Blade Runner (1982)



14 October 2017| No Comments on Blade Runner (1982)     by Sean Chavel


“It’s too bad she won’t live. But then again, who does?”

One of the seminal works of out-there, mind-blowing science fiction. Blade Runner (1982), so complex, is suddenly more simple after its new complicated sequel has arrived. All jokey comparisons aside, the original remains challenging, perplexing and often profound, and its themes on dehumanization are stronger. Yes, the sequel shares these potent qualities and certainly is a deep follow-up, but somehow you just love an original that set the groundwork. At the time, its’ use of an origami unicorn was a head-spinning device of symbolism, making you refigure the entire film in your head. Of course, I’m speaking of the later director’s cut. I have loved the original 1982 studio release which had an admittedly different softened ending, the 1990’s director’s cut, the 2007 final director’s cut, then there are the international cuts that took place in the 1980’s – did Ridley Scott get obsessed with tinkering with his film, or what? He spent years tightening the screws on his masterpiece.

Harrison Ford played it cold as a blade runner of the 2019 future assigned to hunt down unauthorized androids, in what was a misbegotten Earth riddled with pollution and obscenely cluttered technology. He hunts one replicant, then another, then finds the remaining ones pairing up to take him down (Rutger Hauer, Daryl Hannah). Hauer as the android Roy has a concluding monologue that is among cinema’s most poetic speeches about what it means to live a vast life. Deckard gets the message, and has empathy for his kind.

There were always questions regarding the film though, like, why not assign a team of blade runners? Why is it just one blade runner doing all this dirty work? One could say its’ one of the staples of film noir to have one loner hero. Or you could develop a number of conspiracy theories about why it’s just Ford’s Deckard. Nobody wants a trace of these android terminations, and Deckard is understated enough do the work and keep to himself.

Then why the infatuation with Rachel (Sean Young)? He’s suddenly hot-blooded for her because she appears as a desirable 1940’s pin-up. It is revealed quite early that she is a replicant, and that she doesn’t know that she is one. She encompasses true human feelings. When Deckard engages in a wet, sultry kiss he’s turned on. She’s just a replicant, but she’s better than a real woman. Rachel is not real, but she’s far more beautiful, elegant and sultry then what else is left there. Real women of Los Angeles 2019 are trash.

The key to “Blade Runner” are the mentions of the off-world colonies which somehow fill your mind that those desired places are better habitats than the ruined Earth. Once you start making deductions, the humans remaining on Earth are outcasts and undesirables – they are failed applicants to make their way off Earth. Many of them, you must take notice have diseases or deficiencies, and so are stuck on Earth.

So why doesn’t Deckard ever consider leaving the planet, or even Los Angeles? The haunting part of the character is that he doesn’t have the ambition to, that he’s brainwashed to stay. But the unicorn at the end says a lot about his brain.

117 Minutes on the Final Director’s Cut. Rated R.


Film Cousins: “2001: A Space Odyssey” (1968); “A.I.” (2001); “Minority Report” (2002); “Blade Runner 2049” (2017).

Blade Runner_Classic_Sci-Fi_Flick_Minute

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Sean Chavel

About The Author / Sean Chavel

Sean Chavel is a Hollywood based author and movie reviewer. He is the Executive Director of, a new website that has adapted the movie review site genre by introducing moodbased and movie experience based reviews.


There are No Comments about this post

Add Yours!

You must be logged in to post a comment.