Blog Archive

Saturday, October 14, 2017

Blade Runner 2049: Is The Sequel Better?

You don’t need to have seen the original Blade Runner (1982) to get into the 2017 sequel: Blade Runner 2049. The new version, directed by Denis Villeneuve [Arrival (2016), Sicario (2015)] provides all you need to know within the first few minutes, while updating those of us familiar with the original about what has changed.  The first picture was set in 2019, and the new one takes place, as the name suggests, thirty years on.

The 1982 Blade Runner, of course, is the much beloved masterpiece from Ridley Scott [Alien (1979), Thelma and Louise (1991), Gladiator (2000)] set in what we now have to call an alternative universe (originally it was an imagined future) in which anyone with any wealth lived “off-world”. Earth, epitomized by a dark, wet, claustrophobic Los Angeles, brightened only by garish oversized electronic ads everywhere, was a nasty, overcrowded and often brutal place for those left behind. The picture starred Harrison Ford as the blade runner Deckard, with a cast that included Rutger Hauer, Sean Young, Daryl Hannah and Edward James Olmos. It was a groundbreaking movie - a dark, visually stunning blend of neo-noir detective story and dystopian sci-fi suspense thriller.

No spoilers, but let’s start with a bit of background:

In the Blade Runner universe, there are “replicants” – androids (which is to say manufactured creatures), in this case flesh and blood beings that are largely indistinguishable from natural-born humans (aside from their means of creation) only much stronger. They also have relatively short lives of just a few years. In the original film, the replicants are made and used as slave labor for mining and other dangerous work on some of the off-worlds and, because they are considered sub-human and themselves dangerous (and dangerously rebellious), they are forbidden on earth. Special detectives, known as blade runners, track down and “retire”, i.e. destroy, any rogue replicants who manage to sneak back. Deckard, a Sam Spade type, is one of the best of these cops. Early in the film, he is tasked with tracking down and retiring four suspected androids.  The job is intriguing, and he attacks it with some relish. But then the unexpected happens: He falls in love with a highly placed replicant from another world, and his attitude about these people changes. He starts looking at his job as murder.   

The core story in Blade Runner 2049 is not so different. Thirty years on, there are still replicants, but they’ve been improved. Their longevity has been increased. They have implanted memories of the childhood they never had. But for this they are much the same as other people, except of course that they must live as a subservient class. And they can’t reproduce. Also, because the new replicants have been engineered to obey, they are no longer considered dangerous (or rebellious). In fact, replicants are so reliable and obedient, they are often employed as blade runners themselves – to track down and retire the few remaining older models.


And so, in Blade Runner 2049, we have “K”, so named for the first letter of his serial number, played
by Ryan Gosling. He is a blade runner walking in the big shoes of his predecessor, Deckard, and filling them pretty well. And the same can be said for director Villeneuve, who produces a film sequel not only worthy of its heritage, but possibly better than the original.

Velleneuve is a more thoughtful director in some ways than Ridley Scott –  by which I mean his movies seem more contemplative.  It’s not so much that his protagonists are more pensive or introspective. Rather, this director has a way of melding story and action with provocative moral dilemmas, and giving his hero (and us) the space to reflect on the complex implications of such situations. The pacing of his films in key sequences - the soundtrack and cinematography soar as the actor looks around or the camera zooms in and holds a close-up as he experiences a sudden, perhaps profound realization or unexpected grief (or joy) - all of these things accentuate and illuminate the emotional reaction and spirit of key characters in a way that feels quite profound and moving. This approach is what made Villeneuve’s last picture, Arrival, not just a suspenseful movie about aliens, but also a meditation about the wonder of communication, the true meaning of connection, and the direction of time.

