.png)
Hello, readers! I thank you for your continued patience as I slowly (but surely) cultivate new pieces. I’m in the midst of trying to move across the country (!) and have been allotting my energy to that moreso than anything else. Still, I am dutifully contributing to the works-in-progress that I have drafted. Hoping to have something new for you within the next couple of weeks!
In the meantime, I’d like to share this piece I wrote my final year of undergraduate exploring Blade Runner and its existence as not one singular piece of text, but rather as a universe consisting of many different ones. I hope you enjoy!
—
Introduction
With five different official releases in total and a brand new sequel, Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner defies typical cinematic convention in the sense that ambiguity clouds what the true essence and message of the film is. In other words, there is not just one single ‘Blade Runner’ that is widely accepted and acknowledged. Variation already exists with interpretation of a single film: but with a series of adaptations existing with not one being confirmed as canon, the possibilities become endless. How can true analysis and meaning be derived when there are varying routes and pathways that the story possesses? This begs the question: what is Blade Runner? What is the text, and where did it originate?
This essay aims to argue two things: firstly, that the 1982 theatrical release of Blade Runner is the original template for the meta-text and how it continues to give rise to alternate adaptations. Secondly, that Blade Runner is not, and cannot, be a singular text — and that as hinted at in the aforementioned paragraph, stands as a multifaceted meta text that continues to grow and ‘improve’ through replication (much like the driving story behind the lore of the series).
Exposition: The Beginnings of Blade Runner
Blade Runner, like many Hollywood films, is a cinematic adaption of a book, getting its origins from the 1968 Philip K. Dick novel ‘Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?’ But unlike most book to film adaptations, it strays from the plot and message of the book, instead borrowing characters and concepts to expand and build upon the idea of humans, androids, and the question of reality. Like how Michael Curtiz’s Mildred Pierce crafts an entirely new ending to better fit its vision of a film noir, Blade Runner is separate enough from its literary origins to be considered its own fictional work. As a visual text, Blade Runner takes elements and characters from Dick’s story and brings them to life through color, dimension, and personalization.
So why then, is Blade Runner a stand alone work and not a replication of Dick’s novel? Consider the definition and context of the word “replicate” — it means to reproduce or recreate something, with the context being that the replicant is similar to, or another version of, the original (Free Dictionary). As I will discuss later, the many different releases of Blade Runner are replicants of the 1982 theatrical release, because they are essentially the same story with minor revisions and improvements. When it comes to the first iteration of Blade Runner — the theatrical cut — it is a creation so unique and separate from the book that it cannot be classified as a replication. The film’s theme, characters, and noir trademarks are the three large things that set it starkly apart from Dick’s novel — three things that had never been established in the novel or on screen. Thus, Blade Runner was not a replicant of ‘Androids,’ but rather a unique body of work that took inspiration from it instead.
The phrase “Blade Runner” typically calls the film to mind — the cinematic experience, not text. Viewers hear the Vangelis soundtrack, visualize the gritty city scape of 2019 L.A., and ponder their own humanity. They do not, for the most part, make any connection between its literary inspiration. Generally in book-to-film adaptations, the actors are supposed to embody, personify and bring to life the characters. Blade Runner stands as an anomaly — one cannot make the connection between the characters in the book and on the screen. Despite the fact most of the characters have the same name, the changes in personality are so drastic that in essence, they are really different characters. This is the most important boundary that separates the novel from the film: we cannot compare Harrison Ford’s Deckard to the Deckard presented in the book, nor can we do this with any other leading character in Blade Runner.
In regards to the two, there are myriad differences in existence between the 1982 film and Dick’s novel that one could detail. For brevity’s sake, only the biggest ones will be mentioned. The most important discernible differences that allow Blade Runner to be a stand alone body lies within the temperament of the androids themselves. Dick’s novel attempts to just the opposite of what the film is trying to accomplish by proving that replicants are heartless. This is exemplified by many textual examples, a prime one being Priss torturing the live spider in front of John Isodore (who is the equivalent of J.F. Sebastian in the movie). Even Rachael’s character is shown to lack empathy through her deceptive behavior. She never establishes a romantic bond with Deckard either, completely opposite of the Rachael we see in the film. The entire message of Dick’s novel is that in the end, androids will never be equivalent to humans because they lack the ability to possess genuine emotions and empathy. The message of the film Blade Runner is just the opposite — right away, the viewer is shown that Tyrell Corporation’s motto is “more human than human.” Roy Batty, the main villain and last surviving replicant, has a redemptive moment where this ‘humanity’ is expressed, in contrast to Deckard’s tough and merciless attitude towards his pursuit: “I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe,” he concludes before dying at the movie’s denouement.
