![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
drwexBefore saying anything else about this film, I have to say there is this huge 500lb-gorilla problematic thing about it. People who are raving about the film and saying it should win this or that award are either ignoring that gorilla or just don't care. For me, this movie is going into the category of "likable problematic things." 4/5 stars for what they accomplished.
Let's talk first about the problematic thing because I can do that without spoilers: in a word, REPRESENTATION. The movie barely passes the Bechdel test for one scene between Sylvia Hoeks's Luv and Robin Wright's Lt. Joshi. Both women are good, but this is a sideshow. No major actors of color in the film. Two black actors have speaking roles, and both are - to some degree - stereotypes. In a movie set in future California, the lack of any Hispanic persons is notable. In a movie future where people slip back and forth into Asian languages and writing the lack of Asian actors is just screamingly noticeable.
If you can get past that, let's talk about the actual movie. First, the good bits: it's gorgeous. Visually lush and saturated and rich with detail. The visuals do more than justice to the original. The pace is excellent - the movie is long but never feels like it drags. I would have cut some bits - see spoiler section below - but if you look away you're likely to miss something.
The soundtrack is also rich and lush and omnipresent. It's good - Hans Zimmer does his best to live up to Vangelis's original - but the fact that I notice the soundtrack so much means it's overdone. It's loud and pushy in places, and lacks subtlety.
Gosling turns in a very good performance and Harrison Ford turns in an excellent one. In case you had any doubts about whether Ford has lost it, ditch those. He's a great actor and does a great job here.
There are lots of things to like here. My favorite is the not-actually-sex scene that dives headfirst into an intersection of technology and attraction and physicality I haven't seen represented before. It's not actually a new concept for long-time SF fans but this is one of the best enactments I've ever seen on film.
I also like that the film (mostly) sticks with the core themes of what does it mean to be human? The casual racism of Lt Joshi as she's talking to K is nearly as cutting as Niander Wallace's casual knifing of another replicant. If you don't see them as human then things follow "logically" from that, a fallacy that every slave-owning class has ever fallen into. Unlike the original film, here replicants seem to know they are replicants, but the question of what does it mean to be human still haunts them. This again makes the film worth seeing.
If the film had stuck with this then it would've been stronger. I understand that Lt Joshi believes failing to keep replicants under control will mean the end of civilization - see above about her racism. But that still could stand without throwing in the rebellion maguffin. Nothing comes of it and there's little essential in those characters. Even the bits with Mariette, which I liked quite a lot, could have been kept without the extra plot threads tangling things up.
The film has been criticized somewhat for lacking a central villain. Niander Wallace is certainly an amoral horrible person, but most of the villainy and violence comes from Luv, who seems to get off on it. This leads to the film failing the "...and then what?" test, which may be deliberate as they could be setting up for a second film to follow on this one. I don't see an easy fix for this - partly I think they were going for a parallel between Wallace/Luv and Tyrell/Batty but the original film wrapped up both those stories.
Here the film just stops, leaving you to wonder "and then what happened?" K is still a runaway replicant with the entire LAPD after him. Deckard's hideout is blown (both figuratively and literally). The android rebellion people are absent - we don't even know if they've figured out who the child is. And what are they going to do once they DO figure it out? Seriously, if you can tell me - based on the two-plus hours of this movie - what happens thirty seconds after the movie's final cut then you have seen something I didn't.
So, yeah. Brilliant but flawed, and deeply problematic. A lot like the original.
Let's talk first about the problematic thing because I can do that without spoilers: in a word, REPRESENTATION. The movie barely passes the Bechdel test for one scene between Sylvia Hoeks's Luv and Robin Wright's Lt. Joshi. Both women are good, but this is a sideshow. No major actors of color in the film. Two black actors have speaking roles, and both are - to some degree - stereotypes. In a movie set in future California, the lack of any Hispanic persons is notable. In a movie future where people slip back and forth into Asian languages and writing the lack of Asian actors is just screamingly noticeable.
If you can get past that, let's talk about the actual movie. First, the good bits: it's gorgeous. Visually lush and saturated and rich with detail. The visuals do more than justice to the original. The pace is excellent - the movie is long but never feels like it drags. I would have cut some bits - see spoiler section below - but if you look away you're likely to miss something.
The soundtrack is also rich and lush and omnipresent. It's good - Hans Zimmer does his best to live up to Vangelis's original - but the fact that I notice the soundtrack so much means it's overdone. It's loud and pushy in places, and lacks subtlety.
Gosling turns in a very good performance and Harrison Ford turns in an excellent one. In case you had any doubts about whether Ford has lost it, ditch those. He's a great actor and does a great job here.
There are lots of things to like here. My favorite is the not-actually-sex scene that dives headfirst into an intersection of technology and attraction and physicality I haven't seen represented before. It's not actually a new concept for long-time SF fans but this is one of the best enactments I've ever seen on film.
I also like that the film (mostly) sticks with the core themes of what does it mean to be human? The casual racism of Lt Joshi as she's talking to K is nearly as cutting as Niander Wallace's casual knifing of another replicant. If you don't see them as human then things follow "logically" from that, a fallacy that every slave-owning class has ever fallen into. Unlike the original film, here replicants seem to know they are replicants, but the question of what does it mean to be human still haunts them. This again makes the film worth seeing.
If the film had stuck with this then it would've been stronger. I understand that Lt Joshi believes failing to keep replicants under control will mean the end of civilization - see above about her racism. But that still could stand without throwing in the rebellion maguffin. Nothing comes of it and there's little essential in those characters. Even the bits with Mariette, which I liked quite a lot, could have been kept without the extra plot threads tangling things up.
The film has been criticized somewhat for lacking a central villain. Niander Wallace is certainly an amoral horrible person, but most of the villainy and violence comes from Luv, who seems to get off on it. This leads to the film failing the "...and then what?" test, which may be deliberate as they could be setting up for a second film to follow on this one. I don't see an easy fix for this - partly I think they were going for a parallel between Wallace/Luv and Tyrell/Batty but the original film wrapped up both those stories.
Here the film just stops, leaving you to wonder "and then what happened?" K is still a runaway replicant with the entire LAPD after him. Deckard's hideout is blown (both figuratively and literally). The android rebellion people are absent - we don't even know if they've figured out who the child is. And what are they going to do once they DO figure it out? Seriously, if you can tell me - based on the two-plus hours of this movie - what happens thirty seconds after the movie's final cut then you have seen something I didn't.
So, yeah. Brilliant but flawed, and deeply problematic. A lot like the original.
no subject
Date: 2017-10-10 07:37 pm (UTC)So as to the lack of Asian actors, were they white guys being portrayed AS Asians, or were they trying to say that Asian culture/language has become ubiquitous?
no subject
Date: 2017-10-10 09:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-10-11 12:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-10-11 02:06 am (UTC)It is, imo, rightfully treated as a classic.
no subject
Date: 2017-10-11 03:44 am (UTC)We re-watched the original on Sunday - well, the "final cut" because we have it on Blu-Ray and hadn't seen that cut before. It was not quite the movie I remembered; but then, I'm not 17 any more, so what can you do.
Definitely good art despite all the problems.