Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
ng4996
the Wizard of Ozu
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 11:01 pm
Location: Missoula, MT

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#326 Post by ng4996 » Tue Jan 23, 2018 2:10 pm

I think he tends to be subtle. He usually does what he thinks is best for the film. Skyfall, and BR2049 are flashier, but the films arguably call for it. Sicario and No Country For Old Men are also great pieces of work, but the cinematography hardly calls attention to itself.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#327 Post by matrixschmatrix » Tue Jan 23, 2018 2:12 pm

I wasn't quibbling, just saying that Deakins playing to the back of the room in a genre movie has been nommed unsuccessfully before

User avatar
Ribs
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#328 Post by Ribs » Tue Jan 23, 2018 2:13 pm

ng4996 wrote:I think he tends to be subtle. He usually does what he thinks is best for the film. Skyfall, and BR2049 are flashier, but the films arguably call for it. Sicario and No Country For Old Men are also great pieces of work, but the cinematography hardly calls attention to itself.
The sunset silhouettes sequence in Sicario is possibly the most flashy sequence cinematographically of a movie I can think of

User avatar
ng4996
the Wizard of Ozu
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 11:01 pm
Location: Missoula, MT

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#329 Post by ng4996 » Tue Jan 23, 2018 2:17 pm

Ribs wrote:
ng4996 wrote:I think he tends to be subtle. He usually does what he thinks is best for the film. Skyfall, and BR2049 are flashier, but the films arguably call for it. Sicario and No Country For Old Men are also great pieces of work, but the cinematography hardly calls attention to itself.
The sunset silhouettes sequence in Sicario is possibly the most flashy sequence cinematographically of a movie I can think of
You should see Gravity

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#330 Post by domino harvey » Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:05 am

I didn’t expect much from this considering I didn’t like the original even a little. Indeed, I had no intention of ever seeing this but was goosed into doing so and am glad I was, as I thought this was terrific. As a nearly three hour tone exercise, it is remarkable for a big budget tentpole studio film. It is not hard to see why butts were not put or kept in seats, as this thing is a slow burn, emphasis on slow.

I will say that I’m disappointed once again in the Internet Outrage Brigade for calling this movie out for misogyny. This is a film in which the most human character is an electronic fetish object who overcomes her programming to form meaningful and human interactions with her partner. In a film in which none of the characters have any real characterization other than their function within the narrative (and this is enough for this film), why attack one of the most fluid characters in the film? Though it treads some of the same ground as Her, I found these moments to be the film’s most compelling. I think this sort of artificial companionship is inevitable in the future, and we can already see seeds of it in today’s society— not just in products like Amazon Echo or Siri, but even in the growing popularity of existent pornography (with Joi’s name sharing the acronym for a brand of talk-based pornography that manufacture artificial human interaction— “Jerk Off Instructions”) and, more tellingly, in non-pornographic videos like ASMR, in which a pretty person with a soothing voice talks to the viewer, with pauses for responses in a sad mimic of reality. These latter vids are especially popular with young people, our next generation. Once technology catches up, if you don’t think we’ll see some variation of Ana de Armas’ character in the next decade, you’re a fool.

For an aesthetic-based film like this, Villeneuve in fact goes out of his way to not sexualize his living sex doll, even in moments in which doing so would make sense: Note how until the advertisement near the end of the film, Ana de Armas is carefully filmed to reveal no nudity (and before Mackenzie Davis is brought in, there’s little evidence that Gosling had ever even used her for a masturbatory purpose). This makes the vulgarity of her living billboard near the end of the film all the more impactful, and no one could read it as an endorsement of sexual objectification unless they wanted it to be so. This brand of willfully uncharitable readings is standard issue for the internet, I know, but disappointing for a film with a lot of avenues actually present in the narrative that would allow for discussion without creating faux problems to serve an overarching ideological bias.

User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#331 Post by Big Ben » Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:45 am

To give you an idea of how far people have reached with this film I saw the sequence with a certain film criticized because they didn't use the correct individual for the scene. By making a digital version of this woman the film was being misogynistic. Women were throwaways. How else would they have done the scene dare I ask? People are actually Mad Online™ about this. And as I stated previously in this thread if you don't think virtual women or sex dolls aren't going to be a thing as soon as they're legitimately possible and consumable you're fooling yourself. I agree with domino. And surely Villenueve's previous work with leading women is evidence enough that he isn't some misogynist that emerged from the bowels of the internet to lay waste to us all?
SpoilerShow
But hey it's far cooler to point out the nudity than the fact that people have created a new form of slavery. \:D/

User avatar
Ribs
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#332 Post by Ribs » Sun Feb 11, 2018 2:32 pm

