Lam: Blade Runner Comparison

Which Blade Runner Version is Best?

                I feel that the Director's Cut does not really change the meaning of the film too much. All of the main themes were still prevalent in the film, but the biggest change was most likely the medium that these themes were presented. Taking out the voice overs really forced the audience to think more deeply about the film instead of being spoon-fed all of the information, and eventually losing all of the mystery of figuring out events in the film. This was echoed by the staff in which the subtleties of the film were possibly destroyed by the narration (Pfeiffer 124). These subtleties were what made the film more enticing, in my opinion.

                I personally think Ridley Scott thought that it was necessary to change the film because as a filmmaker, he wanted to probably reach the audience through film techniques and communicate through them instead of being straight up told the details of the film. This almost seems insulting to a filmmaker in that one can surmise that the filmmaker might be so bad that a narration was needed to communicate the main themes. Additionally, the narration was poorly done by Harrison Ford, and in order to improve the film, only two options remained: either delete the narration out completely or have Harrison Ford redo the voice over with possibly different dialogue in order to allow more focus to shift towards the film techniques. This deletion of the voice over narration is the most essential difference in the 1991 film, but also the deletion of the final ending scene was just as impactful. The ending scene seemed like an unnecessary ending, and in my opinion, took away from the mystique of the film. By leaving the ending at the elevator door closing scene in the film, it accentuated the close of the film and left room for wonder.

                In my opinion, the 1991 Director's Cut rendition communicated the film's thematic messages more inherently to the audience. I say inherently because if a person more organically learns a concept, it gets embedded in a deeper part of the brain. This is similar to hands-on interactive learning versus learning from a lecture. Therefore, if the audience is told via narration of information that could be subliminally learned, then the audience will not have as strong as a reaction that they could. Ironically, the audience would not be able to empathize too well with the film and its characters or even develop along with the characters. To have a more effective result from the film, a filmmaker needs to get the audience invested in the characters or the plot. The characters and plot were very well thought out, but the execution eventually ended up poorly. 

Kunzig – Blade Runner 1982 vs. 1991

The main difference between the two versions of Blade Runner (the original released in 1982 and the Director's cut released in 1991) is Harrison Ford's voice-over. Although the director, Ridley Scott, had decided not to include a voice-over the first time, adding instead some scenes to provide the information, the producers demanded there be one after getting feedback that people were having trouble following the movie.

The result, in my opinion, is that in the first movie there is too much information, and in the second there isn't enough. I accidentally watched the Director's cut first – actually, it wasn't really the Director's cut because there was no unicorn dream so I'm not entirely sure what it was – without the voice over, and I felt like things were just happening for no apparent reason and with no connection to what had happened before. I felt that if I hadn't read the book, I wouldn't understand what was going on, and I thought there was just a little too much silence, a little too many long, heavy shots of a character's face. But then again, when I saw the original version, I realized it was much better to lack information than to have too much – the voice-over did not fit with the film at all. It just sounded dull, instead of mysterious and dark, which is what I think they were going for. I, personally, really did not want to hear his thoughts, even though they provided some information that I desperately wanted before.
That pretty much explains why Scott felt the need to fix his movie – because it was released under his name, as though the voice-over and the 'happily ever after' ending were his choices, and because they were terrible choices. It wasn't his vision and he probably thought his version would be more successful, which I believe it was.
While I didn't really enjoy the movie the first time I saw it, I did after watching it again, probably in part because I picked up on more subtle clues, but also because the voice-over provided more information, terrible as it was. So I would say that overall, the Director's cut was more effective, but only because it came after the original one with the voice-over. Without having seen the original one, I wouldn't have been able to appreciate the Director's cut, because there simply wasn't enough information in it. It didn't need much more, just a teeny tiny bit.

Lam: Blade Runner and the Voiceover

Blade Runner (1982) and the Role of the Voiceover

                In Blade Runner (1982), I feel that the voice over played almost no purpose. However, the producer severely underestimated the audience and almost insults the audience by essentially telling them that they need a narrator to tell them the story or else they would never understand the film. The director, actor Harrison Ford, and original creator expressed that they did not want a voice over (Pfeiffer 120). Therefore, Harrison Ford narrated the part poorly in an attempt to sway the producer from using the narrative. However, the producer intended the purpose of the voiceover to inform the audience on background information that supposedly could not be attained via the context of the film.

                Viewers do learn a few facts in the beginning of the film, but one can argue that these facts are almost erroneous and not exactly needed. One scene in particular where a voiceover was employed was during a panning of the settings of the city. Harrison Ford's character narrated during this pan and enlightened the audience about the language that was being spoken. He explained that the language was the language of the little people and was a mish-mash of Spanish, French, Japanese, and several other languages. One could argue that this fact is erroneous because all of the dialogue in the film was in English. Also, the settings definitely indicated a Japanese area using signs, but even if the audience could not distinguish Japanese from other Asian languages, which is often the case, audience members could still most likely recognize that the language was of Asian descent. The narrative at the end of the film also felt rather unnecessary as the audience does not learn anything new. The last narrative was basically a repetition of what Roy said at his time of death. If the producer was worried that the audience would not understand that Deckard also finally understood Roy's final words, then putting the ending in would help. The voiceover made the final scene just ridiculous and almost unreal and unnecessary.

