I think his position probably makes a lot of logical sense to himself, but he doesn't really understand how what he feels is a critical eye, even harshly so, is more contributing to the objectification of women in society than damning it.
It's interesting how what is ostensibly an objectifying movie was potentially intended as a feminist statement. I think that says a lot about the disassociation between art as intended and art as it's actual real result.
I suppose if his point is that he wants you to be aware of objectification of women in society through his art then it works, but I don't think in the way he wanted it to.
It reminds me of Sucker Punch. Zack Snyder made a very similar statement about that movie. It seems to me this is directly caused by men seeing and understanding that sexism exists and trying to write commentary about it without really speaking to woman about it.
I've never seen Sucker Punch but I did rewatch Tootsie recently and that's exactly how I felt about Tootsie
Blade Runner is a world of slavery and its beauty is hollow. Every aspect of the world must be artificial and superficial, with real and positive nuggets few and far between. You are supposed to look at the impressive visuals and feel empty inside.
It's called Blade Runner because the studio owned the rights to Blade Runner (a movie) by William S. Burroughs and they liked the title more than Dangerous Days.
And, to answer your question about the Burroughs title: It's because it was about a guy who smuggled hospital supplies such as scalpels. IE: Blade Runner.
Edit: Okay, to make it even more convoluted, The Bladerunner was another, unrelated science fiction novel that Burroughs adapted. Shit's weird, I don't know.
DimosarI am the Brain GeniusRegistered Userregular
edited November 2017
I mean, I always justify their choice to absorb the Blade Runner title as being about the fine line Blade Runners have to judge whether someone is a replicant or not, speaking to the greater theme of judging the impossible distinction of humanity. also blade runner sounds cool as shit
Regarding Villeneuve's "response," seems he doesn't really grasp that his attempts to highlight a misogynist reality just ended up doing actual misogyny, which partially sabotaged his attempts to talk about the themes of personhood in his movie. If he was discussing his process honestly I don't think it would be fair to just assume everyone's too dumb to realize that. Like, if you're an artist and loads of people get the "wrong" reading from your art, maybe you weren't as articulate as you thought.
in cases like this I think a lot about how George Miller realized he was in over his head with the themes of Fury Road, so he brought in Eve Ensler, the feminist playwright who wrote the vagina monologues and they wrote the film together and it helped make Fury Road one of the best movies of all time, like, ever- and raised the bar for post-apocalypse storytelling about trauma by not being weirdly obsessed with rape, etc.
so it's not like doing your due diligence is IMPOSSIBLE, Denis.
I think we all care so much cause so much of 2049 was so absolutely powerful and thought-provoking that people resent that the storytellers dived headfirst into this obvious pitfall when if it spent just a few calories on this topic they could've tied those themes of exploitation much more powerfully and effectively than this tangled ball of objectification/personification that we're just not smart enough to suss out. No, we get it Denis. That's why we're unhappy.
Deckard is explicitly not an android in the book, u wot m8
Yes
at the same time the real point is that whether or not Deckard is an android DOES NOT MATTER.
Exactly! Exactly! It's like Ridley Scott fucking forgot this point!
It's also one of the cooler parts of Blade Runner 2049, where it seems to explicitly go "Who the fuck cares? We've got a story to tell."
It's one of the few times where I completely agree with Red Letter Media being as nerdy and as pedantic as they are. They understand that Deckard being a replicant isn't the point (but he totally, totally isn't and Ridley Scott-- Who I love and treasure dearly-- doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about).
