Sad Ryan Gosling: A Bladerunner Story

I'm gonna review a movie!

That's always exciting, because in almost all cases, I'm an insufferable critic and hate everything. Not in this case. In this case, I actually liked the movie! I liked it even though there was A LOT wrong with it.

In fact, after my list of negatives, you'll probably say, "You didn't really like this, did you?" But I insist I did.

We begin.

The original Blade Runner was a flawed masterpiece, in which the "hero" haplessly moves about the landscape getting his ass rescued one time after the next. I was sad at viewing it (in theaters) just a couple years ago to see that it was no longer aging well. These things happen; it doesn't mean that the movie wasn't still a stroke of genius and deeply influential.

What about 2049 then? What did it get right? I shall tell you! The setting, replicated and extrapolated from the original, was nearly pitch perfect. The CGI was for the most part tastefully done. The technology of the future was passably extrapolated from the original, improving but not improving so much as to make it feel like things really work that well in this dingy future. The set design, including the use of distinctive lighting (very Ridley Scott) to set apart spaces and themes, was magnificent, creating interesting spaces throughout the movie (perhaps with the exception of the police offices). The ambient noise track I thought was gorgeous and kept me inside of the movie even as I could appreciate its craftsmanship.

So, what did 2049 get wrong? Everything else. The story was haphazard, the plot full of holes, and the grand 'reveal' at the end was entirely nonsensical, failing to explain the deepest mystery at the center of Gosling's questing. Little was done with the arch-villain, making me wonder if they're not setting up another sequel. Perhaps the worst facet of the presentation, however, was the heavy handedness of the moral sphere in which we are told to operate. From the very first scenes, Gosling the Replicant is derided and called silly epithets ("Skin Job") for no apparent reason. The real humans are laughably cruel toward him, and this point is made over, and over, and over again. Likewise, the notion that Replicants are slave labor, devoid (ostensibly) even of proper free will is poured over our heads like soggy noodles ad infinitum. In the original, the plight of the Replicants is in the background, but it is left largely to the viewer to form their understanding about them; we are not spoonfed emotions (which turn out not to stick well anyway, as we are always 'told' what to feel rather than having those feelings elicited through demonstration).

The pacing was also a bit awry. The movie felt VERY long (though I did not mind this that much, honestly, because the movie made good use of 'silent' scenes where we could simply watch the alien world do its thing), particularly in the beginning. It seems to have to do with modern movie-goer expectations, but a great deal of time, nearly the entire first half, was focused on 'world building', with the characters being merely expressions for showing how the world works. This is the flip from the original, and, for my part, something I preferred in the original. The original (and perhaps older works generally) was a story set in a fully realized world, though a world where we are not told (explicitly anyway) how everything works. 2049 eschews this either because it supposes what its audience wants or thinks its audience too stupid to pick up on subtleties; rather than being a story about people in a realized world, it is a story about the world through the people, if that makes sense. As such, the characters are never treated with sufficient reality to really elicit any strong feelings about them. Though maybe that's okay. At any rate, I would have preferred less hand holding to guide me along with what I was supposed to feel, and more attention to plot and characterization.

This movie earned 8 Wiffles out of 3 Mueslis. Worth seeing, especially in theaters (as I'm not sure the tiny, tiny, tiny explanatory texts will ever be visible on a screen smaller than 40 feet)

Dear Al Franken

Sure I'll get in trouble for this. Whatever. An open letter to Al Franken:

Dear Mr. Franken,

You shouldn't resign.

Here's why:
1) Your private shame is of less importance than your public duty.
2) Your political opponents will never give up, will never back down, and their constituents will support them so long as they are not forced from office.

No matter how sleazy a fellow it turns out you are, my understanding is that you've done some good in your time in the legislature. If you can still do good, then there is no reason to leave and every reason to stay. It is your duty to absorb all your shame and remain standing for as long as the people say. If the people want to be rid of you, they will do so through direct action or at the least not elect you in the next cycle.

If you are an actual servant of the people, then your duty is to remain until your service is complete.