100 Movies Every Catholic Should See #140: Blade Runner (1982) & Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

Directed by Ridley Scott and Denis Villeneuve

In 1982, while the world was in the midst of being swept away by Spielberg’s sentimental E.T., Ridley Scott released a far different science fiction film that would shape the genre forever. While Blade Runner was not initially well-received, it grew to be a cult classic and a defining force in the cyberpunk subgenre. Blade Runner’s world is not merely a genre-defining milestone in science fiction, but a deeply introspective and increasingly relevant examination of God’s greatest and most cherished creation: mankind.

Blade Runner is an adaptation of Philip K. Dick’s novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. Taking place in June of 2019, in Los Angeles, the premise is that in the future, we build androids known as replicants that are used for hard and dangerous manual labor. Due to complications and a violent replicant rebellion, they are made illegal on Earth, and if found, will be “retired” (killed) by blade runners. The story follows Blade Runner Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), who is begrudgingly tasked with hunting down a small group of escaped replicants. The escaped replicants (led by Rutger Hauer in a magnificent performance) will do whatever it takes to find the secret to prolonging their lives, often killing to do so. What unfolds is Deckard coming to terms with what it means to be human and the blurring of the line between man and machine.

Much of the entire series hinges on the relationship between Deckard and the replicant named Rachael (Sean Young). Their relationship evolves from professional to questionable to spousal. While in the 21st century the relationship has come under heavy scrutiny, it shows an arc that still remains more relevant than ever. It is about seeing the true value in another, rather than using them for one’s own selfish desire. Deckard goes from cold and disdainful of the world, only seeking what he can get out of others, to someone who dares to venture outside of himself to risk his life for others.

Deckard and Rachael in the original film

The Blade Runner universe’s central question is glaringly obvious: What does it mean to be human? Modern developments in AI have only further pushed this question to the forefront, although everyone seems to be in general agreement that it is not human. The waters become muddy when what we have created starts to more closely resemble us. While robotics has not reached anywhere close to an android that’s indistinguishable from a human, it doesn’t take a genius to realize we are headed there. The answer to this question directly ties into the dystopian world that Dick envisioned, and Scott brought to life. Rather than humanity trying to recreate man, it should focus on trying to remedy its own brokenness. If man becomes determined to be God, he will destroy everything (including himself) and only further break himself. Blade Runner is filled with spectacular technology and scenery, but in this pursuit, mankind has only made its existence all the more broken. Despite being able to travel the stars and make near-perfect imitations of people, there is massive income inequality and low standards of living for most individuals. The world is dirty and rainy, recovering from a nuclear war that killed an undisclosed number of people. It’s not a “Only people are people” sort of film, but rather “Think of how much we could help people if we weren’t so obsessed with being God”.

There are substantial differences between the theatrical edition from 1982 and the Final Cut released in 2007. Most notably, Deckard’s dream sequences are added into the Final Cut, which is the only cut that Ridley Scott had direct control over. The other substantial change is the lack of monologues that were recorded for the original theatrical cut by Ford when he had pneumonia. Personally, both editions are great, but if you want to see what Scott’s true vision was, watch the Final Cut.

What is consistent, however, is the craftsmanship. The performances are all solid and unnerving for a dystopian film, but Rutger Hauer steals the show in every scene. He brings an intensity and rawness to the world that stands the test of time, and sends it off with perhaps the greatest improv monologue in the history of cinema. The Tears in the Rain speech could have a whole review on its own and perfectly encapsulates the whole film. Vangelis, coming off his historic Chariots of Fire Oscar win, delivers the best score of his career to breathe life into a dreary, neon-filled atmosphere. Despite the coldness of Blade Runner, Vangelis reminds us that there is warmth and humanity. Even if it’s a gentle whisper, it will never be truly extinguished.

The cinematography and set design of the 1982 classic went on to define the cyberpunk genre and inspired anime such as Ghost in the Shell, films such as The Matrix trilogy, games such as Cyberpunk 2077, and even perhaps the film adaptation of Akira. Most modern science fiction borrows ideas or style from Blade Runner in some way, and it is well earned.

The most obvious project inspired came 35 years later in the form of a sequel: Blade Runner 2049. World-renowned director Denis Villeneuve was so in love with the original he pulled every stop he could to create a worthy successor, and boy did he deliver.

2049 takes place 30 years after the events of the first film. Newest replicant models are allowed, since they cannot hurt people. There is still a need for blade runners, as many older models still exist. The film follows K (Ryan Gosling), who is in fact a replicant serving as a blade runner. He stumbles upon some information and findings that lead him on a quest to uncover truths that will shake him to his core and redefine his whole viewpoint. For the sake of avoiding spoilers, I will go no further into detail, as the film is best enjoyed with only the first as prior knowledge.

Then and now- Edward James Olmos as Officer Gaff in both the 1982 and 2017 film

Blade Runner 2049 is a profoundly pro-life film. It values procreation and newborns in a way that seems alien to the 2010s. The film is obsessed with the human image and how creation is the imitation of God. The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches both stand by this, and JPII frequently discussed the honor of being a participant in the procreative act with God. 2049 stands by all of this and emphasizes the sanctity of the human form. Violence is not something to be glamorized, but is a tragedy and defilement of what is created. When a life is taken in this film, it means something and has repercussions. To act in mindless violence is to lose one’s humanity and act against what is sacred. To me, this is what makes Jared Leto’s villain unnerving for me. I understand some criticisms of him, but Leto’s Niander Wallace acts as a perverse image of what man becomes when he tries to be God too much. He has forsaken what he truly is so much that he seems abnormal and crazed, which is in fact how all who go beyond imitating God and try to be Him. His attempts to be God are so vain that every person who successfully bears offspring does far more than he ever could.

Villeneuve’s sequel falls even closer to today’s AI struggles, delving into AI relationships and programming. While K and Luv (Ana De Armas) are both pieces of tech, the film does an excellent job at blurring the lines between sentience and programming. It is a difficult question that I still grapple with from the film, and while I’ve made sense of it, I am not able to articulate it well. The film delves into the difference between love and objectification, where a somewhat awkward but technically impressive romance sequence puts the audience on the spot to contemplate the difference between sharing and experience and using someone. Almost 10 years later, this question remains more relevant than ever, and the film’s answer further reinforces the importance of a single shared relationship (monogamy).

A central debate among the fandom is whether Deckard is a replicant or not. Ford and others say he’s human; Scott says he’s not. Blade Runner 2049 keeps up the mystery by giving both sides evidence. While it is a fun debate to have, it does not impact the film’s central themes of the sanctity of the human person and to Importance of focusing on the world we live in.

While 2049 lacks the incredible performance of heavyweight Rutger Hauer, it more than makes up for this in execution. The immersive experience that it offers is something that needs to be seen on the biggest screen possible. This is perhaps one of the best shot films in the history of the art form, and a generation-defining job from the incredible Roger Deakins. Every single frame could be a 4K wallpaper on any laptop and is a true spectacle for the eyes. The score by Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch remains a go-to of mine and builds a remarkable atmosphere. The score should also be listened to on the loudest speakers possible. Villeneuve’s slow but methodical pacing gives the film a more epic and grand feeling than Scott’s 1982 classic.

Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049 are must-see (with viewer discretion) staples of the science fiction genre. Their unique and unapologetic view into a place we are rapidly approaching is nothing short of insightful and brilliant, giving audiences much to chew on. In spite of both films not doing well upon their initial release, theBlade Runner universe will continue to remain relevant and at the forefront of film discussions for decades to come, and I am highly grateful for it.

Editor’s Addition - One of the all-time great movie monologues. RIP Rutger Hauer.