Before I dive straight into the new film, let me say a couple of things about the first venture into the world of Replicants, the original Blade Runner. The pace was slow, methodical and bordering on uncomfortable. The acting in many places is stiff (perhaps intentionally) and the story comes with few mysteries or twists. It also portrays women (and men) in an unflattering light, which while perhaps understandable considering when it was filmed, isn't excusable nor does it help the film's cultural longevity.
That said, Blade Runner broke a lot of ground thematically and few can argue that it wasn't a beautiful, fully realized and painstakingly crafted world. And I think that's what drew me to Blade Runner 2049 more than anything: the storytelling possibilities in that world are vast.
I'd also like to mention that Denis Villeneuve is one of my favorite newer directors out there, having excellently helmed Siccario, Enemy and Arrival previously. He obviously gets hard sci-fi, has a great grasp on character (far better than Ridley Scott ever has), and has an incredible visual eye. He's on my list of directors that will just automatically get my money.
So, 2049. I went in with a few hesitations. We live in an era of big studios grasping at a chance for nostalgia and rebooted, easy money, franchises. This could easily have been Total Recall or Robocop. I'm not a huge fan of Ryan Gosling. I can't quite tell you why. His acting is...fine. I enjoyed Lars and the Real Girl. But other than that, he doesn't leave much of an impression on me, for better or worse. Harrison Ford was a childhood idol, as he was for most kids of my generation. But in my 40s, I find him mostly tiresome. I wish I could unsee the last Indiana Jones film and he was the least important aspect of Force Awakens for me.
Within seconds of the film starting, all of my hesitations vanished. From the opening shot, Villeneuve demands your attention. Every shot in the ridiculously long film is a work of art, meticulously crafted, framed and contextualized. There's meaning in every word spoken, in every nick knack on every kitchen shelf. Right from the start, my brain said, "He gets Blade Runner."
The themes from the original Blade Runner are here right out of the gate. What does it mean to be human? Who gets to decide that? What value does that designation bestow? What responsibilities? Unlike Rick Deckard in the first film, Ryan Gosling's K has a real journey of self-discovery and takes the themes from the original film and expertly re-crafts them into even deeper questions.
_________________________________________________________________
SPOILERS
_________________________________________________________________
My intention here isn't to recap the plot, but I have to mention a few things that would be considered spoilers. First, by making K a replicant and letting us know right from the start that he is one, Villenueve does two brilliant things. First, it tells the audience that this film isn't going to be about whether or not K is a replicant (every BR fan's favorite bar room conversation). The old is out, Villenueve tells us. This is a new story.
The second thing it does is it makes us lean in to K. As human beings we're hard wired to look for those emotional connections, that desire to empathize. When Robin Wright's human lieutentant character treats him as an inferior species, we recoil slightly at the ugliness. Then we remember that he isn't human, forcing our brain to reflect on why we chose the side of the replicant versus the side of the human.
Villenueve gives us these same choices throughout the film: right vs wrong, ethical vs unethical, courage vs duty. Then he has all of his characters vacillate in ways that so deeply muddle the debate that by the end of the film there is no real discernible difference between humans and replicants.
I'd like to also point out that while a number of characters are 'proven' to be replicants, not a single person in the film is proven to be human. None of them. Here, I feel was Villenueve's big statement about the meaning of humanity as well as to whether or not Deckard was a human or a replicant. His answer? It doesn't matter. The question isn't even relevant.
We see this in K's treatment of his holographic girlfriend, Joi. At first we see her as we would all see such a character - an emulation of a human being made by a complex toy mounted in his apartment ceiling. But K longs to improve his connection, to reach out emotionally to something, to someone. His emulator evolves her, giving her mobility and in just two short hours, we go from thinking of Joi as a complex computer to acutely feeling K's pain when her life ends.
And Villeneuve knows this. He knows what our reaction will be when Joi is crushed under Luv's boot. Just as he knows how we'll feel when K see's Joi's giant holographic advertisement and the hologram refers to this unknown pedestrian as 'Joe', his Joi's personal name for him.
But all this was dressing on Villeneuve's greatest trick. The subversion of the 'the one' trope. Used to death in cinema and even moreso in science fiction, the one is the dullard's view of the world. That everything has to have greater meaning, that we're somehow chosen or destined for greatness. The director takes care to slowly craft a world around K that hints at something larger, something grander. Is K half-human? Is he the miracle child? Is he the son of Deckard, our Blade Runner god?
Nope. He's no one. Just another assembly line robot put to work killing other robots. The one? Inconsequential character we meet as part of K's investigation. Does her reunion with her father start the replicant uprising and free the replicants from slavery? Maybe. But Villenueve says it's not important. It's only mildly of note that it's someone who is (possibly) half replicant is responsible for creating the dreams of so many other replicants.
He doesn't address this uprising or rebellion because it's not important. The revolution may or may not happen. Instead, he says, what matters are the choices that we make. Do we choose love, violence, hate, fear, destruction, hope? K wasn't 'the one' and that is incredibly vital to this story. Because Villenueve believes that we all make the truly vital decisions in the here and now. K didn't crumple under the knowledge that he wasn't the Christ. Instead, he chose selflessness and bravery.
There was never a scene where Niander Wallace is killed or defeated because he isn't the villain. Niander Wallace is just nature, he's just inevitability and change masquerading as a man. Even if someone were to kill him, life, in some form, would march on.
The real villain, who is so aptly named, is Luv. She's a mockery of Rachel (in both appearance and demeanor) and she sheds tears as she murders without hesitation. She's expediency. She's the 'greater good'. She's the righteous and the unquestioning. She's all of humanities failings and sins, codified into our own creation. But K eventually defeats her. Through sheer determination, sheer will, he drowns her.
Therein lies the beautiful message of this film. Every one of us wins when we take those small steps toward empathy, toward love. Sometimes we don't get rewarded for that. K certainly didn't. But the world notices. Deckard noticed. The final shot of the film confirms it.
And what better message can a film give us, especially in these dark times, than: Don't worry about what we call ourselves or each other. Just be kind.
POST NOTE: I've only seen this film once and it certainly demands repeat viewings. With that in mind, I may change or enhance my opinion on some aspects with repeat viewings. That said, this may be the best 'sequel' ever (ranking possibly above The Empire Strikes Back, Godfather II and Aliens),
I also have one small potential gripe: The way women are portrayed in this film is very different from the way they are portrayed in the first film. Here, women are agents of creation and destruction, they are leaders and followers, killers and caretakers. Which is great. Women inhabit every part of this world. But they're also shown naked frequently and are often framed as objects of desire. That in itself isn't necessarily a problem. But there is a thin line between a director presenting a world in which women are still objectified and the director admonishing that view. I think I need to see the film again before I decide, but I'd love to hear from female fans of how each film portrayed women.
2 comments:
I too have only seen the film once but if I remember correctly, the main Joi (K's Joi, our Joi) is never shown nude or at least not in a way that is specifically for titillation. It's the generic Joi, the advertisement Joi who is viewed this way. I took this to be a conscience choice on the part of the filmmakers.
Ya women in the movie are portrayed as objects of desire, but in a dystopian future, is it realistic to say that all people in all socioeconomic levels of society have risen above this?
I mean, humans didn't fix the nuclear problem or global warming in this world... is it far fetched to say they haven't also completely solved the problem of equality?
Nice review
Post a Comment