What do you think?
Rate this book
BFI Film Classics
Blade Runner
This text details the making of Blade Runner and its steadily improving fortunes after its indifferent reception in 1982. The film is situated in terms of the debates about postmodernism which have informed the large body of criticism devoted to it.
96 pages, Paperback
First published August 1, 1997
20 people are currently reading
629 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
June 7, 2015
As a longtime fan of Ridley Scott's "Blade Runner" as well as an excited newcomer to the British Film Institute’s Modern Classics series, it saddens me to register my disappointment with Scott Bukatman's short monograph for the series about the film.
For those of you who are not familiar with it, the BFI Modern Classics series is, according to the inside cover, "a series of books devoted to individual films of recent years [wherein] [d]istinguished film critics, scholars, and novelists explore the production and reception of their chosen films in the context of an argument about the film's quality and importance."
Although Bukatman's is only the second book that I've read in the series -- the first being Joshua Clover's about "The Matrix" -- I've actually come to expect a lot from the series. Clover's, while certainly couched in a particular argument about "The Matrix," was an exceptional little book, and I still borrow from its ideas today (especially his discussion of 1999 films). After reading it, I researched the BFI's website and learned that they’ve published books on dozens of great films, including "Jaws," "Blue Velvet," and "The Thin Red Line,” among others. But a book about "Blade Runner," a film near and dear to my heart? Well, that just takes the cake.
Cut to a few weeks ago when I receive Bukatman's book in the mail, and I'm brimming with excitement. I cracked it open, and to be honest, the introduction, “On Seeing, Science Fiction and Cities,” didn't disappoint. Take, for instance, this early passage about the presence of visual imagery in the film:
"'Blade Runner' is all about vision. Vision somehow both makes and unmakes the self in the film, creating a dynamic between a centred and autonomous subjectivity (eye/I) and the self as a manufactured, commodified object (Eye Works). The city is also known through vision. Vision actively makes the metropolitan world in a sustained encounter with delirious detail, yet because 'Blade Runner' under-determines the lessons of that encounter, it effectively undermines interpretive certitudes." (7-8)
After reading this, I said to myself: Yes! Here's someone who's going to give this great film a compact, accessible, and yet still critical overview, and it's all available in this pocket-sized book! Hallelujah!
Well, this attitude didn’t last long.
For Bukatman then pulled a fast one on me as he then provided a nearly 30-page chapter re: how the film was made (i.e. the behind-the-scenes production side of things). A mostly factual account that wasn’t salvaged by its moments of analysis that were too few and far between, this section just didn't excite me in the least. For the record, it's not that there isn't good information here, because there is. Not to mention that when we're talking about a film with a history like "Blade Runner," it does need a little contextualizing (the film, as many people know, HAS BEEN through three very different cuts, and at the very least this needs to be explained). But for some reason, Bukatman just loses me in this section.
Maybe it's because the book is only about 80 pages in total, and when we account for all of the pictures and film stills -- some of which are so arbitrarily placed, it's silly -- this first chapter constitutes about half the book. Who thought this was a good idea? Can't I get all of this information on Wikipedia? (In fact, I'm pretty sure that I have.) Then again, the book was originally published in 1997, before the Internet really took off, so perhaps the author deserves some benefit of the doubt.
In other words, I’m sure that I could have dealt with this first chapter if I felt as if the whole section featured some overarching argument, but it doesn’t. There are no clear transitions or relationships between the subsections -- an annoyance that becomes more pronounced in the later, more analytical chapters. Naturally, I got a little miffed at the end of each subsection because I knew that I would have to prepare myself for an entirely new argument in the next one (and sometimes the subsections themselves didn’t feel like arguments). I imagine the feeling is not dissimilar to what it would be like if drivers had to stop their cars at each red light in order to turn off the car and restart the ignition (and it’s probably a good thing that cars aren’t made this way.) Admittedly, it may sound like I’m exaggerating a bit since each of the three chapters features a general theme that’s supposed to hold it all together -- the making of the film, the city, & replicants/mental life. However, they all manage to feel so tacked on, so unanimated and dull.
But above all else, what really irks me about Bukatman's book is his writing style. Now, before I go on a tear about something as seemingly arbitrary as an author's style of composition and how well (or not well) it sits with a reader, I would like to preface said tear by saying that someone’s writing style, while something that I often quibble with, is rarely (if ever!) something that I wholeheartedly disagree with and cannot stomach. Bukatman appears to be an exception to this rule. Another reviewer noted how Bukatman's book is like "the worst kind of film lecture, where the professor is more interested in impressing you with his massive vocabulary than anything else." I mostly agree with this assessment, except it's not the vocabulary itself that frustrates me. I mean, I'm the type of person who loves to slog his way through the densest and most obtuse kinds of writing, such as one encounters in philosophy and critical theory. Bukatman's writing attempts to mimic this, but it simply lacks musicality and cadence. Every sentence somehow sounds exactly the same.
