Blade Runner 2049
- Thread starter krtek a houby
- Start date
I don't really care about books that people wrote later to continue the first film on. They're irrelevant to the tale the first film tells. The point is that Tyrell in the original film was a realistic character -- he had a clear and realistic motivation, which was simply to create the best tools he could for the purposes they were needed. He isn't cruel for the sake of being cruel at any point, he just doesn't get that replicants have transcended his design. He isn't a prick.
And it's a cop-out to excuse exploitative images on the grounds that they are a "warning". At best, it's a warning against something we already have plenty of warning for, so it is banal. At worst, it just allows you to include any imagery you like.
And it's a cop-out to excuse exploitative images on the grounds that they are a "warning". At best, it's a warning against something we already have plenty of warning for, so it is banal. At worst, it just allows you to include any imagery you like.
seventh bullet
sovietwave
I think someone with no prior experience of the first film could pick up the threads of what went before, as presented in BR2049, but I agree that it will be a more rewarding experience if they have, not least because of the good decision to show a progression of this future world that necessarily has to be an alternative one to our own (and I'm not a huge fan of the first film).
I like the holographic hint of a Soviet Union still in existence, and an abandoned Las Vegas with its main highway and vast system of pedestrian walkways and overpasses linking buildings that look like they're out of a 1980s science fiction film.
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
Tyrell is an elitist snob; witness the way he treats JF Sebastian; his chess opponent. It's kind of snooty. His grandstanding towards Deckard when showing off Rachael; as if she is merely a product - not a sentient being. He won't allow her to be a sentient being.
The subsequent film is a daring move to show just exactly how current attitudes to women end up. It's a natural progression from the first where Deckard forces himself on Rachael in his appartment. It's not pretty. Not supposed to be, imho.
alsoknownas
some bloke
It's a good question, and goes a long way to explaining why some people think it is a damning indictment of society's commodification of women and where that will lead, and why others (myself included obviously) see it as a massive short-falling in that regard.
I think 'representation' is the best word for describing what I find wrong with it. Part of the problem is that the visual image of women in film is one of being prettified, stripped, dangled, and even mutilated for the benefit of the viewer. Continuing this imagery is not by itself a legitimate way of interrupting that tradition.
I always think a really good measure of a films integrity in these matters is - are the victims passive, or are we shown their ability to struggle/ fight back? Films with sexist genes remind me of all the old racist films where 'savage' minions would succumb to indignity after indignity, defeat after defeat, but in the end the worst of the (White) brutes would get their comeuppance (at the hands of other, more heroic White men, obv.).
Rachel is made to participate in her own rape in BR I; and in BR II, Mariette (who I'm surprised is not called Fuk) and Joi 'sync' to become the ultimate woman-sex-object; meanwhile poor (let's call her Kut) is having her uterus sliced open for lols. Where are all these character's agency? As other's have pointed out - some big questions are being asked here about men's control over women - but what do we actually see? For most of the film it is the brooding countenance of burdened men, K in particular obviously (please don't interrupt my flow to point out that he's not really a 'man' - we all know that's irrelevant!). In a film made predominantly by men (with some notable exceptions) I'm sensitive to the lack of a central role women play in resisting the traps that have been quite elaborately prepared for them in this imagined future.
seventh bullet
sovietwave
I found all of the above disturbing, although the most of all was Luv and her twisted relationship with Wallace, the internalised inferiority and engineered obedience.
Why have you taken my question in bad faith?
Why have you taken my question in bad faith?
alsoknownas
some bloke
I took it as a question.
eta: The convention is that when one person frames a question, another person is primed to provide a possible answer. So that was my thinking.
Last edited:
seventh bullet
sovietwave
Don't interrupt your flow... Assumptive.
alsoknownas
some bloke
Humorous
.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
There were quite a few female characters in this one.
Which were the most problematic areas in the representation of women, do you reckon?
Which woman wasn’t a victim?
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
Robin Wright?
The one who got murdered, you mean?
Last edited:
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
Might want to put a spoiler on that reply...
But she's not the victim of a man; which is what I thought you meant
Apart from the man who ordered it.
But no, I meant victim, regardless of source. In a way, her character really is the icing on the cake. The one woman in the whole film that might have transcended victimhood, and she is murdered for her trouble. Because heaven forefend we are left with any strong, independent women just getting on with their lives.
But no, I meant victim, regardless of source. In a way, her character really is the icing on the cake. The one woman in the whole film that might have transcended victimhood, and she is murdered for her trouble. Because heaven forefend we are left with any strong, independent women just getting on with their lives.
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
But aren't
the replicants resistance leader and the dream maker still alive and strong? Ok, the latter is not in an ideal environment but she's not being harrassed or that kind of thing
Are we really at the level of arguing alive = not victim?
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
Every film has a victim.
And in some films, there are lots of victims. And in some of those, all the women are victims. All of them. Lots of women, all of them damaged, controlled, abused, murdered and fetishised.
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
And video games, comics, litertature etc.
Yes. That’s right. Hence why it needs commenting on. It would hardly be a problem if it were just one film.
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
I can't remember; you didn't like the film, then?
I liked the film very much, except for the stuff that I didn’t like.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
So more male victims would have helped.
As for 'damaged, controlled, abused, murdered and fetishised', I don't think many characters (if any) escape all of those.
No, more male victims would not have created any portrayal of female non-victims.
There were plenty of male bit-part characters going about their everyday business, like the cops in the station. Where were the everyday women?
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
Can't the victims be considered "everyday" women as well? While it's shit that the shit happens to them in the film, surely they aren't solely defined by their victimhood?
So the victims aren’t victims then?
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
I didn;t say they arent. I suggested that they are everyday people as well.
So what? How does that change what I am saying?
Blade Runner includes no representations at all (at least from my memory) of women other than as victims. Specifically, it includes a lot of women who are represented in various negative archetypes — victim of violence, victim of sexual assault, victim of oppression etc — and none at all that just live out their lives either in the background or as a major character. This stands in contrast to the men in the film, some of whom are victims (although still represented as victims striving to overcome their victimhood) but many of whom are just background characters with nothing special to mark them out. To be male is an unmarked identity, to be a woman means that you have to have a special reason for your presence. This is not uncommon in films, which is why it is an issue. It stood out as particularly egregious in this film, however. It also detracted from my enjoyment of this film, because I was constantly very aware of this underlying context.
My acid test is always “how would the kabbess react?”. She doesn’t read political forums or spend time wrapped in the majesty of sound and vision. She just calls it as she sees it. For example, her summation after three episodes of Game of Thrones was “too rapey” and she stopped watching it. She wasn’t interested in Internet people telling her why it being rapey was alright really. Well, I ended up watching this film without the kabbess and by the end, I was kind of glad of that fact. Her presence would have made me squirm a bit.
Similar threads
