Replicants may not live forever, but franchises sure can. Is that always best, though?
Blade Runner occupies a hallowed spot in pop culture’s pantheon. It’s timeless. It’s iconic. It’s gorgeous. It’s very nearly a perfectly structured film — depending on the cut you’re watching. Was there a need for more? Of course not. Compared to Ridley Scott’s other science fiction franchise, Blade Runner’s cinematic universe doesn’t have a clear-cut villain to bring back again and again in new and increasingly muddled situations.
Unless you see Ridley Scott as the real villain of the recent Alien movies.
In Blade Runner 2049, director Denis Villeneuve, fresh off his Oscar-winning Arrival, inspires a confidence Scott himself is unable to earn and brings a new philosophy to an old story.
Spoilers ahead, skinjobs and meatbags.
Clocking in at nearly three hours, there’ a lot to digest in 2049 and one viewing is definitely not enough.
I personally avoided many of the trailers going into the movie, but did watch the three short prequel films, which were all fascinating in different ways. We were introduced to Niander Wallace’s new model of replicant “angels,” improving on the work of the Tyrell Corporation by giving replicants a natural lifespan and an unwavering (supposedly) obedience. There are no illusions that these replicants are more human than human, though they are just as hard to distinguish physically from flesh and blood humans on first appearance. Still, obedience is key as Wallace (Jared Leto, who plays a better creepy scientist than Guy Pearce’s Peter Weyland, at least) reminds us that great civilizations are always built on the backs of a disposable workforce. In 2049, Wallace can no longer keep up with that demand and seeks the key to producing self-replicating replicants.
Villeneuve and cinematographer Roger Deakins (whose work is featured in most Coen Bros. movies, as well as The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford) set the stage perfectly. That “great civilization” remains off-world and off-screen, as it did in the first Blade Runner, but things have only gotten worse on Earth, a point made all the more clear by what is not seen: open spaces, families, the color green.
Ryan Gosling plays Officer K, a replicant Blade Runner tasked with hunting down an old Nexus 8 model that has assimilated into society—still an unforgivable crime in this future. Chasing the rogue skinjob down to his lonely protein farm, K unearths a deeper mystery and a miracle that makes him question his programming. Without giving too much of that mystery away, 2049 still teases viewers with the “Is he or isn’t he?” question, but in a manner which is simultaneously more direct and more subversive than anything Harrison Ford’s Deckard ever embodied.
Is K more human than human? Or just a human?
I do hate to take away the surprises that come again and again because Gosling does a fantastic and subtle job playing a character in a fundamental existential crisis. 2049 is best when it’s showing us private interactions between different classes of artificial intelligence. I was disappointed with Prometheus as an Alien movie; I was much more fascinated with Michael Fassbender’s android character David roaming the starship Prometheus by himself before all the annoying human crewmates woke up from their cryo-sleep. I could have watched that movie for two hours.
Blade Runner 2049 is kind of like that movie. But for three hours.
What does K do when he is not on the job humans have tasked him with? He has a pantomime of romance with a manic pixie dreamgirl app, Joi. This is a pivotal relationship that informs K’s understanding of the relationship Deckard had with Rachel (Sean Young) thirty years prior. And yet, one gets the sense that in this future, most people on Earth are like K and are more connected to their tech than to each other. That K is also an artificial intelligence makes this “love” more voyeuristic and uncanny, but, unfortunately, the concept of Joi isn’t as well-realized as what you can see in Spike Jonze’s Her or even an episode or three of Black Mirror. The robot pride movement gets only a few minutes; more plausible science fiction suggests that a truly new and/or alien intelligence wouldn’t wish to be a “real” human at all because humans are boring and prone to failure.
The roles for women in the Blade Runner universe haven’t changed very much, and that’s definitely an aspect I didn’t like here. 2049 is a man’s world and women are still mostly pretty dolls. They are there to serve men the illusion of traditional domestic bliss, they are street urchin prostitutes, they are towering hologram advertisements of Russian ballerinas, or naked pornbots striding between blocks of favelas. And when women are not merely decorative—living out existences which, in fairness to Villeneuve, are often portrayed as hollow—a central female figure is still defined mainly by childbirth. The exceptions to this are LAPD Lt. Joshi, played by Robin Wright, who has recently become the go-to actress for tough female characters of a certain age (i.e. over 30) and Niander Wallace’s #1 overachieving employee replicant, Luv (Sylvia Hoeks).
What does she do when she’s alone? That’s not at all the point here, yet exploring this question would’ve made the world more immersive.
But building on the considerable foundation of the original Blade Runner is quite enough to satisfy wary fans. There are close-ups of eyeballs, stunning aerial shots of urban sprawl, neon, noodles, Pan-Am logos, and light-up umbrellas. Edward James Olmos makes some origami. Hans Zimmer’s score is atmospheric and riffs on some classic Vangelis themes. And there is Harrison Ford reprising another iconic role. (What’s next? Witness 2: Witness Harder?) And, no, just because we see a gruffer, older Deckard does not mean he is definitely human. So the debate continues.
Deckard and K are two sides of the same coin, and Blade Runner’s pacing picked up considerably when they finally meet in a radioactive Las Vegas. This is not to say Blade Runner 2049 doesn’t earn its running time, but the very cerebral plot becomes more lively in the final act, when we see some serious ass-kicking and flying car chases. Villeneuve knows how to stage thrilling action sequences, if not a coherent debate on bioethics and sociology.
The only glaring aspect missing from the original movie is that there are no characters in 2049 I’d remember as well or as fondly as Rutger Hauer’s Roy Batty—though I did really love David Bautista’s brief screentime as Sapper Morton, the Nexus 8 K hunts down in the beginning and the central figure of the second promotional 2049 prequel short film, 2048: Nowhere to Run.
In the end, I am still thinking of Blade Runner 2049 days after seeing it and, in that respect, I’m relieved that I kept my expectations tempered going in and came out mostly enjoying the endeavor. Blade Runner 2049 occupies a liminal space between future noir, nostalgia, and post-modern dystopia fiction. The scope of the movie is large, but the story of one Everyman replicant’s hope and purpose is uplifting, and hints at future rebellion and recognition of an underclass deserving of a new definition. Whether this in turn means that more movies are definitely coming, or are even warranted, time will tell, but K’s story concludes in a satisfying way and I’m grateful that Ridley Scott handed the reins to Denis Villeneuve, who is certainly following in the master’s footsteps while establishing his own strong vision.
Eyeballs and all.
Blade Runner 2049 is in theaters everywhere now.
Theresa DeLucci is a regular contributor to Tor.com. She’s also talked pop culture for Boing Boing, Den of Geek, B&N’s Sci-Fi & Fantasy Blog and Wired.com’s Geek’s Guide to the Galaxy. She won’t live forever. But, then again, who does? In the meantime, follow her on Twitter.
I enjoyed it overall, but still think there could have been a lot of editing done without losing any of the story. There were far too many ‘Look How Pretty!’ shots that went overlong.
I wanted more of Luv. The perfectly obedient Angel who has figured out how to work around the ‘programming’ to justify any action or behavior to fulfill Wallace’s orders.
ETA – To expand a bit on my thoughts about Luv – in the short films, Wallace sells obedience = ‘safety’ & whoever gave him the green light to proceed with new Replicants ate it up; however, Luv proves the opposite to be true. She is perfectly obedient to her master, making no one safe.
would pay good money to watch whole seasons of a show where Luv goes about her day. it could consist entirely of manicure/drone scenes and i’d still watch.
@2 butters – yeah, I can’t agree with the reviewer’s comment about there being no character to remember ‘well or fondly’ – Luv is totally that character. She’s completely awful, but also completely fascinating.
There are depths to Luv that i didn’t realize during my first viewing.
That pic of her in the article brought a smile to my face.
More spoilers spoilers spoilers:
Thinking about the movie later, I was actually pleasantly surprised at how full and varied the supporting female cast was. Aside from K and Deckard, the men included Wallace (blessedly brief), Sapper Morton (moving but minor), and…some guy running a child labor orphanage? If there were other meaningful guys, they didn’t stick with me. The women, on the other hand, seemed more pivotal, and (since I like themes of childbirth/procreation!) I enjoyed the fact that it was women jockeying for control of the process. Leto hovered in the background and targeted Deckard with what he *thought* another man would want (a nice new compliant duplicate gf, which backfired), but the struggle was really between Luv, Lt. Joshi, and Freysa’s gals. The ‘perfect’ companion, Joi, was ultimately not a real girl, and the ‘real girls’ took the revolution into their own hands.
Anyway, a lot to unpack and I’ll have to watch a second time to see if my impression changes. I also liked that it was K having an existential crisis about being an obedient AI. I’ve seen/read way more than enough “is sexbot human?” stories, which always come across as thinly-veiled “is girl human?” stories, and which often seem to require extensive scenes of abuse to convince us they deserve sympathy.
More spoilers . . .
Of all the things I enjoyed about the movie, and there were many, the inversion of the Roy Batty scene in K’s last scene was probably my favourite.
Was it worth the 30 year wait? Yup.
I actually liked this film alot…..very rich in texture in many ways.. BUT Being of mixed race (black and white) ….I noted only one meager character scene attributed to a person of color…. I will try not to harp much here , but people of color only seem to notice the lack of people of color in movies. Even in group shots or the various advertising around the city and crowds in the streets you didn’t see any ( none that I noticed ) . Perhaps this was an intentional message along with how they see woman in 2049 in this particular future is how they see other races as well .. but I believe they (meaning Directors) simply didn’t want to cast any people of color simply because they didn’t want to. This story took place in Los Angeles. Check the demographics for LA currently is all I am saying. For me, it was a little depressing to be aware of this exclusion. I think I just harped… :)
And, no, just because we see a gruffer, older Deckard does not mean he is definitely human. So the debate continues.
[SPOILERS BELOW]
So ultimately, Wallace is convinced Deckard is a special replicant, like Rachel, stating D was designed to fall in love with Rachel.
Further items to ponder:
In the original: Gaff’s ‘You’ve done a man’s job!’ emphatic quote AND leaving the origami unicorn (how else would he know about the implanted dream/memory? He even states in 2049 that he and Deckard agreed to not interact).
Deckard’s eyes glow like the owl and Rachel’s when he’s out of focus in his apartment with Rachel.
Deckard takes an insane amount of punishment from Batty et. al.
I’m 99.9% certain that Deckard is not a nexus 6 (he doesn’t have their super strength!) but something entirely new that can age. Just like Rachel who did far better than any nexus 6 at the VK testing. This is why Tyrell asks how many questions it usually takes and she goes 3-4x longer in the process. Deckard avoids answering if he had the VK test done himself. Both Deckard and Rachel have memory implants which is new to the Nexus line, which the Nexus 6’s never had – it’s stated the N6 have bizarre emotional growth because they have so little time to ‘catch up’ thus the memory implants are meant to resolve this. There’s a lot of assumptions that the short lifespan of the N6 is applied across the board for all replicants but there is zero evidence this is the case (Sapper has been at that farm for over 20 years), so I’m not sold that Deckard is a human just because he can age. Replicants are genetically engineered humans, not robots or androids, so they should probably age unless designed otherwise.
Deckard is also in hiding for some bizarre reason which would be completely unnecessary if he was human, even if he did ‘smuggle’ Rachel. And he conspires with the other replicants re: 2022 – why would they conspire with a human who hunted replicants??
If you watch the original with that in mind you’ll find that Deckard seems ‘activated’ by Gaff when he’s at the noodle vendor and CLEARLY doesn’t have much of a past other than thin implications that he’s one of the best BRs in the biz.
So while it’s not 100% certain Deckard is a replicant as they never once state it outright but it’s heavily implied.
@@@@@ 8. Philip Wardlow
that was my impression, too. I remember the first film having a more diverse cast, partly because of the importance of Olmos’ role. Like the author of the review, I got uneasy about the roles assigned to women, and debated whether the point was that the film used women’s exploitation as shorthand for exploitation in general in the film, or just pasted current objectification onto the future because the filmmakers were blind to it.
As I continued to watch Blade Runner 2049, I found I had to stifle my laughter more and more, especially after Harrison Ford made his somewhat belated appearance. Fortunately (?) the movie is very loud — and the theater was very empty — so I don’t think I annoyed anybody. I would describe the new film as re-envisioning the original film as a cheesy melodrama.
For example, there’s a scene in which the chief villain (Jared Leto) — the original movie didn’t have a villain — knifes to death a newborn (adult-sized) replicant female, for no reason whatsoever, except to let the audience know he’s evil, evil, evil! Similarly, the villain’s henchwoman kills a policewoman for no good reason, yet leaves the protagonist alive when she should kill him, simply because the movie’s plot still needs him. Instead, she kills his beloved holographic girlfriend (because, you guessed it, she’s evil, evil, evil).
One other aspect of the new film I should mention is how cruddy it looks: the same rusty industrial junkyard I’ve seen in at least two dozen sci-fi dystopias. The original film, with its breathtaking cityscapes and golden sunsets, was not a dystopia; nothing so simple and clichéd. Instead, it was an advanced, complex, troubled world.
The avoidance of clichés is one of the things I treasured about the original film in its theatrical version. But that did confuse some people; and it’s possible that this new version, with all the clichés and stock characters restored, may do better at the box office and among critics.
Note that I referenced the theatrical version of the original film. Very late in the day, Blade Runner director Ridley Scott begin toying with the idea that Deckard might be a replicant. The problem was that the story, like the Philip K Dick novel that inspired it, was based on the assumption that Deckard is not a replicant.
For example, in a pair of scenes, we learn that Capt. Bryant, Deckard’s commanding officer, a) despises replicants; and b) admires Deckard. (The actor who played Capt. Bryant later said the idea Deckard might be a replicant was never mentioned during shooting.)
In a crucial sequence, Deckard, as the number one blade runner, is sent to the headquarters of the Tyrell Corporation, to meet the “big genius“ himself, Dr. Tyrell. Tyrell asks him to administer the replicant detecting test to his beautiful, apparently human assistant, Rachel. With difficulty, Deckard is able to determine that Rachel is in fact a replicant. After she leaves the room, Tyrell explains that Rachel doesn’t know she’s a replicant. “How can it not know what it is,“ asks Deckard. Tyrell proceeds to explain to Deckard the new technology of implanting human memories to stabilize a replicant psychologically.
The problem is, if Deckard is a replicant, then the technology of implanting memories is not new at all, but mature enough that they can give a replicant with fake memories a badge, a gun, and a license to kill. But in that case why is Tyrell, the Steve Jobs of his age, wasting his valuable time discussing a pointless test with a replicant?
@5. samtastic, thank you! I’ve come across a slew of reviews mentioning (or based outright) on how it’s such a dissapointingly male-oriented world with no agency for women etc etc.
And yet, besides some tall holograms and the compliancy of Joi, there is far more genuine strength in the female cast than the atmosphere suggests.
It may be a (somewhat sleazy) man’s world in 2049 – although when you remove all natural beauty and all calls for art, what is there left but sex? – but the slice of that world that the characters present to the audience is far more equitable in terms of gender agency.