Skip to main content

This breaks the world.

Blade Runner 2049
(2017)

(SPOILERS) It was a questionable thing for (Sir) Ridley Scott and Alcon to go ahead with a sequel to an all-time classic that wasn’t screaming for one, and whose very pervasive influence makes any attempt appear immediately defensive. How much credit they should get for pulling off the seemingly impossible is debatable, however. Ridders was certainly right to go to Hampton Fancher for (co-)screenplay duties, but the clincher was probably delegating directing to Dennis Villeneuve; the Ridley of today just couldn’t direct a slow-burn, immersive piece like his original, and would have turned Blade Runner 2049 into something serviceable but generic; would you want a sequel to Blade Runner that at best stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Prometheus or Alien: Covenant (and I ask as an apologist for both)? I don’t think Blade Runner 2049 surpasses the original, or even equals it, if that must be the yardstick, but it manages to be a worthy successor to an extent no one could have realistically expected.


If one were to find fault, it would be mainly in terms of premise (which I understand was Scott’s); one might argue the picture should have eschewed all ties to the first other than milieu, replicants and the thematic nature of what it means to be human. Forget Deckard and Rachael, or you’re stuck with generational legacies and all that entails. But, being as the decision was made to go that route, 2049 avoids many of the pitfalls of others who have dared tread in the footsteps of cherished originals. The choice to make a direct sequel inevitably means 2049 is tied into the mechanics of plot to a degree its predecessor, built largely on ambience, mood and atmosphere, simply wasn’t, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t take the same amount of pains to imbue those elements.


Indeed, what’s most striking here is that Villeneuve cues us into this being the same world yet is confident enough not to merely replicate it. To be too beholden to a recreation would have led to a pale imitation (Paul WS Anderson’s Blade Runner 2049). The strongest signifier that this is occupies the same universe isn’t the spinners, or the cityscapes, or Harrison Ford; it’s the pacing, allowing shots and scenes to linger on a world that moulders, the anti-modernistic visual style (the anti-current Ridley visual style). Which just happens to be Villeneuve’s approach anyway, making it a perfect marriage. As such, I don’t know how well general audiences will take to the film (boredom appears to be as common a response as adulation). Alcon previously invested significant sums in turkeys that deserved their ignominious fate (Transcendence, the Point Break remake), but this could very easily replicate the original’s tepid box office reception (or a steep fall-off from the first weekend). Which is its own badge of honour in a way, and suggests a Blade Runner 2065 may be some years off.


You can’t broach the subject of the atmosphere and tone of Blade Runner, now and then, without discussing the score. My own biggest bone of contention as news of the project came in was the realisation Vangelis wasn’t on board. That was softened somewhat by hearing how regular Villeneuve collaborator Jóhan Jóhannsson was reverential towards one of the all-time-great scores. Plus, I really liked the static-beat-up interpretation of Vangelis’ original by whoever put together the first trailer. Alas, though, it was then announced Jóhannsson was out and Hans Zimmer and one of his factory of protégées (Benjamin Wallfisch) were in. Don’t get me wrong, Zimmer has done some fine work (for Nolan and Guy Ritchie not least) amongst acres of highly generic output, but he’s about as far from Vangelis as it gets. The finished score definitely supports that. While he utilises cues from the original, this is very identifiably Zimmer, replete with thundering bass that shakes the LA cityscape to its foundations. It isn’t a score I’ll be listening to at home, which I’ve done with the Blade Runner OST innumerable times.


But, and it slightly pains me to say it, it does kind of fit what’s required (which is not to say I’m not hoping there’s a Composer’s Cut on a Blu-ray down the line, offering us Jóhannsson’s special signature). I’m not sure the blanket of melancholy permeating the original movie would work here (when we hear bona fide, unvarnished Vangelis in the final scene, it fits exactly that emotion for the first time). Our protagonist K (Ryan Gosling) doesn’t nurse dreams or regrets; he knows what he is (until he doesn’t) and that stark inescapability merits an austere, industrial-tinged score. It fits.