And so it is with Blade Runner 2049. There’s plenty of action and great visual style here, for sure.  But there’s a lot more, too. This is evident from the first scenes as K soars out of the noirish city into an equally noirish countryside, across vast fields of solar energy accumulators, to eventually set down beside an aggregation of greenhouses and a rural farmhouse. He walks in, looks around and waits. He knows what he’s doing though he’s not happy about it. Eventually the farmer, Sapper Morton (WWE star, Dave Bautista), walks in. Having seen K’s craft landing, he suspects what’s to come, as do we. Yet the meeting of these two men crackles with suspense. Morton asks K, who is sitting in the shadows, if he’s come to take him in. K regretfully replies that if that were an option, he’d gladly take it. Morton asks K how it feels to hunt down his own kind.Eventually, there’s a lunging, violent, desperate struggle. “You can only do this because you’ve never seen a miracle,” Morton says at the end – an enigmatic expression that haunts K and the rest of the movie as the story unfolds.

Outside Sapper’s home, there’s a tree. Even a long-dead one like this is a rarity in 2049. K notices an unusual carving on this tree, and his drone – which detaches niftily from his vehicle and flies about at K’s command – discovers a box buried deep beneath it. The box contains bones, and the bones contain a clue that could upend the premise of the powerful replicant industry and the public perception of replicants generally. The details are tantalizing but complicated – better revealed by the movie than by this reviewer. But I can say a couple of things: the investigation of the bones and their implications eventually leads back to Deckard; and K finds that his own identity is implicated. His girlfriend, Joi (Ana de Armas) tells him “I always knew you were special.”


Of Blade Runner 2049’s many imaginative ideas and visually interesting accomplishments, none is more interesting or pleasing then Joi. She is a computer generated digital companion - not unlike the character Samantha (famously voiced by Scarlett Johansson), Joaquin Phoenix’s helpmate and romantic interest in Spike Jonze’s Her (2013). But Joi is more than a sexy voice – she is represented by a holographic image, one that changes outfits in a twinkle to fit her mood or her intuition of K’s desires. She cares for him, and K clearly harbors reciprocal feelings. Around Joi, K can lighten up and, if only momentarily, feel human. Needless to say, she is lovely. Joi rechristens K, calling him Joe.

In the Blade Runner universe, even more than in ours, mighty corporations rule. In the original Blade Runner, the Tyrell Corporation – the developer of replicant biotechnology - was the especially powerful.  In Blade Runner 2049, none is more powerful than the Wallace Corporation which, not coincidentally, has taken over the replicant monopoly. It’s run by the mysterious Niander Wallace – Jared Leto with creepy, opaque eyes – pulling strings and manipulating events with a calm, sleazy manner that emphasizes rather than belies his evilness. His character is under-written or under-played and so has less impact than probably intended. On the other hand, his henchwoman, a cold and efficient replicant by the name of Luv (the Dutch actress, Sylvia Hoeks) takes on the bad guy role as K’s nemesis with considerable brio (notwithstanding her emotionless mask). She’s dogged, intelligent and vicious,– and of course pretty, reminding this old-timer of Hugh Hefner’s late sixties paramour/sidekick Barbi Benton albeit with her dark hair pulled tightly back into a pony tail.

Robin Wright plays K’s boss, Lieutenant Joshi, whom he calls “Madam”. Madam runs a tight ship and is very clear that her overarching function and that of the blade runners generally is “to keep order”, with the implication, at least to me, that she is referring to the fascistic form of the word. While we sense that Madam may harbor a little soft spot for K, she is very clear that that which separates them is more than rank or class. At one point, K seems to hesitate when given the assignment of removing an inconvenient person, and says "I never retired something that was born." He adds that his disquiet is because" to be born is to have a soul." Madam dismisses this concern, remarking that K has gotten along just fine without one.

Swiss actress Carla Juri is Dr. Ana Stelline, whose job it is to create childhood memories to implant in the replicants. K consults Dr Stelline in the hope of understanding his own memories – are they implanted or could they be real? As it turns out she is more important to the story than either of them realize.

