|
**CONTAINS MAJOR PLOT SPOILERS** The sci-fi genre is often easily-ridiculed for being outlandish or unrealistic. If I had a penny for every time I've heard a friend say 'I don't like sci-fi because it's not grounded in reality', I'd have about fifty pence. But with his 1982 "flop”, Ridley Scott proved that not all sci-fi pictures had to be over-the-top, outlandish or realistic. Indeed, what he did that sets Blade Runner apart from say 2001 or Star Wars is that he grounded it in reality. What we get is a dystopian epic which rivals anything else the director has ever done. Instead of talking about a time long ago in a galaxy far away, he decides to set it in what could be a future Los Angeles, and the people are what could be the future of the human race. But most importantly, he grounds his picture be having the core theme something that is important to us rather than important to Luke Skywalker; the effects of us humans playing God. The plot sees Harrison Ford's Rick Deckard as a retired 'blade runner'. The humans have created 'replicant', robot-like beings who have become too uncontrollable, and a blade runner's job is to destroy them. The world currently believes that all of the replicant have been terminated, but it becomes clear that there are still four replicant alive; Zhora (Joanna Cassidy), Leon (Brion James), Pris (Darryl Hannah) and Batty (Rutger Hauer). A reluctant Deckard agrees to take them out, but things are complicated when he meets Rachael (Sean Young), a woman who he quickly learns is also a replicant. And she's not the only one. What makes Blade Runner so great is its complex plot. The film doesn't have one strand in particular (although it clearly prioritises one over the others), but has several running side-by-side, all moving towards the final culmination. You have Pris' budding "friendship” with Sebastian (William Sanderson), you have the romance story between Deckard and Rachael, and you have Roy Batty's seemingly eternal quest for immortality. The story was crafted with enough pride and care that it never gets confusing no matter how much it jumps between storylines, and each one of them is as interesting as the last. However, although the story is something to marvel at, the themes embedded inside the story are what makes the film. At the very core of it, you have the question about whether humans playing God is the right thing to do. Of course, on the outset the obvious answer that Scott is trying to put across is no. The beings that the human race have created are 'evil', the four out-and-out replicant becoming the major antagonists. However, you have to dig a little deeper before you can form your definitive opinion (spoilers ahead). Rachael and maybe even Deckard himself are replicant too, suggesting that a man-made beings is not automatically evil, but must make their own choice. So this brings up other questions. Are the replicant unable to see the difference between right and wrong? Are they unable to recognise consequences? Or have these particular replicant been programmed to be bad? Is the real villain their creator, or even the humans as a whole? There's no easy answer. So the main question after watching this film is whether or not Rick Deckard himself is a replicant. The main point of support for this is his unicorn-vision, when he dreams of the horned beast running through a field. At the end of the film, Gaff leaves a paper-folded unicorn on the blade runner's desk, suggesting that he knows what he's been dreaming about, and therefore you could argue that Deckard is a replicant. However, if you look at the context of the scene, this could just be a way of Gaff saying to Deckard that he knows about Rachael but isn't going to do anything, but she will always be a replicant living amongst human. The reason that this could be construed is that a unicorn is, in theory, a man-made myth, and by running through a field he is living alongside nature and the naturally occurring. Again, an answer cannot be easily figure out, but I myself like to think that Deckard is a replicant, only because of the extra dimension that this adds to the film as a whole. If you manage to get your hands on any copy of Blade Runner, I'd recommend The Director's Cut or The Final Cut. The theatrical version is fine on the most part, but I have the usual complaints about the lacklustre, awfully-delivered narration by Ford and the idealistic, Hollywood ending. I just don't think that the manufactured ending is something that is in keeping with the rest of the film's mood. However, without these cuts, what we get is something incredible; a dystopian epic that is more than it looks on the outset. Why this flopped is beyond me, considering its release during Star Wars pandemonium. Maybe the fans of "the trilogy” felt seeing Blade Runner would be a sign of unfaithfulness to George Lucas and his vision, or maybe it was because of the awful narration and ending. But either way, I'm sure everyone regrets it. Verdict This is, undoubtedly, Ridley Scott’s masterpiece, and Harrison Ford’s best performance if you’re marking purely on acting. Just don’t go into it thinking it’s going to be Star Wars Episode 7. 9/10 (5/5)
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2008 12:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 20, 2024 04:20 |
|