#overall I love that the blindness part gets more screentime it’s important to me ok??

[fenixburned]

new german r.apunzel version has dropped & naturally my christian muse is LIVING 🥹🥹🥹

[femcurrent]

Sorry Gen X, Blade Runner 2049 was better than the Original

by Caity

Four hours ago, I walked out of the Seattle cinerama--one of the last four theaters of its kind in the world--awestruck by Denis Villenuve’s latest cinematic marvel. Sixteen hours before that, I was falling asleep watching the cult classic it was based on.

Now before any flamethrowers comment on this basing their responses purely on the title of my post and that line, I will say that I paused the film as soon as I noticed my weariness, went to sleep, and finished it the next morning so that I did not miss any part of the film. And for the most part, I enjoyed it. Ridley Scott created a beautifully shot film with an amazing score, and it had one of the most moving antagonist death scenes I’ve seen on screen. I even forgave the ridiculousness of Roy jumping across building tops clutching a dove after he uttered the line, “All those memories will be lost in time like tears in the rain.”

But as someone who identifies as both a cinephile and general fan of science fiction, this film was a bit of a let down. A large part of that is due to the source material--Philip K. Dick’s novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” Our protagonist, Deckard, a generally uninteresting bounty hunter type, learns of four rogue replicants who have returned to earth and are causing chaos, and he then proceeds to hunt down and “retire” them. (It’s not execution if they’re not humans!) That’s the whole plot--incredibly linear. Sure, along the way, he develops a loose romantic connection with another replicant, Rachel, who is having a bit of an identity crisis after learning she’s not really human, but Rachel’s purpose in the film is mostly for Deckard to realize that maybe replicants are people after all. (And spoiler alert--he might be one too!) The final scene with Roy showing empathy and recounting his love of life as he slowly dies accomplished that point way more than any of the moments with Rachel.

So why was the new one better? I’ll tell you five reasons in the least spoiler-y way I can.

1) Representation: The first film created a world that, understandably, featured Chinese people, food, and language assuming the future interconnected world of 2019 would be influenced by the planet’s majority culture, but basically every main character was white, and overwhelming male. There were three female characters, Rachel, Pris, and Zhora. Zhora got zero character development, Pris, a “pleasure model,” was essentially a sexual being whose main goal was not dying, and Rachel, while empathetic and given a decent amount of screentime, did not really have a personality. 

Blade Runner 2049 had TWO black people (they didn’t disappear in this futuristic world--I wasn’t sure), a few Latino people including Edward James Olmos revisiting his role from the first one, and a much more balanced male to female cast. Robin Wright, ever powerful, plays a police chief who perhaps values order over individual life. Ana de Armas plays an AI with a heart of gold. Carla Juri gave a stunning performance as a memory scientist/artist. And Mackenzie Davis plays a charming prostitute. Furthermore, Sylvie Hoeks’s character “Luv” was a typical badass right-hand man type. The role could have easily been played by a man, but it wasn’t! Speaking of the antagonists and representation, Jared Leto plays a wealthy CEO desperate to find a way to make even more money, and he was blind. It did not hinder his ability to do his job, and it also wasn’t his only character trait. It was just...part of who he was. It was awesome.

While the film could have included some more people of color in prominent roles and an LGBTQ character should have been included, overall, the cast of the second film was significantly more diverse than the first.

2) Storyline and characterization. I already mentioned the lackluster plot of the first one, but 2049 was brilliant! Instead of telling the audience in a 10 minute infodump exactly what’s going to happen at the start of the movie, we discover details of a curious case alongside our protagonist, K. We make predictions that are sometimes true, and sometimes we’re thrown some curveballs. And unlike the first one, I actually cared about the people in the film. They had backstories, reasonable motivations, and enough screen time to fully develop them along the way. The first movie was 1 hour 57 minutes long and dragged. The second was 2 hours 43 minutes and I did not notice the time go by.

3) Female Sexuality. I haven’t done much research, but I’m sure there are plenty of angry blogs about the sex scene in the original film. If you are unfamiliar with this scene, let me tell you: it did not age well. And while the new movie tried to excuse it, providing evidence that Rachel was interested in Deckard from the moment they met, it’s really hard for me to watch a scene where a woman actively runs away from a man who kissed her, is blocked, and then told to say “Kiss me” to him and think to myself, “Oh yeah, this seems consensual. She’s definitely not just saying that out of fear of her current situation.” The new film was not able to change what was made, so the writers, Hampton Fancher and Michael Green, played it off as she was afraid of any form of intimacy with a man she was interested in, and not just afraid of Deckard himself. Way to work with what you’ve got fellas! But the new film’s sex scene was completely the opposite. Ryan Gosling’s K is completely satisfied with not being able to touch his romantic partner. However, she wants more and finds a creative way to get around the whole holograms-don’t-have mass thing. It was a moving moment and definitely a step forward for female sexuality.

4) Social Commentary. While the Original Blade Runner definitely hit on the idea of overpopulation (people had to move off of planet earth!) that wasn’t the main goal. And it did bring up the important question of “what does it mean to be human?” subverting the idea that “antagonist” means “bad guy.” The replicants just wanted to live. But Blade Runner 2049 took it a step forward--replicants are second class citizens for no real reason other than they aren’t the ones in power. I’m sure the line, “Dying for the right cause? What could be more human than that?” resonated with many people in the audience.

On top of that, there was a ton of social commentary on resource management and global warming. LA had to be walled off from the rising ocean tide, there was constant rain, and for some reason, it alternated between snowing and scorching heat over the course of very little time and distance.

5) Cinematography. Ok, actually, the cinematography of the first one was brilliant. No complaints here. But the new one does not disappoint. #giveDenisVillenuveadamnOscar

Where the first film felt like, “The future if it were the 80s” complete with sharply angled flying cars and shoulder pad power suits, this one is a representation of “the future if it were the mid 2010s.” There were corrupt corporations, women taking control, abuse of the environment, and an oppressed people fighting for equality. In conclusion, if you haven’t seen Blade Runner, you could still enjoy Blade Runner 2049 if you like well shot, futuristic suspense films with legitimate female representation. If you liked Blade Runner, go see Blade Runner 2049 and don’t be a slave to the ideology that “the sequel is never as good as the original.”