Coming in pretty much just under the wire of 2007 releases, the Blade Runner "Final Cut" box set briefcase turned up the other night. I made light of the whole multiple-cut Runner thing back when I caught the restoration at the New York Film Festival in the fall, but I've gotta say, this package is pretty mind-blowing. I got mine in the Blu-Ray format, and the quality of its image [publicists please note: potential blurb alert] single-handedly (single-filmedly?) justifies the high-definition DVD. It's really that astonishing. I haven't had time to go through the whole five-disc set yet—only the five-pack, apparently, packs the legendary workprint of the film—but I'm already pretty staggered. The briefcase also includes some amusing geegaws, including an ornamental unicorn...
Back in September I got to interview Charles de Lauzirika, the producer of the Final Cut and a longtime member of Blade Runner director Ridley Scott's team, along with Isadore Hackett-Dick, daughter of the late Philip K. Dick, whose Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? was the basis for Blade Runner. Blade Runner devotees might find it of interest; if that means you (and why shouldn't it?), then go below the fold...
As it happened, both de Lauzirika and Hackett-Dick (who, with her sister, has formed the production company Electric Shepherd, which has, among other things, a Dick biopic in the works) had read my less-than-reverent take on Blade Runner on this blog, and gave me some thankfully good-natured ribbing about it before we got into the formal questioning. I started by talking with Hackett-Dick about her dad's feelings about Blade Runner, which he saw in incomplete form before he passed away in 1982.
HACKETT-DICK: I can't speak for him obviously but I remember hearing from him in our conversations after having seen footage that he saw—of course he passed away before it was finished so he didn't see the entire film or anything—but he was just giddy with excitement over what he had seen. He just felt like the visuals were what he had envisioned in his own mind. I definitely got the impression he was thrilled. I think there were times during the process that he wasn't as happy. But as much as he liked to bash Hollywood, I know there was part of him that really was hoping to have a successful film and that maybe would bring more readers. Because, on a human level, to see your book done by a great director in this incredible visual style is pretty exciting. I think he was dubious about some aspects, and he liked to play that part up a lot in the press.G.K.: There's almost been a cottage industry around the film in terms of its influence. Paul Sammon's book about its making is an incredibly exhaustive account, and I think there's a whole I subculture of film fanatics, I think, that has really kept this film alive… and I was wondering about how those elements have been influential in terms of getting now to the final cut.
DE LAUZIRIKA: I think Blade Runner endures on three fronts. One is that there's just so much detail in the film plugged into every single shot. That every time you see it you see something new. I mean, today I did a picture and sound check for the screening tomorrow and I saw something new that I hadn't spotted before and I had seen the film hundreds of times. So that's--it's like this kind of puzzle that you keep coming back to. There's always a different way to solve it, there's always a different angle you can take when you see it. Additionally the film is so influential with other film makers. Immediately after Blade Runner you started seeing not only other science fiction films and commercials and music videos, comp books, was just--you know, ripple effect, that you started seeing neon steam and rain. It was always kind of like we're going to have some visual cliches. But back then they were really striking. And there's this interesting shorthand to the future that really had figured out that he kind of started with the Alien but definitely kind of blew out of the water with Blade Runner. So even though Blade Runner kind of faded away on its first release, it was still alive through these other film makers that were kind of copying it or paying homage to it along the way. And on top of that you look at the real work and it's like becoming slowly like Blade Runner. I mean look at Times Square. I mean that's Blade Runner. You look at—[to Hackett-Dick] I mean this goes back to your father's work but I mean the—paranoia about government and the corporate mindset. And that was in the film. Then you look at it today and it's--it is so much like a Blade Runner world minus the flying cars which I really want…I think that we're seeing it unfold before our eyes, and that kind of keeps it alive too.
G.K.: By the same token, though, the idea of a “final cut” after the so-called “director’s cut” cut of a few years back has raised a few eyebrows.
DE LAUZIRIKA: Well, the main reason was that the so-called 1993 director's is not a true director's cut. It's an approximation of what Ridley wanted… but unfortunately he was finishing Thelma and Louise, he was starting 1492, so he wasn't hands-on available for that cut. So the people responsible for that kind of got it in the ball park by taking out the voiceover, taking out the happy ending and then adding the unicorn dream. But it wasn't truly his cut. And this time it is. This time he was hands-on involved at every stage. We went back, we found the original unicorn scene that had been lost. We found it for this and restored it to the original negative. What was actually the big key this time was actually striking a deal with Jerry Perenchino and Bud Yorkin, the co-executive producers, to get access to all of this material that they owned and which we didn't have previously. So I went through nearly a thousand boxes of cans of film and original negative and visual effects composites and things like that, that kind of opened up the process more. And we actually got to see the full landscape, what was shot, what's available, how we can fully restore this to what Ridley actually wanted. So yeah, the short answer is this is the true director's cut, the first director's cut was a rough—it was kind of a halfway there director's cut. This is all the way there. And we actually went in and fixed some of the notoriously problematic continuity errors and Joanna Cassidy's stunt double with the bad wig, the breaking glass, fixed that.
