Wednesday, November 1, 2017

Blade Runner

Bladerunner stands, in the view of many, among the greatest science fiction films of all time, alongside such groundbreaking works as Fritz Lang's Metropolis (1927), Alexander Korda's Things to Come (1936), Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, and the Wachowskis' The Matrix (1999). And yet, like them, it is sometimes accused of being more of an innovation of style than of substance, a visually gripping film encumbered with a cloudy, laborsome, noire-eque plot that never quite adds up.

But perhaps that's because, in this postmodern world, style is substance. A palette of darkly glimmering colors, a shift in movement from the horizontal to the vertical, and a constantly shifting agglomeration of retro-, punk, and pomo dress says something at the outset: the viewer is not so much ahead of time as outside of it, in a world where there is no longer any clear sense of progression. If this is a sort of substance, then it's largely the work of Syd Mead, who was hired early on as a designer for Bladerunner, and who created its overall visual feel:
The dominant strategy in designing Bladerunner's future was 'retrofitting,' which according to Mead, 'simply means upgrading old machinery or structures by slapping new add-ons to them.' The future, in other words. is a combination of the new and the very, very used, just like the present: the utopian fantasies of Things to Come, with its gleaming new Everytown, are no longer economically, ecologically, or politically supportable, even in dreams and fictions (Bukatman 21)
The comparison with Things to Come is telling; in that movie, "Everytown" (which is clearly London) is destroyed in a vast world war, and for a time its inhabitants are reduced to savage ways, under the thumb of a "boss" who goes around in Fred-Flintstone-like furs. They are saved from this fate by a man in a black, bubble-headed suit (memorably plated by Raymond Massey), who offers them a return to civilization; in the flash-forward to the next step of evolution, Massey's grandson (played by Massey) has graduated to the glittery toga-tunic, and heads a ray-gun republic studded with towers circled with saturnian rings. This is of course the world of "Progress," the world that Science Fiction once depended upon, the future as outlined in the "World of Tomorrow" at the 1939 World's Fair. The film ends, curiously, when the great rocket of progress is attacked by a sculptor and his band of futuristic Luddites, whose slogan is "An End to Progress Now!":
"What is this progress? What is the good of all this progress onward and onward? We demand a halt. We demand a rest ... an end to progress! Make an end to progress ! Make an end to this progress now! Let this be the last day of the scientific age!"
Bladerunner gives us a world in which, although technology clearly continues to make new inroads into the nature of biological life, "progress" -- at least for those at street-level in a postmodern Los Angeles where it never stops raining -- is an illusion, dashed to pieces in the glimmer of electronic signage, plastic clothes, and neon glow-stick umbrellas.

Interestingly, the main filming site for the film was Warner's venerable "New York" set, which had been in place in one form or another since 1928, and featured in many noir films. Yet again, this was adroitly supplemented with add-ons of the retrofitted kind, as with the creepy decayed version of LA's Bradbury Building. The exterior was modified with a pair of enormous spiral pillars, and the interior trashed out with leaking water and debris (amazingly, all these scenes were shot at night, and the set cleaned up so that by day it could continue to function as an office building). Through the doorway, you can even see the Million Dollar Theater across the street (though the writing on the marquee, interestingly, has varied from version to version). I've been to the Bradbury building -- a remarkable place, with its wrought-iron elevator (closed, alas, to non-tenants); here's a shot of me there with LA artist Sara Velas. It's a strange world where, even when you are "on location" there's a Titanic-sized gulf between the glitter you see, and the ruins you remember.

Ridley Scott was never totally happy with Bladerunner. According to Bukatman's book, it was at the insistence of the insurance bondholders that the Dashiell-Hammett-style voiceovers were added, cuing viewers into a plot that had left test audiences confused and disgruntled. As soon as he had the chance, he took them out, re-editing the entire film not only once but twice, the second time along with a full-scale digital restoration. The latest 5-disc version includes the European theatrical version, as well as the rough-cut print that had been thought lost.

So, as they say with cornflakes: taste them again, for the first time. Let's try that this week with Bladerunner.

2 comments:

  1. The future has been depicted over and over again in film, print, and art for decades. Each version of the future has some similarities, but in most cases each version is unique to the vision of the writer and/or creative team behind the project. Of course in each there are unanswered questions regarding how the environment or objects have been created. How do people live and get transported from place to place. How has technology been improved to allow such advances, and what happened to the previous world that existed. While each of these areas of interest may never receive answers, we are still drawn to the idea of the future, and possibly wonder what it would feel like to experience it. As viewers and readers of such media, do we constantly place ourselves in fantasy world in order to gain this experience or to escaped our current reality? Are the unanswered questions about the future keeping us within an inner circle of people searching out this content through the use of media? Is the missing plot information just a ploy by directors to leave us wanting more, which will result in making more money? Every time we re-experience the future through media we are growing the paychecks of others, we are further stating the need for such content. As humans we yearn for entertainment and excitement, and will continue to fall into the trap of media and fantasy. Regardless of the plot or artistic direction, we will always seek out fantasy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As a society we are obsessed with technoology, I believe in part because we want to live in a world were things are made “easier” for us and we become part of the technology we create. In the case of Bladerunner, I believe this to be the epitome of futuristic movies. Writers, designers, filmmakers, and society have enormous imaginations and as such, constantly create worlds that we could possibly reside within, in the future. Will there by flying cars, will we be replaced by androids, will we even be living on the Earth in 100 years? These are questions we may never be able to answer, but we can constantly think, create, and imagine what the world will be like for us. As such, movies, such as Bladerunner, will continue to be made, watched, replicated, and advanced.

    ReplyDelete