As “genuine” as K’s relationship is with Ana de Armas’ holographic Joi (itself a further dive into the rabbit hole of man-machine-robot-soul; instead of human and replicant interplay, we have a new subordinate tier of replicant and simulant), we aren’t able to support the illusion that it’s something else; K treats it as something else because he has nothing else (making it even sadder). Which isn’t to deny the resonance of Armas’ performance or Joi’s sacrifice, but acknowledge the limitations of her sentient vassal (the giant holographic billboard later beckoning K announces “Hey, Joe”, the model’s standard greeting but also the name she gave him, further underscoring the hopelessness of his connection; we have to wonder if she’s prescribed to tell all her purchasers that they’re special).


Villeneuve didn’t have final cut on the movie, but I suspect the cut itself is predominately his, but he was likely vetoed by Scott in choice of musician (Zimmer being one of the latter’s fave raves, having score six of his previous pictures). What’s most surprising is that the dubious narrative choices Sir Ridders tends to make (particularly of late – see his retconning of the Alien franchise) have failed to mar this, his other iconic now-franchise. Given how loudly he has incessantly shouted about Deckard being a replicant, even to the point of stating there’s no debate anymore and that 2049 straight-up confirms it, it’s surprising that Villeneuve leaves the waters just muddy enough to allow anyone who wants to see the reflection whichever which way to be satisfied.


There’s no doubting K is a replicant – it’s established in the opening scene – but Rick Deckard? When Niander Wallace (Jared Leto; it’s mystifying that some are criticising his performance, as he absolutely gets the heightened tone of this world, and makes an accordingly suitable successor to Tyrell) gives his take on the plan enacted by Tyrell, he outlines his belief that Rachel was designed for a singular purpose, and that Deckard too was designed with meeting Rachel in mind: that they should procreate. But then he pulls back, caveating his remark with “Whatever you are”. One might argue this is clumsy cop out (couldn’t Wallace simply take a DNA sample to check, if he’s in any doubt?). Alternatively, perhaps he’s just considerate of the delicate alchemy of Deckard’s delusion, that something more than his failed technical attempts is needed, something nebulous or soulful, something tantamount to self-belief, if one is to take an evolutionary leap. Ironically, if Scott thinks the movie’s making a blank statement, he has yet again presented a scenario where the alternative is more powerful thematically; that interspecies procreation further dissolves the distinction between gods (men) and men (replicants).


A few weeks back, I was entirely underwhelmed by Darren Aronofsky’s biblical (and environmental and whatever else you may wish to excuse it with) allegory mother!, so it’s pleasing to report Hampton Fancher (I don’t know how much credit to give Michael Green, but I will charitably suggest the worst parts of Alien: Covenant were all John Logan; on the other hand, perhaps the biblical analogies belong to Ridley, heavily embedded as they also are in the Alien prequels) weaves such a subtext much less obtusely into his characterisation of this sequel. Maybe he didn’t plan all along that Rachael would be a reference to Jacob’s wife, who was barren and who would parent a child who would achieve great standing in a foreign land (a land of humans), but it plays with so seamlessly that it’s easy to buy that he did.


Indeed, this kind of generational sequel plotline for is fraught with difficulties, and it’s to Fancher and Green’s credit that they almost entirely avoid them. The chosen one offspring (“Born, not made”) has been run with by both TRON: Legacy and Star Wars: The Force Awakens, but it’s in keeping with an original where the landscape is all-consuming yet the action is small, the most we get of a grand plan to overthrow the system comes in the invitation to K to be part of the uprising; seeing that would make this a different movie (or movie series), about exterior action rather than interior fulmination.


Even the scene we get suggests a troublesome gear shift into the more functional; as such, any third instalment would pay off by entirely undercutting the expectations of the insurrectionists. Certainly, Fancher otherwise works his deal in unexpected ways, like a better-tuned approach to The Godfather Part III, in which the next generation don’t reveal the expected traits. Ana (a hugely, sympathetic, low key Carla Juri) is an entirely imperfect superhuman, victim to the genetic vagaries of an experimental process. She’s no Roy Batty to get behind, and it might be interesting to see her response to and rejection of such a position being thrust upon her (and I don’t mean in a coming to realise she should respond to the summons at a later date sense).


More especially, Fancher plays in a near meta-manner with our expectations of the traditions – the Hollywood traditions – of a text such as this. More commonly, K, the hero, would be a special son, as he believes himself to be, and there’s a period in the film where there’s a struggle with the possibility of our worst fears of a narrative plughole being realised (it’s unclear who doctored the archives to obfuscate the trail, but some have misinterpreted the thread to indicate that K’s a clone of Ana).


Yet his special memory is really Ana’s memory; it’s implied she has been as liberal with her illegal implanting with other replicants too – although I become unclear which are which, as if Mariette recognises the memories she can’t be an earlier Nexus 8, and who exactly designed the Nexus 8, since Tyrell was dead at the time and Black Out 2022 fails to illuminate this, maybe it’s like Apple post-Steve Jobs   as Freysa (Hiam Abbass) appears to instantly recognise his delusion (the small comfort for K is that they sympathise with rather than mock his fantasy). This in itself course corrects from the rather stagnant obsession of Ridley with Deckard’s nature; doesn’t even the act of wanting to be real, of having that self-awareness, make one real? Indeed, if there’s an issue here, it’s that the “soul” is thrown around rather spuriously (by K, by Joshi) as if it’s a tangible distinguishing factor (I’m trying to recall if the word is even used in the original).


There are numerous visual cues in respect of memory as the vital source of “soulfulness”, of identity, weaving the thread the first film established. The carved horse – originally a unicorn with its horn shorn off? – takes up the mantle of Gaff’s origami; the sheep he folds while talking to K offers a cute double reference, to both the title of PKD’s source novel and K’s function, blindly following the instructions of his human masters. If there’s an element in this that didn’t work so well for me, it’s the cultural specificity. Such as Joi repeatedly referring to K’s wish to be a “real boy”. Like the holograms of Elvis, Marilyn and Sinatra, a Pinocchio reference (already more than covered in A.I.) feels a little too marked and pronounced, given that the original integrated elements without ever flagging them as being directly inherited from our world (product placement aside). Even Peter and the Wolf on K’s pager device might have been better as an original piece.


You might say the same about the Apple apps aspect of Joi, finding the picture moving on from the analogue-neon of Scott’s first movie. One can see echoes of Her in this, but mostly it represents a bleaker vision of human relationships than Scott extended (for all its forced seduction scene). Deckard took love, K can take only that he did the right thing, aspired to a righteous cause (and his life is predicated on rejection by all around him. Even his apartment is a cramped affair, with antagonistic graffiti daubed on his door and a hallway lined with scum and villainy. He’s the little man, not the super one). He loses that which was impermanent (as the holographic sex scene with Mackenzie Davis’ Mariette testifies), but he has only a nominal cause to replace it with, and not even that, since his situation appears terminal (unless this makes enough to guarantee a sequel; I thought the ending left him on the brink, but the wiki synopsis appears to confirm K’s death).


The technology aspect of the picture is interesting, in that it appears to allow the writers as much or as limited leeway as they want. Aside from the continued existence of defunct brands and the Soviet Union, the Internet as we know it does not appear to have been formulated, and more especially, the presence of a metaphorical cloud is only such that it doesn’t limit the plot. Joi’s hub can be read if accessed physically, but doesn’t instantly report back to the corporation that manufactured it, and replicant memories, it seems, cannot be accessed. There’s a degree of autonomy that suits a detective novel format and would be left rather deprived if everything everywhere fed into Wallace’s systems. As such, it makes for a satisfying alt-universe self-sacrifice by Joi that she tricks Luv (Sylvia Hoeks) into destroying her portable link and thus the information that could lead Wallace to Ana.


