Ridley Scott's Blade Runner Film Critique

I. Critique
While Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner is ranked at No. 6 in AFI’s 10 Top 10 in the genre for Science-Fiction, the film itself has so much in common with noir film (the kind of black-and-white films that typically offered murder mysteries or cops vs. robbers as plot vehicles) that it is often considered to be a neo-noir classic (Doll & Faller, 1986). However, Scott’s film blend noir with sci-fi in such a way that Blade Runner’s categorization as a science-fiction film cannot be disputed. Indeed, the film explores complex issues, such as the rise of artificial intelligence and its use in human society, in a way that melds fantasy with reality by bringing the future of technology forward (by some decades) to the audience. The result is almost literary, in fact: Blade Runner’s protagonist Deckard, the replicant hunting ex-cop, and antagonist Roy Blatty, chief rebel replicant, serve as modern day stand-ins for Shelley’s Frankenstein and monster. Who has the actual soul? What does life actually mean? By probing these issues and using aspects of noir and sci-fi, Scott blends genre and displays his genius as a director to create a film that hits audiences on a deep level. This paper will critique Scott’s Blade Runner from the standpoint of genre theory to explore how the film uses genre styles and conventions to tell an old story anew.
Context
Blade Runner is a 1982 film directed by Ridley Scott, starring Harrison Ford as Deckard, Rutger Hauer as Blatty and Sean Young as a female replicant love interest for Deckard. The cinematographer was Jordan Cronenweth. The film’s box office only barely surpassed its $28 million budget, but in subsequent years the film developed a cult following, especially with the release of a director’s cut, which removed the voice over narration supplied by Ford’s Deckard in the theatrical release and added to the mystery of whether Deckard was a human or a replicant himself.
Though film noir has been called not so much a genre as a tone and mood (Schrader, 1972), noir is definitely a type of film that is unique in cinema. In film noir, there is often a moral ambiguity that exists within the narrative and that is embellished by the style of filmmaking so that it takes center stage, behind that obvious action of the plot, but always there nonetheless as though indirectly calling attention to itself through the pulling of the strings of the characters. For instance, in some of the most compelling noir films, characters skirt fine lines between good and evil, and the films typically refrain from indicating that any one character is wholly good or wholly bad. This is expressed by one woman’s line at the end of Orson Welles’ Touch of Evil in reference to the corrupt cop: “He was some kind of man.” Even if the viewer is unsympathetic to the cop in the film, the film insists that he develop a degree of empathy: nothing is black in white in the ironically black-and-white films noir.
Blade Runner could be called a neo-noir (it is in color but uses all the typical shades and shadows of film noir to qualify) because it embraces this moral ambiguity that haunts typical noir films. It also uses sci-fi genre conventions, such as the assumption that advanced technology is achievable and practiced within a short time into the future (in the film, the technology is artificial intelligence that is so real and life-like that it is impossible to tell a replicant from a human being: and indeed that is even one of the film’s chief mysteries—is Deckard a replicant?). Deckard is an ex-cop who is hired to hunt fugitive replicants and retire them. This places the film’s plot squarely within the noir tradition of cops vs. robbers. The final soliloquy of Blatty, however, elevates the film even above the noir and sci-fi genres and connects it to its gothic literary ancestor—namely, Mary Shelley, who probes the question of life and the soul, the real and the unreal, meaning and lack of meaning, in her novel Frankenstein.
Story/Plot
The story of the film follows Deckard as he is enlisted to hunt down the fugitive replicants that have fled their work colony to take up an existence in Los Angeles. The difference between story and plot is that story summarizes in a linear way the action of the film. Plot details the action of the film as it occurs in the minutes of the film (which does not necessarily have to be linear).
The plot of the film moves the main characters through the futuristically dreary metropolis, where the line between reality and the surreal are blurred. Deckard meets Tyrell, who has designed the replicants and who has an assistant named Rachael, who Deckard identifies as a replicant working for Tyrell. Unlike the fugitive replicants sought by Deckard, Rachael does not know she is a replicant. After being told she is a machine, not a human, she tries to prove to Deckard that she is in fact human and has a photograph supposedly of a time from earlier in her life and memories to prove it. Deckard tells her that her memories have been implanted by Tyrell. She is distraught and runs away. Deckard locates one of the fugitive replicants at a strip club, “retires” her, and meets another in the street after being told that he must also retire Rachael since she has run away from her duties. Deckard is attacked, however, by the fugitive replicant he sees in the streets. He is saved by Rachael who “retires” the fugitive. In a show of gratitude, Deckard takes Rachael for himself and promises not to “retire” her. Meanwhile, Blatty pursues Tyrell to seek an extension to his life, knowing that his time is running out. Blatty makes a confession of sorts in an effort to cleanse his consciousness but Tyrell dismisses Blatty’s need to confess. Blatty then kills his creator. Deckard and Blatty finally meet with the hunter turning into the hunted. After a chase, Deckard dangles from a roof top. Before he loses his group, Blatty saves him and delivers a soulful soliloquy to Deckard, then expires naturally. Deckard leaves and takes Rachael with him away from the city.