Relating heavily to this is the absence of traditional noir in the novel. While of course noir is traditionally a visual genre or style associated with film, there are definite attributes that can be conveyed textually as well. Cinema first saw the rise of film noir in the 1940s, as a response to the gloom of the Cold War that followed for Americans after the end of WWII. There are trademark associations with the genre, both visual and textual, that are necessary to qualify a film as a noir. Dark city scapes, femme fatales, the presence of an overlying narrative from the future, a grim or uncertain ending and the unveiling climactic event or mystery are just a few main motifs to note (AMC). Textually, film noir has its origin in mystery and crime stories, but a noir doesn’t necessarily have to be a hard boiled detective tale. In ‘Androids,’we see few of these motifs (only the city scape, and arguably Rachael as a femme fatale) and element of mystery or surprise to the story. Dick’s novel starts from the beginning, lays out the premise, and ends conclusively: the androids have been taken out, they lack empathy, and Deckard’s story is over. Conversely, the original film presents us with an entirely different setup: with Deckard’s voiceover, we understand the story is being told from the future, and are welcomed into his mind. In addition, the unexpected final confrontation between Deckard and Roy Batty stands as the meaningful moment. The book has elements familiar to noir, including the setting of a city scape, but fails to construct the atmosphere.
Thus, the culture and aesthetic of Blade Runner stems not from the novel, but from the film itself. It was the vision of Ridley Scott and his crew that created the tangible elements of the universe. By taking the novel’s basic plot-line and the names of the leading characters, Ridley Scott was able to invent his own universe — one that is able to stand alone as a separate work of art. To clarify, the original 1982 Blade Runner was not a replication of Dick’s novel, because it was built and created on entirely different principles. Thus, it is the first, and therefore original text of the Blade Runner saga as a whole.
Though different versions and variations of Blade Runner now exist, I refer to the 1982 theatrical cut version as the original text, as it was the first one publicly released and thus the first vision of the Blade Runner saga that the public was presented with. It existed before any director’s cut, international cut, or final cut was released into the world. Though it may not be the first version of Blade Runner that people have been introduced to since, it still stands as the blueprint for Ridley Scott’s later reissues, and finally, Denis Villeneuve’s sequel.
The Construction of a Meta-text: Replication and Recreation
As mentioned previously, the context surrounding the word “replicant” is of utmost importance when considering the Blade Runner universe. The androids are purposely labeled as such to make a clear distinction. Grammarist notes the subtle yet important distinction by noting that “Replicate means to reproduce something, to construct a copy of something, to make a facsimile whereas Duplicate means to reproduce an exact copy from an original” (Grammarist). These androids are not duplicates — they are not the same by any means and are crafted individually, unlike the original Stormtroopers in Star Wars. They are replicants because they are produced and reproduced by Tyrell, but as individuals, not clones. The actuality of their “reproduction” does not come into play until the events of the sequel, Blade Runner 2049, which ponders the possibility of replicant pregnancy.
The history of Blade Runner is fascinating in the sense that seven different versions (five official) were released by Scott starting from the original 1982 release all the way to 2007’s Final Cut. Thus, by pure coincidence, the entire text of Blade Runner has become meta, bringing the film’s idea of replication to life with continual releases of the film. We see replication represented not only in the film itself, but in actuality. One can extend this even further by associating Ridley Scott with Tyrell — he is the creator of his product, and continued to release alternate editions as he chose to see fit. Again, it’s a matter of interpretation in both cases: in the film, are the new and improved replicant models really more ideal? The same can be asked of Ridley Scott’s releases of the Director’s Cut and other variations.
