The original 1982 version of Blade Runner called the US theatrical release was not what director Ridley Scott had intended for his eventual cult film. Certain aspects of the 1982 American release displeased Scott as well as the film’s star, Harrison Ford, and these qualities were removed from the film for Scott’s 1991 rerelease, entitled The Director’s Cut. The Ridley Scott-approved Director’s Cut included neither the 13 explanatory voice-overs from the 1982 release nor the “happy ending” of the 1982 release, showing Deckerd and Rachael in a lush, green landscape riding off into eternal happiness. The 1991 version added, however, a dream sequence in which Deckerd sees a unicorn riding through a forest. The aforementioned differences do change the overall message of the film, and the 1991 version is the way Scott intended the meaning of the film to be portrayed.
The removal of the 13 explanatory voice-overs gives more ambiguity to Deckerd’s character. The voice-overs imply that he is self-aware and therefore likely can not be a replicant. Scott, later, discredited this by stating that Deckerd is in fact a replicant. Ford, who played Deckerd in the film, apparently recorded the voice-overs badly on purpose, in hopes that they would be removed from the film. They were included, and Ford later said of the film, “I was desperately unhappy with it. I was compelled by contract to record five or six different versions of the narration [...] The final version was something that I was completely unhappy with” (Pfeiffer 119). The dissatisfaction with these voice-overs was likely a reason that Scott felt he had to change the film in his 1991 Director’s Cut.
The removal of the 1982 “happy ending” alters the meaning of the film through both Deckerd and Rachael’s characters. The 1982 film shows the two of them clearly riding off into eternal happiness, presumably on an off-world colony with lush forests. Additionally, his voice-over in that scene states that Rachael does not have a limit to her life as an android, implying that she could potentially live forever with Deckerd. The removal of this scene, however, leaves viewers guessing what will happen with these star-crossed lovers, whose relationship (in the 1991 version) is contingent on Rachael’s limited lifespan.
The unicorn dream sequence added in the 1991 version suggests that Deckerd is a replicant, but still leaves the decision up to the viewer. This dream is a foreshadow of the end of the film when Gaff leaves the unicorn origami on the floor for Deckerd. The fact that Gaff knew to make an origami unicorn suggests that he had some sort of access to Deckerd’s dreams or memories, and this implies that Deckerd is in fact a replicant.
The 1991 version, in my opinion, is far more effective because it leaves the decision of Deckerd’s identity up to the viewer. Finally, it is the intended version by the director, and the better version in Ford’s opinion.
Very cohesive and well written response. I agree with you that the 1991 Director's Cut proved to be more effective and was without a doubt more enjoyable. Ford's monotone voiceovers were very distracting in the 1982 US theatrical release version. The producers decision to include the voiceovers is almost insulting because they felt that Americans were incapable of understanding the film without them. I believe that the inclusion of the unicorn dream sequence is by far the most important addition to the film. It adds a whole new vibe to the film in that it suggests that Deckard himself may be a replicant. I found that the "happy ending" included in the 1982 version was rather corny. The ambiguity of Deckard and Rachael's fate demonstrated in the 1991 version is much more preferable, in my opinion. Despite the fact that there were only these few changes made to the 1991 version, they are essential and make for a much better movie altogether. However, even though Ridley Scott was able to release his own creative version of the film, Harrison Ford has stated that he believes the film could have been more than a cult classic, had it not been altered by producers in 1982. Altogether, Ridley Scott's 1991 Director's Cut proved to be a much more effective and enjoyable take on the film.
ReplyDelete