"Blade Runner" again

• email this story
• read comments (44)
• post a comment
• 
  
  

Fred Kaplan has written a moderately interesting N.Y. Times piece about Ridley Scott's Blade Runner, which has been re-cut and re-stored for the umpteenth time, and which will play in theatres prior to showing up on DVD on 12.18 as "The Final Cut." The payoff is the narrated slide show about the origins and influences of this 1982 classic -- worth clicking on.

"The clue to Deckard's true nature" -- the fact that he's a replicant -- "comes in a scene that was cut from the original release," writes Kaplan. "[It was] only recently unearthed by Charles de Lauzirika, Scott's assistant and the restoration's producer. In the film, Deckard falls in love with Rachael (Sean Young), a secretary at the Tyrell Corporation, the conglomerate that makes replicants. She discovers that she's a replicant too. Her memories of childhood were implanted by Tyrell to make her think she's human.

In the last scene of Scott's "Final Cut" version, "Deckard leads Rachael out of his apartment. He notices an origami figure of a unicorn on the floor. A fellow cop has often left such figures outside replicants'' rooms. In an earlier scene, Deckard was thinking about a unicorn. Looking at the cutout now, he realizes that the authorities know what's in his mind, that the unicorn is a planted memory, that he's a replicant and that he and Rachael are both now on the run. They get into the elevator. The door slams. The end."

comment #1

corey3rd says ...

The clue was in a bathroom scene when Harrison's eyes reflect light - like all the other replicants. The Unicorn? I thought that was merely a symbol of her - since she was the one replicant that didn't have a death day assigned to her programming.

Hampton said when he wrote the script, he wasn't a replicant.

comment #2

jeffmcm says ...

I have always thought that this movie is riddled with plot holes. If Deckard is a replicant, why is he allowed to be on Earth? How long has he been there, since presumably he only has a few years to live? Wouldn't Tyrell also know that Deckard is one?

comment #3

The Bandsaw Vigilante says ...

Ridley Scott mentioned in a recent interview that Deckard is very likely a "Nexus 7" replicant, meaning an indefinite lifespan, and further mysteries as to his original creator (Tyrell, or was it someone else entirely?).

comment #4

JD says ...

"Blade Runner, which has been re-cut and re-stored for the umpteenth time..."

Really? I thought it was only the second time.

comment #5

JD says ...

By the way Jeff, any thoughts on Darjeeling's $70,000 per screen average? Sure, it's the highest per screen average of the year... but it's clearly a sign of trouble, right?

http://tinyurl.com/23jgwp

comment #6

The Bandsaw Vigilante says ...

It's probably something closer to the fifth or six recut, if you count the Dallas/Denver test-screenings, the Workprint (with its NuArt run), the U.S. "Domestic" and "International" cuts, the '92 version, and the 2007 "Final Cut."

Now, "restored," it'd be the third time, with the Workprint and 1992 cuts also getting some reworking done (though the former largely in the form of a few new prints struck after its TODD-AO vault liberation).

comment #7

Reedyb says ...

I thought the unicorn origami was in the restored "Director's Cut" which played in theaters 10+ years ago. I definitely remember seeing that scene.

comment #8

corey3rd says ...

Punch Drunk Love made $367,203 on 5 screens.

comment #9

JeffGP says ...

Plus, those Darjeeling numbers are two-day numbers, NOT normal three-day numbers... we could have possibly (unlikely) seen a 100k per screen weekend.

comment #10

John Cocktosten says ...

The only person who thinks Deckard is a replicant is Ridley Scott. Almost no one else who made the film thinks so, for good reason. (see the Sammon book for details)

The theme of the artificial life forms being more appreciative of life than the humans themselves is completely lost if Deckard is a replicant, and that would be a shame.

comment #11

Bilge says ...

Yeah, wasn't that whole origami unicorn business in the restored 1992 version as well?

I think the real story here is that Scott & co. never got over the financial and critical failure of the original release, and have been trying to rewrite that sad history ever since.

comment #12

Dave says ...

I'm with Reedyb-- the origami unicorn was in the 92 cut, there's absolutely nothing "newly found" about it.

Ummm, how did that pass by Kaplan, let alone Jeff?

The problem with Scott's interpretation is that regardless of whether it makes the movie "accurate to his vision" or "better," it conflicts with the version that *was* released, the 1982 version which is Marlowe in 2019. That's why the Blade Runner director's cuts will never quite be as accepted as other director's cuts, as you're not adding to or tweaking the framing of an older movie-- you're changing it's very core.

