After
the film was done, a voiceover was added to the theatrical version of Blade
Runner, which was released in 1982. It is clear that the decision to add a voiceover was not
endorsed by the director, Ridley Scott or the actor, Harrison Ford. You can tell from Ford’s tone that he
did not want to do it. It sounds forced and very monotone. Despite his disapproval, Ford was
contractually obligated to record the voiceover, (Pfeiffer, 124). Ridley Scott clearly disproved of the
voiceover since he later bought the rights to the film and made released a
different version. Producers were
worried that the film would not make as much money had the voiceover not been
included. They were worried
because during certain test screenings, some audience members were left
confused. Their solution to this
problem: add a voiceover to clarify.
However, Ridley Scott protested stating that, “confusion was exactly
what he hoped to create,” (Pfeiffer, 124).
Personally,
I feel as though the voiceover distracted the audience from the meaning of the
film. The forced voiceover did not
contribute much to the overall meaning of the film. I may feel this way because the first time I watched Blade
Runner, it was a version without the voiceover. After watching the 1982 version of the
film with the voiceover, it felt as though someone had invaded it and added a
foreign entity; an entity that did not belong in the film.
The
voiceover acts as the main character, Rick Deckard, inner thoughts. It also serves as a statement of the obvious. Producers were worried that audiences
would not understand the film unless they were told directly what was
happening. This can be seen at the
end of the film after Roy saves Deckard’s life: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJzIT6fQ3OU
Roy
has just given an eloquent speech about his life and everything that he would be
leaving behind. From this example,
the voice over points out to the viewer everything that has just happened. It restates that Roy has just died and
that he saved Deckard’s life. This
is a moment that would have worked better without the voiceover.
Another
moment that would have been better without the voiceover was at the very
end. As Deckard and Rachel are
driving off to start their new life elsewhere, Ford’s voice can be heard once
again stating the obvious. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fCeH-WnJYM
Again,
another moment is ruined by a tacked on voiceover. In actuality, the film could have ended the moment that
Rachel and Deckard entered the elevator.
However, this ending still would have worked better without the voiceover.
The
examples above prove that the voiceover was more of a distraction from the film
as opposed to a benefit. I feel as
though the message of the film is clear, considering I watched it for the first
time without the voiceover and understood it perfectly. It was not effective in conveying the
thematic message of the film. At
the same time however, I suppose it does help to support certain ideas by
repeating the action of the film.
I believe that you raise extraordinarily valid points about how the addition of a voiceover can offer some overkill. However, I don’t feel like the voiceover “distracted the audience from the meaning of the film.” The voiceover might be redundant, but it’s not a distraction. It merely solidifies the meaning of the film, if it distracted the audience from the meaning of the film it would do something to pull focus into a something not connected to the film’s meaning.
ReplyDeleteI realize that many people do not like the voice overs, but I do. Perhaps it is just a personal preference thing, but for some reason I really like getting views into the inner thoughts of characters. It helps me get to know them. I agree with the what you suggested though, I think there could have been more displayed by character action and expression than was, but I still like the voiceovers. The voiceover at the end, after Deckard’s life it spared actually helped me understand the story a lot. I might not have realized the significance behind Roy letting him live without the voice over. I’m interested to see the other version of the film, to see how I like it without the voiceovers. Maybe I’ll agree with you a little more after seeing that version.
1982 Ridley Scott classic Blade Runner went through a long and tortured development process, including several recuts and the addition of a monotone voice-over that was famously hated by star Harrison Ford. Despite being included partly because of executive pressure to make the film less confusing, at least one of the film's producers seemed to loathe it as well, according to an apparent page of screening notes posted on Reddit. Dated from January 1982, around six months before the film launched, the notes are mostly from executive producers Jerry Perenchio and Bud Yorkin at Tandem, one of the three production companies attached to the film. "This movie gets worse every screening," writes Perenchio. "Why is this voice-over track so terrible, hopefully this is not being dubbed in. He sounds drugged, were they all on drugs when they did this?"
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the voice over was indeed unnecessary. I felt that it greatly took away from the story in general. Ford was, and continues to be, pissed: "When we started shooting it had been tacitly agreed that the version of the film that we had agreed upon was the version without voice over narration. It was a fucking nightmare. I thought that the film had worked without the narration. But now I was stuck re-creating that narration. And I was obliged to do the voiceovers for people that did not represent the director's interests." The voice over does not provide much rather than to dumb down the seriousness of the film. I