 |
| The dull poster designs didn't help in selling the film |
Put bluntly, I'm not a fan. Don't hate it, but the property never resonated with me.
Blade Runner 2049 seemed like a weird and risky $150million+ gamble for Warner Brothers. It's not like the original was ever anything but a cult favorite. It's not like it has the mass cultural appeal of Star Wars, Star Trek or even the Alien franchise (of which it's loosely a part). It's not adventurous enough, not action-oriented really at all to appeal to the broader range of moviegoing public. It's a bleak and bleary future world that always feels heavy and uninviting. It's inspired dozens upon dozens of impersonators, few of which have been successful.
Somewhere deep down, the WB was thinking that The Force Awakens was such a smash hit primarily because it brought Harrison Ford back in the fold, and that doing so again with another sci-fi property would be a sure fire hit. Nevermind that director Denis Villeneuve was just coming off the critically successful Arrival and a string of other sleeper hits, they must have thought they had box office gold forthcoming.
But the original Blade Runner hadn't ever transcended its cult status and the box office for 2049 reflected that quite handily. It struggled to draw an audience beyond the fandom despite healthy critical praise (and a little cultural blowback, which we'll get to). The excitement of Ford returning as Deckard was certainly nothing compared to returning as Han Solo. I mean, I love big budget sci-fi (conceptually) and tend to gravitate towards it even when it's bad, but good word of mouth still couldn't draw me into this one at the theatre. Not that I didn't think about it, figuring that I would have a harder time falling asleep watching it if I was at the theatre. As much as Blade Runner's reputation is of that as a classic of the genre, I think there's probably more people who saw the original and weren't entertained or engaged by it than love it, and that reputation kept people away from this sequel.
The thing is it's good. It's really good. It doesn't fundamentally shift away from its predecessor in tone, and it's a loving homage to its past, yet, to be perfectly honest, it's more than a few steps up in quality, and not just because of the money and technology modern filmmaking can throw at it (not that it doesn't help). I mean, Roger Deakins cinematography is miles beyond Jordan Cronenweth's of the original ...not that it doesn't still hold up fairly well, all things considered, but it's nothing like Deakins, who is if not THE master of his craft today, certainly in the conversation for it. This is just a flat-out gorgeous-looking film. Villeneuve has a great eye to start and I think Deakins knows how to perfectly execute that intent (having worked with him before on Sicario and Prisoners, it's clear they have a compatible partnership).
With a script from returning Blade Runner writer Hampton Fancher (with Michael Green), the sequel more than understand its need to act as both sequel and stand alone story. Although I've seen Blade Runner in full a handful of times, because I've fallen asleep so often during those viewings I really don't remember the specifics...it's like trying to remember the finer details of a dream. Yet I was never lost with 2049. I'm sure there were probably a few nods to the past I missed, but it's just savvy filmmaking to put the viewer into a very fleshed-out world and fill in any necessary details as you go. It does so remarkably. Honestly, had they called this something else other than "Blade Runner", a different title altogether, it probably would have pulled another 50 to 100 million in the box office. It's certainly accessible enough to stand on its own while also carrying forward a story from 35 years ago. Think about a gorgeous sci-fi epic starring Ford and Ryan Gosling that didn't lean so heavily on the franchise name, it should have been an much easier sell.
Much of the negative reaction has been around the film's troubling depiction of women. As I watched, aware of the criticism, I found myself keenly observing how the women's roles are depicted. There is certainly an awareness within the film itself of the troubling life for women in this dystopic future...I mean life is generally harsh, but the film is just that much harsher on its female characters. Prostitution and subservience is largely their role, acting as sexual aggressors seems to be their response to gain control. I found Ana de Armas' Joi to be the most fully realized female character, and seemingly most in control of her destiny, as a holographic artificial intelligence and partner to Gosling's K, a replicant, and hunter of replicants. Joi expresses her desires, and establishes a sense of ownership over her limited detiny that was honestly surprising, moreso than troubling or like she was any less of a partner to K. K is clearly in love with her, though as a replicant and blade runner, he seem keenly aware he's not supposed to be feeling any emotions. But that sense of control Joi had really gets the rug pulled out from under it when K encounters a promotional hologram for the "Joi model", which creates a very thought provoking paradox about what's self-awareness and what's just programming. Ultimately those criticisms of the film being sexist are accurate, but the rebuttal that it is knowingly so is also accurate. What it's trying to say about the sexism as commentary on society is also obfuscated enough that it's easy to fall on the critical or defensive side and be right either way.
Problematic or not, 2049 is going to be another cult classic in time. It's just too well crafted not to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment