 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I remember telling my friend on the way out of the theater how much better the movie would be without the narration. Only later finding out that it was a late addition.
Whatever one's preferences, I think it was apparent that dialogue was the least important element of the film, as is often the case, for example, with Hitchcock. It was the feel created by image and sound and movement that mattered most. So adding more talking did not improve the intention, though it added a familiarity to the proceedings which a lot of people enjoyed. Thus the call backs in this thread to film noir narration. This helped people get closer to the movie.
But the film is more about alienation, including alienating the audience. A good way to recover Scott's goal is to watch Alien and Blade Runner (no narration) back to back. I think they are companion films, pure cinema not pure drama, and one is not likely to come away with much of a sense of what was said, just what was seen and heard and felt....cold and lonely and exhausted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This might come as a surprise to many people but Hampton Fancher, the original writer of Blade Runner, 'sorta' prefers the version with the voiceover.
Hampton Fancher: "Even the old voiceover, that first version, I sort of like better than all the rest of them. By the way, those voiceovers that exist in the film weren't mine, nor were they David Peoples'. Films can be different things on different days, even to the people who make them. That Marlowe-esque 40's hokey thing, you acquire an affection for that. It's almost satirical. But when I first heard it, I went nuts. 'She calls me sushi?' That's gonna age badly. But actually it doesn't age badly. It's kind of become an institution, that film."
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
|
it's dumbed down plot wise adding nothing, only reinforces the fact that Deckard doesn't really like what he's doing (so then why is he doing it? "no choice pal" and "you're little people" is lazy writing and not enough of a reason), and detracts from the movie's strength which is its unique environmental feel and atmosphere.
Actually, a lot of people wonder what Bryant meant by "little people". Keeping things vague or obscure is often more intriguing than stating explanations and reasons. This lack of 'finality' is something I value very much and it's something you can also see it in Scott's beautiful debut film The Duellists. You call it lazy, I call it smart and enticing. Prior to the voiceover, everything in the movie was written and designed in such a way that could be either this or that. The result is that we all complete the movie in our own way. This is only possible because it allows for this interaction to take place. It's one of the many strengths of Blade Runner besides the atmosphere.
Alex
I just wanted to clarify that my comment regarding the lazy writing referred to a lack of motive for Deckard to come out of retirement, not specifically the dialog itself. I think if there had been a more compelling reason for his returning to a job he not only doesn't seem to like but that he's not very good at (despite what his boss says) it would have allowed us to more closely identify with his character and the rather precarious situations he kept finding himself in. It's a missed opportunity to make his assignment more personal and engaging.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yep. The "little people" comment is fine as a very thinly veiled threat that doesn't need a mini speech or deep background. Not every single line needs to be explained to death. In a movie that does have script issues, that line fits in perfectly with the movie's mood and Walsh's delivery works well. Far from "lazy writing".
I agree with "very thinly veiled threat that doesn't need a mini speech or deep background." However if it wasn't so "thinly veiled" perhaps we could have understood why Deckard did choose to go back on the job. After all, the scene is there (if only for us to understand what he's doing for the rest of the picture) and might have benefited from giving Deckard a stronger motive to return to a job and carry out an assignment he doesn't care for or perform very well. If that rather perfunctory scene was discarded altogether (along with the narration) and we just saw Deckard doing his job, we wouldn't know much about the assignment but I would suggest we wouldn't know anything less about Deckard's motives either. Now that bold move would allow even more ambiguity to enrich this strange new world and enhance its theme of alienation don't you think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This might come as a surprise to many people but Hampton Fancher, the original writer of Blade Runner, 'sorta' prefers the version with the voiceover.
Hampton Fancher: "Even the old voiceover, that first version, I sort of like better than all the rest of them. By the way, those voiceovers that exist in the film weren't mine, nor were they David Peoples'. Films can be different things on different days, even to the people who make them. That Marlowe-esque 40's hokey thing, you acquire an affection for that. It's almost satirical. But when I first heard it, I went nuts. 'She calls me sushi?' That's gonna age badly. But actually it doesn't age badly. It's kind of become an institution, that film."
Alex
Hampton Fancher, Ridley Scott or God almighty can proclaim the narrated version better and it wouldn't change a thing: That narration is a stake through its heart. It's juvenile and makes Deckard sound retarded. It distracts and detracts from the story's strength, its ambiance. Ford's reading is as lifeless as his character...so the less we know the better. It's enhanced abomination is particularly felt at the end when we observe the death of Roy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hampton Fancher, Ridley Scott or God almighty can proclaim the narrated version better and it wouldn't change a thing
Maybe, but it doesn't change the fact that there are BR fans who prefer it. Don't forget, you can't take away someone's first experience. BTW, and I'm sure you meant it as a figure of speech, but Ridley Scott doesn't like the narration at all. He did mean for Deckard to be a replicant. 