It's become an incredibly infuriating, common opinion that reminds me a lot of the Boyhood "took 12 years to make" backlash that somehow became the consensus opinion that Blade Runner 2049 is actually better because the original is just neat visuals without a real narrative to draw you in. I know several people who don't know one another who've all told me this same exact thing and it makes me want to pull my hair out - somehow the fact that the original is one of the capital-g Great films, on par with like, Touch of Evil or Rashomon, has not entered the general consensus, and these people are happy to just write off this beloved, properly canonical work because they like a film that forms a poor simulacrum of those same visuals with a clear-as-crystal story that at its root undermines the entire central mystery of the first film. This dumb opinion that just totally writes off one of the pillars of American film (something I myself didn't really care for much to begin with) as though it would even be remotely possible for a new film made by WB in 2017 to even come close to that level of quality has entirely soured my opinion on this film to totally mixed to downright negative. Admirable for certain things regarding studio blockbusters, but it's really nothing that other recent WB tentpoles didn't do with more behind them and much earned greater success.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#333 Post by domino harvey » Sun Feb 11, 2018 2:46 pm

Uh, what? Your claims are more hyperbolic than those of the detractors you're calling out

User avatar
DarkImbecile
Ask me about my visible cat breasts
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#334 Post by DarkImbecile » Sun Feb 11, 2018 2:50 pm

domino harvey wrote:Uh, what?
You beat me to the exact same sentiment by 30 seconds.

If the fact of other people liking Movie A more than Movie B makes you hate Movie A, I can’t say I put much stock in your critical opinion of Movie B.
Last edited by DarkImbecile on Sun Feb 11, 2018 2:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#335 Post by domino harvey » Sun Feb 11, 2018 2:54 pm

If you can't go into any new film you watch with the belief or hope that it could be better than a film that came before, why even watch movies at all? Every film deserves a fair shake on its own merits. This is precisely the same kind of out of hand ideological dismissals I was decrying upthread

User avatar
Ribs
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#336 Post by Ribs » Sun Feb 11, 2018 3:07 pm

It wasn't meant as a response to anything Domino was saying above, and I didn't mean it that way if that's how it came across I'm sorry! Just something I've been thinking about as the film's come up more in conversation with its recent home video release.

Maybe it's an unpopular opinion, but I just genuinely believe that is an absolute, definite, empirical fact that it's impossible to make a film to anywhere near the same level of quality as a film of such esteem as the first Blade Runner. The reason why some people are led down this path has made me question entirely their reasons for preferring it, and upon consideration dislike the film even more and admire the first film on its own. I think the second film, unlike the first, doesn't actually have an opinion on Deckard being a replicant or not, and is operating for the entire time on this balancing act of "it means both things!" without actually at any time meaning one thing, whereas in the first film he clearly was replicant but used the uncertainty as a method of exploring that. I've expounded on my extreme distaste for the deeply shoddy, inevitably Oscar-winning cinematography of this film above.

Essentially: It's being hailed by everyone as this sort of break from the form of mass-market blockbusters, that (in a quote I've seen several people mocking, because it's really pretty ridiculous, but I get what he means by it) it's some kind of weird art-house blockbuster. The first Blade Runner really was that (well, not really, but the closest you can get to something like that) - other films from WB in recent memory, like Mad Max: Fury Road and Dunkirk, were that too. This is just another blockbuster, to me, and equating it with the earlier film or the impossibility of thinking it better just does not compound with the way I view the film with regards to the studio environment that produced it.

I don't *want* every film to be better than other films. I don't go to movies to just see things that are the best. Just because there was no way for this to be better than the first one - which I maintain, and is true for nearly any movie you could make as a sequel to any top-of-the-top critical darling films - doesn't mean that it couldn't have been to my mind good. And the dismissive towards the original tone of the acclaim it's gotten from practically everyone I know has really struck me sour.

User avatar
DarkImbecile
Ask me about my visible cat breasts
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#337 Post by DarkImbecile » Sun Feb 11, 2018 3:16 pm

So I take it you’re not one of those who thinks Godfather Part II is the best of the series...

It’s fine if you love the original and are lukewarm on 2049, but this idea that sequels, remakes, or modern films altogether can’t be better than their predecessors is patently absurd. If you want to argue that the original is better than the sequel, go ahead (and I’m one of those who would disagree), but to just state it as a truism that others are too dense to comprehend isn’t convincing.

