Hello dear
Cam-fictionists,
First, let
me introduce you to the topic of the week, the iconic film: Blade Runner (1982),
which some of you may know as The Final Cut (2007). Chase away any feelings of
confusion, because it is the same movie! The fact that there were seven
different versions of it made doesn't simplify things, but the cast and
director remain the same. Hold on tight, because this film holds many more
surprises...
Blade
Runner, as we will call it, is an adaptation of Do Androids Dream of Electric
Sheep? (1968) by Philip K. Dick. The written and film versions are not very similar.
However, an outrageous budget and outstanding visual effects - especially considering the release date - make the film extremely convincing. Let me tell you how
convincing: 28 million dollars. This explains, for those of you who have seen
the movie, the amount of product placements. Several times each,
the shiny logos of Atari, RCA and even Coca-Cola appear on the screen. Unlike
what the marketers might have expected, all the companies who contracted to
appear in Blade Runner suffered from set-backs in sales or saw their
company dismantled within the following years. This is what spectators will
come to call the 'Blade Runner Curse'. You think this movie is cool, now? You
have seen nothing of it yet.
Let me
announce the local colour: Harrison Ford and Sean Young. The ideal central
couple. If it were not for the testimonies of their constant backstage fights,
we would be ready to believe it! In spite of their unstable relationship in
real life, the two actors are brilliant when taking on the roles of Rick
Deckard and Rachael. Him as a retired and re-hired Blade Runner, or special
police in charge of killing human androids; her as a stunning new-generation android
who believes herself to be human. Touching.
Now romance
aside, the plot put in a few lines: Human androids, or Replicants, have been
made illegal on Earth, due to their sudden rebellious behaviour. Blade Runners
are a special force in charge of terminating them. In Los Angeles, year 2019,
ex-Blade Runner Deckard is put in charge of killing four escaped androids. These
four are in search for their maker, the owner of the powerful Tyrell
Corporation. They wish to elongate their four-year lifespan, and don't hesitate
to kill to get their way. This explains my title for you: we are talking about androids
on an existential search.
Now, what is
there anything wrong with this movie?
As a
science-fiction fan, let me get this straight: this movie only lacks a bit of
explaining. My first impression of it was that it was an awfully cryptic movie.
From science-fiction, I have learned to expect some kind of answers to my
questions. Here, for instance: how are the Replicants superior to humans? How are
they manufactured? Instead of our rightful touch of futuristic science
speculation, we are served with the view of the bombastic Tyrell private
mansion and the pitiful sight of the engineers behind the project. Other than
this, three scenes indicate that the Replicants are indeed superior to humans,
but we still have no idea how. Pris happily sticks her hand in a pot of boiling
water. Roy Batty does the same with a freezing tank, and later destroys walls
with his bare hands, or head, without suffering from any obvious injury.
Yet the
Replicants have one major flaw, which happens to be the very motto of the
company which created them: they are 'more human than human'. How is that? They
are emotional. They feel joy, love and fear and want to be free. Roy mentions
in his last scene: "Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it?"
Or even the tell-tale kiss between Roy and Pris shows us how vulnerable the
Replicants really are. You would wonder: how their genetic engineers could
ignore such a huge mistake? This is without mentioning that these engineers
were able to infuse them with a genetic illness making them both born in the
stage of adulthood and live only for four years. Moreover, they made
the androids unable to feel empathy, which allows them to kill at will even
though they were only ever meant for slave labour. You might agree that there
is a slight contradiction here, even though it turns out to be the central focus of
the work. The fact is, the engineers repeated this same mistake in their new
generation of robots: Nexus-6, represented by Rachael. She does flee, in tears,
from Deckard's flat after being told that she is not human. So why do they want
to make androids so similar to humans? Still no answer.
This flaw is
the only true objection one can make to this story. That is, apart from the
obvious lack of sheep... Indeed, there is no explicit reference to the book which
the film stems from! Along with the title change to a shorter, more appealing
one, the screenplay participates in distancing the works even more. This has
made some doubt that there was a link between the two works at all. Also, there
is a fourteen years gap between the two publications, which would only
confirm that theory, if it were true.
Then, what
makes this movie so absolutely marvellous?
You may
want to watch it several times, because Blade Runner has more sides to its
story than you would imagine. It is a deeply complex work, shot in a complex
manner. So here are just a few reasons why you should watch this movie again
and again:
- Figure
out some more about the enigmatic use of animals (aka. the dove and unicorn).
- Spy on
Sean Young's flawless face to understand the film's nomination for Best Makeup
Artist at the BAFTA Film Awards in 1983.
- Learn a
few timeless quotes, such as: "Replicants are like any other machine.
They're either a benefit or a hazard. If they're a benefit, it's not my
problem."
- Answer
the agonizing question: is Deckard a Replicant?
- Draw a
parallel between Blade Runner and The Island (2005).
- And, of
course, get existential with Gaff: "It's too bad she won't live, but then
again, who does?"
Enjoy the
film.
Yours
faithfully,
Cam
