Miller: Blade Runner v. Blade Runner Director's Cut

Michael D. Miller

Blade Runner, 1991, Blog

Blade Runner v. Blade Runner Director’s Cut

In the 1982 version of Blade Runner, there is the most obvious voice over throughout the film. The voice over is used to explain to the audience what Deckard is thinking and what he assumes is going on in the scene. This is used to further explain some of the ideas and concepts that the director Ridley Scott wanted to use the film sequences itself to explain. Ridley Scott objected to the overt use of the voice over as did Harrison Ford. 

            The happy ending in the 1982 film with Deckard and Rachael driving through the countryside on their way to presumably live a long and happy life together leaves the audience with a very definite conclusion to the film. There are no suppositions to be made about the fate of Deckard and Rachael. However, one might assume that the origami unicorn, typically used to depict a sign of purity, innocence, and childlike, left in the hallway outside of Deckard’s apartment could mean that Gaff approves of their relationship and he is not going to pursue Rachael. On the other hand, it could also mean that Gaff is well aware that Deckard had Rachael and that the unicorn, sometimes viewed as a sign of strength was hunted because it was untamable, is a sign that he will hunt her down and kill just as the mythological creature because she was not willing to serve humans. 

            The 1982 film did not contain the unicorn dream experienced by Deckard as he sat drunk playing the piano. The brief scene depicts a unicorn running out of the woods possibly trying to escape its hunters. The significance of the unicorn is not fully explored as Deckard’s character does not react to the dream sequence. 

The tapestries show pagan and Christian symbolism. The pagan themes emphasize the medieval lore of beguiled lovers, whereas Christian writings interpret the unicorn and its death as the Passion of Christ. The unicorn has long been identified as a symbol of Christ by Christian writers, allowing the traditionally pagan symbolism of the unicorn to become acceptable within religious doctrine. The original pagan myths about The Hunt of the Unicorn refer to an animal with a single horn that can only be tamed by a virgin; Christian scholars translated this into an allegory for Christ's relationship with the Virgin Mary. (Wikipedia 28 March 2014)

            The director’s cut of the film Blade Runner does not include the voice over done by Harrison Ford. Significantly, the newly discovered Blade Runner did not have the narration which incited such hostility among the critics, the public, and the filmmakers (Pfeiffer 126). This leaves the audience to draw any explanations for the actions or motivations of the characters from the film sequence itself. However, Ridley Scott took great pains in creating such an explanation through his film shots that some of the meaning was lost in the exotic set designs and cryptic direction of the characters. 

            The final scene of the director’s cut omitted the happily ever after sequence. Ridley Scott wanted the audience to wonder about the future of Rachael and Deckard. This scene works well with the unicorn dream and the origami unicorn left by Gaff outside of Deckard’s apartment. It hinted that Deckard was possibly a replicant because how would Gaff know about Deckard’s dream of the unicorn. The possibility of Deckard possibly being a Nexus-7 replicant would certainly have leave the audience puzzled and would cause the viewer the rethink the entire film. However, the film could not explain that if Deckard was the next generation replicant, how was he so easily defeated or overpowered by every replicant he encountered? Why didn’t Tyrell make mention of his origins in the beginning of the film when they met? One would certainly think that Tyrell himself would know whether or not Deckard was a replicant.

As they leave Deckard’s apartment, presumably to escape authorities and find a new life together, the elevator door simply closes on them, and we see the credits. While this version clearly leaves the audience hanging regarding the fate of the lovers, this is precisely what Scott had hoped to achieve. Gone was the infamous studio-imposed “happy ending,” with Deckard absurdly reassuring the audience that Rachael was the only replicant not programmed for short life span as the couple literally fly off into the sunset. (Pfeiffer 126)  

            

            Ridley Scott may have taken on a project that was far too complicated for him to put into film. Between the Blade Runner movies and the book, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, Scott seemed to miss the mark on the entire empathy theme. Scott chose to use the most subtle of tactics to touch on the subject of empathy and when he did so, he showed it coming from the replicants rather than the humans. 

            The director in the Blade Runner films was unhappy with the version that was produced. Many alluded to Scott’s almost obsessive nature in overseeing every little detail of the film that viewing much of the film through the camera lens. Ford griped, “Scott like to watch the performance through the lens…watching the edges to be sure where everything is” (Pfeiffer 122). A potential metaphor for how narrow Scott’s vision was for this film. Scott worked to present a top notch sci-fi film but he lost sight of the message the film. An enormous amount of time was spent on preproduction; building futuristic vehicles and commissioning paintings and storyboards as models for the big-budget set designs (Pfeiffer 120).  

In the end, he had to work with what he had already filmed and there is a good possibility that he had not filmed the proper sequences to convey the films meaning thoroughly. Therefore, he was stuck with what he had and he tried to revive the film any way he could. The many different version of this film clearly reveal that Ridley Scott was not happy with the version that was released and he was likely none too thrilled about the “Director’s Cut.” The central flaw in the film is that not of the characters is very interesting--- including Deckard, from whose viewpoint all of the strange developments unfold (Pfeiffer 123).  It might have been a good idea to scrap the whole film and start over from scratch with a new screenplay; fewer set designs and sci-fi special effects, and maybe even another director. Then the film might have scored big at the box office and not be a blemish on the face of all those who worked so hard to make the film. 

In my opinion and with my limited knowledge of movie making, I found that the 1982 version of Blade Runner worked best for me. I did however enjoy both versions very much, because the ill-fated voice over explained things to me that I definitely missed through the visual metaphors. Furthermore, reading the book Do Androids Dream of electric Sheep helped me put the entire project into focus. I am in no way qualified to criticize this film or any other film. All I can say is that I believed it might have been better, because of the end result, that another director might have been a better choice. But can the director alone be blamed for the films shortcomings? I think not. The producers have to trust their director to put together a film that expresses the message of the book. The screenwriter also is responsible for putting his twist on the film. This cookie cutter idea that Hollywood producers have is boring and in need of drastic change. That change of course would come in the form of Independent Films. Directors and producers, who are willing to push the envelope of cinema, are attracting a great deal of audiences, which in turn mean great big profits for those willing to do something outside of the Hollywood film making box.