User avatar
Ribs
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#338 Post by Ribs » Sun Feb 11, 2018 3:23 pm

It has nothing to do with the idea that a sequel can't be better than the original - only that the original happens to be one of the consistently agreed-upon top-50-or-so films of all time. My point is less about Godfather II being the best but about why Godfather III was never going to work - you just can't make a sequel of a film that is so clearly canonical and put it on the same pedestal. Godfather II was a sequel to a beloved film, but Godfather III was a sequel to possibly the greatest American film(s) of all time. I don't even love the original! I just think you can't make a movie better than it! I don't think this is that crazy an opinion! Maybe I'm wrong!

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#339 Post by zedz » Sun Feb 11, 2018 3:26 pm

Well, I'm of the opinion that the original Bladerunner simply isn't a great film. It was hugely influential in a superficial way, but that's a long way from greatness, and an even longer way from "Touch of Evil greatness". I don't see why any film should be above criticism or beyond compare simply because it got a certain number of upvotes on imdb. So to me you just sound like an old man (or a Marvel vs. DC fanboy) yelling on a street corner.

User avatar
Ribs
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#340 Post by Ribs » Sun Feb 11, 2018 3:40 pm

We both know that I'm talking about something with more solid critical backing than IMDb user votes, which favor the more recent film, in the least surprising news ever. Real, respected polls of critics and directors consistently turn up Blade Runner as a film in the top 100 of all time, ahead of Alien (a film that I think many think is more "popular" in a conventional mass-appeal sense). It's an "great" film in a sense that (to me, anyway) supersedes notions of subjectivity and can't really be challenged purely on its own terms and not as a personal reaction, due to having been established as such for decades now.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#341 Post by Mr Sausage » Sun Feb 11, 2018 3:45 pm

Ribs wrote:We both know that I'm talking about something with more solid critical backing than IMDb user votes, which favor the more recent film, in the least surprising news ever. Real, respected polls of critics and directors consistently turn up Blade Runner as a film in the top 100 of all time, ahead of Alien (a film that I think many think is more "popular" in a conventional mass-appeal sense). It's an "great" film in a sense that (to me, anyway) supersedes notions of subjectivity and can't really be challenged purely on its own terms and not as a personal reaction, due to having been established as such for decades now.
Consensus does not determine, let alone equal, objectivity.

People agree on things up until they don't. Citizen Kane was the Greatest Film of All Time for over fifty years, until it wasn't. Blade Runner is one of the top 50 films ever made, until it isn't. If you're looking to consensus to determine the objective existence of this or that reality, you're going to be sadly disappointed at how arbitrary and mutable consensus is.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#342 Post by domino harvey » Sun Feb 11, 2018 3:53 pm

There is no such thing as an untouchable "great" film, as this is a value judgment and impossible to be universal. Every last one of us has "sacred cows" we dislike and while I can't speak for places like Reddit or Twitter, at the very least most of us here don't come to our opinions from being uninformed or ignorant. One can, however, argue a film is broadly well-liked, influential, and important-- three words I'd say are fair to ascribe to the original Blade Runner, even though I like it not at all. But the idea that regardless of the eventual quality, you believed a sequel could not be as good as the original because of your own notions of greatness is a debilitating and unconvincing stance, and I say this not lightly, makes you no different than Armond White. I'm surprised that you would hold and espouse this approach to viewing and prejudging a film, as I generally consider you to be a thoughtful poster. Hopefully the strong response here will allow you to step back and look at what you're saying...

User avatar
DarkImbecile
Ask me about my visible cat breasts
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#343 Post by DarkImbecile » Sun Feb 11, 2018 4:06 pm

To Domino and Mr. Sausage’s points, look at the arguments you’re using regarding critical consensus and at how casually you tossed out that Godfather Part III could not have been good because Godfather Part II was a classic and obviously so superior to the first Godfather - which is itself held to much greater critical esteem in the aggregate than the original Blade Runner by a substantial distance!

This comes off much more like trying to selectively use majority opinions when they reinforce your personal tastes - which don’t need any reinforcing! - and to denigrate the tastes of others.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#344 Post by domino harvey » Sun Feb 11, 2018 4:13 pm

Also, I think Godfather Part III is better than Part II. So what?

User avatar
DarkImbecile
Ask me about my visible cat breasts
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#345 Post by DarkImbecile » Sun Feb 11, 2018 4:20 pm

OK, now that’s objectively wrong.

Just kidding, I still haven’t seen III

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#346 Post by domino harvey » Sun Feb 11, 2018 4:26 pm

I believe Ebert agreed with me, though I don't know of many others who did. And along those lines, Scorsese and me may be the only two people who prefer the Exorcist II to the original. But hey, I'll take this company!

