Blade Runner (Theatrical Release (1982))

To this point I had only seen the Directors Cut of Blade Runner which, though undeniably a visual masterpiece, always left me a bit cold. I mean, there is no doubt ANY version of Blade Runner would be "cool," it looks amazing, the soundtracks rules, but it is a flawed film. The screenplay is pretty weak and the pacing, in the Director's Cut, is glacial. As a result, what, I felt, should be one of the most exciting, engrossing films of all time, often left me fighting off sleep. 

I was curious to see the theatrical Release because I knew it had the Harrison Ford narration excised from the Director's Cut, as well as the "Return to Paradise" ending, and I assumed, as a Hollywood release, would be a little more lean than the Ridley Scott cut. The narration, though pretty ham-bone, does help to tie the initial scenes together (Deckard's summoning by Police Chief Bryant), as well as fleshing out the Edward James Olmos character a touch. However, after the first fifteen minutes or so, the narration is basically absent until the end. 

Overall, I felt the theatrical release to be a big improvement over the Scott version. Though still moving a touch slow, Deckard's character takes a more focal position in the film. Aided by the more linear, less impressionistic editing, Deckard's "quest" to retire the Replicants follows a logical path. There are still a lot of moments in the film that, from a writing standpoint at least, leave me scratching my head. The "inciting incident" in the film has always seemed to me painfully weak, and almost inexplicably so. Could they not have motivated Deckard's quest any better? Wouldn't even financial motivation be completely logical? Instead, there is Bryant's vague threat to make Deckard a "little person." What the fuck does that mean? As the film progressed I wondered if Deckard couldn't have been given a substance problem. he is pretty fucked up as it is (ostensibly because he has guilt over killing things?), so it wouldn't be much of a stretch for him be battling some kind of booze or drug problem (a common theme in PKD stories). All of this to say that Deckard's quest isn't strongly motivated and, IMO, fails to give the film an engaging sweep. Story-wise, I believe all the problems basically stem from Deckard's more or less flimsy desire. However, this is reconciled much better in the Theatrical Version than Scott's gauzy, vague edit.

The relationship between Deckard and Rachel (played by a pristine Sean Young) also benefits from the more causal editing in the Theatrical Cut. Despite the mildly horrifying "seduction" scene, in which Deckard basically rapes Rachel, their relationship progresses logically and Rachel's horror at discovering she is an android is given much better support. Likewise, the showdown with Roy Batty. In the Director's Cut, Roy, in lieu of a fully characterized Deckard, essentially becomes the Protagonist. However, in the Theatrical Version, where Deckard's aims are at least elucidated enough to make sense, Batty becomes an intriguing, yet clearly villainous, antagonist. The reversal at the end, in which Batty rescues Deckard, carries a more effective punch, and makes this potentially superior humanity of the in-human androids a revelation rather than foregone conclusion.

It was pleasing to discover in this seemingly relegated version of the film (I think the Director's Cut was the only version on DVD for a long time?) a version of Blade Runner that, though not perfect, manages to align the elements of the story in a coherent, engaging enough fashion to make the film watchable (or, if "watchable" is too harsh, "entertaining").