Friday, March 21, 2014

Szklarski Blade Runner



In the first release of Blade Runner into theaters in 1982, a few drastic elements were added by the producers. The one addition that received the most attention, criticism, and opposition from the cast and directors is without a doubt the voiceover. I will not call it the god awful, monotone disaster of a voiceover as there might be many a viewer out there who would not understand what was going on without it. Granted, in class discussions, we thoroughly sorted through all of the possible themes to expect and knew the basic plot structure after reading the novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Dick. The themes and messages from this movie are universally important and rather essential to be pondered by audiences as it examines the human experience. Personally, all I gained from the voiceover is an understanding of why more versions of the film needed to be created.  The voiceover was supposedly added on the intention it would facilitate more money to be made off this movie. The producers can be quoted on that. Ironically enough, in the end, this 1982 US Theatrical release earned the least out of all versions even with inflation and date adjustments.



Digressing from that, the purpose of the voiceover is to allow the audience to get to know Rick Deckard better. In the novel, readers know Deckard's thoughts. Readers can clearly see where the ethical lines between human and android begin to blur inside Deckard's mind. However, in my opinion, the filmmakers had better avenues to portray these thoughts then slapping on a voiceover. Harrison Ford does not even sound like he is pleased with the voiceover as it was being recorded. "I was desperately unhappy with it. i was compelled by contract to record five or six different versions of the narration, each of which was found wanting on a storytelling basis. The final version was something that I was completely unhappy with" (Pfeiffer 119). The audience is spoon-fed everything that should be understood through the actions in the film, at least to anyone actually paying attention and competent enough to know what is going on. In the very least, I contend that the narration serves the purpose of conveying the tumultuous ethics spinning in Deckard's mind to the audience. The film version of Deckard could be passed off as a rather flat character. He is not unique or exciting. This character is nearly upstaged by the replicant Roy Batty. Without the narration, the audience would know less than what the readers would suspect out of the film Deckard. As the once stoic, isolated killer, Deckard begins to respect the things he once saw as not real. By the end of the film, Deckard is totally infatuated with Rachael and does not retire her in a similar way that Deckard from the novel cares for the electric toad. The narration conveys Deckard's change in ethics. He becomes more aware of the situation he is in of killing these android creatures as the story progresses. The ethics of it are wrong. At first he recognizes it in Rachael. Then, as Roy Batty dies on the roof, Deckard recognizes it through him as well. This would not be very apparent in the 1982 film without the voiceover.


1 comment:

  1. Jonathan Lam
    You bring up a very interesting point about understanding why more versions needed to be created. However, I do not quite understand how the voice over can produce more money for this film. Perhaps the producer intended to make this film bad on purpose in order to just milk the cash cow? By doing this, the producer would have had the intention of making more versions of the film at later times already. I feel that yes, the voice over did give us more insight into Rick Deckard's character, but more than anything, it gave us more background knowledge of the situation that the film is placed in. I agree with you that the voice over was not the best medium to portray many thoughts in the film and that the audience was being spoon-fed everything. I feel that the audience could have understood the ethics spinning around in his head with or without the narration, but I do agree with you that Deckard's character in the film was quite underwhelming. I will actually go on to say that Deckard WAS upstaged by Roy Batty. However, I believe that the narration at the end of the film was fitting, but borderline unnecessary. If the audience was truly paying attention throughout the film in its entirety, then it would have been obvious about Deckard's change of heart at the end.

    ReplyDelete