As with the original, not everything makes a whole lot of sense (in this regard, many reviews will cite the superiority of the original in all the ways it was initially criticised). The opening text is somewhat inelegant, and poses more questions than it answers. Such as, how Wallace’s new replicants, the Tyrell lot having been banned, are differentiated by being obedient to humans when they clearly aren’t. Not just in the case of Luv, who might be explained away as a special model (as Wallace’s own personal assistant), but if obedience was built in, K wouldn’t need to take the replicant behaviour test (which is a highly convincing exercise in sensory assault and distraction). And Joshi failing to ask K for proof that he killed Deckard and Rachael’s child is as unlikely as faking Deckard’s death in absentia of a body. And, if Deckard’s plan to keep Ana safe makes sense (certainly more so his being out of the picture than Luke hiding himself away in The Force Awakens), then Wallace’s interrogation equipment being conveniently off-world (requiring a spinner flight K can intercept) doesn’t especially.


Fancher peppers the picture with mostly successful references to future history and prior nods, even if Villeneuve’s visual aspect is far from the post-modern palimpsest Scott flourished. These include unobtrusive call backs - Instead of Methuselah Syndrome, we now have Galatians Syndrome, Deckard’s denseness about the owl in the first movie is replicated in K’s response to his dog – “Is he real?”: “Why don’t you ask him” – the multi-cultural LA appears to have experience a slight demographic shift. There’s also the new, such as the blackout that wiped records of everything, the reference to a dirty bomb hitting Las Vegas, and moments of curious import. K comes across an apiary in the wilderness. Are the bees replicants? Is it significant that they are thriving there just as the real deal has been (presumably) wiped out? A foretelling of the order to come?


There are numerous portents in the picture in this regard, with Lt Joshi (Robin Wright) telling K outright that the knowledge of replicant reproduction would lead to all-out war (except that the replicants already know, and those on Earth don’t appear rampant, albeit have a good thing going with basements). Wallace has a curiously hands-on (and scalpel-on) approach to his progeny, but is entirely dispassionate in observing their functionality (reproduction equals an effective slave labour force, ending his supply issues). Luv sees herself as entirely superior to humans (mocking Joshi as she kills her) but is wholly obedient to Wallace while shedding a tear for the new born he murders, which makes for something of a dichotomy. If that third one comes along, they should definitely avoid depicting this inevitable impending war; look how it turned out for Terminator.


It’s notable that some of the speculated-upon big concepts didn’t come to pass. Most suspected, rightly, was that this would be about Rachael and Deckard’s child, hidden away somewhere (right down to the holographic garden centre in the trailer). While it might have been an effective twist to also reveal that all Earth’s inhabitants are now replicants, it probably moves too far from the closeted, ground-level approach of the movie. As it is, even the location hopping, bright exteriors and spinner fights take a bit of getting used to – it’s the languor between that grounds them.


Villeneuve’s visuals, readily aided by cinematographer Roger Deakins, are both distinctive in their own right and resonant of the work of Scott and Jordan Cronenweth; there’s significantly more empty space in Villeneuve’s frames, making his world more stripped back and desolate. His inclusion of flashbacks to earlier moments (in the same picture) has a tendency to feel unnecessary and mistrusting of his audience’s acumen, however. The only other duff note that comes to mind is in the last temptation of Deckard, in which a de-aged Sean Young is wheeled on looking like a bad hologram version of her former self. The scene holds more sway than just a fan service call back (“Rachael had green eyes”), but because of the effects quality (leagues better than young Jeff in TRON: Legacy, insufficiently superior to Carrie in Rogue One) it lessens the impact; of course Deckard’s not going for it. She clearly isn’t real.


Gosling’s perfect casting in the lead, implacable when called for, brimming with bewildered emotion otherwise, and able to deliver the troubled look rather than searching for dialogue; it might be, if you’re looking for a continuation, that he’s too sympathetic a protagonist compared to Deckard’s rough houser. Ford has pretty much gone through his back catalogue of iconic roles now (unless John Book returns to Amish fields or Richard Kimble has to hotfoot it again) but in this one he finally nails it. Maybe that’s Villeneuve’s influence, but returning to the character doesn’t mar or sully Deckard (and consistently, he is still fairly useless. His best detective work occurred off screen). The fringes are perfectly chosen too, including the enlistment of David Bautista to offer an early guide to the narrative terrain, Barkhad Abdi as a street analyst and Tomas Lemarquis – the best Caliban – as one of Wallace’s employees. It's true that the picture is generally a cooler prospect than the original in terms of performance - but then, how many movies can boast prime Rutger Hauer? - and Villeneuve simply isn't the guy to embrace the luridly humorous in the way Scott did there, but that goes back to the importance of not trying to repeat oneself, or someone else.


