Future Noir

Rating: Null/10 (6 May 2004)

The title of Paul Sammon's excellent book about the making of Blade Runner, Future Noir, sums up the film best. In style, it bears a strong resemblance to the great works of film noir; but, with a new technological twist to it. We have your hard boiled private eye/cop sent to solve a case, characters who aren't what they seem, moral dilemmas, corruption, passionate but dangerous affairs, dark atmosphere, decay, depravity, and paranoia. In short, all the ingredients of Chandler, Cain, and Thompson.
Ridley Scott, by this point, had made a name as a visual stylist. His films were amazing to look at, even if they weren't exactly showcases for great acting. What kept them from becoming total visual exercises was the casting of fine actors. Here again, he assembled a fine cast, but the visual elements dominate the film. The actors do their best with the difficult, often confusing material; but, ultimately, they are merely another component of a cinematic painting. It's not surprising, given that Scott had been a graphic artist.
The design of the film owes some debt to films such as Metropolis and Just Imagine, the architectural drawings of Hugh Ferris, the city scenes of Tokyo, the work of Moebius, and the art of Edward Hopper and the futurist designers and graphic artists. Conceptual artist Syd Mead provided blueprints that Scott and company built upon and added layer after layer. DVD technology allows you to linger on each detail, taking in all those elements you couldn't see in the theater, but helped to complete the picture. Every piece of paper, every photo, sign, and magazine cover was created to add depth and character to this world. In fact, the city is the strongest character of the film.
Much has been made of the number of replicants, whether Deckard is a replicant (is Holden also a replicant?), the nature of humanity, the role of animals, and many other themes and questions relating to the film. The beauty of the film to its fans (and major criticism from its detractors) is that so much is left open to interpretation. It's a film you can watch again and again and discover new ideas, or look at them from a new angle. When I first saw the film, the idea that Deckard was a replicant never entered my mind. After reading Sammon's book, I watched the film again, both the original theatrical release and the "director's cut" and noticed the subtle hints for the first time. The glowing light in the eyes never appeared deliberate before; I just assumed it was a reflection of the lights. After reading the book, I noticed that it only occurs in certain situations.
The performances vary in quality. Even the so-so actors have their interesting moments; but some are stronger than others. The cold, dismal atmosphere of this film doesn't lend itself to a variety of emotions, so the performances tend to come off as limited. The replicants are more alive than the humans, possibly due to their short lifespan. They seem compelled to get as much living in as possible. As such, the replicant actors are more interesting, if not more skilled than the humans. Rutger Hauer is all over the place: he is menacing, laughable, haunted, distraught, psychotic, reflective, and destructive. Darryl Hannah, Brion James, and Joanna Cassady provide less rounded performances; but they are effective, in a quirky manner.
Harrison Ford brings a Chandleresque weariness to Deckard, a man who hates his life but is trapped by it. The more he is in contact with the replicants, the more his humanity comes out. It is not his best performance, but it exceeds more recent work.
Sean Young is a bit of a dilemma, she looks good, but she doesn't bring much to her role; but that is the nature of the character. So, is the flaw her acting, the direction, or the script? On one level, it is perfect for an artificial character whose life is an empty shell. On the other hand, it is frustrating as she never seems to rise to the moment.
The Vangellis music is another source of polarization. I personally love a lot of synthesizer driven music of this era, while many have nothing but derision for it. To me, the synthesizer gives a voice to technology and helps animate it. Given that the city and technology of this world acts as another character, the music acts as that character's dialogue. I wouldn't want this type of music in a period piece or a comedy, but it works within the framework of this film.
Ultimately, this is a film that either challenges you or turns you away. It stirs the imagination with its detail, and its omission of detail. You are often left to fill in missing elements. On some levels, this can be frustrating and probably the source of much derision for the film. On the other hand, it can be extremely stimulating to the mind and take you places that you never dreamed. It is not a prefect film, but it is an important one, from a design sense and a thematic one.