Blade Runner, am I crazy? (1 Viewer)

[Jack Briggs]

Which makes it more than a "great SF film"--it's a great film period.

 

[Luc D]

It's a very important film in that people point to it and say "Ha! Post-modernism in cinema". In that sense, it is a monumental work in terms of film history. And it's wonderful to look at, maybe one of the most beautifully conceived films ever made. Yet, I think you can accuse it of being "underwritten". I find much of the film to be a narrative mess, like no one in the story world really has any grasp of what's going on. Roy's speech at the end does cement a lot of what the film is striving for, but I always feel a bit cheated by it. It's as if the filmmakers weren't sure or just weren't interested in the how of the story and just wanted to get to the meaty thematic stuff.

I think they were striving for the same thing Dick's book was going for (though you must remember that the film couldn't have any less to do with the book). However, I don't think the film managed to really hit me the way the book did on a thematic level. Of course, seeing as how the book and the film have so little to do with one another, I can't fault the filmmmakers as it's obvious they were going somewhere else with the story, but my feelings remain that Blade Runner is a formal masterpiece and a narrative failure.

It's the kind of film you could watch with the sound off and get as much out of it as you would listening to the dialogue. In many ways that's a great accomplishment, but it can also be a big failing.

 

[Edwin-S]

Which makes it more than a "great SF film"--it's a great film period.
------------------------------------------------------------

I specified great SF film because there are so few Hollywood movies that I would consider to be true SF. You are right though, it is a great film outside of the SF genre as well.

 

[Jack Briggs]

And, Edwin, you and I are of like mind when it comes to realizing just how so very few films out there can be accurately called "SF."

 

[Grant B]

so many times, I look at old sci-fi movies and they are laughable or should I say dated. Bladerunner does not look dated; in fact I think it comes closer to reality than most.
Scott spent alot of time with some very talented people thinking up what the future would look like. For instance the tall buildings - most of the very rich and powerful already left the acid rain earth...so instead of building new ..they made the old taller and taller to hold the poor.
But hey, if you don't like it -so be it

 

[Alex-C]

My .02:

BR is a wonderfully entertaining and visually stunning masterpiece of sci-fi, but it transcends the eye and ear candy into a realm that other films rarely go: an intelligent, thought provoking science fiction based drama.

In general, nowadays, sci-fi is relegated to the 15-18 yr old audience. Would BR get made in this current market ? I doubt it, but I will acknowledge Dark City as being in the same territory and equally enjoyable.

I mean, I like Sci-fi, but studios are too fearful that a futuristic drama will not be accepted by the popcorn crowd, as evidenced by the dearth of those types of movies.
You could say the same for the fantasy genre, LOTR notwithstanding, prior to that there were some real lame Arthurian movies. Maybe that trend will reverse now...
Anyway, as the studios move away from the type of movie BR is, it becomes even more rare and unique, making it a favorite to be cherised by so many.

What is so daunting about making a drama set in a surreal or futuristic world ? I say Kudos to Stevie Spielberg for trying it with A.I.

Will Spielberg achieve similar heights with Minority Report ? We shall see. It may not have as much action as the trailers would have you believe, see Ron Epstein's sneak peek for more...

 

[teapot2001]

Speaking of Spielberg, here is what he had to say regarding Blade Runner in today's LA Times: "Where I thought 'Blade Runner' succeeded brilliantly was in its style and its look. I thought Ridley did the most brilliant job of his career with its lighting ... there really wasn't much of a story to tell."
http://www.calendarlive.com/top/1,14...Times-Search-X!ArticleDetail-63277,00.html
~T

 

[Jack Briggs]

...there really wasn't much of a story to tell.

This, coming from the man who more than any other has contributed to the diminution of intelligent, adult storytelling in film. Sorry, but that quote galls me.

 

[ErichH]

`Too bad she won't live forever......but who does!'

I'll have a soft spot for this film for life. Thank You Ridly!
Please give us our remastered DVD!!

Eric

 

[Jack Briggs]

What the hell does Spielberg mean there's not much of a story to tell? The thing is all story and nuance. Where does he get off? Oooh, but I'm angry.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

...there really wasn't much of a story to tell.

What a jackass.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Well there is at least one reason to put Blade Runner high on any list of SF (and film in general)
This is THE film that introduced the world to cyberpunk, a new sub-genre of SF that was about to make quite a splash about 10 years later. The film pre-dated even the other keystone of cyberpunk, the Gibson novel Neuromancer.
Now we have films like Ghost in the Shell and Matrix which owe their foundations to Blade Runner.
And by being the first it also set up standards for the sub-genre. The portrayal of the dystopian LA, vertically stacked beyond believe, dark and rugged contrasted with shiny beauty of the skyscrapers. The Asian influence in the culture. The giant aircraft over the city, etc.
Scott took what Dick was onto and expanded upon it. The art direction alone is remarkable.
But I would also so the the film is heavily layered and requires multiple viewings to fully enjoy/appreciate. It is not uncommon to see it the first time as just an average film based on the shallowest level of the narrative. This is not to say you are shallow for seeing the film that way, but saying that all films have a surface layer that we see and will judge a film on the first time through. It's just impossible to really appreciate any depth to a film beyond that level the first time through, for any of us.
But I think BR not only stands up to repeat viewings, but grows in power.
Again, just the environment created by the art direction and effects makes the film highly watchable.
The story you are describing is not wrong, you didn't miss anything, it's just a film that requires more viewings. When I saw it as a kid, hoping for more Han Solo, I found myself confused and dissappointed slightly, yet also intrigued. After the 2nd viewing it was growing strong on me, and then by the time I saw the director's cut at the theaters I was really in love with the film.