Much like the androids in the film, the re-releases of Blade Runner are also replicates as compared to duplicates, on account of their individuality. Although the core story and the characters remain the same, there are enough discernible differences added to each one that makes it unique and thus, not an exact duplicate of the 1982 theatrical version. In the 1992 Director’s Cut, the infamous unicorn dream is spliced in during Rachel and Deckard’s love scene. In addition, the voice over is removed, and the ending changed. Just these small differences create a completely different air and interpretation: now, instead of reading Deckard as a human, the viewer starts to question whether or not he is a replicant. This is never answered officially, as there is no one singular canon adaption, and in 2049, the issue is once again cloaked in ambiguity.
Thematically, this fits right in with the artistic unity of Scott’s universe. Everything is ambiguous, and nothing is certain. The distinctions between replicants and humans are so increasingly subtle that it is nearly impossible for viewers to discern. The plight and mentality of the replicant is a great example of schizophrenia in postmodern film. As Giuliana Bruno puts it, “the schizophrenic condition is characterized by the inability to experience the persistence of “I” over time — in other words, there is no past or future, but a perpetual present, which is experienced by the replicants in the sense that they have no past to draw from and no future to look forward to. Consider the dichotomy presented within the film(s): replicants like Batty are outwardly resentful and hostile in comparison to Rachael. Batty and the other hunted replicants are angry and vengeful, as they are aware of their fabrication, short lifespan, and poor treatment in society. Rachel is different — unlike the others, she had no knowledge of her origins. Thus, all her implanted memories were authentic to her reality, and it is made clear in all of the variations that she did have a future to share with Deckard (Bruno, ). This concept continues to appear in the meta-text with the release of 2049 and its extensive focus on the new model replicants of its era.
Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of the meta-text is that we can examine said text as a whole, or a collective of alternate realities. For example, we can look at each version of Blade Runner as a series of cinematic synecdoches belonging to one whole Blade Runner. On the contrary, we can also view the films as a series of parallel universes, where no single one is arbitrarily canon. This is why Blade Runner must be viewed as a meta-text — in order to fully appreciate the universe, one mustn’t exclude or omit any facets. No version stands superior to the others. A meta-text allows for flexibility and versatility, easily molding itself to a variety of interpretations. Viewers can draw their own conclusions and make their own judgement. The power in Blade Runner lies in its self-reflexivity: the beauty of replication lies within the connotation that a replicant of something doesn’t necessarily means it’s better than its predecessor. There is equal value in exploring all versions, and ample room for more to come about (in theory).
From its very first iteration to its last, Blade Runner was, is, and will continue to be an anomaly in the cinematic world. Ridley Scott created a stand-alone,unprecedented cinematic gem by borrowing and transforming outlines from Philip K. Dick’s novel. His film would then go on to act out its own message, living on as not one body but as a series of replications. The ambiguity that makes the film so alluring exists within the meta-text as well: like the viewer must decide for themself if Deckard is a replicant or not, they must also decide which version, if any given one, is their own personal Blade Runner. Thus, to account for the umbrella of opinions and interpretations, Blade Runner must be classified as a meta-text. It is a complex, multi-faceted, and self-reflexive work of art, and in order to be fully appreciated, must expand beyond any given single story and dimension.
Works Cited
“Duplicate vs Replicate.” Grammarist, Grammarist, grammarist.com/usage/duplicate-vs-replicate/.
HarperCollins. “Replicate.” The Free Dictionary, Farlex, 2011, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/replicate.
Bruno, Giuliana. “Ramble City: Postmodernism and ‘Blade Runner.’” October, vol. 41, 1987, pp. 61–74. JSTOR, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/778330.
AMC. “Film Noir – Films.” AMC FIlmsite, AMC, http://www.filmsite.org/filmnoir.html.
IMDB. “Blade Runner – Alternate Versions.” IMDb, IMDb.com, www.imdb.com/title/tt0083658/alternateversions.
Scott, Ridley, director. Blade Runner (1982 Theatrical Release). Warner Brothers, 1982.
Scott, Ridley, director. Blade Runner (Director’s Cut). Warner Brothers, 1992.
Villeneuve, Denis, director. Blade Runner 2049. Warner Brothers, 2017.
Dick, Philip K,. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, 1996. Print.
コメント