I’m going to turn to a random page right now to offer up some evidence for what I’m saying. Okay, here’s one: “From the text of the opening crawling titles to the virtual absence of narration, to the way the story ended, significant differences existed throughout” (36). Maybe my ears are just sensitive, but for me so many problems abound in this sentence that it’s painful. When I was in college, a professor often remarked to me that good writers know how to end their sentences. I'm of the opinion that each sentence should drive into the next one, creating continuity and anticipation w/r/t what’s to follow. That being said, I’m sure you can empathize with how I felt upon (re)reading “significant differences existed throughout.” I’ll put it like this: If I were a teacher and this were one of my student’s papers, I would uncork a fresh pack of red ballpoint pens and write “YUCK!” next to these four words. I mean, is this not bush league? Also, I don’t know what that comma is doing after “narration,” and I wonder if I’m the only who registered a bit of irony when I read the word “crawling,” since it basically sums up how I felt as I (re)read this sentence.
Maybe this is a good time to lodge a final complaint: Bukatman just feels too detached from some of the things he says. While it’s difficult to explain to someone who hasn’t read the book, it’s as if he wanted to weave this complex tapestry of slick, artful writing about this film, and I’m on the other side of the page thinking to myself: Dude, it’s f*cking “Blade Runner”! This movie rocks my socks off! Why aren’t you excited!? Don’t you want the world to know how much you love this film?
Well, that's my review. Now it's time to contact the BFI to ask if I can write the book about "Donnie Darko."
For those of you who are not familiar with it, the BFI Modern Classics series is, according to the inside cover, "a series of books devoted to individual films of recent years [wherein] [d]istinguished film critics, scholars, and novelists explore the production and reception of their chosen films in the context of an argument about the film's quality and importance."
Although Bukatman's is only the second book that I've read in the series -- the first being Joshua Clover's about "The Matrix" -- I've actually come to expect a lot from the series. Clover's, while certainly couched in a particular argument about "The Matrix," was an exceptional little book, and I still borrow from its ideas today (especially his discussion of 1999 films). After reading it, I researched the BFI's website and learned that they’ve published books on dozens of great films, including "Jaws," "Blue Velvet," and "The Thin Red Line,” among others. But a book about "Blade Runner," a film near and dear to my heart? Well, that just takes the cake.
Cut to a few weeks ago when I receive Bukatman's book in the mail, and I'm brimming with excitement. I cracked it open, and to be honest, the introduction, “On Seeing, Science Fiction and Cities,” didn't disappoint. Take, for instance, this early passage about the presence of visual imagery in the film:
"'Blade Runner' is all about vision. Vision somehow both makes and unmakes the self in the film, creating a dynamic between a centred and autonomous subjectivity (eye/I) and the self as a manufactured, commodified object (Eye Works). The city is also known through vision. Vision actively makes the metropolitan world in a sustained encounter with delirious detail, yet because 'Blade Runner' under-determines the lessons of that encounter, it effectively undermines interpretive certitudes." (7-8)
After reading this, I said to myself: Yes! Here's someone who's going to give this great film a compact, accessible, and yet still critical overview, and it's all available in this pocket-sized book! Hallelujah!
Well, this attitude didn’t last long.
For Bukatman then pulled a fast one on me as he then provided a nearly 30-page chapter re: how the film was made (i.e. the behind-the-scenes production side of things). A mostly factual account that wasn’t salvaged by its moments of analysis that were too few and far between, this section just didn't excite me in the least. For the record, it's not that there isn't good information here, because there is. Not to mention that when we're talking about a film with a history like "Blade Runner," it does need a little contextualizing (the film, as many people know, HAS BEEN through three very different cuts, and at the very least this needs to be explained). But for some reason, Bukatman just loses me in this section.
Maybe it's because the book is only about 80 pages in total, and when we account for all of the pictures and film stills -- some of which are so arbitrarily placed, it's silly -- this first chapter constitutes about half the book. Who thought this was a good idea? Can't I get all of this information on Wikipedia? (In fact, I'm pretty sure that I have.) Then again, the book was originally published in 1997, before the Internet really took off, so perhaps the author deserves some benefit of the doubt.