Of course Blade Runner 2049 can’t match the original, and it will take time to percolate just how worthy a sequel it is, but right now it feels like it has more than earned its place in the select ranks of great ones. Thematically, it continues the main threads without ever feeling lazy or routine about it, and crucially, it knows that the spaces between the action are more important than the action itself. But in conclusion, we need a third instalment, not so we can follow the replicant revolution, but just so to find out what happens to Deckard’s dog.


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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Mondo bizarro. No offence man, but you’re in way over your head.

The X-Files 8.7: Via Negativa I wasn’t as down on the last couple of seasons of The X-Files as most seemed to be. For me, the mythology arc walked off a cliff somewhere around the first movie, with only the occasional glimmer of something worthwhile after that. So the fact that the show was tripping over itself with super soldiers and Mulder’s abduction/his and Scully’s baby (although we all now know it wasn’t, sheesh ), anything to stretch itself beyond breaking point in the vain hope viewers would carry on dangling, didn’t really make much odds. Of course, it finally snapped with the wretched main arc when the show returned, although the writing was truly on the wall with Season 9 finale The Truth . For the most part, though, I found 8 and 9 more watchable than, say 5 or 7. They came up with their fair share of engaging standalones, one of which I remembered to be Via Negativa .

You know what I sometimes wish? I sometimes wish I were ordinary like you. Ordinary and dead like all the others.

Séance on a Wet Afternoon (1964) (SPOILERS) Bryan Forbes’ adaptation of Mark McShane’s 1961’s novel has been much acclaimed. It boasts a distinctive storyline and effective performances from its leads, accompanied by effective black-and-white cinematography from Gerry Turpin and a suitably atmospheric score from John Barry. I’m not sure Forbes makes the most of the material, however, as he underlines Séance on a Wet Afternoon ’s inherently theatrical qualities at the expense of its filmic potential.

A ship is the finest nursery in the world.

A High Wind in Jamaica (1965) (SPOILERS) An odd one, this, as if Disney were remaking The Swiss Family Robinson for adults. One might perhaps have imagined the Mouse House producing it during their “Dark Disney” phase. But even then, toned down. After all, kids kidnapped by pirates sounds like an evergreen premise for boy’s own adventuring (more girl’s own here). The reality of Alexander Mackendrick’s film is decidedly antithetical to that; there’s a lingering feeling, despite A High Wind in Jamaica ’s pirates largely observing their distance, that things could turn rather nasty (and indeed, if Richard Hughes’ 1929 novel  had been followed to the letter, they would have more explicitly). 

You have done well to keep so much hair, when so many’s after it.

Jeremiah Johnson (1972) (SPOILERS) Hitherto, I was most familiar with Jeremiah Johnson in the form of a popular animated gif of beardy Robert Redford smiling and nodding in slow zoom close up (a moment that is every bit as cheesy in the film as it is in the gif). For whatever reason, I hadn’t mustered the enthusiasm to check out the 1970s’ The Revenant until now (well, beard-wise, at any rate). It’s easy to distinguish the different personalities at work in the movie. The John Milius one – the (mythic) man against the mythic landscape; the likeably accentuated, semi-poetic dialogue – versus the more naturalistic approach favoured by director Sydney Pollack and star Redford. The fusion of the two makes for a very watchable, if undeniably languorous picture. It was evidently an influence on Dances with Wolves in some respects, although that Best Picture Oscar winner is at greater pains to summon a more sensitive portrayal of Native Americans (and thus, perversely, at times a more patr

You’re a disgrace, sir... Weren’t you at Harrow?

