Replicant. The word, invented by Ridley Scott or David Peoples (one of the original writers, along with Hampton Fancher), is unconsciously synonymous with Scott’s 1982 science fiction-noir Blade Runner. It is the idea that humans can be bioengineered into something more, somehow more subservient yet far superior in ability. It brings to mind some narrative incongruencies, but for 35 years it is forgivable to not overthink. Replicants, and all you may believe about them since their birth of the first film are also lacking. They remain soulless, phenomena which some would rather experience for themselves. They model after what is already stained with imperfection, that of the human race.
The word sums up Denis Villeneuve’s Blade Runner 2049 surprisingly well and succinctly. It is a replica of Scott’s Blade Runner. It wants deeply to become something that is already not perfected. The 1982 original is an excellent film, but it only came to be that way through several cuts and re-releases of the film. To this day, there is only a perfection and memorability to Blade Runner because of its faults. With 2049, we get a carbon copy of the original film, enhanced in some ways, much of the same in others. It reminds one greatly of Spielberg's A.I.: Artificial Intelligence, being the journey of an android discovering his humanity. Villeneuve's film makes that a good thing, but not necessarily in every frame.
In the vision of Villeneuve, much of the Blade Runner mythos has stayed the same. The dryness, the coldness of Los Angeles has stayed intact, greatly in thanks to the designs continued by Dennis Gassner. The city sells sex and homelessness. Even the lonely grandeur of the protagonist Officer K (Ryan Gosling) remains. The screenplay, which thrusts Fancher back into action along with Michael Green, may take a second or third viewing to masterfully decipher, but ultimately stays true to the glacial, thoughtful pace of the first. In this way, the film doesn’t take too many risks, instead ably succeeding within its safety net.
None of this is to say that there aren’t creative variations. Where Scott’s film is hands-down pulpy film noir, 2049 broadly brushes on high-intensity heat from orange and icy cold breaths of blue. The palette is a bit on the nose, but it is also an unavoidable commentary on what our generation sees and gravitates towards in film. For that, it may not be Roger Deakins’ best work, but it is no less spectacular.
2049 also contains a little more heart than head, compared to the 1982 film. Here, the divisive line is drawn predominantly for fans. Blade Runner - with years of edits and cuts considered - has always been about unlocking the humanity in the non-human. 2049 goes along with that and even goes so far as to create a deeper connection when K goes looking for an old predecessor of his, one Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) from the first film. Building up to their meeting (which does take some time), there is great concern that Villeneuve will shift into a tone that is too nice, too tidy and connected. Strangely, I longed for that disconnect that we know and admire about Blade Runner.
The make-or-break part of the screenplay is if K’s search for heart and belonging is worthwhile and faithful to the Blade Runner legend. Speaking as a purist, first, it was a challenge to completely invest in K’s journey at times. In one way of thinking, the film is a fairly by-the-book quest of “the one,” a special someone with a gift to change or enhance the greater population. Furthermore, one becomes unsure of the relationship between K and Deckard (the nature of which I would rather not go into, to avoid spoilers, although I can assure that it is not what many will expect). Both are tremendous actors and stars, and particularly Gosling packs on many layers. Ford is also savvy in recreating old iconic roles, but Deckard never seems quite like his 1982 self. Yes, he’s gone through heavy changes, which the film will have you learn about. Ford is excellent; Deckard is subpar.
Yet I have also talked to some who never watched the original, and found 2049 sturdy and well-built to stand on its own legs. The pacing of the original has never quite been replicated in action/science fiction cinema, and Joe Walker is the perfect candidate, hot off of his mind-boggling work on Villeneuve’s Arrival from last year. In a time with tendencies towards fast, noticeable editing techniques, Walker makes Scott’s original pacing seem timely and accessible. Fresh eyes are also simply caught up in the design, the look, and the feel of the film, all of which kept me invested, albeit to varying degrees. Newcomers to the Blade Runner story are, after all, experiencing this brave new world for the first time, and it is a marvel to see such a positive impact Blade Runner still has on our cinematic culture.
I suggest giving 2049 a good 30-35 years time to decide just how good it is. It is a good film, after all. It is a bit of a Pinocchio story that does not always feel like it needs to be, but I am no less glad to be a part of its resurgence and response from new audiences.
***
