After many years of anticipation, I finally sat down to watch the classic Ridley Scott science fiction film, Blade Runner (1982). I had often heard this film referred to as a modern classic and a masterpiece of cinema; being a great fan of Scott’s other works, I had high hopes; why, then did I leave the experience feeling so disappointed? Doing further research into this film, I find there is a dichotomy of views; some claiming it to be one of the greatest science fiction movies in history, and some claiming it to be so boring they can’t stay awake during a screening. This is a unique situation; surely there are formal aspects of a film that objectively make it good or bad, so why then is this film so polarizing?
Firstly, Scott is undoubtedly a master visionary of art design, world creation and cinematography. It is no surprise that the bold, unique aesthetic of the film garnered many awards including best cinematography and best art direction BAFTAs, and a nomination for a best visual effects Oscar. The highly stylised neon colours create a cold, metallic, futuristic world that reflects the emotionless nature of the replicants. Interestingly, the juxtaposing warm tones are used solely for scenes including Rachael; most notably the scene that first introduces her character, with a backdrop of a stunning sunset. This is clever use of colour to create an emotional affect, making Rachael seem different to the other replicants and foreshadowing the romance in the future.
The music is also very effectively used, earning a nomination for a best score BAFTA. In fact, it is the first experience we have with this text, since, in Scott’s recognizable style, the film opens with a blank credit sequence, with a backing track of melancholy, futuristic music which sounds like a theremin. This sets the tone and gives the audience a hint at what to expect from the film. This theme is then repeated in act three, at the emotional climax where Roy dies in the rain, essentially bookending the film.
Continuing with the opening sequence, during the interrogation of one of the replicants, a heartbeat sound is used to effectively increase tension in the climax of the scene. It also leads us into a false sense of security as we believe the tension is dropping as the heartbeat fades away, only to be more shocked when the replicant shoots the blade runner.
We also see some interesting editing choices in this opening sequence, with the quick intercuts between the dystopian landscape, the Tyrell corporation and a set of piercingly blue eyes. Of course, at this point we haven’t been introduced to Roy, so it is a mystery and keeps us wary of any characters in the future with blue eyes. A creative way to create an active audience.
So, with all of this technical prowess, what was Scott seemingly missing that created a negative response from some viewers? Well, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that of all the award nominations, screenplay was not included. This film is very thematically heavy, which is the reason for its enduring success; it asks the questions: who can you really trust? What makes us human? How far can technology go? Can we trust it? And other ethical questions about life, death and technology. These were popular themes during the period that this film was released, as seen in films such as Jurassic Park (1993), The Terminator (1984) and Back to the Future (1985). However, no matter how relevant the themes are, it is the story that sells the movie to the audience and keeps them engaged. Unfortunately, Deckard feels more like a plot device to drive the themes than a relatable hero of the story.
Alfred Hitchcock once famously said “punish the women!” in regards to punishing the characters in a story to make them relatable to the audience. Where are Deckard’s flaws? His emotional scars from the past? His skeletons in the closet? We get no information about where he comes from, what his motives are for becoming a blade runner, or why he retired so early, then decided to come back. This makes him a very two-dimensional, character with seemingly no humanity. This could work better if the aim was to make him seem super human, but we see no feats of super human ability, no crazy action sequences, no wow factor to replace the non-existent backstory, despite his build up as the best blade runner. Perhaps, audience expectation has changed since the 1980s, but modern audiences seem to demand something more from their sci-fi heroes. Even Deckard’s romance with Rachael seems hollow and forced. Scott is relying too much on his audience’s competency to try and piece together their own backstory from their experience with films of a similar genre.
It is understandable that Scott’s intention was to keep Deckard’s past a mystery to allow for the theory that he himself is a replicant, but I feel that he overlooked the fact that this would leave his film with a main character that the audience can’t invest in. In contrast, his film Gladiator (2000) contained a hero with a strong motive, a compelling backstory and almost superhero levels of combat ability. It is easy to see why this film has a higher audience satisfaction and was nominated for a screenplay Oscar, where Blade Runner was not. I feel there was an opportunity Scott to keep this question of Deckard being a replicant and to give him a compelling backstory by allowing us the opportunity to believe that his backstory were implanted memories, at the end of the film.
In conclusion, the unique discussion over whether Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner is a masterpiece or a disaster is due to the imbalance between its exceptional, daring visuals and technical competence, versus its lacklustre story and character development.
Comments