SCREEN-L Archives

May 1996, Week 2

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Lincoln - Fetching Pictures <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 8 May 1996 18:52:49 GMT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (56 lines)
On Tue, 7 May 1996 19:47:20 -0400, Paul Ryersbach
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
>> Someone recently stated that the Peoples script for Blade Runner is a
>> masterwork of its genre. I have never read the script as opposed to
>> seeing both the original release and director's cut of the film. While I
>> appreciate the inventiveness of the film's visual style, especially the
>> repetition of motifs having to do with the eye, but the narrative never
>> seems to explore any of the interesting implications of the story. There
>> are interesting themes broached on memory and the construction of
>> identity, and the use of empathic response as a means of distinguishing
>> the human from the inhuman reminds me a bit of Bataille's Theory of
>> Religion, however, these elements seem to be overshadowed by cliched
>> references to historical slavery and racism and by a forced resolution of
>> Deckard's relationship to Rachel at the film's conclusion. If the
>> problems that I have with the film are substantial, could someone please
>> justify for me the epithet of masterwork that this film boasts?
 
i believe you're referring to my post. i have a few problems with the
whole "blade runner screenplay" thing. although peoples is credited as
a screenwriter on it, i don't believe that he is responsible for the
awful deckard narration that was in the original cut.  (there is a
second writer credited whose name i forget).
 
when the film was released a few years ago as a "director's cut" the
whole hoopla never mentioned (as far as i know) the fact that the
director's cut (which did not contain the voice over) was never in the
script to begin with. it would be just as accurate, imo, to say that
the director's cut is also the screenwriter's preferred cut (or,
closer to it than the original release).
 
the "slavery" comments that you mention are, i believe, all in the
voice over. bryant calls the replicants "skin jobs" and a viewer can
speculate the connection between this phrase and the word "nigger" or
whatever, but i don't think that you would hold that against the
writer.
 
the voiceover also makes one gag at the end when deckard comments
about not knowing how long he and rachel will have together. "then
again, who does?" i mean, please. the lack of the voiceover, however,
gives a very different meaning to the ending. especially if one takes
into consideration that we do not know if deckard is or is not a
replicant--and how much has this crossed his mind.
 
i also commend peoples because i have read dick's book. one of my
favorite authors i do not believe his books offer easy (or even
possible) adaptions.
 
just my opinion.
 
L.
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2