                The thematic messages of the film were portrayed very well without the need for a voiceover. All of the thematic messages could have been understood via the settings, the dialogue, or the actions of the actors and actresses. Having a voiceover convey thematic messages would be terribly underwhelming to the audience because if the audience learns everything via a voiceover, then the audience does not even get the chance to become invested into the film and organically learn through the film about its thematic messages. Again, a film contains so many other aspects that could do the same job as a voiceover does. Even in the beginning of the film during the on-screen text, if the producer really doubted the audience's intelligence, this would have been a better place to provide more information-- not via a very badly done and lackasadical voiceover.

Kunzig – Rick Deckard in Blade Runner vs. Rick Deckard in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep

There are many ways in which Blade Runner's interpretation of Philip Dick's Rick Deckard differs from the original. To start with, Scott basically inverted Deckard's basic background information: in the book, Rick Deckard is married, and currently employed as a cop, more specifically a bounty hunter. In the movie however, Deckard is divorced, as we learn through the voice over, and he is an ex-cop, no longer a bounty hunter. These are two basic, obvious characteristics that separate them; but there are some more important ones that make a bigger difference in the character.
The first is that Dick's Rick Deckard seems to only be a mediocre bounty hunter. He is only given the cases that Holden, the senior bounty hunter, believes he can handle. The only reason he is assigned to the specific escaped androids the story centers around is that Holden was shot by one of them, was hospitalized and therefore unable to complete the mission. But since they represented more of a challenge, Holden had planned on taking care of them himself.
In the movie however, Rick Deckard is presented as the best blade runner (or bounty hunter), pulled out of retirement to work his magic by his old boss, because Holden was unable to handle the replicants. Holden got the first shot at them only because he still worked as a blade runner, whereas Deckard had quit.
The second important difference is that the book's Deckard wants to be assigned to more cases, because he gets payed for every android he retires, and he needs the money, specifically so he can purchase a real animal. Blade Runner Deckard does not wish to do this job, but his boss doesn't give him a choice, threatening him.
A third important difference, revealed to us as were the others within the first 20 minutes of the film, is in the attitude each Deckard has towards the job. In the beginning of the book, Rick Deckard doesn't appear to particularly mind his job – he is simply retiring androids, and doesn't start to think of it as killing until much later. But from the beginning of the movie, Deckard dislikes retiring the replicants, because he already sees it as killing, which is why he quit.
I think a main way in which they are alike is that they are both lonely. Even though Dick's Deckard is married, him and his wife don't always connect that much, and most of the time he seems to be alienated from whomever he is with, as does Deckard in the movie. But they both experience a change – Dick's Deckard begins to feel empathy for androids when the opera singer is killed, and Scott's Deckard begins to feel empathy for replicants (more specifically for Rachel) when he realizes they might actually have feelings. And both Deckards develop a soft spot for Rachel despite themselves.

Oria, The Unnecessary Voiceover

         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. 

O'Connell: Blade Runner (1982) Blog

The Hollywood interpretation of Rick Deckard we see in Blade Runner (1982) presents us with a gruff noir hero who appears vastly different from the original novel’s contemplative and alienated and main character, struggling to resolve mixed feelings about his way of life. In Blade Runner, Deckard is something of a loner. He is unmarried, lives alone, and does not appear to have permanent employment, whereas Rick in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is fully attached, living with his wife and receiving a salary from the police department. However, Iran is apathetic if not cold to him, and his position as a bounty hunter is extremely low ranking in the police department. Both characters are somewhat alienated, but the contrast of the latter’s inhospitable way of life is a better illustration of his growing despondency than the former’s simple lack of attachment.

The book’s Rick is nearly extremely interested in animals, and his lust for both the therapeutic compassion of animal husbandry as well as the social status brought about by the ownership of an organic animal is nearly obsessive, as he even carries his Sidney’s guide on his person at all times. His consumerist desire drives many of his actions, most notably his monetary compensation for the retirement of the Nexus 6 androids. The film version of Deckard makes no mention of animals, electric or organic, nor is any type of compensation for his mission mentioned explicitly. While it’s certainly probable that he does receive payment, the simple fact that it’s not mentioned nearly eliminates the idea as motivation for his actions.

While his love affair with Rachael is complex and fluctuating in the novel, with multiple intricacies and questions left open, Deckard’s relationship with her in the film is as clean-cut as a fairytale romance. While the novel’s Rick does confess love for Rachael at first, he’s also driven to anger and murderous desire to retire her when he learns that she was employed to sleep with many bounty hunters in effort to keep them from killing more androids. The same blurred line between killing a sentient being and retiring a piece of machinery is calling into question for Rick whether his affair is true unfaithfulness to his wife with another human, or inconsequential masturbation with a machine. The film has none of these questions to their relationship.

While it’s easy to pick out the ways in which the film has fallen short of the book’s complexity, Blade Runner retained the main character’s most obvious struggle. Pfeiffer’s synopsis of the original script states: “The plot would focus on Deckard’s increasing aversion to killing these superpowerful robots or replicants. [...] Deckard’s problem is in identifying the replicants and resisting the urge to treat them with the same compassion one might extend to a human being.” (Pfeiffer 120) Though much was omitted, the film adaptation portrays Deckard’s inner turmoil and questioning appropriately, which was certainly just as much of a focus in the novel as well.