In other words, I’m sure that I could have dealt with this first chapter if I felt as if the whole section featured some overarching argument, but it doesn’t. There are no clear transitions or relationships between the subsections -- an annoyance that becomes more pronounced in the later, more analytical chapters. Naturally, I got a little miffed at the end of each subsection because I knew that I would have to prepare myself for an entirely new argument in the next one (and sometimes the subsections themselves didn’t feel like arguments). I imagine the feeling is not dissimilar to what it would be like if drivers had to stop their cars at each red light in order to turn off the car and restart the ignition (and it’s probably a good thing that cars aren’t made this way.) Admittedly, it may sound like I’m exaggerating a bit since each of the three chapters features a general theme that’s supposed to hold it all together -- the making of the film, the city, & replicants/mental life. However, they all manage to feel so tacked on, so unanimated and dull.
But above all else, what really irks me about Bukatman's book is his writing style. Now, before I go on a tear about something as seemingly arbitrary as an author's style of composition and how well (or not well) it sits with a reader, I would like to preface said tear by saying that someone’s writing style, while something that I often quibble with, is rarely (if ever!) something that I wholeheartedly disagree with and cannot stomach. Bukatman appears to be an exception to this rule. Another reviewer noted how Bukatman's book is like "the worst kind of film lecture, where the professor is more interested in impressing you with his massive vocabulary than anything else." I mostly agree with this assessment, except it's not the vocabulary itself that frustrates me. I mean, I'm the type of person who loves to slog his way through the densest and most obtuse kinds of writing, such as one encounters in philosophy and critical theory. Bukatman's writing attempts to mimic this, but it simply lacks musicality and cadence. Every sentence somehow sounds exactly the same.
I’m going to turn to a random page right now to offer up some evidence for what I’m saying. Okay, here’s one: “From the text of the opening crawling titles to the virtual absence of narration, to the way the story ended, significant differences existed throughout” (36). Maybe my ears are just sensitive, but for me so many problems abound in this sentence that it’s painful. When I was in college, a professor often remarked to me that good writers know how to end their sentences. I'm of the opinion that each sentence should drive into the next one, creating continuity and anticipation w/r/t what’s to follow. That being said, I’m sure you can empathize with how I felt upon (re)reading “significant differences existed throughout.” I’ll put it like this: If I were a teacher and this were one of my student’s papers, I would uncork a fresh pack of red ballpoint pens and write “YUCK!” next to these four words. I mean, is this not bush league? Also, I don’t know what that comma is doing after “narration,” and I wonder if I’m the only who registered a bit of irony when I read the word “crawling,” since it basically sums up how I felt as I (re)read this sentence.
Maybe this is a good time to lodge a final complaint: Bukatman just feels too detached from some of the things he says. While it’s difficult to explain to someone who hasn’t read the book, it’s as if he wanted to weave this complex tapestry of slick, artful writing about this film, and I’m on the other side of the page thinking to myself: Dude, it’s f*cking “Blade Runner”! This movie rocks my socks off! Why aren’t you excited!? Don’t you want the world to know how much you love this film?
Well, that's my review. Now it's time to contact the BFI to ask if I can write the book about "Donnie Darko."
August 6, 2025
Well Mr Bukatman, I don't how you did it. You managed to take a fantastic, visual feast of a film with expert design and cool storytelling and reduce it to a series of boring yet sesquipedalian (see we can all be smart arses!!) words!
Every other word in this book is multisyllabic and unnecessarily long. It felt like he pulled the film apart into a dictionary critique. There was nothing of note, the first section briefly touching upon Ridley Scott's direction and the heavy design element. The section on replicants was turned into a mega philosophical debate about the meanings of humanism. Then another large section on the cities of LA and New York and their multilayered natures which very loosely related to the city in the film. Blade Runner the film was lost in these discussions and I felt like I learned nothing from them. Luckily I've watched a documentary or two on the film which were more interesting.
My love for Blade Runner is not hampered whatsoever by the reading of this book. In all honesty I don't really see the point of the book at all.
1.5 disappointed stars
Every other word in this book is multisyllabic and unnecessarily long. It felt like he pulled the film apart into a dictionary critique. There was nothing of note, the first section briefly touching upon Ridley Scott's direction and the heavy design element. The section on replicants was turned into a mega philosophical debate about the meanings of humanism. Then another large section on the cities of LA and New York and their multilayered natures which very loosely related to the city in the film. Blade Runner the film was lost in these discussions and I felt like I learned nothing from them. Luckily I've watched a documentary or two on the film which were more interesting.
My love for Blade Runner is not hampered whatsoever by the reading of this book. In all honesty I don't really see the point of the book at all.
1.5 disappointed stars
February 16, 2008
Surprisingly uninvolving and hard to read, like the worst kind of film lecture, where the professor is more interested in impressing you with his massive vocabulary than anything else. I appreciate the deconstruction of the visual elements of the film, as well as the brief comparison of the themes of the film and the novel it's based on, but really, such a slight book would've been a lot more fun if it had just been written in plainer language.
