A View Through Glass

Rants and ravings of a curmudgeon of Generation Y

Some thoughts on “Blade Runner 2049″…

Disclaimer: This post focuses on some of the underlying philosophy of “Blade Runner 2049.” Spoilers are abound. It is recommended you see the movie at least once before reading.

 

A review post on The Mary Sue lead me to another blog in the review’s comments. In the post, “Blade Runner leaves women in the dust of misogyny” the author highlights the overt, misogynistic overtones of the movie. The author raises some good points; and Blade Runner 2049 leaves you with an uncomfortable pit in your stomach after walking out of the movie.  At the forefront the movie drives home questions about what it means to be human.  Underneath the immediate philosophical question, a much darker point being made. The  cinematography of  “Blade Runner 2049” is impressive and the visual effects create an atmosphere of oppression. I would argue that this oppression is the point of  the movie.

It is worth remembering that the overarching plot of the movie is that the Wallace Corporation is attempting to find the child of Rick Deckard and Rachael from the original movie. The Wallace Corporation is hoping to find a means of allowing Nexus 8, possibly Nexus 9, replicates to reproduce on their own without needing to be manufactured in a factory. These same Nexus 8 replicates are designed to comply with all orders given and it is strongly implied that Nexus 9 will have the same “feature.”

Fundamentally, Blade Runner 2049 addresses a similar plot as “Armitage III” in the sense it is about subverting natural reproduction between humans with agency into androids that are implied to lack agency. How problematic this plot is in Armitage III has been called out directly and the same issues been noted in Blade Runner 2049. So  it does not seem like a stretch to say that Blade Runner 2049 is an allegory of men co-opting the agency of women by putting reproduction into a controllable shell.

This raise several interesting questions though. One of which being, how should this be depicted? In Blade Runner 2049 they make it pretty clear that what the Wallace Corporation was trying to do was negative, oppressive, and evil. This is shown not only through the plot itself (i.e., members of the LAPD being murdered), the atmosphere of the film (e.g., strong use of shadow, sets with lots of negative space, etc.), and the interactions  between the characters. Others have argued that Blade Runner 2049 was sexist and misogynistic, but I think that was the point.

Niander Wallace, the head of Wallace Corporation, appears to only value human women for their reproductive abilities. He seeks to build “angels” who obey his command that are capable of reproduction without the need for factories. Despite philosophizing this under the guise of creating a new species that can rule the stars, the products of Wallace Corporation betray much more authoritarian and patriarchal notes. The Joi series of holograms are designed to give their users “Everything you want to hear. Everything you want to see.” Female Nexus 8 replicates follow the theme of the original “Blade Runner” of being “pleasure models.” Viewers witness the “birth” of what may be a Nexus 9, followed by its evisceration when Wallace is dissatisfied with the replicate’s womb. The Rachael replicate that is introduced to Deckard is coldly executed for not being able to live up to her designed purpose. In short, everything we know about Wallace’s character points at him seeking to subjugate women.

If we look at the relationship that K has for Joi in his home as a surrogate wife and friend, it has a veneer of being a loving relationship. However, the film also makes a point of highlighting advertisements for Joi on a regular basis. The viewer is being reminded that she is a product and we must question everything about the relationship. Recalling the tag line that Joi tells you “Everything you want to hear.” we are reminded that she tells K that he must be special and heavily implies that he is the child of Rachael and Deckard.  Not only is this subverted when we find out Dr. Ana Stelline the actual child, but that Joi might be programmed to reinforce this self-aggrandizing on the part of K. This is then underscored at the end the movie when we find out the name she gives him – Joe – is drawn from marking, “You look like a good Joe.” In short, the artificial ideal of the perfect housewife that can be found in Joi is shallow and built upon misogynistic ideals.

So returning to the question of how this should be depicted, if we concede the point that plot was inherently misogynistic, then I would submit for your consideration that you are limited in the stories you can tell. Off hand you either have one where everyone is happy with the situation (i.e., reinforcing a patriarchal world view), one with active rebellion against the status quo, or one where you play up the misogyny as an allegorical story of how bad it would be. The allegorical approach strikes me as the one that Blade Runner 2049 took. Granted they could have taken the story in the direction of open rebellion against Wallace Corporation, and it may say something about the patriarchal nature of Hollywood that they did not. However there is much more payoff in the conclusion when you know what the characters are fighting against.

In the real world it is not always that easy to see systems of oppression; however, in a movie like Blade Runner 2049 that can be brought to the forefront for the viewers. They may not immediately see the parallels to their own world, but if they walk out of the theater with a pit in their stomach then it might cause them to starting seeing it in their own world. The ending of Blade Runner 2049 sets the pieces for the replicates to rebel against Wallace and severs the ties to the original film. Views of a hypothetical “Blade Runner 2050” now know exactly who the players are and why they want to tear down the patriarchal Wallace Corporation and the systems that support it. Said viewers should also  see the parallels to their own world.

2 Comments

  1. Interesting take!

    I have heard others say that they have felt the film was purposeful in highlighting the underbelly of sexism. However, I am just not sure if this is something we can assume about the film without some evidence. The makers of this film, the actors, etc. have never stated that this film was portraying sexism to make a point. So, what makes you assume this was the point of the film? I am not asking this in a mean-spirited way, but with a sense of genuine curiousity. Thanks!

    • rjzii

      2017/10/30 at 21:09

      To the best of my knowledge both the director, Denis Villeneuve, and the lead Ryan Gosling are considered to be progressive and are acknowledged feminists. However, interpretation of the movie really depends on how you want to approach it. If you take the stance (that I tend to) that the work should speak for itself, then you should be able to defend the point based upon the movie itself. I tried in my post by didn’t really go full fledged in defending the thesis. However, I’m looking forward to the home DVD / Blu-Ray release and hopefully there will be a director commentary on some of the symbolism in the movie!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*