[IMG:L]In 1982 director Ridley Scott’s visionary film Blade Runner’s comparison to the typical popular science fiction fare of its day was something akin to relationship between the synthetic replicants and the humans who created them: It was darker, harder to understand, loaded with psycho-philosophical quandaries, visually arresting, and disturbingly compelling.
And very, very difficult to destroy.
Even an alien couldn’t take Blade Runner down for good: despite the popularity of star Harrison Ford, playing replicant hunter Rick Deckard in the dystopian Los Angeles of 2019 and fresh of the colossally successful hits Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back and Raiders of the Lost Ark, in the summer of 1982 the film was resoundingly trounced at the box office by Steven Spielberg’s now-classic E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Ford could take some solace in the fact that film was written by his then-wife, Melissa Matheson and directed by his pal Steven Spielberg).
Worse, the film, based rather loosely on Phillip K. Dick’s cyberpunk novella Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, polarized film critics, many of which were turned off by complicated themes, unusual pacing, seemingly uneven ending and atmospheric, moody visuals that ran contrary to the shiny, whiz-bang sci-fi effects that prevailed then.
Lacking commercial or critical support, Blade Runner looked like a vision of the future that would quickly be consigned to the past. But it soon proved to be very, very difficult to destroy.
Those sleek, absorbing but vaguely sinister futuristic cityscapes–a post-modern Metropolis–were soon co-opted by countless knock-off projects–everything from commercials to TV shows, comic books, art, architecture and lesser-grade films, slowly seeping into first the popular consciousness and then, bizarrely, reality itself, as the world suddenly changed to look more and more like Blade Runner. As humanity began to seriously consider the ramifications of technologies such as cloning and artificial intelligence while also re-considering its own relationship with higher powers, the philosophical overtones of the film quickly became more profound and more relevant.
And in the quirkiest twist of all, suddenly a viewer’s memories of Blade Runner were as suspect as replicant hunter Rick Deckard’s belief he was a human being as alternate, sometimes significantly different and–depending on who you asked–markedly better versions of the film surfaced. It turned out the studio, Warner Bros, had wrested final cut of the film from director Scott after early screenings tested poorly, adding the noir-ish but leaden voiceover by Ford and tacked on stock footage to create an artificial happy ending. Soon their were multiple “replicant” versions of Blade Runner: The original US theatrical release, a pair of workprint versions that were briefly circulated; an international version of the international release version with more graphic violence; various broadcast edits; and the Scott-approved 1992 Director’s Cut, the only official version available on DVD to date, with an ending that strongly implies that Deckard himself is a replicant. Yet even this version was not quite what the director had in mind.
Now, a quarter century later the creator confronts his creation. After a slew of prestigious and popular films including Thelma & Louise, Gladiator and Black Hawk Down, Scott finally gets Final Cut, telling the story the way he originally envisioned it with a 25th Anniversary DVD, which in classic Blade Runner form also comes in a mind-bending array of multiple versions: the two-disc Special Edition version features Scott’s brand-new 2007 edit, a new documentary on the film’s evolution, remastered picture and 5.1 Dolby Digital sound. The four-disc Collector’s Edition version adds three more variant versions of the film, the doc and bonus material included a never-before-seen collection deleted scenes. And then there’s the five-disc Ultimate Collector’s Edition, featuring all five film versions including the work print, plus the documentary and bonus materials collected in a replica of Deckard’s own briefcase.
Scott sat down with Hollywood.com to talk about the new DVD, due later this year, and share his memories of making the film–which are presumably more reliable than the average replicant’s.
[IMG:R]Hollywood.com: How does this version–which is your definitive, final vision for the film–compare to the other versions of the film that have surfaced over the years?
Ridley Scott: It’s a refinement of taking me a step toward what it was as a release print. And we’ve removed a few things. Namely the biggest removals were the voiceovers and the ending, the ending in the mountains. “The Shining ending,” the rushes from The Shining [NOTE: stock footage from the Stanley Kubrick film used by the studio to create a “happy ending” in post-production] Because that’s where the film was always intended to end. As a film noir it should’ve ended with the elevator doors closing, and we would be satisfied with that. The design of the film was always thought to be more like Philip Marlowe.
HW: The voiceover from the U.S. theatrical release has been completely eliminated?
RS: The voiceover, in a funny kind of way, was always toyed with way back when, even before I started making the movie because I had been very impressed with the voiceover in Apocalypse Now. Martin Sheen‘s voice was I think a combination of Francis Ford [Coppola] and [Michael] Herr. And Herr had written this book, about his memories of Vietnam, and I think those–that was a great voiceover, it really internalized the Martin Sheen character who was essentially fairly low key and didn’t say a whole lot through the whole movie, because what he did was he thought a lot. So I always thought that worked really great, so that was something that Hampton [Fancher] and I had always discussed, the possibility. And then it became a reality when we tested kind of, if you like, negatively. So, people wanted a lot of explanation about what various things were and where the film was going and all that stuff, and I’m always a firm believer in the film should be ahead of the audience. Not even with them. Not even the other way. I think you should be ahead, that’s the whole point of drama. You’re leading the way, and those who want to work it out sooner or later, that’s part of their fun. So we put on the voiceover, and we couldn’t crack it, we couldn’t crack the writing.