October 23, 2020
Gušt od knjige, a uopće vam ne treba neki uzak ili specijaliziran teorijski aparat da bi razumjeli o čemu Bukatman priča. Nije na odmet ako poznajete malo teorije žanra i filma te njegovu definiciju terminalnog identiteta, ali nimalo ne smeta ak nemate pojima. Jedino bi bilo dobro d ste barem jednom pogledali film :). Bukatman piše fino i jednostavno tako da već taj površinski sloj teksta izaziva ushićenje.
July 28, 2017
As a veteran film critic who has written extensively on science fiction films I anticipated this to be an engaging discussion on one of the most important and influential SF movies ever made. What I got was an interminable slog through academic criticism, filled with jargon and references to other academics. Having taught college film classes for 25 years I was familiar with such texts, and did my best to spare my students the burden of dealing with them. The occasional nugget of information or insight has to be dug out from paragraph after paragraph of sentences like this one: "Its instability induces the epistemological and ontological uncertainties -- the crises of knowing and being -- that it narrates and theorises." (Yes, as a BFI publication it also utilizes -- pardon, utilises -- British spelling. If that was the only issue it wouldn't be a problem.)
The author is noted as Assistant Professor of Film Studies at Stanford University and the author of "Terminal Identity: The Virtual Subject of Postmodern Science Fiction." I can only hope his "Blade Runner" book got him tenure, because otherwise it has no reason to exist.
The author is noted as Assistant Professor of Film Studies at Stanford University and the author of "Terminal Identity: The Virtual Subject of Postmodern Science Fiction." I can only hope his "Blade Runner" book got him tenure, because otherwise it has no reason to exist.
June 13, 2013
Interesting, but very, very intellectual. Only read it if you're a cultural or film studies student, or really into Blade Runner.
August 22, 2020
Some keen insights but ultimately it bogged down in academic language. Let’s do it one more time with feeling!
January 21, 2022
با هیجان این خوانش فیلم رو جلو میبردم نا به ونجلیز برسم
که
بدبختانه نامی ازش نبود
که
بدبختانه نامی ازش نبود
August 7, 2024
There are some advertisements in the BFI's Sight and Sound magazine for their series of short books on various modern films. As an experiment, I searched for second hand copies and found this book on eBay. It starts off with some words about what science fiction is all about. When I read some of the early sentences, I began to realise what the writing was going to be like: "inexhaustible complexity", "demands inferential activity" and "complex visual negotiation of urban space". And yes, it does go on just like that. "Like the best science fiction stories and city films, Blade Runner incorporates at once the magisterial gaze of of the panorama, the sublime obscurity of the phantasmagoria, and the shifting fields of the kaleidoscope".
1 FILMING BLADE RUNNER
Pre-Production
I found this the most interesting part of the book. It told us how the adaptation of Philip Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? came about. Hampton Fancher (an actor and independent film maker) was interested in a film adaptation of the novel and the found interest from the actor Brian Kelly. It was he who bought the rights to the book and approached producer Michael Deeley who suggested that Fancher write a screenplay.
In 1974 Deeley showed it to Ridley Scott who eventually came on board. He looked at draft after draft from Fancher because he wanted a far simpler story than that in the book. This led to another writer, David Peoples doing a re-write and then a final script from Fancher. Scott wanted a new name for the title. Fancher it was who found a book called "Blade Runner: A Movie" by William Burroughs, a working of a novel by Alan E. Norse about smugglers of medical supplies. Scott liked the title and so the rights to the book were purchased. JUST FOR THE TITLE.
The production company had been Filmways but they withdrew. So new finance was raised through three separate organisations. One got American distribution rights, another foreign rights and the third for tv and video. This is all fascinating stuff.
The Look of the Future
Ridley Scott wanted it to be "a film set 40 years hence, made in the style of 40 years ago". We hear about Syd Mead who had an amazing background in design. He was originally brought on board to design the vehicles but eventually took over the street scenes and interiors. (London Critics Circle Award for Special Effects 1983). This became the whole look of the film.
Special Effects
Lots of technical stuff and something about Douglas Trumbull and his background in special effects for films such as 2001, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Silent Running and Brainstorm.
Cinematography
Jordan Cronenweth was in charge of lighting and the hand held cameras.
Tensions and Post Production
Those three new producers were not happy with what they were seeing. The director and crew were not getting on, nor were Harrison Ford and Sean Young. Maybe the result of that awkward tension works so well in retrospect. Filming does run over budget and all sorts of people become involved with the final version. "Morose and narratively muddled" was one view.
Responding to the Replicants
The early reviews were very mixed. Nobody was that enthusiastic. It's first release only garnered half it's cost. But then the audience began to grow especially with home and recording releases that gained multiple viewings.
