Blade Runner's slow pace may be contemplative, but feels boring on rewatch in a faster-paced movie era.
Harrison Ford's Rick Deckard lacks complexity, making the protagonist unlikable compared to the villain.
Blade Runner's heavy focus on stunning visuals and effects overshadows its lack of depth in storytelling and characters.
I gave it a read and there's some interested takes but overall disagree and I think this particular read may miss some of the best parts of what make Blade Runner work. To just respond to the surmise, since all 10 points to me are more like 7 and even those 7 kind of just come down to these 3, lol.
First and foremost, its pacing is fine. Bad pacing in a movie is far worse, like Anna, and even pacing in a good one like Dune, doesn't mean anything necessarily - Blade Runner does a fine job if you are able to pay attention, I guess. Personally it seems a little odd to blame being molded by contemporary media to be the reason why an older film no longer holds up. Let me put it this way though - We have Drive (2011) and Baby Driver (2017). In a lot of ways, these movies are exactly the same at times being almost shot for shot early on (likely homage). But Baby Driver is an extremely fast paced movie, and Drive is an extremely slow burn. Both of these movies, like Blade Runner, do something different, so of the critiques there can be I'm not fully on board with this one, unless the argument is that old movies should be able to take any viewer out of their subjectivity mold, I can't really agree with the takeaway from this. I had a harder time watching the new Dune than I did Blade Runner, does that make Dune's pacing worse than Blade Runner or is Blade Runner's pacing better than Dune? See what I mean? I might feel different had there been any examples, but it seemed that it just found a "Blade Crawler" comment and made a point about it, and now that's bad because... movies are faster paced? Nyeh, not sold, lol.
Decker is no more than an analogue for the viewers to be in the world, he may be the protagonist but Decker, IMO, is far from the main character. I also disagree about him lacking complexity, however I would say that it is indeed because he is 100% a foil to the antagonists. Decker isn't meant to be this incredible Blade Runner that no other can live up to - he's good sure, he's alive and has his faculties and limbs, but he quite literally takes the role of the futuristic Desk Jockey, he is just the pencil pusher that grinds up the replicants. More on this later.
Whenever I watch Blade Runner I'm always surprised by how it's such a quiet film with so much exposition in just a few sentences. I don't think anything overshadows anything else. I think there is a strong emphasis on atmosphere which helps with the world building we get from the characters and interactions. It critiques hyper-capitalism by showing a world far in the future that by all accounts is exactly the same, save a few office jobs that have evolved. The underground is still working girls and chefs and the government is still uncoordinated and corrupt. Without the focus on visuals to evoke just how different this world is supposed to be, we don't get snapped back into mundanity when we see Decker ordering food and getting stopped by other officers. Moreover, the depth of the story comes specifically from Roy Batty, who as I mention should be viewed as the real protagonist. I think the movie itself argues this point to the bone, but everyone only ever seems to want to talk about Decker so maybe not.
I find it hard to see a lack of depth when Roy and Pris, literal cybernetic robots, are the most emotive characters in Blade Runner. The only other character we genuinely see some emotion from is the Tinkerer J.F. Sebastian, who has a love for his toys and makes friends with the replicants. They get inhumanly emotive at times, but they more than anyone we see express just how much they want to live. Roy's entire journey is a process of becoming human, until death when he gives birth to Decker by saving him. Roy lived as a human would have. In life, Roy was enslaved, escaped, and lived on the lamb. He sought vengeance towards God (Tyrell), found love, exacts vengeance once more before, in my opinion, realizing and accepting that God was right. There is no extending life. Not his own.
As he sees Deckard about to die, with the understanding that Roy himself will soon as well, Roy saves Deckard not as an act of mercy but as a birth. To extend life. For me, the story isn’t much about Deckard. It’s about what Deckard’s piece represents for humanity. He isn't complex, he doesn't need to be. Not everyone is. Particularly when Deckard himself isn't even the point that the film was trying to make, each and every quintessential moment of philosophy comes from the antagonists musings, not the protagonists inquisitions.
Your final act in death is to give life which you were no longer allowed.
Someone else made a more detailed comment but all I'll say about this bullshit article is that it's full of non-issues. It is quite literally scraping the bottom of the barrel to come up with reasons why Blade Runner can't be watched in 2024. It's completely contrarian and no one who has seen Blade Runner would agree with anything presented.
I love Electric Sheep and I am personally abhorred by this abomination.
Add comment