Back to the Future
Blade Runner: The Final Cut, the newest and presumably last version of the 1982 Ridley Scott-directed science-fiction classic, opens tonight at D.C.‘s Uptown Theater. This is somewhat exciting for me, as it’s long been one of my three or four favorite films, and, being the young whippersnapper that I am, I never got a chance to see it theatrically. For anyone interested in the film, I highly recommend Paul M. Sammon’s book, Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner, which is an utterly fascinating, extremely well-reported look at both the lengthy production process and the myriad versions that have sprung into existence since the original release. In the meantime, you can also read my short look back on the film in today’s Washington Times.
I’ve read that they make it explicit that Deckard is a replicant… I actually prefer it to be ambiguous. I love the current Director’s Cut, but of course I’ll give this one a chance.
You know people always say that Rutger Hauer steals the movie, but I feel like Edgar James Olmos does! He has like 10 minutes of screen time but he’s such a memorable character.
— Freddie · Oct 26, 11:44 AM · #
They didn’t add anything to The Final Cut to make it more explicit than in the Director’s Cut. The unicorn is the thing that settles it. Deckard has the unicorn dream, and then Gaff leaves an origami unicorn by his door, showing not only that he’d been there and let Rachel live, but that he’d peeked into Deckard’s file and seen his dreams.
And it was actually semi-explicit in the theatrical cut. All of the replicants, including the owl, have “glowing” eyes. They use a special light that reflects off the eye lens. the easiest place to see it in Deckard is when he’s back in his apartment, cleaning himself up while Rachel questions him. He says, “No, but somebody would,” and then steps back, briefly, and you can see the glare in his eyes, same as Rachel, Roy, the owl, etc.
— Peter Suderman · Oct 26, 01:04 PM · #
My problem with Deckard being a replicant, as an explicit sort of plot point, is that it threatens to make the movie into a vehicle for M. Knight Shyamalan-style gimmickry. I personally just much prefer the <i>possibility</i> of it, as another question of shifting identity and dehumanization in a movie about the essential value of person-hood. It just seems kind of cheap and cute to me, I guess. Just my taste.
— Freddie · Oct 26, 01:32 PM · #
I basically agree with you — I’m all for uncertainty in this sort of film — but I think that even in the Director’s Cut, it’s underplayed in such a way that it doesn’t function as a Big Twist, a la Shyamalan. And you could still argue that, hey, maybe it was just weird light in his eyes, and maybe Gaff just happened to have left a unicorn, appropos of nothing. It doesn’t absolutely pin it down for you.
— Peter Suderman · Oct 26, 01:50 PM · #
Actually, it’s not so surprising that Deckard be a replicant and not know it. Seeing as Blade Runner trades on the merger of reality and simulacrum; and he wouldn’t have needed to take the Voight-Kanff test.
— narciso · Oct 26, 10:15 PM · #