Our Man in Marrakesh aka Bang! Bang! You’re Dead (1966) (SPOILERS) I hadn’t seen this one in more than three decades, and I had in mind that it was a decent spy spoof, well populated with a selection of stalwart British character actors in supporting roles. Well, I had the last bit right. I wasn’t aware this came from the stable of producer Harry Alan Towers, less still of his pedigree, or lack thereof, as a sort of British Roger Corman (he tried his hand at Star Wars with The Shape of Things to Come and Conan the Barbarian with Gor , for example). More legitimately, if you wish to call it that, he was responsible for the Christopher Lee Fu Manchu flicks. Our Man in Marrakesh – riffing overtly on Graham Greene’s Our Man in Havana in title – seems to have in mind the then popular spy genre and its burgeoning spoofs, but it’s unsure which it is; too lightweight to work as a thriller and too light on laughs to elicit a chuckle.

Duffy. That old tangerine hipster.

Duffy (1968) (SPOILERS) It’s appropriate that James Coburn’s title character is repeatedly referred to as an old hipster in Robert Parrish’s movie, as that seemed to be precisely the niche Coburn was carving out for himself in the mid to late 60s, no sooner had Our Man Flint made him a star. He could be found partaking in jaundiced commentary on sexual liberation in Candy, falling headlong into counter culture in The President’s Analyst , and leading it in Duffy . He might have been two decades older than its primary adherents, but he was, to repeat an oft-used phrase here, very groovy. If only Duffy were too.

My Doggett would have called that crazy.

The X-Files 9.4: 4-D I get the impression no one much liked Agent Monica Reyes (Annabeth Gish), but I felt, for all the sub-Counsellor Troi, empath twiddling that dogged her characterisation, she was a mostly positive addition to the series’ last two years (of its main run). Undoubtedly, pairing her with Doggett, in anticipation of Gillian Anderson exiting just as David Duchovny had – you rewatch these seasons and you wonder where her head was at in hanging on – made for aggressively facile gender-swapped conflict positions on any given assignment. And generally, I’d have been more interested in seeing how two individuals sympathetic to the cause – her and Mulder – might have got on. Nevertheless, in an episode like 4-D you get her character, and Doggett’s, at probably their best mutual showing.

I tell you, it saw me! The hanged man’s asphyx saw me!

The Asphyx (1972) (SPOILERS) There was such a welter of British horror from the mid 60s to mid 70s, even leaving aside the Hammers and Amicuses, that it’s easy to lose track of them in the shuffle. This one, the sole directorial effort of Peter Newbrook (a cameraman for David Lean, then a cinematographer), has a strong premise and a decent cast, but it stumbles somewhat when it comes to taking that premise any place interesting. On the plus side, it largely eschews the grue. On the minus, directing clearly wasn’t Newbrook’s forte, and even aided by industry stalwart cinematographer Freddie Young (also a go-to for Lean), The Aspyhx is stylistically rather flat.

The best thing in the world for the inside of a man or a woman is the outside of a horse.

Marnie (1964) (SPOILERS) Hitch in a creative ditch. If you’ve read my Vertigo review, you’ll know I admired rather than really liked the picture many fete as his greatest work. Marnie is, in many ways, a redux, in the way De Palma kept repeating himself in the early 80s only significantly less delirious and… well, compelling. While Marnie succeeds in commanding the attention fitfully, it’s usually for the wrong reasons. And Hitch, digging his heels in as he strives to fashion a star against public disinterest – he failed to persuade Grace Kelly out of retirement for Marnie Rutland – comes entirely adrift with his leads.

Just wait. They’ll start listing side effects like the credits at the end of a movie.

Contagion  (2011) (SPOILERS) The plandemic saw Contagion ’s stock soar, which isn’t something that happens too often to a Steven Soderbergh movie. His ostensibly liberal outlook has hitherto found him on the side of the little people (class action suits) and interrogating the drugs trade while scrupulously avoiding institutional connivance (unless it’s Mexican institutional connivance). More recently, The Laundromat ’s Panama Papers puff piece fell fall flat on its face in attempting broad, knowing satire (in some respects, this is curious, as The Informant! is one of Soderbergh’s better-judged films, perhaps because it makes no bones about its maker’s indifference towards its characters). There’s no dilution involved with Contagion , however. It amounts to a bare-faced propaganda piece, serving to emphasise that the indie-minded director is Hollywood establishment through and through. This is a picture that can comfortably sit alongside any given Tinseltown handwringing over the Wa