Skip to main content

We build angels here. But I can only make so many.

Trailers
Blade Runner 2049

(SPOILER SPECULATION) Hopefully we won’t be treated/subjected to a whole string of trailers between now and October, steadily chipping away at any surprises Blade Runner 2049 has in store. Which is to say, hopefully the various parties releasing it (Warner Bros in the US and Sony most of the rest of everywhere else) won’t be inclined to do a Fox with Alien: Covenant and deluge us with as many spoilers as possible. It’s much more fun to speculate with limited information than have it laid out on a plate. Both pictures have got Sir Ridders in common, which is not to suggest he’s necessarily fully on board with the blanket coverage of the Covenant marketing plan or that he’s being consulted on this one – the pretty ropey recent photoshop-botch-job posters suggest not - but that it’s generally best not to pay too much attention to the old boy, not always the sharpest of tools (as his insistence on Deckard being a replicant affirms; ambiguity is the key there), as they might end up doing audiences a disservice.


Of course, one immediately wonders if they’ve been listening to him with regard to the apparent lack of doubt about who Agent K – Joseph, anyone? A clue to the obscured processes of authority that Ryan Gosling’s character is upholding? – is: a replicant. One would optimistically assume, given the trailer is pretty much leading us by the nose (“I always told you, you’re special. Your story isn’t over yet: there’s still a page left”), that it’s not supposed to be such a surprise. Either that, or it’s a double bluff. It has been reasonably suggested that, for Agent K to burst through a wall, as it very much looks like he does, he’d have to be in possession of something approaching a Roy Batty physique (or a Dave Bautista one, even, who seems to be busting Agent K through some masonry in a fight in another shot, Agent K first; I’d hazard the burning building is the aftermath of that encounter).


The identity or otherwise of Agent K obviously can’t be all there is to the movie’s mysteries, though. Why is K suffering a meltdown at one point? Is it due to a shocking revelation (not, presumably, that breezeblocks come out worse in a one-on-one confrontation, or the discovery of a replicant Gwyneth Paltrow’s head in a box)? Several plausible theories have been forwarded, deriving from cryptic lines delivered in the trailer, notably Jared Leto’s Tyrell-but-younger Wallace, heir-apparent creator of replicants and indulger in a spot of AI midwifery (“Every civilisation was built off the back of a disposable workforce. But I can only make so many”), who seems to be suggesting trouble on the production line. Some have proposed that the solution to this problem is replicants who can now reproduce (do replicants replicate like electric rabbits?) and there are consequently replicant-human hybrids. That Rachel was Agent K’s mum, even (presumably that bit of wood is Rachel’s grave: 6-10-21).


That bit of wood would suggest the strong likelihood that K is looking for Deckard because of Rachel, a unique legacy left by Tyrell.  Hence Wallace’s “The key to the future is finally unearthed. Bring it to me”. There’s something about her that Wallace has perhaps been unable to replicate in later replicants (the secret died with Tyrell)? I’m less inclined to credit the idea that Deckard himself is vitally important (excluding for a moment the possibility that he is a miraculously aging replicant and key to the future of everything – I always assumed replicants wouldn’t age, but I guess there’s no reason they can’t, just that if you go to the trouble of creating them with a long life span you’d have thought you’d want them to remain in tip-top shape – although the AWOL-ness of both him and Rachel does rather raise the question of why no one ever put tracking technology in these things).


And the doorway into a virtual forest. Which feels very Dick-ian. Who’s the woman there (do we not see her face because she might be a spoiler)? The daughter of Rachel? But the only unaccounted for cast member (IMDB-wise) is Hiam Abbass and Abbass is too old – unless she’s playing an older Rachel and Scott unaccountably couldn’t face working with loony Sean Young? Is she actually the key to the future, hidden away? Or is she just a boffin, someone K goes to consult?




As significant, perhaps more so, is Robin Wright’s comment to K: “The world is built on a wall that separates… kind. Tell either side there’s no wall; you bought a war” (it does sound like there’s an edit before “kind”, possibly spelling out the details further, just as the title quote is taken from Wallace’s complete line as spoken in the CinemaCon footage). Which offers to several possibilities, the most appealing being the also very Dick-ian idea, turning reality on its head, that everyone is a replicant (at least on Earth; so much for replicants being consigned to the off-world colonies), perhaps because humans can no longer survive in such a toxic landscape.


Another inference might be that there’s no wall because those in charge are replicants, that replicants have infiltrated society to such an extent that hunting them down is mere window dressing. Certainly, the Tyrell we see in the original was mapped out as a replicant, with Roy Batty popping “upstairs” to see his maker in a sarcophagus after he’d killed the fake.


Deckard: You’re a cop. I did your job once. I was good at it.
Agent K: I know.
Deckard: What to do you want?
Agent K: I want to ask you some questions.

