| |
|
Not to be an utter ass about it, but does 'seminal' mean 'derivative' now? 'Bladerunner' falls apart as an homage to noir, because it isn't atmospheric, but pedantic and cheesy;
Firstly, you let down your argument by never getting the title right.
Blade Runner is derivative of certain films that were released before it (eg Mildred Pierce) but I think it could be called seminal in terms of certain films that were released after it (eg Dark City).
Saying "it isn't atmospheric but pedantic and cheesy" doesn't convince me. Those things cannot be facts.
I think it's atmospheric in that it creates, for me, a convincing, detailed, deep fictional world. I feel it sets up an immersive environment that gives the impression of being fully worked-out.
I don't know what you mean by pedantic and cheesy with regard to this film so I can't really discuss that.
I suppose there are some "cheesy" aspects in that Vangelis' early-80s music might now sound dated, and perhaps some of the "futuristic" fashion is indebted to late-70s or early-80s punk/new wave styling, but any older film risks looking cheesy in that respect. Metropolis looks pretty cheesy I suppose in terms of the performance style and the special effects, but I consider it a great film.
Actually, I've done a lot more work to help your argument there than you did for yourself. But if you explain what you meant, I'm happy to talk about it with you.
parody and not even good parody.
It's not meant to be parody, so if it fails as parody, that's irrelevant I think. Double Indemnity also fails as parody.
It fails as an adaptation, as, frankly, the book is multitudes superior at both tragedy and comedy, and in the scenes of sheep, alone, outdoes the film.
I don't think a film should be judged merely in terms of how well it adapts a book, especially as Blade Runner is a pretty loose adaptation of DADoES. I feel the film works on its own terms. The novel includes other layers and dimensions, but perhaps trying to squeeze them in would have made for a worse film.
As a work of ideas, it is insulting (the roboracism voice over from early on,
You are referring I suppose (see how I have to do the work for you, because you're being lazy) to Deckard saying that Bryant's use of "skinjobs" is equivalent to an older use of "n*ggers".
Firstly, I don't see why you say that's insulting. Maybe you mean it's too crass an explanation, and makes the racial parallels too obvious for the viewer. (Again... who knows what you mean, because you choose not to explain.)
Well, that would be one of the reasons they ditched the v/o for the Director's Cut. In fact you're judging both the Director's Cut and the original version here, as if they were the same film - you refer to the unicorn dream below, when that wasn't in the original.
the negotiating of the dual plots together,
Not sure what you mean here, and why "negotiating of plots" makes a film bad.
and the removal of any concern on things that make androids interesting, like, oh, the nature of emotion, posthuman capacities in the physical and psychological realm),
I don't really know how much you're asking for, but Blade Runner does explore things that make "androids" (replicants, in the film - androids are in the novel, which I suggested is a very different text and should be treated separately. Sorry to be "pedantic", hope I'm not "cheesy") interesting.
eg. Deckard, as a supposed human, is colder (his nickname's "sushi") and less empathetic than most of the replicants. His romance scene with Rachel is a near-rape. Batty, on the other hand, shows tenderness and loyalty to his fellow replicants.
Posthuman capacities? What, like Zhora sussing Deckard's disguise and almost snapping his neck, or Pris sitting immobile as a doll, then turning lethal somersaults down a corridor? Like the way replicants can beat a Grand Master at chess and dip their hands into boiling water? What are you actually asking for?
Did you, out of interest, think any adaptation of a Philip K Dick fiction was at all satisfactory? Screamers, Minority Report, Total Recall? Because none of them are very similar to the original either, and most of them in my opinion are less complex and intelligent than Blade Runner.
and it manages to entirely remove religion, community, and a concern for life from a work coming from something where those are paramount.
It does not entirely remove religion at all. There are a number of references to religion: Batty's nail through the hand, Tyrell noting the "Prodigal Son", Tyrell's papal bed, the paraphrase from Blake, "fiery the angels fell".
I would say there would be a lot to discuss about community, too: the replicant community, the Animoid Row salespeople, the "little people" Bryant distinguishes from police (and the police, in turn), the social divide between street and ziggurat, the ethnic groupings in 2019 LA.
A "concern for life" is arguably exactly why Batty saves Deckard in one of the film's most important moments.
But again, you haven't spelled out what you mean and I, perhaps foolishly, have gone to town in finding you counter-examples when you really don't seem to have made much effort with your case.
Once more you seem to be saying things are missing from the film that you identified in the novel. I would say (a) you haven't looked at the film closely, from what you write here and (b) a film is not to be judged solely on its relationship to a novel.
It's badly shot and poorly directed.
I don't know what you mean by these vast generalisations so I'm not going to spend ages trying to think of examples of good shots and good direction in this film.
If you don't want to make either 'Bladerunner' or 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep' into a film, then don't. Do not take elements of one, the title of the other,
I don't know what you mean, and I'm not sure if what you're saying means anything.
Bladerunner is a cinema treatment by Wm Burroughs and a novel by Alan E. Nourse. I don't think either of them have anything but the title in common with the film Blade Runner. |
|
|
