Blade Runner: The Final Cut

December 24, 2007 | 12 Comments

As one of my Christmas presents, I got Blade Runner: The Final Cut special edition briefcase. This is one hell of awesome boxset, if you can call it that because it's more than that. I'll talk more about this next time after I have the chance to take photos of the boxset. For now, however, I just want to jot down my thoughts on the film. I didn't actually like Blade Runner the first and second time I watched it. My first exposure to the film happened because I was a student of media studies and Blade Runner was one of the requisite film noir that I had to watch. I fell asleep the first time I watched it. I didn't have the patience for the slow burning nature of the film. The same thing happened again when I tried to watch the film for the second time. Fast forward a few years later, I played the video game inspired by the film. I enjoyed the game immensely and from that game, I got a thorough understanding of how the world of Blade Runner works. Armed with this new interest from the game, I tried to watch the film again. This time around I loved the film and actually able to grasp its finer details. Anyway, before I go further, be aware that this article contains spoilers.

As a background, Blade Runner is a story which is loosely based on Phillip K. Dick's book, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. The keyword here is "loosely based" because the film only takes the general outline of the book and goes off on a rather different tangent. I have no idea of the book readers' reaction to the film. I have to say that for a film which diverges from its original material, Blade Runner does a pretty good job of building its story. If you're interested to know the difference between the book and the film, the Wiki article I linked above does a pretty good job of describing them. The film itself tells a story about Rick Deckard, a Blade Runner. This is a term to describe policeman who specializes in hunting Replicants (or "Skin Jobs"), androids who look and behave just like human but possess superior strength, agility, and variable intelligence depending on the model. The replicants are not allowed to live on Earth after a bloody mutiny on the offworld (a place which supposedly promises better life than Earth) committed by the latest models, the Nexus-6s. When these Replicants escaped to Earth, Deckard is ordered to kill these skin jobs on the spot once he finds them.

As far as technicality goes, the special effects in the film actually isn't that spectacular. Some shots of the futuristic buildings look outdated and its Pyramid-like structure clash badly with the Japanese/Asian-based environments. Some of the technology used in the film sounds impressive in theory but the execution feels dated and therefore makes the scene feels unrealistic. For example, the Voight-Kampff machine takes forever just to zoom into a small portion of a picture. Despite this, the machine has no problem when it comes to giving a rather sharp magnification of the picture. The Spinner (flying car) is an impressive-looking technology but I dislike the way the film overdoes the lens flare whenever a Spinner flies from one area to another. In general, however, I like the world/environment that the film presents. The film's outdoor scene is heavily based on Tokyo's night life scene complete with neon lights all over the place and a big screen showing a Japanese woman promoting a product. This futuristic style city will later be copied by many films, tv series, and anime. The Fifth Element is an example of a film which borrows a lot of its environment design from Blade Runner.

The story of Blade Runner is the strongest part of the film. It's a theme which has been revisited in several scifi/anime series: the story about androids that behave just like human beings. These Replicants look so much like humans that it's hard to distinguish them from normal humans. This is interesting because throughout the film, the humans keep talking about how the Replicants are just 'skin jobs', a bunch of violent creatures who need to be exterminated. However, do these Replicants react violently because there is a flaw in their design? Or is it because they behave just like any humans when their life is in danger and all avenues to save their life are closed off? It's undeniable that the Replicants that Deckard hunt are dangerous and violent. But judging from the way the police hunt and kill these Replicants suggest that if humans were to have the same kind of power and ability that these Replicants have, they'd behave in the same manner as well. And how about Rachel? Unlike the other Replicants, she never exhibit any violent tendencies. Of course it could be argued that Tyrell designed Rachel differently and in the original version, it's also suggested that there's no limit on her lifespan.

Speaking of design, the way the Replicants are portrayed in this film is quite striking. From the onset, there's something inhuman about them. It's either the way they dressed up or the very mercenary way some of them act. This is very fitting considering that the male Replicants are normally employed as combat models while the female are usually used as pleasure models. When Rachel and Pris first came on screen, I was rolling my eyes at the way they dressed up. Now that I know more about the film, I think Ridley Scott made a great decision to dress them up in those weird getups. Rachel has this 1920s hair-style and very robotic clothing when she first appeared in the film. I really like the way Sean Young chose to play her stiffly at first although maybe that's too much of a giveaway considering that we are not supposed to guess that she's a Replicant until Deckard administer the Voight-Kampff test. Pris looks like a mannequin in that her hair and make up choice look like a doll who tries to dress/style herself up. Zhora is probably the only one who looks vaguely human-like although considering her role as a pleasure model, maybe she was designed to be as normal-looking as possible.

The film really does a good job at implying the underlying creepiness of having this seemingly alive, breathing, blow-up doll who can service your sexual need. There is a scene in the film where Harrison Ford's character, Deckard, forces Rachel to kiss him. Although she looks like she has feelings for him, it's hard to tell if it's genuine or if she's just doing what a robot does when she's ordered to kiss someone. In fact, the film purposely shows Deckard ordering Rachel to tell him that she wants him to kiss her. She complies with little to no resistance, just like a robot. Equally disturbing is how quickly Deckard treats Rachel like a sex object the minute he gets horny. It seems finding out that she's just a Replicant gives him an excuse to do whatever he wants to do with her. This is a theme that's also been explored in anime like Chobits. If Chii claims that she loves Hideki (her human owner), is that out of her free will or is that her programming telling her to do so? Can a person falls in love with a machine or is that just a person trying to act out their fantasy of being in love with an object who can't respond properly? Wouldn't it be the same like someone loving their iPods a bit too much?

Another interesting point about the Replicants or the androids in this film is how they completely violate Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics. I guess it wouldn't make any sense for the Replicants to follow those laws if they were to be deployed in war where they must kill other humans. This is why the 4 year lifespans limitation were put in place. I also like the way memories are implanted into these Replicants so that they can behave more like humans. For some of these Replicants, their memory are so vivid that they seem to hang on to it dearly, more so than any normal humans would. This is really intriguing because in the case of Rachel and later on, Deckard, neither seem to realize that they are actually Replicants. They only know about it after they found out that a stranger knows details of their memories. Memories that they never told anyone about, even their parents for example. I didn't realize it when I watched the film but it must pretty life-shattering (not to mention creepy) for Rachel when she realized that her memories are not real. It's like finding your whole life is not real. That would be enough to cause anyone to go crazy.

I've gone on and on about the film and I haven't even mentioned about the Final Cut. To be honest, I can't really tell the difference between this one and The Director's Cut version. Whatever added/subtracted from this new version blend pretty well with the rest of the materials. Nothing sticks out like sore thumb like the new version of Star Wars: A New Hope. This version, just like The Director's Cut version, removes Harrison Ford's narration and the happy ending which exists in the original theatrical version. Anyway, I never understood the ending of the Director's Cut until now. I didn't understand what Gaff meant when he said "It's too bad she won't live. But then again, who does?" I finally understand now that this comment can be interpreted in several ways. Deckard at first assumes that Gaff wants him to finish off Rachel or that Rachel is already dead. However, when he finds that unicorn origami in front of his door, he realizes that Gaff was referring to the fact that as a Replicant, she probably have a short lifespan and if Deckard is a Replicant as well.......Moving along, the soundtrack by Vangelis is still as good as ever. It's full of hauntingly beautiful BGMs that a film like Blade Runner deserves.

© memento 2003