It's like M. Night releasing a director's cut of Sixth Sense, only in this one, Bruce Willis is never revealed to be dead. The film still "works," but it's completely different than what was seen by millions for years. Same deal with Blade Runner-- the film still works if Deckard's a replicant, only problem is, it's different than what we all grew comfortable with.

Cheers,
Dave

comment #13

Geoff says ...

Hasn't the flaw with the replicant theory always been that Harrison Ford gets his ass kicked throughout the movie? If he is a model with an unknown lifespan, wouldn't he eventually figure out that he's unusually strong?

comment #14

Undercover Brother says ...

This whole Unicorn/Origami/Replicant business was put to bed ages ago. Ford dreaming about Unicorn + Olmos puting unicorn outside room later = Ford is replicant. The how and the why of it is not for us to know. This is nothing new as it was restored back in the '92 version. Scott himself has even said this.

comment #15

Dellamorte says ...

Man, I feel bad for Charles. Assistant? What's that?

comment #16

Hallick says ...

"Really? I thought it was only the second time."

Really? It seems like this movie is either being re-released or re-edited every six months since it came out in the 80's. It's gotta be the most dicked with film ever made. It's the Joan Rivers of cult films.

comment #17

JohnCope says ...

The truth is that Scott just doesn't realize what he has and insists on fixing what ain't broke. I don't appreciate having a particular reading forced upon me as the only reading, but beyond that I especially resent it when the reading in question does not benefit the work. To add to what was said above, making Deckard a replicant ruins the poignancy of the film and turns it into some kind of meta-existential exercise. While I usually embrace adding additional dimensions to a text, in this case the addition clutters the point and suggests that Scott has no confidence in the existing power of implication in his material. After all, part of the power of this film is in the notion that humanity in its degenerated form is actively seeking to destroy the ideal representations of itself that it has created. And, of course, Deckard as a human has a termination date as well, just not one presumably as set as that of the replicants. What does it mean to be human, what does it matter, etc. These aspects of the narrative are what has made the film endure on the philosophical level it strives toward.

Scott's interpretation forces us to conceive of Deckard as an even more advanced replicant, one designed to mirror the makers own capacities toward emotional, spiritual and physical decay. This is a fascinating idea but simply makes the narrative way too top heavy with "profound intent". In the earliest cut, there is very little to suggest this reading and, what is more, what is there--like the observable glint in Deckard's eyes at one point--acts beautifully as accent to the text if you see what I mean rather than an imposed additional level of philosophical inquiry. In other words, it achieves a more poetic pitch because the idea is merely introduced as an idea, one that can if one chooses to, influence the way we read the rest and how we conceive its impact. Making this idea into an explicit manifestation of fact indicates, as I said, that Scott doesn't trust his audience to consider the idea of a synthetic or inauthentic or all too authentic humanity on their own. The power and profound impact is dissipated by a fixed gaze too tightly focused. But this is little surprise given the director Scott has gone on to become.

comment #18

Hallick says ...

"In other words, it achieves a more poetic pitch because the idea is merely introduced as an idea, one that can if one chooses to, influence the way we read the rest and how we conceive its impact."

I don't think most people can handle that. Look at all of the movies that don't give the audience a pat answer or offer something up to remain a mystery, like Bill Murray's whisper at the end of "Lost In Translation". For someone who appreciates the poetic pitch created in that enigma, that whisper can mean different things in different viewings over the span of years, as your own sensibilities change and you project different words and feelings onto that character.

But for the majority of filmgoers, they HAVE TO KNOW WHAT THE FUCK MURRAY JUST SAID, and that's it. They'll never be happy as long as they don't know what was said, and they'll downgrade the movie as a whole thanks to their frustration with that one small moment.

comment #19

frank delsa says ...

Yeah, I've always been baffled by the Scott's insistance on Deckard being a replicant. No he isn't. Not in the official theatrical version, which doesn't have the dream sequence.
It seems to me that if you really want to throw that kind of twist into the narration, you really should explore it more than just hint at it with a couple of brief scenes.
As someone else said, if it ain't broke, don't
fix it. Blade Runner is a deeply influential film, now widely renowned as a classic. Scott should make peace with that.

comment #20

GeorgePrager says ...

Has anyone seen Fancher's The Minus Man?

http://imdb.com/title/tt0151582/

An interesting miserable failure.

comment #21

source188 says ...

Roy Batty saves Deckard because of his value and respect and admiration for life. If Deckard is actually a "replicant" than that beautiful moment is rendered meaningless and one replicant has just saved another. I look at that ending with the origami unicorn and connect it with Deckard's dream and that implies to my mind that Deckard is a replicant and Gaff knows this but that just doesn't fit in thematically with the rest of the film.

comment #22

The Bandsaw Vigilante says ...

"Hasn't the flaw with the replicant theory always been that Harrison Ford gets his ass kicked throughout the movie? If he is a model with an unknown lifespan, wouldn't he eventually figure out that he's unusually strong?"

Although that (in and of itself) doesn't necessarily argue against Deckard's android-roots...his creator(s) could've endowed him with normal human physical capabilities weaker than Roy Batty's, who is a combat model "more human than human."

As to whether or not Scott is the only one who thinks Deckard is a replicant or not, from what I remember reading in FUTURE NOIR, the split was somewhere between 50/50 or 60/40 among those who worked on the film; those who felt so, and those who didn't/don't.

Although, too, that book was written almost a decade-and-a-half ago...be interesting to see what these same folks say in Charlie de Lauzirika's documentary film.

comment #23

DavidF says ...

Damn - I'm late to the party but add me to the group who are baffle by the unearthing of this "rare" scene - which probably everyone on this board has seen.

For me, the problem with Scott's insistence is not that there is no way that Decker can be a replicant; rather that he is removing the ambiguity. The unicorn certainly implies Deckard is a replicant but it still leaves it open to debate. Then Scott swoops in and say, "No. No debate. Even though that scene wasn't in the original cut, I always meant Ford to be playing a replicant."

Any well-adapted Dick story (Minority Report, Total Recall etc etc) leaves you wondering what the reality ACTUALLY was. The ambiguity is kinda the point.

What Scott is doing is a bit like David Chase re-releasing the Sopranos final episode, including a few more seconds with a dude coming up behind Tony with a gun and then doing an interview saying, "I never understood all the debate. Tony doesn't get shot." It's just a big WTF all the way around.

comment #24

Thrudvangar says ...

“How many decent human beings do you meet these days?”

Time to get out of Hollywood Mr. Scott. Red states aren't all bad.

comment #25

Craptastic says ...

The unicorn scene WAS in '92 version along with the new ending where he finds the unicorn before leaving with Rachael. In fact, the way the 'newly found footage' is described-- its EXACTLY what the '92 ending is.

So either the reporter didn't do his job or this assistant guy is insane.

comment #26

corey3rd says ...

I rememeber the origami unicorn in the f'n orginal cut - as a sign that JEO was at the apartment before Deckard. Now if the weirdness plays out right, when the first "director's cut" was shown in LA. Ridley had sent a message to be read after the screening that mentioned the "unicorn" scene and that print didn't have it.

Ray Regis told me that the reason Warners got extra tight on loaning out stuff in their vault was because of the Blade Runner debacle.

The unicorn "dream" is a pretty weak link to prove Decker is a andriod. If that's Ridley's proof, he's pretty damn pathetic in his "proof." And what about the other Bladerunner guy who gets killed in the opening act? Was he also a skin job? Why would Decker be exclusive to the gig? Why would he think he could exit the life?

comment #27

BurmaShave says ...

Yeah, it's good that scene wasn't in the '92 Directors Cut. I'll skip the 5-disc briefcase. In fact, they can shove it up their ass.

comment #28

christian says ...

hopefully there'll be a new cg shot of the robotic circuits in the back of deckard's head. "feelings. what the hell was happening to me?"

comment #29

Ray says ...

@ John- If Deckard was a replicant, then he doesn't fully appreciate that fact. He has been so blinded by the corporation that he no longer considers himself as different. His sad and pathetic existence is given even more resonance - even though he is a replicant with extraordinary powers, his experience with human society has blunted those powers ... in effect, he has become human in that he has limited himself.

A sad but true perspective.

www.therecshow.com

comment #30

DarthCorleone says ...

Yeah, I echo the statement above that this story is completely wrong. The unicorn vision that Deckard has was always in the fifteen-year-old director's cut. (Also, the origami unicorn was in the original movie, but Deckard's vision was not included, so there was nothing to which to tie the specificity of a unicorn. Originally it just indicated that Olmos' character had let them off the hook.)

And, DavidF, you said exactly what I was going to say. I don't care if Ridley believes Deckard is a replicant. The strength of the director's cut - which I enjoy more than the original theatrical version - is the ambiguity. I have a feeling that I'll enjoy this new version that spells everything out less than either of the other two.

comment #31

Aladdin Sane says ...

