Last night, we went to a midnight showing of
Blade Runner. At an IMAX.
Pause for breath. Blade Runner at IMAX is a concept hard to express without expletives.
It's a film which has always made me swoon. The LIGHTS. The SMOKE. The MUSIC. Rachel's accusing eyes peeking out of the corner of the screen, smothered with smoky 80s eyeshadow. Even on our TV at home, and I'll admit we have a pretty impressive one, but still - even on our TV at home, the experience is overwhelming.
Lord Henry says that "pathos" leaves him unmoved, but "beauty, mere beauty could fill his eyes with tears". And while the Picture of Dorian Gray is a cautionary tale against believing everything the Prince of Paraxdox has to say; nevertheless I hold this to be true. It always happens with Blade Runner - this time, conventionally, during Batty's soliloquy at the end, although it's often at completely arbritary points when I just can't take the loveliness anymore.
And it was fun for me too, because the other four friends in attendance had never seen it. Normally when that happens with a film I like, I spend the time curled up and constantly fretting whether everyone else is having fun. But to be honest, I couldn't help but spend the whole day thinking "my god what a treat are they in for!", which might give you some indication of just how highly I rate this film, because on a screen that gorgeous (and in company so charming) I couldn't concieve of anyone disliking it.
A few thoughts, although I'm sadly getting to the point where I know the film too well to discover more in it:
>>It suprised me how violent it was. It always does. Particularly Tyrell's deat
h, which is just unpleasant. I don't mind Pris' so much, because it really reenforces Deckard's response - his sickened "make it stop, make it stop", and he shoots her again and again, and she still won't stop moving. You have to experience the total horror of death with him. That's fine, but Tyrell's I can't watch. It's because I'm used to Director's Cut, which I've seen maybe three or four times, which is a lot tamer - doing some research, Final Cut, which I only saw for the second time tonight, replaces violence which was originally cut. This will explain why I was recently so amazed. I was very young when I first saw it, see, and had never thought of it as a vicious movie.
>>Again, with the different versions confusion: today, Batty's line was "I want more life, father". I was sure Final Cut had changed it back to "fucker". I've never really known which one it was, but I know I've heard both. Apparently, "father" was recorded for TV release versions, but it seems Ridley Scott has ultimately decided he likes it best.
>>I'm having to face up to the fact Rachel is now my favourite character. On first viewing, it was Pris -
and there are actually photos on facebook of me trying to pull off the "raccoon look", with the pale face and black airbrushed line across the eyes. Doesn't work as well as it should, alas. She was swiftly replaced by Gaff, oh Gaff! Wearer of bow ties and waistcoats, purveyor of suspicious information, and maker of origami unicorns. Possibly responsible for my interest in origami full stop. But Rachel is really something special, especially considering how tedious the role could have been made - so it is with some regret I must relegate Gaff to second place.
>>Movie censorship nerd that I am, I was unhappy to learn the MPAA are now treating cigarettes like any other drug. Context (i.e. is it set in the past, where smoking was universal?), message (good or bad?) and how it is presented (is it the villains smoking, or the glamorous heroes?) will be taken into account, and rated higher accordingly. I support this decision to an extent - I mean, Mr Blonde in Reservoir Dogs, Marla Singer in Fight Club, I can't deny they make smoking very damn cool. I think the distinction is that Mr Blonde also makes torture and murder look damn cool, that movies glamourise plenty of things that suck in real life. Even suffering. But audiences are stupid en masse and need to be helped, so I appreciate chopping it from films will reduce the number of smokers.
At the same time - what a loss! In this film, look at the gorgeousness all that smoke results in. This is exactly why it's being banned, because Rachel makes smoking look very sexy - but the plain fact stands, that it is nice to watch attractive things. And from an acting perspective! Do you smoke cigarettes, cigars, pipes, roll-your-owns? Do you crush it underfoot, or stub it nervously out? Smoke rings? In the Godfather, something terrifying happens. Michael's companion tries to light a cig but his hand is shaking too much for the lighter. Michael lights it for him, and then notes that his own hands are fine, that he's entirely calm. It's an important moment. What of lighting a cigarette in your mouth, then passing it to your object of desire?
Obviously, smoking is not so ubiquitous today as it was, so many of these are already falling out of the language of cinema. Still, all things should be within the artist's scope, and this new ruling will mean smoking is effectively banned in mainstream film. Socially, this is good. Artistically, it's appalling, and I'm ashamed to admit which of those two I rank higher.
>>Unfortunately, the audience had a really high bastard count. The guy with long legs who kept kicking Calypso's seat. The guy snoring next to Spirita. The group in front who were ten minutes late, and the usher who insisted they get exactly the seats they'd booked: sorry, but if you miss the start, the people who were there on time have the right to pinch your seats, and you should have the decency to sit wherever you can find as quietly as possible. Not disrupt everyone more than already.
And the person in front of us who, as the credits rolled and I joyfully reeled from the kick of the ending, loudly addressed our group,
"Is Deckard a replicant? Think about it..." and proceeded to explain for us poor, confused viewers.
To be honest, I could have given him a slap. Partly
because I'd already decided, martyrlike, not to mention it to my friends, see if anyone came up with it on their own or had their own angle on the ending before being polluted by public opinion. I genuinely wanted to see what interpretation they'd put on that unicorn, and felt as if someone had spoilt the ending of, say,
Crying Game or
Usual Suspects out of the blue. For example, I was intrigued that Calypso picked up straight away and commented on the worrying aspects of that love scene, as it was something I'd genuinely never noticed until seeing the film some four times, although with her interest in women's rights maybe I shouldn't have been suprised.