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#347 Post by knives » Sun Feb 11, 2018 5:22 pm

domino harvey wrote:I believe Ebert agreed with me, though I don't know of many others who did. And along those lines, Scorsese and me may be the only two people who prefer the Exorcist II to the original. But hey, I'll take this company!
You've got me as well though I'm sure for some here that would be a negative.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#348 Post by Mr Sausage » Sun Feb 11, 2018 5:38 pm

domino harvey wrote:And along those lines, Scorsese and me may be the only two people who prefer the Exorcist II to the original. But hey, I'll take this company!
I believe Pauline Kael did, too. So you are indeed in pretty good (if, to my mind, utterly demented) company.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#349 Post by matrixschmatrix » Sun Feb 11, 2018 6:41 pm

I don't really know how you could look at the original as an unimpeachable classic when it exists in something like seven different cuts- self evidently, it's something that Scott himself felt could be greatly improved upon. I think it's an ambitious, beautiful, flawed movie, and I think this one is too, though in very different ways- 2049 feels less 'visionary' to me, if only because it has a harder time breaking through what feels normal in a world of cgi, but in terms of theme and character it is if anything rather more ambitious, and risks maybe trying to say too much all at once. The original works in part because it takes a book in which Dick is as usually trying to express dozens of his obsessive themes and ruthlessly slicing it away to a very straightforward through-line, and then using that through-line to explore this beautiful, fallen neon noir environment. This one doesn't restore Dick's themes, but it does smash all sorts of things in anyway, and for me at least nearly everything in shoves in is itself really compelling, particularly the tension that arises from all of them co-existing.
SpoilerShow
It's a more revolutionary movie than Blade Runner, too, one that is willing more thoroughly to reject the status quo. Blade Runner features a cop hunting down and murdering people who are dangerous, beautiful, intelligent, and more like himself than he is capable of confronting. He succeeds because they are, by the end, his moral superiors as well, and Batty is able to show grace, something that did not appear to exist in the movie previously- and while he is obviously disenchanted with his work, it never rises above the level of normal noirish cynicism in that respect, never really commits to saying that the system in question is an intolerable one and that working to end it is necessary. 2049 does- it ultimately sides with the replicants, and concludes that a slave society cannot be tolerated. K's consciousness is raised to breaking out of his programming via a misconception- that he might be a 'real' person, not just a replicant- but this misconception proves ultimately what the movie has taken for granted, to wit, that replicants are fully human, and thus that what is being done to them cannot be tolerated. The original toyed with this, but was too downtrodden for anyone really to do anything about it; 2049 offers hope, a belief that this can be changed.
I agree with Dom that the critique of the sexualization of Joi at the end, if any such critique existed (I must have missed it) is misguided- Joi is to K as K is to the non replicant people, in some ways, and I think the horror K experiences at the base state of her, the fairly raw sex doll-ness of the presentation, is an appropriate expression of how far he's come- in a subtle way, he has become more willing to see her as fully human as he became more willing to see himself as fully human, so at the point at which this occurs the utterly degraded state of the not-Joi he encounters feels fairly vital to what the movie is trying to express, even as it also parallels the simulacra theme of Deckard's earlier experience with not-Rachel.

User avatar
jbeall
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:22 am
Location: Atlanta-ish

Re: Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

#350 Post by jbeall » Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:58 pm

I watched it this weekend and thought it was very good, if not a masterpiece. After reading the back half of this thread, I especially appreciate domino's and zedz's comments, which articulate better than I can right now what I liked about the film, especially Joi's character-arc. (Side note: dom's defense of the film against accusations of misogyny reminds me of Todd VanDerWerff's review of the Netflix series Altered Carbon, which I just finished watching.)

For me, BR2049 was more narratively-driven than its prequel, though that's not saying much, and if it had to resort to some shopworn tropes in order to move the narrative along, I'll take that compromise. At the same time, I thought the overall mood it created was effective. The first film wallows in a sense of despair about what the world has become and the prospects of those who cannot afford to go off-world, and 2049 replaces that with a sense of resignation after several more decades of anomie that's evident in K's general demeanor.

One last thing:
SpoilerShow
when "Joe" K. lies down on the steps to die, I wonder if his formulaic behavior immediately beforehand raises the question of whether or not he's acting of his own free will and thus "more human than human," as it were. In Kafka's The Trial, Josef K is stabbed and and dies "like a dog." There is a dog in BR2049, and K asks if it's real, to which Deckard replies, "Why don't you ask him?" thus leaving the question unanswered. So to the extent that K is dying "like a dog," and the only dog in the movie is of uncertain authenticity, this might leave some ambivalence as to the level of "humanity" that K has achieved over the course of the film.

Post Reply