Eventually for reasons I can’t reveal, everything comes back to Deckard, who it turns out is living very comfortably but very alone off the grid in the abandoned city of Las Vegas – in a casino appropriately enough. Harrison Ford seems to be making a new career reincarnating some of the blockbuster roles that made him famous. A couple years ago, he reappeared as an aged Han Solo thirty-three years after Han’s last screen role inThe Return of the Jedi (1983) and now he’s back as Deckard thirty-five years after his first go around. (He is slated for another Indiana Jones picture, too, projected for a 2020 release.) Ford is a better actor now than he was in the seventies and early eighties. The scenes where his Deckard and Gosling’s K meet and get acquainted bring out the best in both actors, and should be savored by fans of each, and in fact fans of good acting generally. I’ve not heard any rumors to this effect, but it would not surprise me if these guys received multiple award nominations for their work here, Gosling for best actor and Ford for best supporting actor.


At their core, both Blade Runner films tackle moral concerns that are becoming increasingly relevant as the rapid technological advances in robotics, artificial intelligence, neuroscience, genetics, bioengineering and cloning are converging; as talk of creating intelligent, emotionally sensitive robots becomes ever more common; and the prospect of actually developing such robots – or even flesh and blood androids like the replicants - becomes less fantastic and increasingly feasible. Scientists are already discussing not only the ethical boundaries of these creative efforts, but also issues relating to whether intelligent robots can have a consciousness and if so, will be  “beings” deserving of legal rights.

These questions, although framed in the context of artificial intelligence and robotics, have a more existential and philosophical angle to them. Similar questions have been raised in other stories, most recently in the series Westworld, but perhaps never so cogently as here. What is intelligence? What is identity? What is a person? If someone feels, thinks, talks and acts like a human being, does it matter if she is “of woman born”? Is a cloned human a human? Is a replicant human?

Blade Runner 2049 is a long movie running approximately two and three quarter hours - with very little of what might be called filler. Villeneuve needed all that time to tell the story and amplify its themes.  The time is well spent. The film is visually stunning, intellectually stimulating, with plenty of long-fuse suspense, and at all the right moments viscerally exciting. I recommend it.

2 hours 44 minutes.
Grade: A-
In wide release.



Monday, October 9, 2017

Lucky (2017): I Think We Are

Lucky follows the spiritual journey of a 90-year-old atheist,’ say the press notes for the new movie starring great character actor Harry Dean Stanton. That’s OK as far as it goes. I’d add that it is a beautiful and captivating movie in which very little happens but a lot is learned. Stanton is the eponymous protagonist, an elderly iconoclastic loner, proud to a fault of his rugged independence and cynicism, living on the outskirts of a small, unnamed Western town (I imagined it was somewhere in Texas, but turns out it was shot in Arizona and California)

Lucky is also Stanton’s final film; he died on September 15, just a couple weeks before the picture’s opening. Appropriately for a swan song, it’s testament to his brilliance as an actor. Stanton appeared in nearly 200 movies during a career spanning over fifty years, most notably as the star of Wim Wenders’ Paris, Texas in 1984 and Repo Man that same year, but also Alien (1979), Wild At Heart (1990), The Green Mile (1999) and scores of others. Most recently, he was featured in the 2017 edition of the TV series Twin Peaks and a few years ago in the series Big Love. I can’t claim to be a Harry Dean Stanton expert, having seen him in only a handful of his many roles, but many who have followed his career more closely are saying that Lucky is one of his best performances.  

Harry Dean Stanton rarely played the lead, but he was memorable in a multitude of supporting roles, whether playing an outsider, a villain, a companion, or whatever.  A lot of this had to do with his visage – a long, narrow face, with a tight-set mouth, a significant beak of a nose, and  deep-set eyes seemingly haunted by experience. Another writer noted that no matter your age (or his), Stanton always seemed older than you. As he grew chronologically older, wrinkles and sagging skin only added to this impression. But it wasn’t just his appearance. Stanton could flat out act. He inhabits his characters so completely that there is never a sense, watching him, that here is an actor acting. A rare skill even among the great ones, this talent is on full display in Lucky. Stanton is in every frame and carries the film effortlessly.

