Master Index of Archived Threads


BLADERUNNER: The Final Cut / Ridley Scott, idiot-savant

Vic Sage Oct 05 2007 10:51 AM Edited 4 time(s), most recently on Oct 09 2007 09:40 AM

BLADERUNNER: The Final Cut is being released in theaters for a limited run before being made available in a deluxe DVD set for Xmas. I've been looking forward to if for some time, since its one of my favorite movies. check out the details: http://www.cyberpunkreview.com/movie/up ... e-unicorn/ But let's be clear... Ridley Scott has to be the most over-rated director of his generation. Over the last 30 years, he has turned out maybe 3 or 4 good to great films, and then went back and sabotaged one of them. Scott started out as a set designer, and graduated to directing commercials in the 1960s-70s, so his style is exquisite in its sense of design and photography. But with regard to real storytelling, not so much. His first feature, THE DUELLISTS (1977), was a dirge-like contemplation of honor during the Napoleanic era. Its sonorous tone overlies exquisite visuals. But his next film ALIEN (1979), is the only unqualifiedly great movie on his resume. The quintessential "monster in the haunted house" movie dressed up as SF, it was both a huge critical and commercial success. This one gave him the clout to make, and then survive, his next project. BLADE RUNNER (1982) was a bomb upon its initial release but has, over time, become a cult classic and is now considered one of the greatest and most influential films of the last 25 years. And it certainly is my personal farorite of all his movies. The Vangelis score is hauntingly beautiful. The design is as influential as any movie ever made... until MATRIX, anyway. But most importantly, the themes of the story resonate in harmony with its images. What does it mean to be human? If you lack compassion, empathy, and emotional connection to others... are you really human? And if you have those things, does it matter what the origin of your biology is? Phillip K. dick wrote DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP partly as a critique of the "I was only following orders" defense of WWII-era Germans. Dick told us that we are each responsible for our own humanity, and the day we let the least of us die out of our own disinterest or lack of courage, we have surrendered that humanity. Of course, Scott completely sabotages this theme in the "Director's Cut" (and now again in the "final cut") by giving more evidence that Deckard is, himself, a Replicant, thereby rendering the entire point moot. Instead of a story of redemption, where a person reclaims his humanity by recognizing the humanity in others, Scott turns it into a story of a Replicant who learns to feel. Well, who cares if a non-existent fantasy construct called a "Replicant" learns to freakin' feel, Ridley? Why don't you say something about people, instead, you schmuck?! The DIRECTOR'S CUT is actually worse than the theatrical release in other ways, too. In addition to adding the "Deckard is a replicant" theme, he has stripped out the voice-over narration, which furthered the movie's "film noir" style, and its absence resonates throughout this cut. And while the movie didn't need the "happy ending" the studio originally insisted on, the dark ending you are now left with instead is not at all satisfying, and it removes the final images of blue sky that rewarded and mirrored Deckard's emotional transformation. These changes just indicate how little Scott understood what was great about his movie in the first place. After BLADERUNNER flopped, Scott churned out 3 stylish misfires: LEGEND (1985), SOMEONE TO WATCH OVER ME (1987) and BLACK RAIN (1989). LEGEND was a total flop, but SOMEONE and, to a lesser degree, BLACK RAIN were moderate commercial successes These lead up to his getting hired on to direct THELMA & LOUISE (1991). T & L was both a commercial and critical success, and is an excellent film, but Scott was brought into this project fairly late in its development, and was just a directo-for-hire on this one. Still, an excellent job, even if not entirely a "Ridley Scott" picture. But he followed up T&L with 3 pieces of Scottian crap: 1492 (1992) ,WHITE SQUALL (1996) and G.I. JANE (1997). While JANE was a huge hit (echoing his themes of militaristic women from ALIEN and T&L), I found it relentlessly ridiculous and nearly unwatchable. He hit the next one out of the park, however, withGLADIATOR (2000) ... a blockbuster/Oscar winner. But, despite its unmistakable grandeur and Russell Crowe's star-making performance, the film can be read as profoundly stupid and cynical (a view i share). Still, it remains one of his best works (which says all you need to know about Scott's career output). HANNIBAL (2001) was a hit, too, based largely on its status as a long awaited sequel to the terrific SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. The critics lambasted it for the most part, and, while opulent, it is also repugnant and unengaging. BLACK HAWK DOWN (2001) was next and joined SOMEONE TO WATCH OVER ME, G.I. JANE and HANNIBAL into the group of glossy but inept hits from the witless Brit. Despite its box office performance and even a generally positive critical reaction, BHD seems to me more akin to Scott's cinematic misfires like 1492 and WHITE SQUALL. BHD is basically a Bruckheimer film, where handsome young men perform heroic deeds at great speed and high volume. I didn’t hate it, but it left me totally uninvolved, unmoved, and not particularly entertained. I was, however (like the goofy-looking soldier in the film), left deafened by the din. Perhaps it could play on a triple bill with GI JANE and THE DUELLISTS as a meditation on the nature of martial honor... as told through a series of lovely photographs, narrated by a moron. Still, BHD has been Scott's last hit to date. MATCHSTICK MEN (2003) is a poorly constructed "Sting" con-man movie with an extremely annoying performance by Nick Cage. It failed to find an audience. KINGDOM OF HEAVEN (2005), however, is pure Ridley, returning to the epic scale of GLADIATOR. Unfortunately, Orlando Bloom is no Russell Crowe, so it ends up an entertaining donut... yummy around the edges with a hole in the middle. Again, coherence is not his strongsuit, but this is probably Scott's best film since GLADIATOR. Yet it, too, couldn't make back its huge budget domestically (though it ultimately paid off internationally). With A GOOD YEAR (2006), Ridley tried his hand at a romantic "dramedy"; watching Ridley Scott try to pull off this type of light entertainment is like watching a hippo trying to hula, which was not a sight anyone cared to see. A big flop . Lastly, this year's AMERICAN GANGSTER (2007) is another of his "gun for hire" projects that has a mixed critical buzz going before its November opening. We'll see what level of audience interest is shown, expecially since its starring Denzel Washington. It could be pure hack work or a return to respectability. We shall see. At this point, Ridley Scott seems to me an idiot savant... a total genius with a camera, but nearly incapable of creating anything approaching human drama, except only occasionally and only be accident. Ridley Scott: filmography American Gangster (2007) A Good Year (2006) Kingdom of Heaven (2005) Matchstick Men (2003) Black Hawk Down (2001) Hannibal (2001) Gladiator (2000) G.I. Jane (1997) White Squall (1996) 1492: Conquest of Paradise (1992) Thelma & Louise (1991) Black Rain (1989) Someone to Watch Over Me (1987) Legend (1985) Blade Runner (1982) Alien (1979) Duelists, The (1977)

Johnny Dickshot Oct 05 2007 11:11 AM

Big article on the flick in this month's Wired mag.

Centerfield Oct 05 2007 12:01 PM

Great post Vic. I remember people saying that "GI Jane" would end up being one of those great Ridley Scott movies that no one sees. It ended up being the opposite. And there should be some sort of law preventing a director from going back and "fixing" movies afterwards. I just don't understand why this practice is accepted at all. You don't see authors going back and re-writing books. Artists don't touch up paintings or add elements after it's been sold. I don't see why movies should be any different. Once it's out there, it's subject to the interpretation of the audience and then you lose control over it. You don't get to go back and say "No, I meant this..."

Edgy MD Oct 05 2007 12:08 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 04 2009 11:14 AM

Well, directors often are forced to make their films with the studios' guns to their heads, and don't have the juice to make the film that they want to until years later.

Centerfield Oct 05 2007 12:08 PM

Oh, and I agree wholeheartedly about Gladiator. Great performances by Crowe, Richard Harris, and a good job by Joaquin Phoenix too. It was a good movie, but I am frustrated because it could have been a great movie. They built up to the big showdown where Maximus's army was gathering, but then they rob us of this epic battle based upon something a little boy lets slip in front of Phoenix's character (can't remember his name). Awful. We deserved that scene. And to deprive us of it based upon coincidence. I wanted to walk out right there. It was hokey that it came down to Crowe versus Phoenix one-on-one at the end. Characters who stab their opponent before a showdown never let themselves be put in mortal danger. It's out of character and too convenient.

Centerfield Oct 05 2007 12:12 PM

Edgy DC wrote: Well, directors often are forced to make their films with the studios gus to their heads, and don't have the juice to make the film that they want to until years later. And then they make it demonstrating that the studio guys were right all along.

Vic Sage Oct 05 2007 12:14 PM

well, unlike books or paintings, a film is often not in the final control of the filmmaket. In fact, the final editing of BLADERUNNER was taken away from Scott's control, so it wasn't until years later, when the studio wanted to get out a "director's cut" to cash in on the film's burgeoning reputation that Scott got to have some input on the cut of the film. But even that version was a compromise. This "final cut" is, apparently, his intended version. But i agree with you. If a director wants to put out an alternative cut after its been released, then fine, as long as it doesn't REPLACE the original theatrical version. But with BLADERUNNER, you could only get the "director's cut" on DVD; the original theatrical version was not available. However, the "final cut" Dvd package will include every version of the film ever released, including the "work print" version that was screened only once; the original domestic version; the foreign theatrical version (more blood) the "dirctor's cut", as well as the "final cut". But i don't think i've ever seen a "director's cut" that was an improvement over the original version.

metirish Oct 05 2007 01:59 PM

Cool topic, haven't seen BladeRunner in years, not sure how I feel about alternate endings that come now with DVD's , I tend to find them confusing because I wonder then why it wasn't used for the theatrical release. Vic how would you compare Ridley Scott's work to his brother Tony's? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Scott That really should be how would you compare Tony Scott's work to brother Ridley.

Vic Sage Oct 09 2007 08:48 AM

Whatever Ridley Scott's multitudinous flaws, he is at least an artist with a point of view. He has themes that he explores in his films (with varying degrees of success), and his films have a personal quality to them, a "hand-crafted" quality, that bespeaks the presence of an artistic vision. Tony Scott, however, is a hack. His action-oriented movies look good, move well, and have all the qualities of generally competent hollywood craftsmanship, but they have the smell of assembly-line, soulless processed movies made by-the-numbers. Some of his films have been quite good, including TRUE ROMANCE, CRIMSON TIDE and, to a lesser degree, MAN ON FIRE. But much of what is great about these films are in their screenplays. Otherwise, his films are just pure Bruckheimer... fast, loud and stupid. While a commercially successful filmmaker, nothing he's ever made has approached the artistry of ALIEN, BLADE RUNNER, THELMA & LOUISE or even GLADIATOR. And, i think it is safe to say, nothing he makes ever will. Tony Scott filmography: Deja Vu (2006) Domino (2005) Man on Fire (2004) Spy Game (2001) Enemy of the State (1998) The Fan (1996) Crimson Tide (1995) True Romance (1993) The Last Boy Scout (1991) Days of Thunder (1990) Revenge (1990/I) Beverly Hills Cop II (1987) Top Gun (1986) The Hunger (1983)

John Cougar Lunchbucket Oct 09 2007 08:49 AM

Wait. Are you saying DAYS OF THUNDER sucks?

Vic Sage Oct 09 2007 08:53 AM

Well, i implied it, and you inferred it, but now i'll say it... DAYS OF THUNDER SUCKS. In fact, it sucks BHMC.

Edgy MD Oct 09 2007 09:04 AM

The Tony Scott big idea: Men are incomplete until they create and merge with their big dick-shaped machines and become sexy monsters. It's fucking up the world but it's irresistable. Women and chillums can try and melt their machinery hearts and get them to use their power responsibly, but as long as the women show off them big big titties, men will be smashing their machines into stuff in some kind of apocolyptic (but sexy!) metal global hump, set to awful corporate rock music.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Oct 09 2007 09:12 AM

I wouldn't be asking for writing advice

TransMonk Aug 03 2009 02:48 PM

Ridley Scott to make Alien prequel. http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/03 ... 9-prequel/

Vic Sage Aug 04 2009 11:02 AM

a typically horrible Hollywoodian idea.

Nymr83 Aug 04 2009 11:17 AM

prequels are generally one more (usually bad) money grab out of franchises that have seemingly run their course such as Star Trek Enterprise, X-Men Origins Wolverine, and the three recent Star Wars movies (though those were at least set up that way to begin with) all of which sucked compared to their later-in-time but earlier made predecessors.

TransMonk Aug 04 2009 12:18 PM

I'm hoping Scott can at least bring some respectability back to the franchise, which has been lacking since the second one. Weaver doesn't seem to be involved, so the story has the chance to at least be an original look at the aliens. Still, not expecting too much.

RealityChuck Aug 11 2009 02:11 PM

I agree that Scott is vastly uneven. He can do utter crap like Alien (one of the stupidest movies in film history), but also great films like Thelma and Louise and decent ones like Blade Runner (overrated, but still interesting and influential) or Matchstick Men (which worked very nicely as a caper film). I await a prequel to Alien with vast indifference. I have no doubt that it will be just as stupid as the original.

Edgy MD Aug 11 2009 02:21 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 11 2009 06:16 PM

Just in case a future researcher reads consent in my silence, I'll submit my thinking that Alien isn't utter crap (nor one of the stupidest movies in film history), and add thatBlade Runner exceeds decent. I think by a lot.

Vic Sage Aug 11 2009 03:21 PM

ditto.