Many changes were made when the
Director’s Cut of Blade Runner was released in 1991. Ridley Scott was unhappy with the way that the 1982 original
theatrical release of the film.
The original cut of the film included an unenthusiastic voiceover done
by Harrison Ford. The ending also showed Rachel and
Deckard driving off into a lush mountain as they began their new life
together. The voiceover and the
ending were two things that Scott did not want to include. The producers of the film made the
choice because they were worried that the film was not going to make money
otherwise. Scott was unhappy with
the original version. He was
quoted saying that, "The
final version was something that I was completely unhappy with. The movie
obviously has a strong following, but it could have been more than a cult
picture” (Pfeiffer 119). This
unhappiness led Ridley Scott to buy the rights of the film and release a
Director’s Cut. While it may seem like there were no
major changes made, the removal of the voiceover and ending the film sooner,
completely alter the meaning of the film and how it was perceived.
I
think that Ridley Scott felt as though his vision of the film was not fully
realized in the original theatrical release. When it comes to films, it seems as though everyone has a
different motive. Speaking from a
directorial and artistic standpoint, actors and directors tend to get into the
business to make art as opposed to money.
Producers on the other hand are usually looking to make the most money. These two motives tend to clash when it
comes to certain decisions. In the
case of the 1982 Blade Runner, it is clear which side had the final say. Hollywood producers do not have much
faith with American audiences. Producers
believe that people need to be told exactly what is happening (the voiceover)
and they desire a happy ending (Rachel and Deckard driving off into the
sunset). When Ridley Scott got his
hands on the right to the film, he was able to truly fulfill his vision.
In
my opinion, the film was able to stand alone without the “happy ending” or the
voiceover. The 1991 Director’s Cut
allowed for moments to resonate with the audience because it lacked the redundant
voiceover. Like I said in my last
blog, the first time I watched Blade Runner, it did not have a voiceover and
it ended after Rachel and Deckard entered the elevator. This is probably why I feel the way I
do. I understood everything that
was going on and still enjoyed the ending. This film is a clear example of how greed and money can
taint the meaning of a movie negatively.
I certainly feel like we’re lucky that Ridley Scott bought the rights to the film and released it as the one he had originally envisioned. The 1982 version simply seemed to be the same chaff as any other 80s noir-ish action film, but the Director’s Cut really brought out everything that made it so popular with its cult following. With a close reading you can usually find the small gleams of significance in what is even the most shallow seeming work, but if all I had to work with was the original version I doubt I would have paid it much attention. Scott’s a capable director, obviously. He made a name for himself pretty quickly with Alien, so perhaps that’s what led to Blade Runner (1982)’s dedicated following.
ReplyDeleteThe first time I saw the film was the Director’s Cut as well, so I found the original cut to be pretty shocking when we watched it in class. The producers’ changes just take away so much of the mystery, subtlety, and Deckard’s mournfulness. It definitely wouldn’t have been in my top ten movies list if I had seen the US theatrical version first… it felt a little like someone painting a moustache on the Mona Lisa, honestly.
Michael D. Miller
ReplyDeleteBlade Runner Response
Oria, Blade Runner Director's Cut
While it is true that Ridley Scott bought the rights to the film, it was in fact the producers who re-released the film titled, “The Director’s Cut.” Ridley Scott reluctantly agreed to this version as it was still not what he had envisioned. I agree with your assessment of the film. The producers were not so much concerned with the artistic expression of the film, but rather the money that it was or should have made with the release as Harrison Ford as the protagonist.
I believe that Ridley Scott had not yet fully realized the full potential of the film, nor did he fully convey what he had originally intended. The scenes were filmed, the budget was exceeded, and no one wanted to return to film any additional scenes for the film, especially Harrison Ford. Therefore, Ridley Scott and the producers were stuck with the scenes that had been filmed and I believe that they tried to revive the film as best they could to include the differences between the producers and the director. However, the film could only become a cult film at best.
In the end, I believe that Ridley Scott was the wrong director for this film. He spent too much time concerning himself with the subtle innuendos of film and the enormous set designs that he lost sight of the true meaning of what the film should have represented. True, Ridley Scott is a great director, but not just any great director can produce just any film. If the director misses the meaning of the book and relies solely on a screenplay, that may or may not represent the true meaning of the book, then the true message is missed. The message was the journey of humans to become more empathetic and the androids were to be discovered by their lack of empathy and retired.