The picture opens with morning rituals: washing his face, brushing teeth, floor exercises, a cigarette or two, glass of milk, dressing, and so forth. Then, as Lucky walks out the door of his humble house he’s swallowed up by the bright desert light. It’s a stunning image, the first of several in this movie, which may signify the beginning of another day in the sun - or perhaps something else. An unwavering routine rules the day: working the crossword with coffee at the café, a stop at the bodega for milk or cigarettes, game shows and more crossword work back at home, and maybe a stop later on at Elaine’s tavern for a drink and some chat. It’s a small beat-up old town, and Lucky walks everywhere. Everybody is acquainted.

Lucky’s not a fan of small talk, so when he does speak he gets straight to the point. Often the point has to do with the profundity of language, kindled by his beloved crosswords. Early on, he asks, Is “reality” a thing?  When someone suggests he must get lonely living by himself, Lucky points out the distinction between being alone and being lonely, explains the derivation of the word ‘alone’, and implies that for him it’s a virtue. Proud of his self-sufficiency, he’s somewhat aloof around other people, believing that he doesn’t need anybody else.

Then a mysterious fall and a trip to his doctor (Ed Begley, Jr.) - who bluntly tells him he’s just getting old - finally gets Lucky thinking about an aspect of that ‘thing’ called reality which he has been avoiding: the void of mortality.  His carefully arranged routines no longer insulate him. He doesn’t believe in an afterlife - just the scary prospect of “un gots”, darkness, nothingness. Contemplating this new reality is unsettling, and his thoughts turn toward the morbid. Lucky vividly recalls the saddest day of his life and a childhood fear of being all alone.

Then, an unexpected visit and a warm embrace sets off a series of encounters (which are better experienced than described)  and a path toward connection, solace and some sort of grace.

The film starts as a character study and evolves into a sort of parable of transformation or, as the publicists would have it, a spiritual journey.  It is a personal journey certainly, but to the extent the term “spiritual” suggests religious transcendence or a belief in an incorporeal “soul”, rest assured that in this case there’s no theology attached.  I’d call it a contemplation of meaning. Stanton’s ability to portray Lucky’s psychic metamorphosis is delightful to watch. As the credits suggest at the outset of the film, Stanton IS Lucky. 

The story is enriched by a series of characters that ultimately inform and enrich his understanding. Among them are Loretta (Yvonne Huff) the waitress who reminds Lucky that people care for him, Howard (David Lynch) the friend whose attachment to a runaway tortoise is funny, touching and instructive, Paulie (James Darren) the bar denizen whose apparently oft-repeated tale explicating the meaning of un gots is not only funny but ultimately helpful to Lucky’s growing understanding, Bibi (Bertila Damas) the warm-hearted bodega lady, and Fred (Tom Skerritt) a fellow WWII vet whose story becomes a zen-like inspiration for Lucky.

The cinematography by veteran Tim Suhrstedt (Noises Off [1992], Little Miss Sunshine [ 2006]) is pretty remarkable. The interior shots of Lucky’s home manage to convey comfort and warmth on the one hand and isolation on the other. The long scenes at Elaine’s bar have the immediacy and conviviality of the tavern in the 80’s TV series Cheers. His desert photography is beautiful and evocative.

Lucky was ably helmed by long-time actor, first-time director John Carroll Lynch; and it was co-written by first-time screenwriters Logan Sparks and Drago Sumonja, both of whom have bounced around the film industry for many years in various capacities. The team’s relative  inexperience shows in a few rough spots here and there, but nothing that detracts from the sincerity of the project or the ultimate sweetness of the message.

This is a good little movie that offers beauty, insight, and food for thought.  And a terrific final performance by Harry Dean Stanton that will likely stay with you for some time. For this we can consider ourselves lucky.

88 minutes
Grade: A-

In limited release in select theaters around the US.