Wlos: Blader Runner Comparison

           When I watched the first version of the movie Blade Runner, I felt as if there were absolutely nothing wrong with the voiceovers that were prevalent in it, but now that I’ve seen the film without them, I feel as if they were a hindrance to its flow.  Narrative voiceovers are commonly utilized in film.  Such a device delivers an interior look into a character’s thoughts.  Because of this, there’s sometimes artistic controversy surrounding the use of voiceovers because some feel that a film’s message should be delivered without having to tell the audience, and likewise, an actor should develop his character without having to tell the audience how he’s developing.  This is why Blade Runner is a considerably better film without the voiceovers, the 1991 cut (the one without voiceovers) generates a flow of its own, whereas the 1982 version (the one with voiceovers) acts out a flow that described by voiceovers.

            The absence of voiceovers is the defining characteristic of the second cut of Blade Runner.  The interesting thing about this is that, to the general audience member, voiceovers did not seem to cause too much artistic peril in the first cut of the film.  However, the film professionals working behind the scenes were able to properly identify the problem they caused with the movie, which is why they were taken out for the second version.  “’I was desperately unhappy with it (the first cut). . .The final version (the first cut) was something that I was completely unhappy with” (Pfeiffer 119).  This shows that the second cut of Blade Runner is a true product of creative vision—creative vision that is propagated through many individual scenes.

            The scene that showed Rick being saved by Roy is a quintessential example of how Blade Runner’s artistry is improved by the omission of voiceovers.  The scene is a spiritual awakening for Rick, this is made definite by the camera shot that showcases the dove flying into the heavens as Roy dies.  In the 1982 version, a Rick Deckard voiceover occurs right after we see this scene, and he details the inner-workings of his spiritual awakening for the audience—we learn exactly how the spiritual awakening affected him.  In the 1991 version, we are left to wonder how he might be changed by the spiritual awakening and can only judge him on how he chooses to express himself in the final scene of the film (where he runs into the elevator with Reachel) to infer on how he’s changed.  This makes us think harder and indulge more interest in him.

            Because the 1991 version makes us paint our own picture of Rick Deckard based on how we perceive him, rather than what he tells us, we as audience members invest more in the film and are likewise more attracted to it.  This is why the 1991 version is a better movie, it guides you into making more of an investment of yourself into the story.  This is a very smart thing for a movie maker to achieve, and it makes sense for the film medium.  If I wanted to hear someone tell me about themselves, I’d watch an interview, when I watch a film I want to see someone express themselves.

Andrew Wlos