Aesthetic Choices
The setting of the film in futuristically dreary Los Angeles where skyscrapers and big screen digital TVs merge with flames that shoot into the sky helps to give the film its dark tone and mood. The lighting throughout in virtually every mise en scene reflects the atmosphere commonly found in a film noir. Shadows play a role in the shots as though they were part of life, which adds to the mysterious element of the film (what is real?). Scott uses editing to achieve a slow burn feel for this film. Cuts are not quick or jarring but are rather methodical and used to achieve congruence throughout. The sound of the film supports the pace and the brooding, atmospheric tension that mounts all around the characters and the action. The score is evocative and elusive, not avoiding melody but not wholly embracing it either. Notes filter to the viewer as though from far away, calling to him from a distant land like in a dream. The special effects are realistically achieved and make the movie seem more realistic than it might otherwise appear: nothing is too outlandish. Los Angeles unfolds before the viewer in the opening scene with a row of skyscraper like torches emitting giant fire ball flames into the sky, the whole city resembling a modern day version of a medieval fortress. This anachronistic mix of fire and metal gives the film what could be called cinema’s first taste of steam punk.
Social/Personal Impact
The film was not a box office hit at the time, but it remained within the cultural consciousness and over time developed a cult following and won more critical praise for its provocative mixture of genres, elements and its almost literary exploration of sentiment. The film did not lead to toys or lunchboxes of Deckard and Blatty or stir up social or political changes—but as AI has become more of a pursuit in the technological industry, the film has continued to resonate and instill in audiences a haunting example of why mankind should proceed with caution. Indeed, Kerman (1991) notes that the film embraces the “concern about genetic engineering and the world genetic engineering might create” (p. 2), which could be what makes it still so relevant in the 21st century.
This film impacted me personally by showing to me how compelling the noir style can be in a film where questions of nature, morality, and identity rise to the surface. This film showed me that the noir genre is very effective in conveying feelings of tension and conflict simply by following the conventional norms of the genre. It also made the sci-fi aspects of the film seem more realistic and plausible. I enjoyed the film’s ambiguity and its focus on the characters as opposed to mindless action. I also quite liked the fact that it did not feel the need to answer some of the questions it hinted at. What is life? Who has soul? What is soul? Who are we? Who/what made us? What is love between us or in this world? These questions are felt but not necessarily clarified, and I liked that is it felt that this film could be used as a launching point into a more reflective exercise bolstered by reading and/or philosophical discourse. Blatty’s final words will remain with me because the reveal the depth of a real character: “I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die” (Scott, 1982).
II. Reflection
I have learned to more thoroughly analyze a film by focusing on individual shots, identifying the mood of the film, its tone, the way light and shadow are used to enhance a feeling or create an atmospheric sensation. I have learned to hear how music is used to underscore a film’s mood, and to see how shots are edited together to create feeling, tension, or connect plot points together. I have learned to understand how a story is told with pictures and sounds in a film instead of with words as in a book. What can be gained from analyzing film is a better understanding of how the various parts of film are working together to create an effect on and for the viewer.
This analysis process has changed the way I view movies because I am now always watching them more critically and thinking about how what I am seeing is there for a purpose and is being presented to me in order to get me to think or feel a certain way. I can also now use film theory and criticism to find and interpret meaning by analyzing the movie through the lens provided by theory and criticism. For instance, I can look at a film from the standpoint of genre theory or auteur theory and see how a director is taking charge of a production and using everything at his disposal to convey ideas to me. This course has changed my understanding of how movies are related to society by showing me that nothing is created in a vacuum but rather that what we see on the screen is often a product of, a response to, or a progenitor or something that is happening in the world. The skills I have developed during this course are that I am able to watch and consider and reflect more deeply than before and these skills will be applied to my major, profession and life in a critical way so that I can view and think and feel more deeply what is going on around me and perhaps respond more appropriately.



References
Doll, S., & Faller, G. (1986). Blade Runner and Genre: Film Noir and Science Fiction.
Literature/Film Quarterly, 14(2), 89-100.
Kerman, J. (1991). Retrofitting Blade Runner. Bowling Green, KY: Bowling Green
UP.
Schrader, P. (1972). Notes on Film Noir. Film Comment, 8(1), 8-13.
Scott, R., dir. (1982). Blade Runner. Los Angeles, CA: Warner Bros.