Blade Runner [Director's Cut] DVD

Average Rating:

The opening-shot of a Dis-like city darkly glowing and spewing hellish plumes of fire, to accompanyment of Vangelis'electronic tonalities, is Dantesque. "ABANDON ALL HOPE,YE WHO ENTER HERE!" rings the mind of informed viewers. The voice of Harrison Ford...reluctant Virgil/Bade Runner cop Decker...then leads descent into"The Inferno" which does not end until he and Sean Young escape redeemed into "Eden" as (perhaps) new Adam & Eve. The fact Sean Young as RACHEL is a wonderously engineered clone(MORE HUMAN THAN HUMAN)is an "entendre" whose impact barely registers.She may,indeed, be "mother/Eve" to a renewed human race that is a "new kind" of being.The theme of what it means to be human is focus of BLADE RUNNER. In my estimate, this focus--easily lost by distraction of violent action; bedazzling art direction; and sumptuous sets--depends on Ford/Decker's narrative as anchor and common man's voice amidst a "vision" that's radically challenging. Who is ELDEN TYRELL(played with understated arrogance by Joe Turkel,)the genetic engineering genius who from atop his Babel Tower-of-power is master of a "New Order of the Ages"? Who/what is ROY BATTY? Played magnificently by Rutger Hauer, is NEXUS 6-Super Clone, Lucifer to "god" Tyrell or is he ironic "guardian angel" of a humanity Man seems eager to squander?

The EYE is window to the soul: Ridley Scott repeatedly focuses Director's eye on mythological exploration of TRUTH (what eyes can see)that often stuns by its daring. This is only a movie. Yet,like Philip K. Dick whose books(MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE;TOTAL RECALL;THE DIVINE INVASION)probe humanity's destiny; conceptions of Reality; and the Being of God, Scott has pushed a film to ultimate test of medium limits. The problem, in my opinion, with THE DIRECTOR'S CUT, is "cutting" Decker's narrative...presenting a more ambiguous third person viewpoint..has not enhanced challenge and profound impact of themes...it has OBSCURED them. "Less is not more..." Original BLADE RUNNER is unique masterpiece. Its reworking is also a masterpiece, but unnecesarily flawed. Ridley Scott might consider restoration of his visionary film by letting Decker's voice Guide where "eyes" cannot see, but where "ears" might hear...and marvel.

Ridley Scott adapted the film from the Philip K Dick novel, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep." Scott is famous for cinematic visuals and whilst he doesn't stick very closely to the book, the overall design and special effects make this a ground breaking science fiction film. Released in 1982 it took the "gritty Sci-Fi" crown from "Alien," Scott's film from three years earlier. The world in 2019 is over populated, crime is rampant, the Japanese own the economy and most animal species are extinct. This is not an unnatural projection from an early eighties perspective.

Before I get too heavily into the narrative, I'd like to touch on the sensitive issue of version envy. The history of Blade Runner takes at least two turns. The initial theatrical release had less than brilliant exit polling. Apparently cinema goers thought it was confusing and too dark. The studio forced Scott to make changes, including Deckard's voice-over and a more upbeat ending. More recently, the directors cut transformed the film back into it's original format with a few extra minutes to flesh out some of the important relationships. In my opinion, both versions are worth watching.

The film focuses on Deckard for the most part. He is the character the audience most identifies with, since he is apathetic and cynical by turns, as he goes through the motions of his meaningless existence. That is, until he meets his first Nexus 6 replicant, Rachael, who is posing as the niece of Eldon Tyrell, the genius (owner of the Tyrell Corporation, manufacturer of the Nexus 6 line). Rachael Tyrell(?) is played to perfection by Sean Young. She is not aware of her inhumanity and, thanks to implanted memories, plays her part so well she almost passes Deckard's replicant test. The poignancy of her enlightenment is not lost on the audience, nor is it lost on Deckard. Their reluctant attraction forms one of the stronger sub-plots in the film.

The first half of the story made me wonder if there was going to be any plot at all. Mind you, the setting was sumptuous and therefore enjoyable enough to mask the lack. We had glimpses of the group of Replicants Deckard was hunting but it is not until Roy Batty enters the picture in full, that we start to wonder if Deckard can pull it off. Roy, intensely played by Rutger Hauer, is a military model; strong, fast, smart and persistent. He is the leader of the escaped replicants and has come to earth on a mission of his own. Like many of us, he does not want to die and is intent on infiltrating the Tyrell Corporation in the hope that some way can be found to side-step the untimely fate of all replicants.

The film is rich in symbolism and flooded with small but detailed characters like the origami artist Gaff. But the true heart of the story is the moral grey area. Can a good man condone what amounts to slavery? Is there no moral limit to genetic engineering? Is love possible between a man and a construct? Must we condemn a man for wanting to live, at any cost?

In the end, when Roy has Deckard dead-to-rights on a crumbling and rain-swept roof, he says, "All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain." Roy allows Deckard to live, even as he dies, leaving us with the conclusion that Roy's only way to live past his use-by date, is through the memory of the man who set out to kill him.