Hampton Fancher

Read in a single sitting, a first-impression reading with a mind to understanding primarily how the screenplay differs from both PKD's novel and Ridley Scott's completed film (in whichever edit). I recall from LOA's chronology that one, perhaps both screenplay authors visited PKD during the writing of their adaptation. Of course, while tempting to see it as revealing or insightful into either, the screenplay is its own animal. Reading it can provide food for conjecture, and in certain cases the links may be true. But it's unlikely to be definitive, and in any case that's a particular form of interpretation, like discerning the meaning of film noir from a nuanced understanding of B movie budgets and filming schedules.

This particular script is instructive in how to write a screenplay, generally. For one thing, Fancher & Peoples provide an entertaining read, even for readers unfamiliar with either novel or film. But the devices specific to screenplays are fascinating: queues for music, terminology on perspectives or types of camera shot, and so forth. I was struck by aspects of the screenplay which, strictly speaking, could not be (or were unlikely to be) translated into blocking, dialogue, or camera angles. There is this bit, in the last scene, immediately after Deckard finds the origami unicorn outside his apartment:

Birch trees whip past at 160 miles per hour urged on by big, nasty MUSIC.
We have the feeling we are going to see a unicorn.
Instead we see Deckard's car rocketing through the
woods.

There's fodder here, too, for thinking Deckard is himself a replicant, voiced stronger than anything in the novel or the film, but grounded in nothing more specific than anything found in either.

//

Some pages missing from the PDF furnished by the Daily Script.… (meer)

An ex-cop is forced to hunt down a group of androids.

Great concept, but the movie is all atmosphere and relatively little story. There's a hell of a lot of great atmosphere, though. The theatrical cut is much better than the director's cut; the voice overs might be corny, but a little iconic corniness is just what this movie needs. It takes itself way too seriously otherwise. And while it's possible to follow the plot without the voice overs, it's not easy, and this story isn't nearly complex enough to justify having a hard time following it (although if you've only ever seen the director's cut, you might think it is complex).… (meer)