A Vision of Los Angeles part 2, Blade Runner (1982)

A musical treat while you read: the love theme in Blade Runner. Music by Vangelis.

Blade Runner (1982)

Introduction

Blade Runner was released in 1982 to almost universally negative reviews. This was primarily due to a lack of understanding on the part of the filmgoers and the studio executives who deprived the film of its artistic credibility so as to make it palatable to audiences. The negative reviews of the film by some of the top critics in the U.S was largely due to the impression that the film never had much of a storyline and was more interested in the visuals on display. The art direction of the film was praised but not the dramatic thrust of the director, Ridley Scott. It was not only the critics who shared this view for members of the audience share this view even to this day: that they cannot understand what the film is about from a dramatic point of view. Daryl Hannah, who plays the replicant Pris, stated in an interview that she felt she was watching more of an art director’s vision and felt herself let down because based on the vibes she was getting during the live action on set she expected to feel more dramatically when viewing the finished product.  It tanked at the Box office opening in the same weekend as films such as E.T the Extraterrestrial, which was the highest grossing film of that year. Many commentators remark that one of the main reasons that the film tanked despite the competition from films like E.T was that people expected science fiction films to provide the fun going escapism of films like Star Wars episodes 4 & 5 which were released in the years 1977 and 1980 respectively. These sci-fi films featured intergalactic war and spaceships in lands seemingly far, far, away and it was simple and appealed to the imagination of those moviegoers seeking to have a good time at the movies (May the force be with you). The commentators (I call them this because most of the interviewees seem to agree on the points I am stating) also stated that E.T carried on this tradition of fun filled science fiction and so audiences were not prepared for the grim realities presented in a film like Blade Runner.  The original theatrical release was not entirely overlooked by the Oscar committee for it was nominated for two academy awards: Best Art Direction and Best Visual effects. It was only after news got around about the trouble the creative team experienced with the studio executives that the film began to gain a niche of followers and this was rounded off with the release of the director’s cut in 1992 on VHS and the Final cut which was released in 2007 on DVD. They, the creative team, say that these versions represent how the film was actually to be released initially in 1982. The voiceover by Harrison Ford in the original theatrical release (which he was sceptical of from the beginning) was cut in the subsequent versions as well as the ending which seemed incongruous with the mood of the entire film. The ending featured the protagonists driving off underneath the glares of the sun whereas  the majority of the 1 hour and 52 minutes was shot with a gloomy backdrop featuring rain, overpopulation and the vast expansion of man’s industrial and commercial capabilities that shrouds the world in a haze.  The dystopian aesthetic in the film has been decidedly influential on subsequent science fiction films such as Dark City (1998), The Matrix (1999) and superhero films such as  Batman Begins (2005). Blade Runner also placed a lot of emphasis on existential dilemmas by asking questions such as: What does it mean to be human? Or can robots, made almost in the very image of humans, possibly be considered human? What purposes are these robots intended to serve in the development of mankind? What does it mean to be a slave?  Etc. The screenplay for the film was based on a novel by Phillip K. Dick entitled Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? I have not read the book and so I cannot make reference to it in my review however the existential element is evident from the title.

The film is about a member of the Blade Runner unit, Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), in the year 2019, who goes on an assignment to track down four escaped replicants who were members of the original 23 member crew that led a rebellion on a base in the outer world colonies and escaped to the earth. The bodies of the advanced replicants, nexus 6 models, are superior to humans thus making them able to adapt to the harsh conditions of the outer world colonies where they work as slaves clearing the land for settlement by humans. Their leader is the extremely smart Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer).  This is the challenge for Deckard however he finds himself falling for a nexus 6 model, Rachel (Sean Young), who is not a member of the escaped crew from the outer world colonies but becomes hunted nonetheless having escaped her employment at the Tyrell corporation after discovering that she is a replicant. She previously believed she was an actual human being. Deckard must make sense of this world and come to the discovery of what it means to be a moral human being. There is also the question: Is Deckard a replicant or not?

