Review of Blade Runner 2049 (2017) by Ben D — 12 Feb 2018

Creating a sequel to a film is a fairly easy to understand concept. That doesn't mean it's easy to make a good sequel, but it's easy to understand the idea of continuing a story previously established in a earlier film. I bring up the concept of sequels to highlight a key difference between conventional sequels and Bladerunner 2049. Bladerunner 2049 is a sequel to Ridley Scott's 1982 masterpiece, but more importantly, it's a sequel to a genre. The original Bladerunner is one of the most important pieces of science-fiction due to the fact that it helped create the new sub-genre of cyberpunk. Ridley Scott didn't invent the idea of cyberpunk. Phillip K. Dick, the author of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, the book which Bladerunner is based on, was a prolific sci-fi author who helped create the cyberpunk genre. J. G. Ballard and William Gibson also are responsible for creating the ideology that would later become the philosophy of cyberpunk. Together, sci-fi authors of the 1970's and early 80's expressed their trepidation regarding the onset of new technology and its potential effects on tense international relations during that time. Their writing had a bitter pessimism that resembled the works of hardboiled noir fiction from the 30s,40s, and 50s rather than the colorful optimism of early science fiction. The tone and many of the recurring themes of cyberpunk were invented by these sci-fi writers, but they could only paint their image of the future with words. Ridley Scott blended the bleak aesthetic of noir with the colorful vibrancy of the growing sci-fi genre to write the visual definition of an entire genre. He also did his part in defining the tone and story of cyberpunk by lifting a story right out of a Dashiell Hammet novel and combining it with existentialist science fiction. The result is a piece of art that is largely responsible for creating the look and tone of a genre. A sequel to Bladerunner was always a task treated as impossible. After all, how do you make a sequel to a genre?

To create an entire genre, a movie has to be bold and willing to take risks. It follows suit that a sequel to Bladerunner would have to be similarly bold. Bladerunner 2049 isn't a genre defining masterpiece like the original, but it still is a masterpiece in its own right. The film exists in the genre of the original. Director Dennis Villeneuve understands that 2049 doesn't need to create its own genre; it just has to expand upon the genre of its predecessor. Without giving too much away, the first film's ambiguous ending relates to whether or not the Harrison Ford's Deckard is a replicant. The original film finds its focus centered on the difference between humans and their robot counterparts, replicants. Like a proper sequel, 2049 switches the focus of the existential sci-fi to a concept that questions the philosophy of the first film. If the first film highlights the differences between humans and replicants, then 2049 questions those differences and asks the audience what constitutes a human. Much like the original, 2049 formulates it's argument through a peered glimpse at the world and the technology that exists in the future. It's been largely agreed upon that the first Bladerunner is a film more focused on its world than it is on its own story. 2049 follows suit, using the story as a vehicle to show off as much of the dark vision of the future or the world's technology as the movie's two hour and forty-four minute run time will allow it to. While the film's length deterred some, it makes every second thoroughly enjoyable through a combination of an interesting story and gorgeous visuals.

Films have become significantly easier to produce. High quality cameras have become smaller, lighter, and most importantly, much cheaper. The same goes for computers. Special effects are also much easier to produce and no longer take the massive amount of workers as they once did. This has all led to moderate to big budget films being able to look good for a lower price. It is no longer incredibly expensive to produce a colorful, clean, or stylish looking movie. In a world fully saturated with sleek aesthetic and bright special effects, it all comes down to how a movie uses its special effects, not necessarily how nice they look. Bladerunner 2049 is an example of a film that uses huge-budget, beautiful special effects, but also knows exactly how to use them in order to maximize aesthetic world building. The film is drop dead gorgeous. Roger Deakins' expressionistic cinematography is full to the brim with color, and a brutal world. Embodying the look of neon noir, Deakins creates a stark contrast between the dark cityscape that resembles the original film's look and the heavily saturated monochromatic aesthetic that dominates the rest of the film. Part of the reason that the film's runtime is so long is because many shots go on 5, even 10, seconds longer than the need to. The conversation or the information in the scene will be done and delivered but the camera will linger on just looking, letting the world tell its own story via the production design. Dennis Gassner, who was in charge of production design, said that he asked director, Dennis Villeneuve, what he wanted the film to look like, and Villeneuve responded with "Brutality." It's apparent that Gassner spent a great deal time figuring out how exactly to make a world tell its own story. The production design from the sets to the models all look weathered and real; like there is a story behind everything.

It's not only the look of the original Bladerunner that's a staple of sci-fi culture. The original score by Vangelis lends the film its ethereal, electric sound. The score is unusual and not what you'd expect from a dark sci-fi noir, but it works. Creating a score to rival the original is a particularly hard task because it's hard to pinpoint exactly what makes the original such a masterpiece in the first place. Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch don't recreate the original score. Their score, like the visuals, is more brutal than original. Since Hans Zimmer began working with Christopher Nolan, he's experimented with a whole host of unique sounds to create some of the most engrossing soundtracks in recent memory. Bladerunner 2049 is no exception. The whole film sounds dark, mechanical, and brutal. The sound design lends itself to creating a real sounding world, while the score is a perfect of blend of harsh, industrial noises and ethereal synth.

I don't claim that Bladerunner 2049 is better than the original. I believe that Harrison Ford's performance is better and more human in 2049 despite what you believe regarding Deckard's humanity, but I don't know which film is better. It's close. Closer than I ever thought it could be. Both films are passion projects from the most technically capable people in Hollywood. Bladerunner 2049 does everything a sequel should. It exists in the world of the first film, but it explores more. It carries the same themes and ideas, but it examines them from a different angle. It pushes the boundaries of sci-fi aesthetic and sound without being a retread of the original. The brilliance of both films is how they ask essentially the same question, but you are given two radically different answers. That question being, "what's the difference between humans and replicants?".