Blade Runner - Revised and Revisited - The Director's Cut
The 1992 version is known as The Director's Cut (a huge hit) and it's gestation is described as a compromise between Scott and the original release. (not to be confused with The Final Cut over which Scott had complete control).
The Blade Runner Effect
One effect was the resurgence of the work of Philip K Dick. "The film continues to exist beyond itself ....." ??
2 THE METROPOLIS
Science Fiction in the City
Just some background about urbanisation.
The Dark City
"The high tech urban settings were congested and confusing, yet exhilarating". But I'm not attempting to describe the author's vast explanation about "cyber punk".
The Bright City
Reflections of New York.
Panoramic Perception, Fractal Geographies
Even the titles are becoming bemusing. But the writer does hit upon that extraordinary sequence early on as Deckard flies the police spinner. The complex combination of 35 separate elements for the scenes of the city glimpsed through the windscreen are well explained as they combine with the views of the screens in the cockpit. The "explanation of urban existence" is a hugely important part of the film outside of the main story.
The Return of the Modernist City
"Another more deeply historicised restatement of fundamental modernist ideas of the city".
Gotham City
Comparing the metropolis: "horizontal LA has vanished into vertical New York".
3 REPLICANTS AND MENTAL LIFE
Cinema and Synthetic Life
Something I did not understand, just awful.
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep
About the Philip K Dick book, the inspiration for Blade Runner. "The nature of the non human". I don't think I will read it. And how Ridley Scott's replicants are so different to those in the book.
New Bodies for New Worlds
The background to "robots, androids, replicants and cyborgs".
New Selves
Something about racial politics. The original release included the word "nigger". A piece about gender issues reminds us that all three major female characters are replicants and two are shot in the back. Why are we told that "replicants are more human than human".
Making History
"History is devalued as a guarantor of truth, stability and unified meaning". I have no idea what that is all about. And when replicants are programmed with memories ..... "as synthetic humans, replicants inherently challenge essentialist notions of identity". What??? And more: "confront our own constructedness, and by confronting ourselves, to make them ....."
Is Deckard a Replicant?
"The question is more important than determining the answer" ??? Did the director leave it to the viewer to decide. There has been far too much discussion about the subject. "No wonder audiences were baffled".
Masquerading in the City
"The city is a site for masquerade, a metamorphic zone, a place to disappear and re-appear". If only I knew what he meant half the time.
4 CONCLUSION
"What it means to be human". The writer keeps on quoting Slavoj Zizek. I wonder why. But the remainder of this final part is unintelligible. Or is it me?
Time to sum up. There is a lot that is interesting but there is also a lot that seems to me to be pretentious rubbish. While someone referred to "his innovative and nuanced reading" another criticised his "extensive intellectual sidetracks". I have to say it has not encouraged me to buy any other books in the BFI series. I will save any other comments until I have seen The Final Cut.
1 FILMING BLADE RUNNER
Pre-Production
I found this the most interesting part of the book. It told us how the adaptation of Philip Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? came about. Hampton Fancher (an actor and independent film maker) was interested in a film adaptation of the novel and the found interest from the actor Brian Kelly. It was he who bought the rights to the book and approached producer Michael Deeley who suggested that Fancher write a screenplay.
In 1974 Deeley showed it to Ridley Scott who eventually came on board. He looked at draft after draft from Fancher because he wanted a far simpler story than that in the book. This led to another writer, David Peoples doing a re-write and then a final script from Fancher. Scott wanted a new name for the title. Fancher it was who found a book called "Blade Runner: A Movie" by William Burroughs, a working of a novel by Alan E. Norse about smugglers of medical supplies. Scott liked the title and so the rights to the book were purchased. JUST FOR THE TITLE.
The production company had been Filmways but they withdrew. So new finance was raised through three separate organisations. One got American distribution rights, another foreign rights and the third for tv and video. This is all fascinating stuff.
The Look of the Future
Ridley Scott wanted it to be "a film set 40 years hence, made in the style of 40 years ago". We hear about Syd Mead who had an amazing background in design. He was originally brought on board to design the vehicles but eventually took over the street scenes and interiors. (London Critics Circle Award for Special Effects 1983). This became the whole look of the film.
Special Effects
Lots of technical stuff and something about Douglas Trumbull and his background in special effects for films such as 2001, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Silent Running and Brainstorm.
Cinematography
Jordan Cronenweth was in charge of lighting and the hand held cameras.
Tensions and Post Production
Those three new producers were not happy with what they were seeing. The director and crew were not getting on, nor were Harrison Ford and Sean Young. Maybe the result of that awkward tension works so well in retrospect. Filming does run over budget and all sorts of people become involved with the final version. "Morose and narratively muddled" was one view.