This review is in keeping with part 1 of my Vision of L.A series which featured Chinatown (1974). In it I spoke of the expansion of L.A by the bourgeois class through corrupt means. This was done by turning the small farmers in the Northwest valley into wage earners by first dispossessing them of their land which is the main source of their income. An understanding of the capitalist system is the best way to understand a film such as Blade Runner because without such an understanding the film does seem, as Daryl Hannah stated, like an obscure art house project. When the commentators on the film were speaking of the critics response to the film they mentioned one lady who gave a poor response to the film. She said, according to one commentator, that in Blade Runner it was all filth rain etc but ‘what does it all mean?’ yet when she stepped outside she was in Blade Runner. From a theoretical point of view that is a poor response to the film as she never realized that all this rain is a means of social control of the so called lower orders of society. It is the vast expansion of capital that accounts for the dilemma experienced by the replicants in this film for they reflect the position of the dispossessed. There are, certainly, existential themes involved here and this is all connected to the idea of the dispossessed. In the advanced capitalist system the dispossessed wage worker is little more  than a slave once capital sinks its teeth into him driving him on to generate massive amounts of surplus value (unpaid labour time). It is true that there is a class of wage labourers who make substantial earnings such as managers and supervisors but this does not excuse the fact that if they are making a certain amount the capitalist still takes surplus value from them nonetheless. It also disguises the fact that the capitalist is always seeking means to cheapen their labour until they either make them redundant or they make their work so easy it can be understood by a 12 year old child. Relish the nice wages while you can. Also unless you convert your high wage earnings into some entrepreneurial venture once there is overproduction (recession) you will be dismissed unless you are absolutely essential no matter what high wages you earn. This review will therefore discuss the massive growth of capital and its technological apparatus and how this shapes the lives of the replicants in the film.

In this review I will focus on Blade Runner: The Final Cut for this is the way the film was intended to be released. I will not get into any futile comparisons with the original theatrical release or the rigmarole debate:  whether or not it should have been nominated for more academy awards including Best film and Best director. I agree with Roger Ebert that if it was actually perfect when released why did Ridley Scott (the director) feel it necessary to have so many revisions released.  The removal of the voiceover in the Final Cut does allow you to determine on your own, the thoughts of Rick Deckard, as opposed to having it handed on a platter. I do agree with commentators such as Frank Darabont (the director of The Shawshank Redemption (1994)) that one of the key emotional moments in the film (the poetic Tears in the Rain sequence) is diminished by the voiceover.  I also agree that the score by Vangelis should have been nominated for the academy award Best Original Score for it is instrumental to the emotional context of the film. It is of no use to go over these debates now and for the present the focus will be on the theoretical framework of the film which is instrumental to understanding it. In support of the theoretical framework I make references to Plato’s The Republic and the poem by William Blake ‘America: A Prophecy’. The characters quote a few lines from Blake’s poem. My analysis of the nature of capital is taken from Das Kapital by Karl Marx in his monumental 4 volume work.

The Expansion of Los Angeles in Blade Runner: the overwhelming growth of capital and its technological apparatus.

The Physical Landscape

‘You know the score pal. (If) you’re not cop you’re little people’

The opening of Blade Runner begins with the scene ‘eye on the city’ featuring the exciting and rousing music featured in Vangelis’ score. This is the scene where we see the extent of the expansion of industrial capital (represented by manufacturers of material products both hardware and software items)  and commercial and money dealing capital (represented by banks, investment firms, wholesale and retail trade and the stock exchange) in Los Angeles which stretches as far as the eye can see. Factories now belch fire instead of smoke. The servants of the bourgeois class, the police, patrol the skies in their aerial automobiles. It seems as if they alone can boast of this privilege. Lightning splits the air and there is a haze of gas with a light orange texture that hovers above the city. Industrial and commercial capital has truly reached its limits. The camera in the opening shot never falters in its gaze for its primary object of attention is the Tyrell corporation which is the location for the first scene with dialogue between a member of the Blade runner Unit, Holden, and the replicant, Leon who tried to infiltrate the corporation as an employee so as to try and reach the CEO, Mr. Tyrell. Holden is running tests on the new employees of the corporation to determine which one of them is likely to be a member of the runaway band from the outer world colonies. The test is called Voight Kampff which is used to determine, based on the subject’s emotional response, whether or not he or she is a replicant because the use of certain terms and concepts in the test, which the ordinary man would know, is not necessarily known to the replicant. Holden discovers that Leon is a replicant but is not able to react fast enough as Leon fires his gun and severely injures him as Leon makes his escape.