HACKETT-DICK: It's a man with a wig!
DE LAUZIRIKA: Yeah. Yeah.
G.K.: It's astonishing how seamless that fix is.
DE LAUZIRIKA: It was tough.
G.K.: How long did that take?
DE LAUZIRIKA: The actual doing of it was maybe a couple months. We did tons of iterations because I think one thing I really pissed off the technical people with was, I mean, I watched every shot like at least 10 or 12 times--like “play it again, play it again.” Because I'm doing what a fan would do with the DVD. And I'm examining every pixel of every frame and looking for any particular flaw. And on top of that, you had to set your mind back to 1981. And the temptation is, you have Joanna Cassidy, you bring her back, you shoot her on green screen stage, you get this pristine, perfect image of her shot with 2007 technology. But you're plugging it into a shot that was made in 1981 and so you have to resist the temptation to keep it as clean as you can make it now. “OK, if Joanna had actually done the stunt back in '81, it would have been just as out of focus as it was then. The camera bump would have been just the same as it was then.” You can't take out the imperfections, you actually have to add imperfections to make it seamless. It is seamless because we really kind of threw all the flaws of 1982 into this version.
G.K.: You said Scott was hands on during this. When did he come in? I mean obviously he left some of the work to the effects people and so on and so forth. Did he direct Joanna Cassidy in the re-shot stunt?
DE LAUZIRIKA: No. Basically we started this process 7 years ago. And I've been working on it off and on over that time and with all the legal issues. Along the way we got little bursts of work done. And so, in this last 6 months when we kind of plowed through everything I basically…my job was to kind of rough it out and get it close, get it in the ball park to what I know Ridley wanted, what he and I had spoken about doing. And I presented him with a list of fixes and changes, he said yes/no, yes/no. And then plus just knowing the film so well having gone through all the footage myself, I just kind of put together basically like these kind of rough cuts and proposals for him to consider. And then I'd bring them in and just have him approve things, not approve things. So by the end we got the final color timing, the final sound mix, he could really just polish it to his liking. So basically it was a lot of just prep, and he kind of came in at certain key milestones along the way, and just tweaked it to his liking.
G.K.: When was the decision to feature it at film festivals before the limited theatrical and then DVD release arrived at?
DE LAUZIRIKA: Well I mean, to be honest, Ridley has wanted this to be like a really big release. He's always felt like this could hold up well today and go in big. Similarly, The Exorcist went out and was big. Or Star Wars. And then Warners has their take on it and the partnership has their take on it. Everyone has a different take on how big or small this release should be and why, because if you put it out big theatrically that might diminish the interest in the DVD, or it might fuel the interest in the DVD. It's not for us to say. But it wasn't our decision about the scope of it, but I think Ridley would have liked it to be much bigger than it is.
G.K.: You're talking about the various hands in terms of ownership. I had forgotten until that Ladd Company credit was restored to this print that Hong Kong movie mogul Sir Run Run Shaw was involved in this production! Were there any points where you came up against a player or someone involved in that who just seemed intractable or were you able to explain your vision and get everybody on board?
DE LAUZIRIKA: Well, as you know between The Ladd Company and Run Run Shaw and then Jerry Perenchio and Bud Yorkin, and the Blade Runner Partnership, each of those three entities contributed basically a third of the budget. But it was the Blade Runner Partnership that was the completion bond. So when the film went over budget, they took control pretty much of everything. So those were the people we had to deal with mostly. And the reason why we had the seven-year-long up-and-down cycle of making the final cut was that the original deal didn't quite address final cut, the DVD set, all these extras, all these versions.G.K.: These are new codicils.
DE LAUZIRIKA: Exactly. And that's why it took so long. It was the whole event and the 25th anniversary that kind of like brought everybody together to say, OK, now is the time to do this. A new deal was struck, it covered all these issues. That's why we finally got to do it. So there was some business and negotiation, lawyering, that went on. But it was never like this--people made it out like it was Mr. Burns from The Simpsons! It was just, people who own a film, protecting their interests, and then ultimately a deal was struck and it all worked out.
HACKETT-DICK: For our part, it's not as though the estate had any control over what would happen. We've only had our voices and our emphatic encouragement to say, “Let's see this released.” There was supposed to be something for the 20th anniversary, and that kind of snuck by and didn't happen. And we crossed our fingers for the 25th and then it kind of came together. But it's thrilling for us, because of course it’s the most significant piece in terms of my father's legacy in film, at least.
G.K.: But I'm sure that having the Dick estate on board has been a plus.
HACKETT-DICK: [to de Lauzirika, laughing] You couldn't have done it without me. Let's be honest.
