228. Jean Jaurès & Blade Runner

Link to Table of Contents

Jean Jaurès

Reflections on Violence by Georges Sorel

Due to a tragic beverage accident, there will be no more of Reflections on Violence until my copy of the book dries out and I can un-stick the pages. (This could well be the first time a copy of Reflections and an issue of Dwell magazine have been damaged in the same incident.) This delay doesn't especially bother me as I really wanted to talk about Jean Jaurès. 

By chance, I just ran into an article about Jean Jaurès and his assassination at the start of the Great War. I have to say I tend to prefer Jaurès to Sorel in what little I've read. And what does Sorel mean by,

"Jaurès, who was very much mixed up in all the ups and downs of Dreyfusim, had rapidly judged the mentality of the upper middle class, into which he had not yet penetrated"

Jaurès was clearly haute-bourgeois. He had admirals in the family, for God's sake. I'm tempted to switch to a book about Jaurès, if I can find a good one. His philosophical background and his pacifism appeal to me, but then I suppose that's because I'm a timid middle class boy.

I do wonder what Sorel said at the time of Jaurès' assassination. I'm sure he was in favor of war. And the claims that Russia assisted the election of Poincare sound awfully familiar. History is so interesting.

Blade Runner 2049

The original Blade Runner is one of my favorite films. It's the movie I probably know best, line for line and scene by scene, which is why I had reservations about seeing this sequel. 

I finally saw it at the multiplex closest to me (the Metreon, which I've written about before). By chance, I picked the 6:30pm showing which was in theater 13, which happens to be the new Dolby Cinema. If I had known this was an option I would have actively selected it, but my online movie guide doesn't distinguish the Dolby Cinema the way it does IMAX. So there I was in a theater with the most comfortable seats, probably the best screen, and most amazing sound watching a film that was so much more polished and perfect than the original... and by the end I just wanted to see the original in that venue.

What does it mean that Ridley Scott has been involved in the recent sequels to what I believe are his two best films -- Alien and Blade Runner -- and yet neither film comes close to recreating the magic of the original. (And here I hear the words of Deckard's boss at the beginning of the film coaxing, and then compelling him to return to his Blade Runner job, 

Deckard: I don't work here anymore. Give it to Holden, he's good.
Bryant: I did. He can breathe okay as long as nobody unplugs him. He's not good enough, not good as you. I need you, Deck. This is a bad one, the worst yet. I need the old Blade Runner, I need your magic.)

But I would love to hear that Vangelis soundtrack in this new theater.

I hate to say this, because Joss Whedon is enough of an ego maniac as it is, but he probably would have been a better choice to have taken on this project. Firefly had the same, gritty, dirty, believable look and feel at the original Blade Runner. He would have needed to work with an exceptional cinematographer, visual artist, and composer... He probably would have botched it, too.

The android/AI/slavery theme is probably the best thing in the new film, but since I haven't seen other recent films that deal with this subject, I don't know how original or profound this take is. It worked for me mostly because of my recent reading of Absalom! Absalom! 

Blade Runner

I re-watched my VHS tape copy of Blade Runner. A friend -- we were planning on seeing the new film together -- had just watched one of the more recent edits and had complained about how dark it was. My tape version was low-res, dark, smokey, and, of course, very wet -- the essence of Ridley Scott's style at that time. It was so good.

Yes, there are sloppy details you just have to ignore, but the look and sound and feel of the original just works so much better for me than the recent film did. Also, I realized last night, the story is nice and simple. Deckard is tasked with hunting down four replicants and we follow his progress with that. At the same time we are following the replicant's efforts to get to their maker, Tyrell. These two simple stories cut back and forth. Rachel, the sixth replicant, becomes the wildcard and new focus of Deckard's life, and of the film, by the middle, and this is even more true at the end. 

This was one of the first things Sean Young (Rachel) was in, and she instantly had a reputation for being "difficult" which works perfectly for this character. Was that just lucky casting or were they looking for someone who was a bit of a bitch? 

I also like that the film sticks to central LA rather than roaming all over the west. I figure the flame belching towers of the opening are supposed to be Torrance, so I think that's as far south as the film goes and most of it is set downtown. And of course the film gets extra credit for using the Bradbury Building as a shooting location.

The heart of the film is the relationship between humans and replicants. (I don't think the film is as effective if Deckard is a replicant. Plus, that would make him a really shitty replicant, given how both Leon and Roy hand him his ass.) The crucial, semi-rape scene in the first film has an echo in the semi-three-way of the new film with replicants interacting with an AI (Joi). But this is, while interesting, a little confusing since aren't replicants really just "wet" AIs? The notion of a replicant "needing" the company of an AI is certainly interesting. And what happens with Deckard's dog in the new film? We have no idea.