But maybe I could have forgiven him if he'd wanted to have an honest discussion about it - thus partly also because I hate people who show off on topics they know nothing about. Contrary to what you might think, I actually like people who show off on topics they know a lot about - it's a fascinating experience, you always learn something, and they have a right to be proud of that knowledge. But when people are speaking bull, you can always tell, and he was. I've also always had an intense dislike of people who, at Q&A sessions, attempt to make a point or demonstrate their smarts in the guise of asking a question. It wastes time, and is as transparent as glass.
He pointed out the "shiny eyes" moment, but if you ask me, his tone indicated he'd clearly read it on the internet, because he didn't seem to connect it with the scene in which it happened. He then incorrectly referenced to the most infamous piece of evidence - Bryant screwing up the number of replicants, confirming my suspicion that he didn't have a clue what he was talking about.
Pay attention, class. In the ORIGINAL and also, if I recall correctly, the DIRECTOR's CUT, Bryant says that 6 replicants escape, and one is later fried in an electrical field. That still leaves five, but all you see in the movie are Pris, Zhora, Leon and Batty. That's four. Leading to the theory that Deckard is no. 5. This error is actually due to scenes cut from the script, but they forgot to change this line. (Now actually, I've never liked this facet of the theory - Deckard has obviously been on earth longer than that, even if he is a replicant. He'll have had implanted memories like Rachel, but has had time to develop his own emotions too. Otherwise, why so sick of his job? He clearly doesn't recall escaping from the space base either, and Tyrell explains he can't change Batty's genetic makeup once it has been fixed, which makes sense they wouldn't retroactively implant memories into one they caught. Else, why not kidnap and reprogram the other four?)
But in FINAL CUT, the version we were watching, the line has been changed because it's just a continuity error. Bryant now says that "two" of the replicants were fried in the electrical field, correctly making up six. Making our friend wrong in any case, ignoring the fact he thought the mistake occured in the later scene after Zhora's death: Deckard says three left, Bryant corrects him to four, and clearly referring to Rachel. So much for our stranger's nonchalant "look what I've just noticed", and I couldn't help but point this out.
Apparently, it didn't come out as angrily as I felt, for which we can be glad - as I was genuinely furious. I wanted to sit him down and correct him point by point. I then gave him my theory on the replicant debate - Deckard could be a replicant. The fact we don't know, and can't tell, the fact Gaff plants the suspicion there without denying or confirming it - in other words, the ambiguity is far more important than deciding the thing one way or another.
There are thematic and factual problems with both claiming him as human or skin job. Thematically, the idea of no one being able to tell for sure the difference between rep and human is flawless. In addition, it fits in with the film's other ambiguities - that disturbing, half-rapey-half-romantic love scene, for example. The mystery of the fate of the unaccounted replicant. Even the fact there are five different official versions, almost gives the film the feel of an "unreliable narrator". Like the father/fucker thing I was discussing above - what is the definitive version of the scene? In my mind, he says both - when he says one, he also means the other. Or the violence - because I remember a version without the nail in the hand, when Tyrell dies cleanly offscreen and Deckard gets slightly less of a beating. Which is real?
To which he had no meaningful response, utterly confirming for me that he didn't want to talk about it, only demonstrate what someone else had told him. "We're such geeks", his female companion added smiling, and they left.
So that was that, and thus I did end up, guiltily, giving everyone a tour aroud the theory after all, as I had absolutely intended not to do. Much angrification, as there is enjoyment to be had in demonstrating how smart you are, and I felt rather bad at being given an oppertunity to do so, then relishing it. What did strike me, by the time we were at the otherside of Waterloo bridge - and this will come off as concieted I know, but I do mean it in good faith - is how damn much I know about this film. I mean, I always knew I adored it, and I know there are topics on which I can speak for days - but I never knew Blade Runner was one of them.
"We're such geeks" indeed...
Anyone interested a fuller discussion of my position on the replicant debate should check here:
But I'm still more interested in what you feel the most satisfying ending is.
h, which is just unpleasant. I don't mind Pris' so much, because it really reenforces Deckard's response - his sickened "make it stop, make it stop", and he shoots her again and again, and she still won't stop moving. You have to experience the total horror of death with him. That's fine, but Tyrell's I can't watch. It's because I'm used to Director's Cut, which I've seen maybe three or four times, which is a lot tamer - doing some research, Final Cut, which I only saw for the second time tonight, replaces violence which was originally cut. This will explain why I was recently so amazed. I was very young when I first saw it, see, and had never thought of it as a vicious movie.
because I'd already decided, martyrlike, not to mention it to my friends, see if anyone came up with it on their own or had their own angle on the ending before being polluted by public opinion. I genuinely wanted to see what interpretation they'd put on that unicorn, and felt as if someone had spoilt the ending of, say, Crying Game or Usual Suspects out of the blue. For example, I was intrigued that Calypso picked up straight away and commented on the worrying aspects of that love scene, as it was something I'd genuinely never noticed until seeing the film some four times, although with her interest in women's rights maybe I shouldn't have been suprised. 
Comments (0)