The changes of the Director’s Cut are immediately noticeable with the emotionally significant “radio silence” from Deckard as his thoughts are no longer broadcast to the viewers with all the subtlety of a baseball bat to the head. The lack of narration was an important change from the original cut that was roundly disliked as: “Critics scoffed at having the script explained to them by the Deckard character-- especially since most of the narration simply stated the obvious.” (Pfeiffer 124) Ridley Scott’s original vision of the film without voiceover restored the understated poignant nuances of Deckard’s character, which Ford’s acting effectively captures. We as the viewers are not Deckard’s conscience, nor is he providing us with a record of the events. We are simply witness to them, and must make our own judgements.
As the Director’s Cut restores the subtlety and grace to the character of Deckard, it also opens up sections of the film to interpretation. By not hearing exactly what Deckard is thinking verbatim, the viewer is free to form their own perceptions of his mindset and intentions. The scene in which Deckard, at his piano surrounded by photographs of his now-questionable memories, dreams of a unicorn running through the forest is an example of the film’s unspoken message that requires some viewer input to unpack, and begin to ask questions like: how does Deckard see himself? How did Gaff know about the dream? Even Gaff’s final scene gets pulled into question in the director’s cut. When he applauds Deckard by stating “you’ve done a man’s job!” is he in fact referring to Deckard as not a man? Such questions provide thought and depth the the film, as it becomes not simply a blockbuster Hollywood action film, but a complex puzzle to which one continues to return.
Arguably the most important change from the 1982 cut is the end of the film. The Director’s Cut no longer gives the audience a neatly wrapped happy ending, and not only is Rachel’s future called into question, but Deckard’s as well. As he finds the origami unicorn, two important points are made. The first being that Gaff has been to the apartment and spared Rachel (and Deckard), which was the only message in the original cut. And second, that Deckard’s inner thoughts and memories are not the private nor random; Gaff knows Deckard better than he knows himself. Deckard makes the connection quickly, as he nods slowly and crumples the unicorn, remembering Gaff’s words. The Director’s Cut then ends the film on another abrupt door-closing with more questions than answers, in an appropriate reflection of Deckard’s future. Such a drastic change from the “peace at last” ending of the 1982 version changes the film entirely, and in my opinion, for the better.
The dream and the ending for me are the more important changes that changed the meaning and purpose of the film whereas for the voice over isn't as important though makes it more flexible to the audience perception of Deckard and his behaviors. I agree with the points made about the scene where Deckard is at the piano, at first no one really knows whats happening nor what it all means when the unicorn appears. But it makes it more mystery to the film, which later we find out the origami unicorn at the end which means that Gaff indeed knows; my question would be does Deckard realizes he is an android as well?. Finally the ending is so much better because it leaves as you said with more questions than answers and that is what the novel is about not having a happy ending as the 1982 version which takes the meaning to a completely different thing.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the authors that the narration only just repeated the obvious. I think it's a great point to bring up when you mention Harrison Ford's acting ability. We were so focused on the film's other qualities like the narration that Harrison Ford's acting became really overshadowed. You are right in stating that we should follow the film's events through the acting and not through a read script. I also agree that by taking out the voice over, we gain a great deal more of space for interpretation. The dream that Deckard has when he fell asleep at the piano definitely leaves much room for interpretation and not just question-raising. I think that the final elevator door closing scene was abruptly done on purpose in order to give the film final closure. Yes, many questions do appear, but if we are riding the interpretation bandwagon, then the final scene falls well in line with the film's direction. Whether the ending turned out to be better is a matter of interpretation from person to person because there are many people who would want a happy ending. However, in a more artistic point of view, the happy ending is not always necessary in a great film, which many can consider this to be.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your post that the dreams and the quotes by Gaff show some inconsistencies in Deckard's life that would led one to believe that Deckard himself is replicant. The narrating I thought was pointless also and the removal of this in the directors cut made the movie 10 times better. The memory by the piano gives room to a lot of interpretation and really refocused the movie into the same aspects as the book I believe. The interpretation platform was wide open in the directors cut because the narration was removed, this allowed the movie to be very opinionated in many scenes. The ending of the film ended with a closing door which i agree leaves the viewers with more questions but I also think it answered one important one. This ending showed the awareness of Deckard based of seeing the unicorn on the floor, this can be seen as him trying to escape the truth as he crumbles the origami to try and seemingly forget it happened.
ReplyDelete