O'Connell: Blade Runner (Director's Cut)

The changes of the Director’s Cut are immediately noticeable with the emotionally significant “radio silence” from Deckard as his thoughts are no longer broadcast to the viewers with all the subtlety of a baseball bat to the head. The lack of narration was an important change from the original cut that was roundly disliked as: “Critics scoffed at having the script explained to them by the Deckard character-- especially since most of the narration simply stated the obvious.” (Pfeiffer 124) Ridley Scott’s original vision of the film without voiceover restored the understated poignant nuances of Deckard’s character, which Ford’s acting effectively captures. We as the viewers are not Deckard’s conscience, nor is he providing us with a record of the events. We are simply witness to them, and must make our own judgements.

As the Director’s Cut restores the subtlety and grace to the character of Deckard, it also opens up sections of the film to interpretation. By not hearing exactly what Deckard is thinking verbatim, the viewer is free to form their own perceptions of his mindset and intentions. The scene in which Deckard, at his piano surrounded by photographs of his now-questionable memories, dreams of a unicorn running through the forest is an example of the film’s unspoken message that requires some viewer input to unpack, and begin to ask questions like: how does Deckard see himself? How did Gaff know about the dream? Even Gaff’s final scene gets pulled into question in the director’s cut. When he applauds Deckard by stating “you’ve done a man’s job!” is he in fact referring to Deckard as not a man? Such questions provide thought and depth the the film, as it becomes not simply a blockbuster Hollywood action film, but a complex puzzle to which one continues to return.

Arguably the most important change from the 1982 cut is the end of the film. The Director’s Cut no longer gives the audience a neatly wrapped happy ending, and not only is Rachel’s future called into question, but Deckard’s as well. As he finds the origami unicorn, two important points are made. The first being that Gaff has been to the apartment and spared Rachel (and Deckard), which was the only message in the original cut. And second, that Deckard’s inner thoughts and memories are not the private nor random; Gaff knows Deckard better than he knows himself. Deckard makes the connection quickly, as he nods slowly and crumples the unicorn, remembering Gaff’s words. The Director’s Cut then ends the film on another abrupt door-closing with more questions than answers, in an appropriate reflection of Deckard’s future. Such a drastic change from the “peace at last” ending of the 1982 version changes the film entirely, and in my opinion, for the better.

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.