Blade Runner 2049 has received
glowing reviews from nearly all the major critics. It is a sequel to a movie
that regularly scores in Top 5 lists of the best science fiction movies ever
made. So why were there only 6 people (5 plus myself) in the 350 seat theater where
I saw the movie? Nor was this an anomaly. The opening weekend ($31.5 million in
the US for a movie costing $150 million) doesn’t even rise to the level of
disappointing. One reason is evident from my handful of co-viewers: all but one
was a guy and no one was under 30. This was not an anomaly either. Viewers so
far overwhelmingly have been males over 25.
It is easy to forget that the
original Blade Runner was in theaters
35 years ago. Today’s prime theater-going demographic was more than a decade
away from being born. (One may note that the original also flopped at the box
office in 1982; it gained cult status later on video.) Younger Millennials and
iGens don’t have the same affection for the original that older scifi fans do.
Furthermore, Blade Runner 2049 is not
the fast-paced action-packed smash’em-up (e.g. The Avengers) that modern audiences expect – a fact discernible
from the trailer. The film unfolds leisurely for 164 minutes. While there is no
shortage of violence, it is largely confined to specific characters without the
city-destroying spectacular mayhem so prevalent in flicks lately. Many
theatergoers apparently don’t trust that less flashy elements of the movie
(such as the script) can hold their attention. As it happens the stay-aways are
missing out, for there is much to offer in this film. The bleak but gaudy
cityscapes and landscapes are visually impressive while grounded in the vision
of the original movie (and of Philip K. Dick’s novella), and the script is intelligent.
Never mind the impossible
timeline: scifi movies chronically are set much too near in the future (e.g. 2001: A Space Odyssey). In this
alternate earth, space and bio technology advanced at a far more rapid pace while
the environmental and demographic collapse is more severe. As in the first Blade Runner, replicants (bio-engineered
people) are manufactured and used as a servile caste on earth and in space. The
newer models have more obedience built into them than the older ones, but there
is evidence they can evolve beyond those restrictions. Though a replicant
himself, “K” (Ryan Gosling) is a Blade Runner, a law enforcer tasked with
hunting down and eliminating those errant models, particularly the older less controllable
ones. K has a VR companion Joi (Ana de Armas) whose machine artificial
intelligence raises the same question (is she “real”?) with regard to him that
he faces with regard to natural-born humans. The replicants are unable to
reproduce in the natural way, but it seems that two older models (yes, that’s
where Harrison Ford fits in – reprising old roles is getting to be a habit with
him) managed to do it, showing that such a design is possible. (This is
precisely the key plot element in R.U.R.,
Karel Capek’s 1920 play about self-aware robots [the word “robot” was invented
by Capek], so it has a venerable heritage.) Blade
Runner 2049 asks questions about the nature of personhood, of
individuality, of family, of group identity, and of servitude.
All in all, it was a well-spent
164 minutes. Thumbs Up.
By the way, the answer to the
question about personhood – unarticulated but inherent in the movie – is that
it belongs to any entity able to ask the question consciously.
Blade Runner 2049 – Trailer
Your experience was the same for me. Even though I went to a late night showing 10pm on a Saturday night, I expected a bigger audience than what was there. I think there were 3 or 4 younger guys, two women around college age, and me. I was rather shocked, but at least I could sit anywhere.
ReplyDeleteI think the film is polarizing. It actually made you think to keep up, which is unusual in these spoon fed times. I still have questions about the film, and I suspect that was all preplanned. If one was expecting another Star Wars film, they'd get jolted. I remember Dune having the same impact. It also reminded me 2001 in that regard. People left scratching their heads. I could easily see it again just to try and clear up a few questions. But I think too the film/script did an excellent job in always trying to push P K Dick's ideas of trying to figure out what's real, what and who can you trust, what's an implant, is that implant a red herring, and so forth.
One of the things I wondered about is that if all these replicants or Andys were the same, why are some more cunning, stronger, etc. than others? Why was the female replicant, Luv, considered somehow better than the rest? I guess you can always come up with your own internal logic as not everything is spelled out in the film. I tend to like that better. I also wondered about Dr. Ana Stelline in the bubble/ jail. I guess she was responsible for installing the false memories? But then they did that in the first film too, so they didn't really need her to do that. At any rate, interesting film, came away with a lot of questions and gave me something to think about.
I must admit the run time gave me pause before I plumped for a ticket. If the movie turned out to be bad that would have been a slog. The thought surely occurs to others, too. But it’s fine. Despite the unhurried pace it doesn’t drag.
DeleteIf there is a sequel – though unless the box office picks up there won’t be for another 35 years – I’m sure Ana will be central to it.
Does there come a point when “I’m real now” is all that matters? Joss Whedon asked the same question in his “Dollhouse” series in which people (dolls) contract to have their memories wiped and to get new imprints in their place time and again. On the occasions when the imprinted dolls become aware that they are manufactured personalities, they are not eager to return to their “real” selves. They want to keep their own current lives, whether they are “fake” or not.
Yeah I saw it on the second weekend, and my theater had about 10 people in it. Most of them were my age or older, so the target audience is certainly skewing to Gen X and older. The thing is, as much as sci-fi fans like or love "Blade Runner" most general viewers don't like it. Even in my video store days, I don't remember the film renting out too often.
ReplyDeleteWe got an amazing Laser Disc version of the director's cut of the film that included a ton of behind the scenes production design information. Just amazing stuff. I kept telling people to check it out, but I kept getting the same "Ick" face. Or "i heard that movie wasn't any good". The movie is pretty darn slow moving and Harrison Ford is not a likable guy in it. My wife appreciates the film, but didn't like it too much. She declined to go with me to the sequel (although I think she'd like it more than the original - the mystery element to the plot would pull her in).
All that said, I'm still not sure how this movie got green lit. I'm glad it did. I really loved it. But the original bombed in its theatrical run, it has had about 1 billion different versions released on home video making it hard for new comers to figure out which one to start with, and the trailers made it look like an art film (which it kind of is). In a way I'm not too surprised that the film bombed in theaters.
Good point that the high opinion comes from a select audience -- a self-selected audience.
DeleteI know that ick-face. I've gotten it every time I've recommended Joss Whedon's "Much do about Nothing." The very thought reminds most people of unpleasant school assignments. It's not really a high-brow recommendation, but only the self-selected find that out.
I hope "Blade Runner 2049" at least doesn't lose money. I wouldn't want the studios to be afraid to chance something like this from time to time.