The Novel and the Film
the film in any great measure of success, the
film had a more linear plot; the audience was
not asked to question the so called ‘truth’ of
each scene; the film has a reliable narrator (in
the original version), whereas the novel
questions its own plot. This scene also calls
up the partnership of Phil Resch and Rick
Deckard in the novel. (Although it has to be
noted that Phil Resch provided a good comparison
to Deckard in the novel; he - Resch - embodied
almost everything that Deckard didn’t want to
become). This partnership would not have been
compatible with the lone hero of Blade Runner.
It also would have been potentially confusing
for the audience, who may have formed divided
loyalties between the two characters. Also,
there would have been the potential for this to
have been read as a ‘buddy’ film, again
something that would not have been fitting for a
film which has one foot in the trappings of the
films noir of the 1940s and 50s.

Deckards wife, Iran, is possibly the only
person in the novel who can see the world around
her as it really is, as opposed to relying on
the ‘mood organ’ to provide her with artificial
happiness. Her resulting depression is part of

Deckards motivation in the novel - he goes out
to kill the “andys” so that he can raise enough
bounty money to buy a real animal so that they,
Deckard and Iran, can be a happy, respectable
couple. Because the acquisition of a real
animal is so important to Deckard he
automatically assumes that this will satisfy his
wife also. Ridley however, wanted to base
Deckards character on the hard-nosed private
detective films, a wife would not have
complemented this character. Neither would a
great desire to own a pet! Making Deckard a
cold, hard drinking loner also made him more
believable as a remorseless killer.

I started this chapter by referencing
Hampton Fancher, one half of the scriptwriting
duo that worked on Blade Runner. I shall now
conclude this chapter by quoting the other half,
David W. Peoples. "When you're taking a novel
to a movie, there's so much sort of hammering
and sawing and banging and fumbling around ...
that if Phil Dick likes the end result it's
because his stuff was so good that it withstands
that kind of treatment". It would seem then
that adaptation is interpretation, and just how
well that interpretation is made is wholly
dependent on the material adapted.

[PAGE 25]