HW: The famous unicorn scene from Rick Deckard’s dream will be there now as well…
RS: The unicorn has been in, out, in, out, and it was always essential to me, because it’s essential for the audience to understand that Deckard is a replicant. And the whole design of Gaff [Edward James Olmos] and his trail of origami–the paper chicken and the little matchstick man–and then the origami [Deckard] picks up at the end and it’s his unicorn. And Harrison Ford does a nod in agreement to what he just sees as a confirmation of the big internalized thought that he has, that he may have thought.
HW: So you’re definitively saying that Deckard’s suspicion that he may be a replicant himself is true–that’s your final vision?
RS: The film is deeply paranoid. And so when Deckard plays a piano in a slightly drunken state, a la Philip Marlowe, where he’s looking at the photographs that he found in the drawer of Roy Batty, he tinkers with the piano and dreams of green, and…you see a unicorn. That’s a very private thought that a big macho guy doesn’t tell to his buddies, even in a drunken state: “You know, in my spare time I think of actual unicorns.” They go “Okay.” And then if I want to do something absolutely outrageous, that had nothing to do with anything, you suddenly see a green park, then you think “Oh my god, there’s this unicorn,” and then he blinks and it’s gone, and he gets on with his business. So when he gets it by the end, that tells me that Gaff has been there, could have killed [Rachel] but left her alive, and couldn’t resist—because he hates Deckard—this little thing that says “I know that you ought to know.” In other words, he’s on file in the Tyrell organization as having private dreams, and one of them is a unicorn.
HW: Is the reason that Roy Batty doesn’t kill Deckard in the end because he recognizes him as a replicant?
RS: No. I think he leaves his message behind, hopefully to pass it on. I think that’s a good question, though, because he could easily have recognized him as a replicant. And it gets lost, because I had it always where he was watching him slide off that spar, and said “Interesting to live in fear, isn’t it? And be a slave.” And it radiated, touched on all kinds of apartheid basis. If you really want to go into it, it’s there. If you don’t, it’s there. It’s all over the place. And then he waits to fall. And Deckard in defiance, spits at him, because that’s all he can do–he can’t punch him, because if he took his hand off he’s gonna fall. He spits, and for that reason, he shows courage, and [Batty] stops him falling–he grabs [Deckard’s] wrist because he’s got reflexes like that, and then he brings him up and decides he’s worth saving.
HW: You’ve also shot some new footage for the DVD as well?
RS: It’s true, namely Zhora [Joanna Cassidy]. The middle sequence of Zhora being pursued, and then her demise was [acted by] a stunt girl who ran through plates of sugar glass–that’s not real plate glass, you’d get cut to pieces. But I was still nervous about these big sheets of glass, because by definition, when you lift a sheet of plate glass it’s quite, quite sharp, and that thick. When you go through them, I didn’t want anything to happen, so that’s why I had a stunt girl. And now we can digitally fix it up, so we watched the stunt lady was quite decently like her, fooled most of us. We [digitally] put Zhora’s face–Joanna‘s face–back on there properly, so she’s now in that shot in the middle where she stumbles and then stands and runs forward.
HW: What was the biggest reason why you wanted to once again revisit Blade Runner?
RS: I think because the film was damaged, in the sense of when it was released 25 years ago, I think I really got it right–and believe me, I’m not a learner by the time I did Blade Runner. I’d already done Alien, I’d already done Duellists and I’ve already done 2,000 commercials and been in the business since I was 30, so I’m not a learner. And I’d been steeped in Heavy Metal comic strips with Jean Giraud Moebius before that, and was gonna do a futuristic Tristan and Isolde with Moebius. Moebius had designed my space suits for Alien. I’ve still got his drawings. So I figured I’m gonna apply what I know about Heavy Metal comics to Blade Runner, which is fundamentally doing Philip Marlowe. So it’s Philip Marlowe meets Heavy Metal meets Hampton Fancher‘s screenplay, which was originally called “Dangerous Days.” And it didn’t strike a chord. People didn’t get it, because people didn’t know what Heavy Metal comics where, then. They hadn’t a clue.
[IMG:L]HW: Blade Runner was widely considered a commercial and critical failure in its initial release, but has only grown in esteem and popularity. What factors contributed to its original cult appeal and ,now, its long-term staying power?
