Blade Runner, 2049," Cormac McCarthy's "The Road," And The Dalai Lama

Dear C,

Thanks for your careful, informative -- and appealing -- review of Blade Runner, 2049.

I am one of the people who "rejects the genre in general" but, even so, your analysis makes me want to see it with you.

I should also mention that I have not seen the original Blade Runner even though I've see many clips.

When it comes to dystopian futures, I prefer Cormac McCarthy's "The Road," perhaps because his Catholic sensibility "makes" his protagonists isolate themselves from a world gone-to-hell, choosing to seek out -- however unpromising the prospect -- "something to believe in" - a sangha, a community-of-believers-in-another-place -- a "heaven" -- that is "not of this world." (Would the Dalai Lama - or any other Buddhist - "sign off" on the ethics of Blade Runner?)

It is this pursuit, this quest, this "mission" that preserves Dad-and-boy from the worldly corruption that afflicts so many people who throw themselves knee-jerkingly into a world like Blade Runner where self-defensive violence is considered automatic justification, even when that violence aspires after remedy (in the implicit name of justice).

Finally, may I blog our correspondence?

If so, do you prefer anonymity or attribution?

Pax tecum

Alan

PS Is it fair to criticize "the roots" of Blade Runner as die-hard commitment to fossil fuels and, by extension, the salvific power of the internal combustion engine.

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 6:22 AM, C wrote:

Someone did an analysis of how sequels have done in the box office over the years, and generally they don't do quite as well as the original films, even when they are successful. Blade Runner 2049 was considered to be unsuccessful because it didn't perform as well as expected domestically with respect to its big budget, however the original Blade Runner was a critical and financial flop and only became a cult hit years later, with many reviewers reversing their initial assessments. So by comparison Blade Runner 2049 did about three times as well as its original, far better than any other sequel in the history of sequels.

I wouldn't expect audiences to like it for a couple of reasons. One, it's very slow and patient in developing, and while there are dramatic and violent scenes, there are none of the fast paced, explosive jolts that one gets from the comic book movies. Two, most of the movie going public was not alive for the original movie and therefore has no frame of reference with which to understand it, and even its rabid fan base is relatively small, and rabid fan bases tend to not like sequels if they are in any way different from the original.

The amazing thing is that it got made it all, especially with a big budget, considering that Ridley Scott projects have not been doing so well at the box office lately. He was the producer of this one not the director, but still...

I was pretty obsessive in reading all the reviews of the movie, and it did seem to me objectively speaking that the positive ones seemed to grasp what the film was about and in general articulated an appreciation of the aesthetics of filmmaking. The negative ones literally did not seem to understand what happened in the movie, and their criticisms did not seem valid to me, since they were based on either a rejection of the genre in general, or a personal dislike of attributes of the movie that were intentional and skillful, like its slow pacing and length.

In response to Patty Cumler Bryant's question to me about why do I watch movies repeatedly, I actually counted the number of impressive cinematic moments, moments of great skill or creativity or athos or humor in performance, conception, cinematography, music, set design, etc. I counted 150 such moments in Blade Runner 2049.

On Jan 23, 2018 10:42 PM, "Alan Archibald" <alanarchibaldo@gmail.com> wrote:

I am surprised that only 81% of Rotten Tomato viewers liked Blade Runner, 2049.

And even more surprised that only 75% liked Logan Lucky.

However, 92% of "the pros" approved Logan Lucky, while only 87% approved Blade Runner 2049.

"The Post": 88% approval by the pros... and 74% by viewers. 

"Wind River": 87% approval by the pros... and 91% by viewers. 

"Get Out": 99% approval by the pros... and 87% by viewers. 

Viewers liked "Wind River" best.

The pros liked "Get Out" best.

"Wind River" got no nominations.

And "Logan" (a Hugh Jackman "wolverine movie" that didn't even appear on my radar) is the only movie I'm "reviewing" that exceeded 90% on both Rotten Tomatoes measures: 93% with the pros; 91% with viewers.

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:13 PM, C wrote:

And Kairi Momoi was best supporting actress for her role in Ghost in the Shell. Best actress is a toss-up between Kristen Stewart in Personal Shopper and Sylvia Hoeks in Blade Runner 2049.

These are not opinions but are scientifically demonstrable facts.

On Jan 23, 2018 10:06 PM, C wrote:

Objective mathematical analysis reveals that Blade Runner 2049 was the best movie of the year by 27%.

Is surpassed only by Interstellar, which remains the best movie of every year.

On Jan 23, 2018 11:14 AM, "Alan Archibald" <alanarchibaldo@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear F,

As you may recall, I saw "The Shape of Water" with Chuck and Gilly.

Chuck disliked it and Gilly loved it. 

I was entertained - always engaged by "suspense" and wondering what would happen next.

That said, I felt the creators of "Water" deliberately manipulated my suspensefulness through ping-ponging plot-line trickery. (Admittedly, "Water" is a fanciful movie that requires - and deserves - considerable suspended judgment.) 

"Water's" ending (despite the trickery) was quite remarkable -- and satisfying -- tying together the loose ends through an extraordinary (and lovely) flight of fantasy.

I would not give "The Shape of Water" any Oscars.

Of the "Best Picture" Oscar nominees, I liked "Get Out" best. It really got under my "psychological skin."

"Wind River" (not a nominee) would be my choice for Best Picture Oscar. (N.B. "Wind River" is NOT an easy movie to watch.)

In terms of sheer enjoyment, "Logan Lucky" (not a nominee either) was my favorite film of the year - a movie with "a lot more to it" than "action/heist/suspense... especially in terms of "white trash" social interaction... "white trash" aspiration... and "white trash" morality.

Many people thought "Logan Lucky" took cheap shots at America's "white underbelly": I thought it elevated "hard luck whites" while subtly portraying the white ruling class as the privileged assholes they -- and we (?) -- are.

A

PS Although I really liked "The Post" -- and would be delighted if it won "Best Picture" -- in my mind it trailed "Wind River." And while "The Post's" message is critical for this moment in time, it did not break new ground as "Get Out" did. 

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:07 AM, FV; wrote:

Dear A

The Shape of Water fared very well in nominations. May be the most nominated.

Love

F