around the corner. Back in 1982 when I first saw the film, its future seemed far more distant, but now it seems to be closer everyday. As an infrequent part of this site, I’d like to begin a series of observations of BLADE RUNNER, my favorite film.
Is Deckard a Replicant? Its funny how that question has dominated so much attention towards the film. In many ways its the least interesting question concerning the film. Indeed, I often think that Deckard is a far more interesting character if we consider him to be human, no matter what Ridley Scott might say on the subject. Who is he? Why is he still on Earth and not Offworld? In the original release-print of the film, we learn that Deckard was once married: “Sushi, that’s what my ex-wife called me. Cold fish.”But his wife is gone, presumably for a better life Offworld. A broken marriage, the resulting disappointments, unrealised hopes and dreams, further clues to his morose, life-weary demeanor in the film. Perhaps she left simply because she couldn’t bear to live on a decaying Earth anymore, wanted something more, but Deckard wouldn’t go. Was his wife leaving for Offworld the ultimate act of betrayal? After all, are ex-Blade Runners likely to emigrate Offworld and be surrounded by Replicant slaves, permanent reminders of the job they left behind?
In my mind I feel that Blade Runners would gradually burn themselves out as the Replicants became more and more human with each successive Nexus model. It would become less destroying a rogue machine and more like murdering a person. An unfilmed prologue for the film depicted Deckard hunting down and retiring a runaway Nexus 2 or 3 out in some remote farmscape outside the city. The Replicant would be a very basic model, huge, bulky, awkward, primitive, clearly not human. But as the Nexus models were improved and became more human then the job of retiring them would become increasingly repellent, so that when the main proceedings of the film begins, Deckard has quit.
It is fascinating to consider this background to Deckard, to picture him spending months in the decaying megalopolis of LA 2019 with the rejected remnants of humanity deemed unfit for Offworld. He doesn’t go Offworld because he doesn’t want to. He spends his nights in his increasingly untidy apartment, the many photos within reminders of a life lost to him (family, freinds, now all dead from whatever pestilence has struck the world, or left for Offworld?) drinking his booze, sinking ever deeper into despair. Perhaps enjoying the anonymity of the faceless, neon-drenched crowds. Until of course one evening when Gaff taps him on the shoulder at The White Dragon Noodle Bar, pulling him back to that life he thought he had left behind. I often think that the reason why he sympathizes and eventually falls in love with Rachel is simply because he can empathize with the Replicants- he did before, the reason he quit his abhorrent job and lived a lost life in the nighted city.
One can’t forget, however, that the appeal of Deckard as an unlikely hero lies as much with Harrison Fords performance as the script. Perhaps one of the most undervalued performances of his entire career, Ford’s Deckard is complex and understated, at odds with the trademark screen presence of likeable hero that he cultivated in the STAR WARS and INDIANA JONES films. Deckard is at times selfish, cold, bitter, as much a loser and victim as anybody else in the film. Ultimately Ford is very convincing in the role, and how much this is due to Ford’s growing disinterest in the role and the film itself during the production is a matter of conjecture. As far as the sci-fi genre in 1982 was concerned, Deckard was one of the most human and convincing heroes ever seen- he ate, slept, drank, bled… in essence he was an everyman in an extraordinary world. A Replicant? Not a chance, not in my eyes.
But I’ll return to that human or Replicant debate at a later time, because there are other reasons why Deckard being a Replicant undermines the very reasoning of the film.
Blade Runners don’t exist. Officially, there is no need of them. Replicants are perfect slaves, they don’t go rogue, turn on thier masters. It is part of the Big Lie that is Offworld. In order to encourage the public, Offworld portrayed as a New World, a paradise. Blade Runner departments (presumably there are variants world-wide, or whatever is left of the world in 2019) are essentially clandestine government-sponsored death squads. Bryants office, modest and unassuming, is almost hidden in gloomy corner of the Police HQ. Blade Runners don’t wear uniforms. Note that after Deckard has retired Zhora, no police question Deckards actions once they realize what he is- all they seem concerned about is clearing up the mess before any onlookers realise that Zhora was a Replicant. No-one will ever learn what happened to the crew and passengers of the Offworld shuttle that the Replicants used to get to earth. Deckard is reading a newspaper at the beginning of the film, and there is no mention of a missing shuttle and massacre which would, presumably, be headline news. Another question raised by the film- are there Blade Runners Offworld to keep the Replicant slaves under control? A scenario for a sequel perhaps?
Bryant informs Deckard that the Replicants “..slaughtered twenty-three people and jumped a shuttle.” I have mental pictures of the Replicants bloodily murdering civilian Offworlders, colonists, innocent people. It is not an image that sits well with how Ridley Scott ultimately wants us to feel sympathy for the Replicants. Bryant’s line is almost throwaway; I don’t believe we are intended to dwell on it. Replicants are a threat, that is clear from the start of the film where Leon almost kills Holden, but throughout the film Scott encourages our sympathy for them (or empathy, a case for the film to be viewed as a V-K test itself?). Zhora is shot in the back in slow motion in a deliberate attempt to elicit our sympathy (indeed, few heroes in a mainstream film are seen shooting protagonists in the back, especially a woman, human or not). When Leon attacks Deckard soon after, it is an act of revenge for Zhora’s murder. When Batty preys on Deckard at the end of the film, it is orchestrated again as an act of revenge, this time for Pris’ murder… we are intended to feel sympathy for Batty as he grieves over Pris’ corpse. The film seems to portray the Replicants as victims, their four-year lifespan an injustice inflicted on them by Tyrell. In some ways this is a triumph of the film, in that there is no black & white portrayal of Good and Evil; in a sense every character of the film can be seen as a victim. But I still find myself considering the fate of the people on that shuttle, clearly a terrible attrocity was commited by the same four Replicants we are meant to feel sympathy for.
Well, thats enough for now. If you can stomach it, I’ll return to this assessment of my favorite film at a later date.
Comments»
Interesting comments ghostof82!
I too believe that Deckard is human not a replicant (despite what Ridley Scott says - and I really find i hard not to agree with everything he says!)
A sequel would be a dangerous thing…it could easily turn out terrible. The only way would be for Ridley Scott to do it himself and then it would have to be a great script to do the original justice.
Looking forward to the Final Cut next year - I did have a very rough cut of the workprint version which I sold as it was almost unwatchable. It did have some great bits not seen elsewhere such as the ice hockey dancers etc. I take it you have read Future Noir? If not, buy it at once!
Thanks for the comments Nick.
Yes I have read Future Noir- have never seen the workprint but am looking forward to seeing deleted scenes etc. with the Final Cut special edition. I agree a sequel would be a bad idea -at least unless Ridley did it, as his recent films have been of a high quality. It would be fascinating to see what Ridley would do with the material 25 years after the original. The one thing blocking a sequel would be the complicated rights issues, which had delayed the Final Cut and DVD releases for years.