I think the first one works better if Deckard is a human
It's a nice contrast, this human who's closed himself off from emotion with murder and alcohol, vs all these replicants trying desperately to live and love before they die
+13
MaddocI'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother?Registered Userregular
a replicant woman was able to have a child, not that two replicants can have a child
like, a replicant being able to parent a child at all seemed like the groundbreaking thing
The movie doesn't directly address the point I brought up in my post, and it's possible that it was never meant to even be a consideration, but those two situations potentially imply very different things about the nature of replicants
I think the first one works better if Deckard is a human
It's a nice contrast, this human who's closed himself off from emotion with murder and alcohol, vs all these replicants trying desperately to live and love before they die
I'm going to go further and say that I think this is literally the only way the movie works at all
I think the first movie works completely fine whether:
- Deckard is a human and believes he's a human
- Deckard is a replicant who entirely believes he's a human
- Deckard is a replicant who believes he's a human but realizes he might be a replicant
- Deckard is a human who wonders if he's a replicant
- Deckard is a replicant who wonders if he's a human
It's a thematically significant point in the first movie, but it isn't a plot-significant point. That it can vary and the movie can still work doesn't make the movie less for it, it just means it's a point worth mulling over, much like the point of whether or not anything Joi ever did was out of "free will", or if following the dictates of her programming such that she can choose self-destructive behaviour or behaviour that contradicts her programming could be considered "free will". It winds up not mattering in terms of the actual plot.
Deckard still being alive and being a replicant is really weird, though.
In an alternate universe Bladerunner 2 was directed by James Cameron as an action movie staring replicant Deckard who goes back in time to save a teenaged Tyrrell from other time traveling replicants.
Posts
That’s about it.
basically,
It is a beautiful name with no meaning
And, to answer your question about the Burroughs title: It's because it was about a guy who smuggled hospital supplies such as scalpels. IE: Blade Runner.
Edit: Okay, to make it even more convoluted, The Bladerunner was another, unrelated science fiction novel that Burroughs adapted. Shit's weird, I don't know.
Regarding Villeneuve's "response," seems he doesn't really grasp that his attempts to highlight a misogynist reality just ended up doing actual misogyny, which partially sabotaged his attempts to talk about the themes of personhood in his movie. If he was discussing his process honestly I don't think it would be fair to just assume everyone's too dumb to realize that. Like, if you're an artist and loads of people get the "wrong" reading from your art, maybe you weren't as articulate as you thought.
in cases like this I think a lot about how George Miller realized he was in over his head with the themes of Fury Road, so he brought in Eve Ensler, the feminist playwright who wrote the vagina monologues and they wrote the film together and it helped make Fury Road one of the best movies of all time, like, ever- and raised the bar for post-apocalypse storytelling about trauma by not being weirdly obsessed with rape, etc.
so it's not like doing your due diligence is IMPOSSIBLE, Denis.
I think we all care so much cause so much of 2049 was so absolutely powerful and thought-provoking that people resent that the storytellers dived headfirst into this obvious pitfall when if it spent just a few calories on this topic they could've tied those themes of exploitation much more powerfully and effectively than this tangled ball of objectification/personification that we're just not smart enough to suss out. No, we get it Denis. That's why we're unhappy.
It's also one of the cooler parts of Blade Runner 2049, where it seems to explicitly go "Who the fuck cares? We've got a story to tell."
It's one of the few times where I completely agree with Red Letter Media being as nerdy and as pedantic as they are. They understand that Deckard being a replicant isn't the point (but he totally, totally isn't and Ridley Scott-- Who I love and treasure dearly-- doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about).
It works a little better if he is? But it's not necessary, which is clever.
I still think even the possibility of Deckard being a replicant is antithetical to the themes of the first film, however
like, a replicant being able to parent a child at all seemed like the groundbreaking thing
It's a nice contrast, this human who's closed himself off from emotion with murder and alcohol, vs all these replicants trying desperately to live and love before they die
The movie doesn't directly address the point I brought up in my post, and it's possible that it was never meant to even be a consideration, but those two situations potentially imply very different things about the nature of replicants
I'm going to go further and say that I think this is literally the only way the movie works at all
I think both films are far stronger with that in mind
- Deckard is a human and believes he's a human
- Deckard is a replicant who entirely believes he's a human
- Deckard is a replicant who believes he's a human but realizes he might be a replicant
- Deckard is a human who wonders if he's a replicant
- Deckard is a replicant who wonders if he's a human
It's a thematically significant point in the first movie, but it isn't a plot-significant point. That it can vary and the movie can still work doesn't make the movie less for it, it just means it's a point worth mulling over, much like the point of whether or not anything Joi ever did was out of "free will", or if following the dictates of her programming such that she can choose self-destructive behaviour or behaviour that contradicts her programming could be considered "free will". It winds up not mattering in terms of the actual plot.
Deckard still being alive and being a replicant is really weird, though.