RS: The people who really resurrected Blade Runner, I think, was MTV. I remember watching the night MTV opened, and there was Pete Townshend on there saying “Good evening, everybody–this is MTV.” Then about three or four years later, as I’m still very much in promotion, advertising, and rock videos, and I’m staring at rock videos–when the rock videos were the best, because now you get performance videos, and performance videos can be quite boring. I think what was great about the early days of MTV is they were film-lets, in which interesting filmmakers would engage with the bands, the bands loved the filmmakers, so you’ve got great little film-lets. And I kept thinking on MTV, “Oh, somebody’s borrowed some footage from Blade Runner–they’ve gotta pay for that! Then I realized, “Wait a minute, it’s not Blade Runner…” I gradually realized that Blade Runner was a big influence: everything, wardrobe, rain, blue nights, smoke in the streets, all this stuff that I just poured on, stuff I’d known from commercials, really. And it’d been a whole educational process for a whole generation. And so then, the generation watching this, watching MTV, suddenly realize that “Oh, that’s cool”…So gradually it got into its own.
HW: There have been and continue to be scores of subsequent films, TV shows, music videos, etc that have shamelessly borrowed the look and feel Blade Runner. How do you feel about that? Flattered? Ripped off?
RS: Amused and irritated. Where’s the originality, for God’s sake? It’s amusing but also irritating.
HW: With the passing of time, how do you feel about the prescience of Blade Runner? Seeing things in the film that are now coming true?
RS: They’re happening! I stood in Shanghai, I was shooting about two months ago, and stood staring across and thought “Holy God, this is Blade Runner! Because you’ve got the old world, you’ve got the old banking district in Shanghai, and then you look across the river and across it’s unbelievable, like Mars. Then a month ago I was in Dubai, and Dubai is the biggest building site in the world right now. On one site alone, where they’re putting up the biggest building in the world, that supersedes the Eiffel Tower three times, with 45,000 workers around the clock, on one site. This only covers an area which is the size of three city blocks here. But when you go up to the top, you can see for miles, and everything is developing, so it makes you wonder what kind of bubble is this?…That’s a part, to me, of the evolution of where we’re going and it’s fascinating.
HW: Along with the “Final Cut,” three other notable permutations of the film that have surfaced are all also included in the 25th Anniversary DVD. Most filmmakers in your position zero in on one “ultimate” version and dismiss the rest. Why did you choose to include all of the alternate versions?
RS: I actually asked that question to a person at Warner [Home Video] who said “You would be amazed.” I said “Who’s gonna look at it?” They said “You will be amazed. Trust me, they’re gonna go through the three frames that were removed in such-and-such a sequence.” And I mean, that’s great that people do that and like that. Because I’m in the business, the last thing I want to do is see how somebody makes a movie, okay? But if I’m not in the business, I can absolutely understand where people are absolutely fascinated by the process of the tricks. Because now, everyone knows the tricks…we’ve made it accessible. And I don’t know whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing. It makes our job more difficult. Now we know all the tricks, it makes our job more difficult. It’s more difficult to make people laugh. It’s more difficult to scare people. It’s very difficult to really, really scare someone. Scaring someone’s the hardest thing to do, and that’s why most of these scary movies are not scary. They’re sick. I think I’d apply the word sick, but not scary. There’s a lot of sickness out there, and people who will then sit there and watch it, which I think is absolutely dismaying.
HW: You and Harrison Ford both admitted your relationship was strained during filmmaking, Have you gotten to a better place with the passage of time? And is he going to participate in this DVD?
RS: He already is, he’s done it. No, we’re fine! I mean, he–I got on all right with him, but it was such a difficult film to convey, that it was–I got fed up explaining it, honestly. And at that moment, I was actually–because I’m not the new kid on the block here, I’m like 42 at this point–I absolutely know what I’m doing, and I just got fed up explaining and re-explaining what I was doing. It really did get tiresome. And I’m not being conceited at all–that’s just how I used to do it. And Harrison tends to be a person who keeps himself to himself, particularly in those days. And if that happens, so am I, you know? So I think there’s a little bit of that. But generally speaking, I still think it’s one of the best things he’s done.
[IMG:R]HW: How do you feel Blade Runner compares to your other films? Is it your favorite?
RS: There’s no favorites. All my kids are my favorite kid. Truly. I’ve never regretted anything, ever. Ever. But I think Blade Runner is like a novel, it’s like a book. Unlike the others, Blade Runner for some reason is more literate. There’s not a lot of action, there’s a lot of talking, and a lot of atmosphere inside your brain, you know–like a book is inside your mind. The best screening room in the world is between your two eyeballs. Never forget that. That’s why when your kid’s tapping on buttons, and they don’t pick up something called a book and smell the paper, there’s something wrong.