Responding to the Replicants
The early reviews were very mixed. Nobody was that enthusiastic. It's first release only garnered half it's cost. But then the audience began to grow especially with home and recording releases that gained multiple viewings.
Blade Runner - Revised and Revisited - The Director's Cut
The 1992 version is known as The Director's Cut (a huge hit) and it's gestation is described as a compromise between Scott and the original release. (not to be confused with The Final Cut over which Scott had complete control).
The Blade Runner Effect
One effect was the resurgence of the work of Philip K Dick. "The film continues to exist beyond itself ....." ??
2 THE METROPOLIS
Science Fiction in the City
Just some background about urbanisation.
The Dark City
"The high tech urban settings were congested and confusing, yet exhilarating". But I'm not attempting to describe the author's vast explanation about "cyber punk".
The Bright City
Reflections of New York.
Panoramic Perception, Fractal Geographies
Even the titles are becoming bemusing. But the writer does hit upon that extraordinary sequence early on as Deckard flies the police spinner. The complex combination of 35 separate elements for the scenes of the city glimpsed through the windscreen are well explained as they combine with the views of the screens in the cockpit. The "explanation of urban existence" is a hugely important part of the film outside of the main story.
The Return of the Modernist City
"Another more deeply historicised restatement of fundamental modernist ideas of the city".
Gotham City
Comparing the metropolis: "horizontal LA has vanished into vertical New York".
3 REPLICANTS AND MENTAL LIFE
Cinema and Synthetic Life
Something I did not understand, just awful.
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep
About the Philip K Dick book, the inspiration for Blade Runner. "The nature of the non human". I don't think I will read it. And how Ridley Scott's replicants are so different to those in the book.
New Bodies for New Worlds
The background to "robots, androids, replicants and cyborgs".
New Selves
Something about racial politics. The original release included the word "nigger". A piece about gender issues reminds us that all three major female characters are replicants and two are shot in the back. Why are we told that "replicants are more human than human".
Making History
"History is devalued as a guarantor of truth, stability and unified meaning". I have no idea what that is all about. And when replicants are programmed with memories ..... "as synthetic humans, replicants inherently challenge essentialist notions of identity". What??? And more: "confront our own constructedness, and by confronting ourselves, to make them ....."
Is Deckard a Replicant?
"The question is more important than determining the answer" ??? Did the director leave it to the viewer to decide. There has been far too much discussion about the subject. "No wonder audiences were baffled".
Masquerading in the City
"The city is a site for masquerade, a metamorphic zone, a place to disappear and re-appear". If only I knew what he meant half the time.
4 CONCLUSION
"What it means to be human". The writer keeps on quoting Slavoj Zizek. I wonder why. But the remainder of this final part is unintelligible. Or is it me?
Time to sum up. There is a lot that is interesting but there is also a lot that seems to me to be pretentious rubbish. While someone referred to "his innovative and nuanced reading" another criticised his "extensive intellectual sidetracks". I have to say it has not encouraged me to buy any other books in the BFI series. I will save any other comments until I have seen The Final Cut.
October 17, 2017
The second edition of Scott Bakutman's take on Blade Runner is the first of the British Film Institute's Film Classics series which I've read, albeit I have several others on my shelves. One always hopes to gain deeper appreciation of media worthy of the study.
Even so, narrow aspects of a film often come about through simple pragmatism, expedience and/or intuition. There's a risk of over-intellectualising by inferring and dissecting meaning that isn't truly there. I feel Bakutman treads close to this line for most of the book.
Nevertheless he provides food for thought, devoting much of what is functionally an essay to placing the film within context, be it before, after or contemporaneous. Placing it in relation to its source novel is obvious, yet has complex nuances.
Considering its role in the development of cyberpunk leads to comparisons with Tron and Videdrome (both also from 1982), and of course Neuromancer and Bruce Sterling. Further, he discusses the links between post-modernism and cyberpunk, the latter being arguably a post-modern subgenre of science fiction. Hence Ballard rates a mention, though one might equally name Pynchon.
Much thought is devoted to the nature of architecture and spaces. Metropolis comes up several times, and with good reason. Plenty of attention is also given to the concept of 'self' as explored in the film, which is always a potentially brain-melting philosophical subject when one becomes enmeshed in the nitty-gritty of high concepts and narrow definitions.
Even the more straightforward discussions of the history of the film's financing, scripting, visual influences and set design are fascinating in their own way. I expect however that these are covered in greater depth in the 'Future Noir' book on the subject.
All in all, a worthwhile read for hardcore science fiction film nerds.
Even so, narrow aspects of a film often come about through simple pragmatism, expedience and/or intuition. There's a risk of over-intellectualising by inferring and dissecting meaning that isn't truly there. I feel Bakutman treads close to this line for most of the book.
Nevertheless he provides food for thought, devoting much of what is functionally an essay to placing the film within context, be it before, after or contemporaneous. Placing it in relation to its source novel is obvious, yet has complex nuances.
Considering its role in the development of cyberpunk leads to comparisons with Tron and Videdrome (both also from 1982), and of course Neuromancer and Bruce Sterling. Further, he discusses the links between post-modernism and cyberpunk, the latter being arguably a post-modern subgenre of science fiction. Hence Ballard rates a mention, though one might equally name Pynchon.
Much thought is devoted to the nature of architecture and spaces. Metropolis comes up several times, and with good reason. Plenty of attention is also given to the concept of 'self' as explored in the film, which is always a potentially brain-melting philosophical subject when one becomes enmeshed in the nitty-gritty of high concepts and narrow definitions.
Even the more straightforward discussions of the history of the film's financing, scripting, visual influences and set design are fascinating in their own way. I expect however that these are covered in greater depth in the 'Future Noir' book on the subject.
All in all, a worthwhile read for hardcore science fiction film nerds.
January 16, 2021
This addition to the BFI Modern Classics series seems to be quite divisive, if the reviews here are to be taken as a representation of opinion...
For me, this is a great addition to the series, but probably the most academic, which could be the reason for the above. Bukatman does not hold back on his research and referencing, especially when looking at the philosophical aspect of the film / original book.
"Androids emphasise the definition of the human by displacing mere biology as the sole, sufficient, condition. The underlying issue is not whether we can give a machine the qualities of the human, but whether the human has lost its humanity; whether it has become, in fact, a machine."
If that's not for you, then neither is this book...if it is, delve in...
For me, this is a great addition to the series, but probably the most academic, which could be the reason for the above. Bukatman does not hold back on his research and referencing, especially when looking at the philosophical aspect of the film / original book.
"Androids emphasise the definition of the human by displacing mere biology as the sole, sufficient, condition. The underlying issue is not whether we can give a machine the qualities of the human, but whether the human has lost its humanity; whether it has become, in fact, a machine."
If that's not for you, then neither is this book...if it is, delve in...
October 29, 2024
An acute synopsis of various theories and arguments about Blade Runner. Bukatman is fairly descriptive as he discussed the film itself, and draws on many sources. I was generally unimpressed with the placement and choice of images, which often felt sporadic and unrelated to the text nearby.
August 31, 2016
I've read a couple of other BFI series books, and enjoyed them. The difference between them and this one is they actually discuss the movie - in depth. Bukatman takes a fairly academic approach to his contribution to the series, and after a chapter on how the movie got made and then gradually discovered by audiences, he goes into a great long discussion of cities, especially as seen in sci-fi books and movies. This is interesting in its own way, but Blade Runner only gets mentioned when it seems that Bukatman thinks he should refer back to it. The same applies to the long chapter on replicants. Yes, Blade Runner is all about what it is to be human, but does this academic discussion really help us enjoy the film?
Unless you knew a good deal about the movie already (I've seen it a couple of times, but over a gap of many years) you're not likely to understand much about it from this book. And the photos are very random, seldom connecting to anything on the page, and in some cases not even connecting to the film, as far as I could tell!
Unless you knew a good deal about the movie already (I've seen it a couple of times, but over a gap of many years) you're not likely to understand much about it from this book. And the photos are very random, seldom connecting to anything on the page, and in some cases not even connecting to the film, as far as I could tell!
August 12, 2020
The first twenty pages of the book are a brief (albeit well executed) retelling of Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner. The last twenty pages are devoted to somewhat confused description of books and films that either influenced or were influenced by Blade Runner. Author really (and almost comically) tries to sound academic. If you are absolutely new to Ridley Scott's film, read only the first half and skip the second. And by all means do not buy this book. Borrow it from the library.
PS Still, because of Scott Bukatman I have found a nice negative review of Blade Runner published in The New Yorker back in 1982. It perfectly expresses my thoughts about the film's plot. Yet I still like (love, adore) its atmosphere.
PS Still, because of Scott Bukatman I have found a nice negative review of Blade Runner published in The New Yorker back in 1982. It perfectly expresses my thoughts about the film's plot. Yet I still like (love, adore) its atmosphere.
April 25, 2018
Film studies professor Scott Bukatman does a great job with this BFI Modern Classics volume about Blade Runner. The first third of the book covers the journalistic ground of how the film was made and places it both formally and narratively in the science fiction and film noir genres. The rest of the book is an unusual and readable analysis of what the movie has to say about how cities are organized and how people live in them and the aesthetics of urban space, the relationship between humanity and artificial intelligence and how the rapid pace of technological development brings us closer to being machines and machines closer to being human, and the relationship of memory to storytelling. Bukatman is skilled at sharing these sharp ideas without being too dryly academic.
