A: Mount
Everest .
I always
loathed that Trivial Pursuit trick question. The assumption that reality exists
outside of the current human construct is something I’ve always been interested
in exploring, but not when it costs me a piece of plastic pie. It does seem fairly brazen when one considers
the magnitude of info that is outdated in every Trivial Pursuit board game.
After
vehemently avoiding Blade Runner for years, I succumbed to a first-viewing upon
weighty recommendations from friends. I’m not much of a sci-fi fan. Let me
rephrase that: I’m not much of a
sci-fi-for-the-sake-of-being-sci-fi fan, but I enjoy art that makes me consider
larger philosophical issues, such as the aforementioned questioning of truth. Call
me a sap, but I also don’t mind an explosion or two thrown in. Blade Runner
forced me to reconsider what constitutes human existence, and I loved it. The problem is the version of Blade Runner I watched
was not the same version of Blade Runner that was shown in the theater in 1982.
I was taken by a restored, reedited, re-shot, CGI -ed
version of Blade Runner, “The Final Cut”, including a starkly different ending
than the original.
Robo Hobo sans shotgun |
In many
ways, I’m glad I watched “The Final Cut” version of Blade Runner. It highly affected
how I perceived the film. A slicked-up, errorless film kept me fixated enough
to follow the story line, which is what mattered to me. Immediately after the
viewing, I surfed YouTube for clips of the original version and was taken aback
by how dastardly dated the clips seemed, the original ending fiercely atrocious,
unbefitting of the rest of the film. Researching further, I discovered that
“The Final Cut” wasn’t just glossed-up with a new ending, but rather completely
reworked, sometimes with Ridley Scott even shooting extra scenes and CGI -ing
others to make the film look more modern and cover up any incongruities that
existed in the original.
There is
something very odd to me about two people discussing two different films as if
they have seen the same film. It bothers me that to discuss Blade Runner with
another, I have to first ask what version was witnessed--not to mention there is more than two versions--before discussing a highly intriguing, submersed
plot point that changes between versions, polarizing the film even further. I
don’t even know if I would have liked Blade Runner if I viewed the original
version. I’m rather confident the original ending would have spoiled the rest
of the film for me, but I will never know. Dated sci-fi can make for some really
bad intake. Futuristic flying cars
become model cars with wires pulling them along, realistic humans met with
violent endings become comedic mannequins spewing strawberry jelly, and dreary,
metallic versions of Los Angeles
become dull, grey movie sets. Suddenly belief isn’t suspended, and the viewer
checks out.
2001: A
Space Odyssey is one of my all-time favorites. It works on so many levels. That
movie, to my knowledge, has never been doctored, other than maybe brightened by
a DVD transfer. If that movie was altered, in any way, it
would cause me a gruesome annoyance. It
would change how I think about the film, and I saw it for the first time in
1998, complete with pastel spaceship interiors and bizarre psychedelic 60s
movie effects. It was far “ahead of its
time”, made before the 1969 moon
landing, but still managing to capture the proper effects of space physics. The
proof is in the sequel; 2010 explained everything, and it was disastrous.
Google goggles ruin children |
I don’t
blame Ridley Scott; I would have done the same. From everything I’ve read on the interwebs, Ridley Scott’s original
ending was the ending of “The Final
Cut”, but studio executives nixed it for the proverbial happy ending. How am I
to fault him for perfecting his original vision to tell the story the way he
thought it should be told? But where does it end? What if Tarantino cut his own
racially explicative scene out of Pulp Fiction? What if Michael never caps
Fredo? What if Andy never escapes Shawshank? What if Mona Lisa was given a boob
job and some ruby lipstick? Far-fetched indeed, but what if art museums found a
way present the art in 3D form without retouching the paintings? Would we be so
willing to walk around the Louvre with 3D goggles intact?
Rating redone
art poses problems. Without revision, 2001: A Space Odyssey can be compared to
other films of the time. With those comparisons, value can be assessed. I think
this is why Waterworld was met with such widespread condemnation: simply
because it cost so much to make in comparison to other, more acclaimed films of that time. “The most
expensive movie ever made” cost $175 million, and that was appalling to moviegoers
in 1995. I don’t think Waterworld was that
bad, at least now that every summer is filled with its share of over-budgeted
critical bombs.
If people
truly enjoy 99 cent cheeseburgers at the exorbitant rate they are consumed at,
and that enjoyment isn’t solely monetarily based (as recent studies show that
middle-class America
eats more fast-food than lower-class America ),
then that food is tasty, right? Do we judge how good Elvis was based on the
records he sold? Certainly, some do. Are art and economics independent of each other? When we criticize Waterworld or place Blade Runner on a pedestal, what are we truly considering? After all, 50
dollar bottles of wine only taste better than 5 dollar bottles of wine if the taster knows which bottle costs more. It can be said that all history is
revisionist, and, yes, I knew that I was watching a different version of Blade
Runner. I just didn’t know how
different.
Q: What science-fiction thriller, released in 2007, features Rutger Hauer as a genetically engineered bio-robot searching for its maker?
A: Blade Runner
Q: What science-fiction thriller, released in 2007, features Rutger Hauer as a genetically engineered bio-robot searching for its maker?
A: Blade Runner
1 comment:
One of these days I will see this movie
Post a Comment