 

[Michael Reuben]

the man who more than any other has contributed to the diminution of intelligent, adult storytelling in film

Sorry, can't agree with that either. The blockbuster phenomenon (for which Lucas is as much to blame as Spielberg) may have undermined storytelling, but only in the mass-produced variation that the entertainment congolmerates keep cranking out. Spielberg's own films have maintained a depth and richness of storytelling (much of it visual) that few directors can match.

M.

 

[Greg Br]

It sounds like this movie is so highly acclaimed because of its trendsetting ability, which I can fully appreciate as a film enthusiast but it also may be reason a younger generation may not relate, they have seen all this before, and if the story is so complex to need multiple viewings then that may lead to some misquided review of the film.

I can apprciate the trendestting nature of films, one of my favorites was the Bridge on the River Kwai, definately set a new standard for the movie epic and the lenghths taken to make a film.

 

[Seth Paxton]

BTW, regarding Scott's opinion (which is also different from Dick's).

I always assumed that if he WAS a replicant that they had just released him a few hours before they bring him into the station. His memories of being a BR would all be false as well. For all we know the guy was fresh off the line the minute we see him.


But I disagree with Scott's portrayal. I think the other concept holds more power to the story. But then we don't need to hash this out again, do we? We all know where we stand on this by now (except for newbies I suppose).

 

[Seth Paxton]

Spielberg's own films have maintained a depth and richness of storytelling (much of it visual) that few directors can match.

Michael, Tino and I were just discussing this (and agreeing with what you say). SS is perhaps the greatest director of our time when you look over his career. Imitators might have made schlock, but the master has mostly ruled throughout his career of varied subjects.

Only Scorsese stands beside him in the last 25 years, IMO.

But this, too, is a topic for another thread really.

 

[Quentin]

I will second any defense of Spielberg's storytelling. He is a quality storyteller with a great respect for writers and writing.
However, to claim that there is not much story to "Blade Runner" is plain crazy. Sure, the PLOT may be simple. It is in many, MANY films. But there is more to story than plot. The characters and themes work at various, insightful levels. As with any true, quality sci-fi, much of the story is about the themes/philosophy at play. The questions about humanity, where it has gone, what defines it...all contribute to quite a complex and powerful "story". So, take that back Steven!

 

[Seth Paxton]

One other thing

Blade Runner is a great SF film because it raises questions and invites debate about what it is to be human.

This is, in fact, the centerpiece of ALL cyberpunk stories. When faced with the oncoming integration of man and machine, how do we define humanity?

The film that brought us the line "More human than human", which was of course made into a song by Rob Zombie, who then had another song (Dragula) used where???

In the film "Matrix", and that's no coincidence.


Another angle often found in cyberpunk - how much machine integration can a person have done to themselves before they stop being human?

Johnny Mnemonic, while not being a good film overall, does give you a nice look into the worlds created by Gibson.

Oh, another cyberpunk theme started in Blade Runner...the ultimate fighting machine as a WOMAN rather than a man. In Neuromancer many of the best bodyguards are women. Now think of 5th Element, Ghost in the Shell, Matrix, even Strange Days. And here people thought T2 introduced the concept of the warrior female. She was just our first PROTAGONIST warrior female, but Zhora (Joanna Cassidy) was already kicking butt as a super-assassin combat unit in BR.

 

[Seth Paxton]

there really wasn't much of a story to tell

And Jack, if you couldn't tell from my earlier post, I totally agree with this statement. Speaking in terms of the narrative there are few actions and events that must occur.

It's no different than saying "My Dinner with Andre" didn't have much of a story to tell. We are speaking in terms of narrative filmmaking and it's requirements.

I consider it a compliment that is saying that Scott fleshed out the simple narrative to give it a fullness of life and depth of character since the bottom line of the basic script is that not much happens. As a detective film it's pretty far from the confusion of "The Big Sleep" or even "The Maltese Falcon".

If you were to map out the narrative and say "Okay, here are the scenes I need" you wouldn't have much. That Scott put so much more around that small skeleton is what SS admires based on that statement, IMO.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Seth,
The skeleton may have been somewhat small, but it was very sturdy! And that is where the rubber meets the road. Yet again, simplicity often lends itself to more powerful tales. Which Blade Runner certainly is. I don't think SS wanted to imply any negative connotations to his statement. While the storyline is uncomplicated and straightforward, the themes and questions the film explores are not simple.

Just a few thoughts,
Chuck