November 30, 2017
los libros del british film institute son una auténtica clase magistral acerca de cómo hacer crítica cinematográfica. en este caso el autor parte del gusto personal --cosa que celebro-- que, sin embargo, rápidamente despacha para ponerse a hablar de lo que le interesa: la ciudad y los espacios en blade runner, una película que naturalmente da para un par de tesis de maestría al respecto. aunque de pronto se preocupa más por los "temas" que por la forma en sí --hay muy poco respecto a shots, por ejemplo, algo que me decepciona poquito--, lo cierto es que, desde su enfoque, este es un ensayo filoso, bien documentado, capaz de tender puentes acaso inesperados. brillante.
February 23, 2018
While the first half is an account of the film's production, the second half is an examination of the film's postmodern themes and framework. Probably one of the best treatments of narrative and theme in film that I've read let alone for one so wedded to science fiction spectacle that those concerns aren't immediately apparent. Roger Luckhurst's Alien is also a great unpacking of another Ridley Scott classic which complements Bukatman's book very well.
August 20, 2018
A classic. After the reading, lots of question about the technology and the AI.
March 11, 2020
This is WIDELY relevant rn surprised it hasn't re-emerged like Orwell
November 7, 2022
obsessed with any and all academic material on cyberpunk
September 25, 2011
I have been enjoying the BFI Modern Classic series-it is very similar to the Continuum series of short book length essays on seminal films instead of albums. The latest edition was on Ridley Scott's Blade Runner by Scott Bukatman, which I think is one of my favorite films. I am drawn to the film by the visual world you escape to when watching the film. It also appeals to my appreciations for gumshoe detective stories and film noir. In fact a lot of the book discusses the look and atmosphere of the film and it's effect rather than the nuts and bolts of the making of the film, although there is some about that as well. But I think the underlying story of the film success it's cult following-once the Director's Cut was released it became a hit. I remember seeing it in 1990 while at college and reading all the press that suggested it was the superior version sans the heavy handed narration and I agree that the ambient noise adds to the overall atmospheree of the city at night. There are discussion as Phillip K. DIck's influence and cyberpunk and perhaps a little too much academic posturing with mentions of people like Barthes, Foucalt, and Zizek. However, overall I think it is a good discussion of the merits and influence of one of the 80s finest films.
November 16, 2014
I do enjoy the BFI books. This one I originally bought and read for a class called Writing About Film. One of the films we studied in-depth was Blade Runner because it has been so widely written about. Since I just made my way through the 2007 Collector's Edition DVD release, I thought it was time to give this one another read.
Bukatman is very detailed in his research and analysis of Blade Runner, but he tends to meander on occasion. He goes off on tangents regarding all of science fiction and compares Blade Runner to other works such as Things To Come and Metropolis. While there is good reason for these comparisons, it feels like he relies a bit too much on these other films at points.
Still, a decent piece of scholarly writing on a great film, worth reading if you like in-depth critical analysis of films.
Bukatman is very detailed in his research and analysis of Blade Runner, but he tends to meander on occasion. He goes off on tangents regarding all of science fiction and compares Blade Runner to other works such as Things To Come and Metropolis. While there is good reason for these comparisons, it feels like he relies a bit too much on these other films at points.
Still, a decent piece of scholarly writing on a great film, worth reading if you like in-depth critical analysis of films.
Read
November 16, 2010Inutile dire che il destino di questo libro è legato alla fortuna del film (tant'è che il secondo ha spodestato l'originale titolo anche dalla copertina del volume). Così anche per me: vidi il film, comprai il libro. Cercai nel libro il film, ed il libro mi sputò addosso molto altro. Capii in futuro, con Ubik, con i Simulacri, capii che quello era puro Dick, il suo mondo immaginario.
December 11, 2015
I think this was a good book but, it could have been better. I watched the movie and loved it. I read the book and I was a little bit disappointed but, I still liked it.I liked the setting and the struggle that the main character was going through. I thought the book got a little dull in the middle. If the middle had more action in it, The Blade Runner would get 5 stars from me.
May 17, 2024
if you like this review i now have website: www.michaelkamakana.com
??? 2000s?: c-beams glitter in the dark by tannhauser gate…
??? 2000s?: c-beams glitter in the dark by tannhauser gate…
June 23, 2012
An interesting criticism of Ridley Scott's science fiction masterpiece. Definitely worth looking into for an exploration of its themes.
June 19, 2017
If you are a hardcore Blade Runner fan, you need to read this to get the indepth analysis.
March 20, 2016
Excellent slim volume that still manages to analyse the fascination with, making of and context of the film within cinema and science fiction.
July 8, 2013
Another decent BFI classic that marries the film fan with the film student
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews