123. Blade Runner (1982)

Stars:  Harrison Ford (Rick Deckard), Rutger Hauer (Roy Batty), Sean Young (Rachael), Edward James Olmos (Gaff), Daryl Hannah (Pris)

Director:  Ridley Scott

Awards / Honors

• 2 Oscar Nominations -- Best Art Direction (Set Decoration), Best Visual Effects
• #97 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies list (2007)
• #  6 on AFI's 10 Top 10 Lists -- Science Fiction movies (2008)
• In 1993, Blade Runner was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".

Genre:  Science Fiction

Running Time:  1 hour, 57 minutes (Final Cut version)

Format:  DVD, Blu-ray

Odyssey Rating:  4 Stars (John - 4 Stars, Beth - 4 Stars)

John's Take

There is a particular element of film making that comes to mind when I think of this movie and it was the first thing I thought of after re-watching it again. Editing. Why editing? Well, we can answer that question by taking a little side-trip and exploring the mind of the die-hard science fiction fan (just stay with me for a moment).

There are a number of criteria one must meet before one can be declared a true Grade-A, certified Sci-Fi geek. Is there a Star Fleet Uniform hanging in your closest? Do you insist that everyone calls the toys that cover the wall of your “home office” action-figures? Do you treat your old VHS copy of Star Wars like the Zapruder film? ("Look carefully, Greedo's head goes back and to the left; back and to the left...") There are other criteria as well, but there is one particular piece of criteria that is not quite as well known to those outside geek / nerd circles:  Do you have a position on the question of whether Rick Deckard is a replicant and will you defend that position to the death?

So, what does this question have to do with film editing and why is editing so important to the film Blade Runner? Well, you see, the more likely you are to believe that Deckard is, or is not, a replicant, is highly dependant on which particular edit / version of the film that you prefer. Let me explain.

There is a sickness that has been going around Hollywood for quite sometime, and recently the observed cases have been particularly virulent. What is this sickness? It is the inability for movie makers to keep themselves from re-editing and “improving” their previously released movies. Spielberg and Lucas are the most famous recent examples; however, Blade Runner may be the “Patient X” of this epidemic. This isn’t so much the fault of Ridley Scott (although he does seem to like to fan the flames of the “one, true version” controversy), as it is the small, but exceptionally rabid fan-base that seems intent to try to force their personal favorite version of the film to the forefront.

You see, there are between five and seven different version of this film – depending on how you want to count them. Each of these versions has a running-time difference of between one to four minutes depending which versions of the movie you are comparing. While one to four minutes worth of new scenes doesn’t seem like a great deal of difference, once you start taking into account the content of those few scenes, plus the additional editing required to include or remove those scenes – including things like voice-overs added or removed to make the those scenes flow together smoothly, etc. – those few minutes of film can, and in the case of this movie do, have an impact.

The existence of multiple version of a film is not unusual. Take any given film, and if you look hard enough, you can probably find a one version of the film that was used for a public test screening; a second, re-edited version based on the feedback from that test screening; a third re-edited version that takes into account feedback from the studios; a fourth version that was edited with a particular market, such as the European market, in mind; a fifth version that was edited for television, etc. However, where Blade Runner differs from many other films is that this film has an over-abundance of complex themes that it tries to touch on (technicism, genetic engineering / cloning, corporatism, environmentalism, and globalization, to name just the big ones) and each edit of the film, for one reason or another, seems to put a different amount of emphasis on these themes. So, as each version of the film has been “re-discovered” and becomes available, the fans that appreciate the emphasis on whichever theme or themes that this version has, rally around that version and hold it up as the “one, true version” with a passion that at times exceeds religious fervor. Take into account a little geek / nerd one-upmanship being added to the mix – “You call yourself a fan? I drove for three days to get to Los Angeles to see the ORIGINAL screening of the workprint version back in 1990…” – and you can start to see where the questions like is Deckard a replicant or not start to take on lives of their own.

Thus, if wasn’t for the importance and impact that editing can have on a film, thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of fanatics would have to finds something else to obsess over. :)

If you have time, the inclination, and a blu-ray player, I strongly recommend getting a copy of the Final Cut (also referred to as the “25th Anniversary Edition”) Blu-ray disc and watching the original U.S. theatrical release version and then watching the updated Final Cut version (both versions are included in the package). You will get two fairly different takes on the same story – even though they is only a one minute difference in running time between the two films – and hopefully a new appreciation for how editing, even subtle editing changes, can affect a film.

And what is my personal take on the big question? Deckard isn’t a replicant – and if he is – he is a poorly designed one. The one constant present through all of the versions of the film is that replicants have superior strength and / or agility compared to normal humans. Even Daryl Hannah’s character, a replicant that was simply designed to be a “pleasure model”, is physically superior to Deckard. Does it make sense to design and build anything for the purpose of hunting that is inferior to its prey? I don’t think so.

Beth and I watched the Final Cut version for the purpose of our little odyssey. I must say they did an excellent job restoring the film and the conversion to blu-ray was well done. For the sake of full disclosure, I must say that I am a member of the minority of fans of this film that prefer the slightly happier ending of the original theatrical version than the slightly darker / ambiguous endings of some of the other versions of the film and wish that the Final Cut version and used that ending instead.

So, to wrap this post all up I give Blade Runner: The Final Cut a rating of 4 Stars.