I may not be the most studious nerd on the block, seeing as how I've only seen the director's cut once, and the original cut twice, but what I got from the director's cut is that Gaff was after Rachel, not Deckard.
Is it not entirely possible that Deckard is dreaming the unicorn stuff because it's been on his mind lately?
Anyhow, it's late, and I am responding a rather long time after reading the article earlier today...I'm looking forward to the DVD set and will definitely be in the market for the suitcase edition. Should make for a good Christmas.

comment #32

Craptastic says ...

I don't give a shit about debating if Deckard is a replicant or not-- its a great film no matter what-- but I've gotta ask Aladdin:

Where in the context of the film would a unicorn... a fucking UNICORN... be on on his mind?

comment #33

frank delsa says ...

You're right Aladdin. And Rachel was staying in Deckard's apartment, so, conceivably, Gaff could have left the unicorn origami for her.

comment #34

The Bandsaw Vigilante says ...

"Where in the context of the film would a unicorn... a fucking UNICORN... be on on his mind?"

It stems out from Rachael's story about the spider-egg, and how that particular so-called "memory" was falsely implanted within her from Tyrell's niece.

Instead of a spider-egg, Deckard had a false unicorn-memory implanted by whomever his creator was, and somehow Gaff apparently was hip to this. The ambiguity of *how* Olmos knew is what makes it all work so well.

comment #35

Movie Watcher says ...

Man, the debate is strong. I should have known that Rachel was a replicant. Why not put a replicant in the company that makes replicants? This unicorn thing is perplexing. Didn't Gaff put it there? But why would he, just to let Deckard know he was there? I have the briefcase dvd on order at amazon, and it will be interesting to check out the different versions. I always thought the last scene, driving in the couutry, was corny. Now I am not so sure.

comment #36

christian says ...

"Where in the context of the film would a unicorn... a fucking UNICORN... be on on his mind?"

deckard's having a vision of...LEGEND.

comment #37

DavidF says ...

I must say, I've always admired rather than LOVED Blade Runner.
That said, while I won't buy the suitcase edition those couple of screencaps get me excited to get this DVD (even if the AMAZING Unicorn scene ain't quite so new...)

comment #38

DarthCorleone says ...

Just to further clarify, Gaff was after Rachel, but leaving a unicorn origami hints that he knew what Deckard is thinking, which implies a memory implant. Whether Deckard is a replicant or not, Gaff empathizes with both Rachel and Deckard and allows them to escape, indicated by the repeated line: "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"

comment #39

DarthCorleone says ...

And if you were in Vegas a couple nights ago and overheard some random guy drunkenly reciting Roy's death monologue at a blackjack table, that was me.

comment #40

Filthy Rich says ...

Deckard was not a Replicant - it was never in the script and only discussed during filming when Scott decided he wanted Deckard to be a Replicant. From beginning to end the story did not have him as a replicant.

Gaff left origami in Deckard's office earlier as well. He's always leaving origami around - it didn't necessarily signify anyone being a replicant. Scott shot the unicorn scene after and inserted and took it back out at the protest of the People's and Fancher and the producers.

Also - this will be the 19th cut of Blade Runner according to Paul Sammon's book, Future Noir

comment #41

DarthCorleone says ...

I'm not saying that the origami automatically implies that Deckard was a replicant. In the original theatrical version all that it meant was that Gaff had been there and decided to let them escape. With the unicorn vision included, though - regardless of what point in the creative process it arrived and who liked it or didn't like it - it does tease us with the possibility.

What I am saying is that I think it adds an extra narrative punch to make Deckard doubt his own nature. I don't want an explicit answer and think it would hurt the film, but presenting the question works for me. Ending on the closing door is certainly much stronger than driving off into the countryside with that voiceover, given that the central thrust of the film is about the nature of humanity - not the love story.

comment #42

christian says ...

"You've done a man's job, sir."

comment #43

The Bandsaw Vigilante says ...

Incidentally, I've frequently been known to randomly quote that line, post-coitus.

comment #44

frankbooth says ...

How did I miss this thread? I clearly don't spend enough time online. I'm not only late to the party, I'm draining the dregs with cig butts bobbing in them.

Somehow this film has gone from "interesting failure" to "cult classic" to "influential" to "bona fide, undisputed classic" to "overrated" (in the eyes of some impudent youngsters.) Full circle.

Also, how is it that the ten years after the film's release were much longer than the fifteen since the director's cut? How can this be?

Post a Comment