Ridley Scott originally intended the film to be in the style of film noir, but he rejected the use of the classic detective voice over (a trademark of the genre). In an American television interview he stated that voice overs sometimes worked but that they didn't work in Blade Runner (Chapman). Despite Scott's active objections to voice overs, the studio insisted that they be added when Blade Runner recieved poor reception at sneak previews. The studio executives thought that the film was too confusing for the American people. They wanted the audience to simultaneously find Ford's character more relatable and the plot easier to follow. This desire for simplification of the film detracted from Scott's real motivations, "confusion was exactly what he hoped to create" (Pfeiffer 124). When a film ends up going against the director's desired intent, I think this automatically indicates that elements of the film will get lost to the wayside.
I will admit that the voice over does something of its job in terms of telling the reader what is going on, but it is extremely repetitive at times. This repetitive quality of the voice over, sometimes detracts from the thematic message, a major example of this would be Roy Baty's death scene. After Roy's final monologue about the transience of time and memories, Rick Deckard's voice is heard proclaiming his relatibility to Roy's fear of death etc. This completely detracted from the feeling behind Roy's death and failed to allow the audience to come to their own conclusions regarding the affinity or lack there of when it came to the Blade Runner's androids.
I will admit that the voice over does something of its job in terms of telling the reader what is going on, but it is extremely repetitive at times. This repetitive quality of the voice over, sometimes detracts from the thematic message, a major example of this would be Roy Baty's death scene. After Roy's final monologue about the transience of time and memories, Rick Deckard's voice is heard proclaiming his relatibility to Roy's fear of death etc. This completely detracted from the feeling behind Roy's death and failed to allow the audience to come to their own conclusions regarding the affinity or lack there of when it came to the Blade Runner's androids.
This is why I don't think the voice over was effective in helping to convey the thematic messages of the film or the book. Both mediums seem to be seeking a response cultivated from careful thought. They don't want to simply hand over answers about the worlds they have created, they want the audience to think about the questions they pose and get confused, realize that answers (if even obtainable) are not easy to come by. The first time I ever saw this film, it was actually the director's cut. Watching the 1982 version, was considerably more boring and less evocative than the first time I viewed it. The confusion in the director's version of Blade Runner allows the film to be a more faithful translation of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. At some points during the original film, it is even harder to discern the difference between androids and humans to the point where (like in the novel) it is difficult to know whether Deckard himself is an android or a human.
When researching opinons regarding the voice over track of the 1982 version of Blade Runner it becomes quickly evident that almost no one involved in the film liked the new product. "Like" is a rather diplomatic word when describing what seems to be the mutual hatred of Ridley Scott, Harrison Ford, and even the film's producers. Despite his objections, Ford was contractually obligated to record the voice over (Pfiffer 124). Harrison Ford's reading, however, was so uninspired and unenthusiastic, many team members continue to believe to this day that Ford, "consciously or not, did an uninspired reading of it in the hopes it wouldn't be used" (Chapman). I like to believe that Harrison's dull monotone was completely on purpose.
Oh and the happy ending was complete bullcrap too. It is true that audience members are more likely to respond to a film that results in a happy ending, but when this sacrifices the films intentions and artistry, it is complete baloney.
Works Cited
Chapman, Murry. "BLADE RUNNER Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)."BLADE RUNNER
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). FAQS, 1992-1995. Web. 23 Mar. 2014.
Pfeiffer, Lee, and Michael Lewis. The Films of Harrison Ford. Secaucus, NJ: Carol Pub. Group,
1996. Print.
I completely agree with your critique of the voiceover. The point that I did not make in my blog was that the subtleties that Ridley Scott provides sans the subtitles were meant to confuse the audience. It is asinine that the message that the director attempted to convey was simply ignored by the producers for the for the sake of making the film more attractive to people who simply would not get it. I agree your point that the voiceover is not really effective in conveying the thematic messages of the film or book. The messages were not supposed to be handed to the audience. I did not really get to touch upon the happy ending in my blog either. I found the ending to be just as cheesy as the voice over. These two coupled together made me want to throw up. Some stories simply were not meant to have a happy ending. I think that a little bit of mystery would do this film a service. Also, the book’s ending did not have a cheesy happy ending like the one that the film provides. No one would appreciate if in the film versions of Hamlet featured a happy ending like the one in this film.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your points concerning the unnecessary voiceover and how it ruins the magic of the film. Instead of letting the audience attempt to figure things out for themselves, they are spoon fed the entire story, especially the meaning at the end. I'm glad they removed the happy ending from the film, as it didn't fit with anything involving the movie whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteWhat really irked me was the addition of the unicorn dream sequences. There is no reason to make audiences believe that Deckard is a replicant. There is absolutely no storytelling value in making this a talking point. In fact I think it removes from the overall meaning of the film and book. I believe that at the end we're supposed to recognize that every form of life is worthy of living, as paltry as they may seem. By making us think that Deckard is a replicant, not only does it make him less relatable to us, but it also makes him seem less believable.
I thought both releases were poor adaptations of the book. Scott tried too hard to make an interesting novel about a dystopian post-apocalyptic future, reality and androids into an action film.