Which might suggest K wants to Voight-Kampff Rick, but we’re probably supposed to think that. The trailer’s putting Harrison Ford in the frame big time, but Villeneuve has stated Deckard doesn’t actually appear until the third act (which is why some instantly felt a whiff of Luke in The Force Awakens). I have to admit, I’m not entirely sold on old stoner Harrison returning to a part where he actually put in a proper performance the first time (Rick Deckard isn’t terribly likable, even by the time he runs off with Rachel). Complete with the same bandy running legs we witnessed in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull a decade ago (is it that long? How come it hasn’t improved with age?) It isn’t like recent repeats of his other iconic roles (Indy, Han) have done him too well either. Ironically, that approach probably would work for Jack Ryan, because he was teetering on playing himself in those anyway. It’s not that Ford can’t rise to a challenge when he tries (42, even The Age of Adaline) but dressing him in his own t-shirt and jeans probably wasn’t the best way to get him into character. Nice to see he has a dog though. Does Rick Deckard dream of an electric pooch?





I have no reservations about the rest of the cast, though. Gosling can do no wrong, except when he tries dancing. And singing. Leto seems to know that something slightly mannered and theatrical is called for, so good on him, and even Robin Wright appears to be getting down with punctuating her sentences and emphases for effect. No sign of Lennie James, or Edward James Olmos, although I think the latter only did a day. Some of the shots between K and Ana de Armas’ Joi look very boy meets girl, ‘80s Coke advert, but maybe that’s intentional.  Most notable are Dave Bautista, looking like he’s stepped off the set of a Sergei Eisenstein epic, and Mackenzie Davis (I always think Crook when I see her name, which isn’t the same thing at all), very pleasure model Pris but with added (fake, I’d hazard) fur hat.




That Russian tinge (spectacles, hats, nominal walls) is only added to by the bizarre “SOVIET HAPPY” of the ballerina holograms (with “JOI”, also seen; maybe 2049 is big on Ren & Stimpy). Which I’m very iffy about. The look of them, that is, rather than seeing this as more anti-Russian propaganda. They’re a bit naff compared to the 2019’s billboards: too slick and immaterial (see also Ghost in the Shell). I mean, I welcome knowing Atari, against the odds, is still going strong (and at least gull wing doors are still in), but the aspect that stood out most of Blade Runner was how entirely immersive Scott’s world was. It was meticulously designed amalgam of retro and futuristic, pushing the Star Wars used future in a different, more immediate direction. In contrast, this reimagining is very uncluttered and spartan. Perhaps Los Angeles has been remarkably cleaned up in 30 years, like watching Taxi Driver then a movie set in modern day New York? Likewise, the clips so far don’t suggest the same kind of tangible, overcrowded suffocation.




It doesn’t help either that we have CGI cityscapes versus the original’s model work (the Atari shot is more TRON: Legacy). Although, what do you expect in a world where producer Sir Ridders has succumbed to CGI xenomorphs (I mean, it’s tantamount to Spielberg never setting foot outside the US for Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, except that Villeneuve is much younger than either and should be interested in painstaking detail)? I suppose also, it’s quite possible there just aren’t the artists around now who can replicate that physically, more’s the pity. I’m certainly not suggesting Roger Deakins hasn’t come up with a multitude of beautiful, arresting images (the varied locations, the snow, the sand, are all welcome in exploring the world further), but they aren’t dense and layered the way Jordan Cronenweth’s work was. And they’re digital.





As to what appear to be more generic action beats, well it’s the reality of an expensive movie that wants to be hit. You can debate whether Blade Runner merited a sequel (I’d say there’s definitely the conceptual and thematic material to justify it, although I’ve yet to be convinced bringing back Deckard was the way to go), but there was no way it would have got a greenlight if the pitch had been to make it as unapproachable as the original (“You’ll make your money back in 30 years”).






I have every confidence in Denis Villeneuve’s ability as a director, but he doesn’t have the keenest eye with regard to scripts. So he has that in common with his producer (ironically, Villeneuve’s staunchest advocates will claim his facility with scripts is the chief reason to have faith in this project, but he’s mostly either given trash a sheen – Prisoners, Sicario – or made good on extended Twilight Zone episodes where the lingering sense is that they never quite sustained themselves for an entire movie – Enemy, Arrival).


And I’m pleased that Hampton Fancher, co-architect of the original screenplay (I wish David Webb Peoples was involved too, even more than Fancher in some respects, but I guess you can’t have everything) provided the story and co-wrote the script. And that Michael Green (American Gods; his contributions to Green Lantern, Logan and Alien: Covenant were all collaborative, so you can’t necessarily blame him if you don’t like them) was the other contributor. I’m also pleased to hear the retention of the original’s sonic landscape; Johann Johannson seems almost more respectful of Vangelis than Villeneuve does of Scott.


Am I optimistic for Blade Runner 2049? Am I Soviet happy? Or even Joi? I’m hoping for the best while recognising that it’s unlikely to equal the original on any level. But who knows, maybe it will be justify its existence on entirely different ones? Maybe Ford’s presence will work out in context? One thing’s undeniable; Gosling has fantastic coat.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018) (SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop .

That’s what people call necromancer’s weather.

The Changes (1975) This adaptation of Peter Dickinson’s novel trilogy carries a degree of cult nostalgia cachet due to it being one of those more “adult” 1970s children’s serials (see also The Children of the Stones , The Owl Service ). I was too young to see it on its initial screening – or at any rate, too young to remember it – but it’s easy to see why it lingered in the minds of those who did. Well, the first episode, anyway. Not for nothing is The Changes seen as a precursor to The Survivors in the rural apocalypse sub-genre – see also the decidedly nastier No Blade of Grass – as following a fairly gripping opener, it drifts off into the realm of plodding travelogue.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.