DE LAUZIRIKA: [laughing] It's true. No, I mean that's been the great thing about this whole 25th anniversary edition is that everyone kind of came together to make it work. ‘Cause I think it was the right time and frankly when we finally got access to all the materials, it seemed obvious that we should do this.
G.K.: Was there a lot of negative restoration actually necessary?
DE LAUZIRIKA: Yeah. I mean yes, there was tons of dust busting and clean up and picture flop, fixes and things. I mean it took months to get it all done. I don't think there's a single frame that hasn't been touched or fixed or tweaked somehow.
In seeing nuthin but the first 20 minutes, I can't help but think Dick lucked out.
Posted by: Steve | December 21, 2007 at 01:20 PM
Movies are not prophetic. This is the fundamentalist side of The Church of Cinema that makes me a little embarrased and uneasy. Blade Runner says more about 1977 than it does 2007, and if there are some simlarities, that only says how little the world changes over the course of 30 years. Blade Runner, to me, has always been the penultimate film of the 70s, and as such, was treated as pretty much unnecessary when it was released. And I'm speaking as a fan of the film. But when I look outside my window, I don't see mammoth neon pyramids and it has rained for about one week total in the last year. Androids are still just an idea. If they weren't I would have one, a pleasure model, less Sean Young and Darryl Hannah and more Pamela Gidley in Cherry 2000. And I live in Los Angeles. Trust me, Los Angeles looks nothing like Blade Runner. Most of it looks like Killer of Sheep, some of it looks like Magnolia, and that's the part none of us are allowed to go without a pass. So maybe there are some sci-fi elements to Los Angeles. Did you have to have a pass to go places in Blade Runner? I'm sure they did in Southland Tales, that movie looks like total nerd porn.
Glenn, does There Will Be Blood's ending have the same punch in the face that Twenty-Nine Palms did? Because if it does then I will know what people are saying is true. If it is, consider me proud to be an America. If it isn't, then I'm going to still tell people I'm French.
Posted by: Goldstein | December 21, 2007 at 03:26 PM
Hey Chris, I didn't say I necessarily agreed with the dude 100%, I'm just quoting him. I still have reservations about the movie, but man, that DVD really is remarkable. As for the endings of "Blood" versus "Palms"...two different animals. The movies themselves, and the endings. "Blood"'s wrap is pretty startling, that's all I'm gonna say. I doubt you'll be disappointed.
Posted by: Glenn Kenny | December 21, 2007 at 03:44 PM
My comment wasn't directed at you, Glenn. I'm just tired of the cliches people throw around. No one can predict the future. No one sees into the future. If PKD had an extraordinary gift, it was the ability to see clearly into the present, his present, and describe what was happening at the bottom and the top of the world he lived in. The lower depths of that world are now the surface of our world, and I think that's why so many people want to acribe what are essentially magical powers to PKD. Besides, the best sci-fi movie of 1982 was Videodrome. In thirty years the Priests of the Church of Cinema might be talking about Cronenberg, the true heir to both PKD and J.G. Ballard, in similar terms, and it will be just as shorthanded then as it is now.
As far as TWBB and Twentynine Palms, what I was trying to ask is, just that, well, Twentynine Palms, to me, at least, is the best horror film I've ever seen. The last ten minutes of that movie are scarier than anything I've ever seen, as close to a nightmare as you can get while being awake and wearing a jacket. What I was curious about is if the end of TWBB is just as bat-shit crazy and gruesome, like Twentynine Palms, while also making you rethink everything you've just seen. Or, to put it another way, is the ending of TWBB asymmetrical with the rest of the movie, which is fine, or is just the logical extension of the preceding two hours.
But thanks for taking the time to read my comments and questions.
Posted by: Goldstein | December 21, 2007 at 06:33 PM
Don't know if you've gotten to "Dangerous Days," the 3 1/2 hour making-of yet, Glenn, but I just finished it and am highly impressed. Exhaustive, honest, and so very well put together that even if one has personal reservations (which I don't, mostly) I think it makes a strong case for the film's legend.
Posted by: Allen B. | December 22, 2007 at 03:09 AM
ok, "legend" isn't quite the word I was looking for...maybe something more like "worth and influence."
Posted by: Allen B. | December 22, 2007 at 11:36 AM
More random musings upon delving ever deeper into the set...I love "Videodrome" too, have watched it at least as many times as BR. Are Videodrome's themes deeper and more complex than BR's? Yes, but BR's are hardly chicken feed. Going by phone interviews with Philip K. Dick included on the set, his main theme was well-integrated into BR, albeit a bit bass-ackward to the way he wrote it. Like many writers of the time (Lester Bangs comes to mind) PKD was fearful to the point of obsession of the way humans seemed to be (at the least) losing the ability to express their emotions and (at the worst) abandoning their emotions altogether, and becoming shark-like beings focused solely on their own satisfaction. A perennial theme, more relevant than ever.
Posted by: Allen B. | December 23, 2007 at 02:04 AM