Simply stated, this is necessary viewing for everyone. However, I do not believe that it has universal appeal. Just as there is a literary canon, cinema has its own canonical works. "Blade Runner" should, regardless of personal opinion, be
included in the canon of cinematic works. It is Ridley Scott's best work (although Alien isn't far behind). Every aspect of the film is executed beautifully: the production design outranks almost all sci-fi film; Cronenweth's cinematography has such great depth of field, utilizes light and shadows effectively, and subtly employs colors as markers; the matte painting and special effects outclass many of today's movies; and, the music is extremely appropriate. Given that Phillip K. Dick's novella, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?," is a poorly executed
piece of writing, the script is great model of a plot structure stripped of
superfluous dialogue and exposition. It is truly a masterpiece.
There are a number of films that are regarded to be within the traditional canon of cinema. Many of them do not appeal to everyone. Similarly, many works of literature do not suit the general taste of the public, but that does not mean that they should not be read by everyone. Of course, our society does not promote the importance of being well-read. Films on the other hand are more accessible to the general public relative to time commitment, education level, and
applicability to social gatherings . Just as people should expose themselves to the canonical works of literature, they should also expose themselves to the
canonical works of the cinema.
If you don't like (or don't think you like) the genre of sci-fi, you should still watch this film. Just as the canonical works of the earlier periods of cinema(Citizen Kane, Capra films, On the Waterfront, 2001, Rebel Without a Cause, The
Graduate, Casablanca, Hitchcock films, etc,) are introduced to new generations, Blade Runner must be included within this framework.
included in the canon of cinematic works. It is Ridley Scott's best work (although Alien isn't far behind). Every aspect of the film is executed beautifully: the production design outranks almost all sci-fi film; Cronenweth's cinematography has such great depth of field, utilizes light and shadows effectively, and subtly employs colors as markers; the matte painting and special effects outclass many of today's movies; and, the music is extremely appropriate. Given that Phillip K. Dick's novella, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?," is a poorly executed
piece of writing, the script is great model of a plot structure stripped of
superfluous dialogue and exposition. It is truly a masterpiece.
There are a number of films that are regarded to be within the traditional canon of cinema. Many of them do not appeal to everyone. Similarly, many works of literature do not suit the general taste of the public, but that does not mean that they should not be read by everyone. Of course, our society does not promote the importance of being well-read. Films on the other hand are more accessible to the general public relative to time commitment, education level, and
applicability to social gatherings . Just as people should expose themselves to the canonical works of literature, they should also expose themselves to the
canonical works of the cinema.
If you don't like (or don't think you like) the genre of sci-fi, you should still watch this film. Just as the canonical works of the earlier periods of cinema(Citizen Kane, Capra films, On the Waterfront, 2001, Rebel Without a Cause, The
Graduate, Casablanca, Hitchcock films, etc,) are introduced to new generations, Blade Runner must be included within this framework.