Breaking news: Ridley Scott isn't going to direct Blade Runner 2. However, the film will be made and he will produce it.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hampton Fancher, Ridley Scott or God almighty can proclaim the narrated version better and it wouldn't change a thing
Maybe, but it doesn't change the fact that there are BR fans who prefer it. Don't forget, you can't take away someone's first experience. BTW, and I'm sure you meant it as a figure of speech, but Ridley Scott doesn't like the narration at all. He did mean for Deckard to be a replicant.
Breaking news: Ridley Scott isn't going to direct Blade Runner 2. However, the film will be made and he will produce it.
Alex
Thanks Alex for not coming down on me like a ton of bricks. I think I got a little carried away there. Ironically it was MY first experience seeing it at the Hollywood Theatre with the narration that first turned me off to it. But believe me, I know of, and have communicated with, oh so many who do prefer it and the "noirish" feel it gives to the film. Just curious, did you read my review linked above that I wrote for my site? I'd enjoy your feedback although I'm not expecting anything positive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Alex for not coming down on me like a ton of bricks. I think I got a little carried away there. Ironically it was MY first experience seeing it at the Hollywood Theatre with the narration that first turned me off to it. But believe me, I know of, and have communicated with, oh so many who do prefer it and the "noirish" feel it gives to the film. Just curious, did you read my review linked above that I wrote for my site? I'd enjoy your feedback although I'm not expecting anything positive.
I quickly read your review and it appears that you think it's the most overrated film ever? The movie is "un-engaging"? How dare you! 
What I meant with "first experience" is that "you won't forget your first love". It will always be special. It's like your favorite classic album. The original will always be more special than all the reisseus (with their sometimes vastly different sound, bonus tracks, et cetera) put together.
A lot of people didn't love Blade Runner at first. I remember coming out of the theater in 1982 thinking it was good but probably nothing more than that. Unlike Scott's previous film (Alien), it wasn't love at first sight. A friend, who also didn't know what to think of BR, said he was going back to the theater on monday to watch the movie again. I'm glad I came along, because even though I just seen it three days earlier, the second viewing experience couldn't be more different. From the very first frame onward, I was transposed to Ridley-ville and everything that appeared on the screen was like a hundred times more intensified. It was literally the most engaging and deepest experience I've ever had. Had someone drugged us? Yes, Ridley and his sound & images did. I became a groupie and saw the movie about 10 or 12 times in cinema during the '80s. And every time I saw it, I kept seeing new things, new elements, new themes, new layers ...
Instead of concentrating on story and characters, I think that movies which are made with a strong artistic approach (like Blade Runner or The Duellists and even Alien!), should be watched from an artist's point of narrative. It's about how you express yourself, what emotions you can put into it. In the end, the 'how' will enhance the 'what' tremendously. In a way, the movie itself is one big Voight-Kampff test. Most of the content is merely suggested, evoked ... The rest is up to the viewer. Unlike to what some influential critics have said, Blade Runner is far from a cold film, but one of the saddest, most beautiful and stimulating films ever made. You only need to be seated in the right chair and view it from perhaps a different angle.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have never been clear about why Decard had " no choice" but to come out of retirement.
It is hinted that he will not be allowed.to go Off-World but did he even want to emigrate.
Maybe the. VO answers this?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
it's dumbed down plot wise adding nothing, only reinforces the fact that Deckard doesn't really like what he's doing (so then why is he doing it? "no choice pal" and "you're little people" is lazy writing and not enough of a reason), and detracts from the movie's strength which is its unique environmental feel and atmosphere.
Actually, a lot of people wonder what Bryant meant by "little people". Keeping things vague or obscure is often more intriguing than stating explanations and reasons. This lack of 'finality' is something I value very much and it's something you can also see it in Scott's beautiful debut film The Duellists. You call it lazy, I call it smart and enticing. Prior to the voiceover, everything in the movie was written and designed in such a way that could be either this or that. The result is that we all complete the movie in our own way. This is only possible because it allows for this interaction to take place. It's one of the many strengths of Blade Runner besides the atmosphere.
Alex
Someone beat me.to it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Young and Harrison Ford...
Less romantic chemistry than Foster and McConaghey in CONTACT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