The Tyrell Corporation represents the values of the bourgeois class in this film. There is no other mention of the major corporations unless it is through the massive billboards that cast a massive shadow over the populace. The skyscrapers which are largely representations of industrial and commercial capital in this film seem twice as large as those today and can truly be called oppressive from the ground level perspective. The only moment   when one can take in the splendor of the city is on aerial patrol with a police officer. There are blimps, ushering advertisements, which hover directly over the populace on the ground level which is shrouded in perpetual rain and mist. The perpetual rain is a means of control of the massive numbers that walk the streets. Let me explain briefly what I mean when I say that the perpetual rain is a means of controlling the swarming numbers on the ground level. The same element can be found in the masterpiece One Hundred Years of Solitude written by the great Gabriel Garcia Marquez. After the banana workers stage a strike action they are rounded up, based on the pretext that they will be meeting with the heads of the banana company, and mowed down by bullets of the soldiers, slaves of the bourgeois class; and their bodies are dumped on the trains to be carried far away and to be dumped in mass graves. Jose Arcadio escapes as he was not killed but merely unconscious although after awakening he is forever scarred mentally.  Anyways the head of the banana company says that since the protests are over they will begin work as soon as the rain ends. When it starts to rain in Macondo it never stops until five years later. The rain represents a washing away not only of the physical landscape but of memory. The loss of memory is attributable to the Macondo populace as well as the bourgeois class who can conveniently pack up their bags and leave Macondo a wasted town. The rain here becomes a distinctive form of social control by the bourgeois class who have managed to even manufacture rain clouds to swamp the land of the little man to keep him in check.  When it rains there is no great urge for some to go outside because it slows activity. In Blade Runner, with the streets being so populous, this rain would be a means of driving people off the streets as well as to prevent likely violent eruptions should the people be awoken from the constant deluge. It is also evident as a means of social control for when Deckard pays a visit to the Tyrell Corporation it is clear that it is only in the high offices of these mighty skyscrapers, occupied by the bourgeois class, that the sun is visible. They alone have the privilege of witnessing the sunrise and sunset. The only light on the ground level is electronically generated and you cannot tell whether it is day or night unless by the time.

 The great numbers crowded into the city represent a series of dispossessed people from various cultures. There is an overwhelming amount of Asian residents from Japan, China, India, Thailand, and Indonesia (an expanded Chinatown where the action takes place). The calligraphy of either the Japanese or Chinese and the giant billboards with geisha models are quite prominent as the police aerial patrols dart through the air highlighting that it is Chinatown.  There are also many residents from the Middle East (I would not want to know what they have done to Africa).   Along with these immigrants are the hipsters who have embraced the advancement of the technological apparatus and walk around with sparkling devices that cover their eyes. It is presumed here that they are seeing flashing lights as they walk and can truly say that they are high when they next take a puff. There are a lot of pygmies, midgets and gypsies that roam the place; they add textures to the film but nothing more.   Animals (mammals) primarily of Asian origin now roam the city which is a sign that agriculture is truly dead having been absorbed by Industrial capital. These exotic animals fetch a good price at the market. It shouldn’t matter because the Tyrell Corporation can make artificial versions such as the owl we see when Deckard makes his first visit to the Tyrell Corporation. Also you encounter a lot of biological salesmen of Asian and Middle Eastern heritage. Animals are big business for when Deckard, impersonating an inspector on the issue of moral abuses, questions Zhora, a replicant, he asks her if the snake wrapped around her is real. She replies ‘Do you think I would be working in here if I could afford a real snake?’ Industrial capital has spread so far and wide that it has forced immigrants from their agricultural habitats to try and fend for themselves in the cities. Industrial and commercial capital has also reached its limit for the blimp that hovers close to ground level is advertising that Americans ‘put out’ and settle in the ‘new life that awaits you in the outer world colonies.’ This, according to the film, is the next step in man’s expansion to gain additional raw materials and then put people to work so as to generate surplus value or unpaid labour time. The raw material alone is not wealth in itself unless it is converted into a commodity with a use value that can be exchanged either for another commodity or money which will generate profits for the capitalist class. In order to create this commodity imbued with surplus value the capitalist needs to exploit the labour power of the wage earner by extracting as much unpaid labour time as he can. With capitalism reaching its limit by driving up prices of raw materials having extracted a vast number of earth’s natural resources the next stage is naturally to explore the resources that might be on other planets.  Avatar (2009) addressed this theme in a limited way. The blimp also states that replicants are available in the outer world colonies to take care of the needs of the citizens should they choose to leave earth and settle there.  It is not possible that this vision of the future as seen through the eyes of Los Angeles is applicable to the year 2019, the year the film was made however it does seem applicable to a more distant future probably the early years of the 22^nd century or in the late years of the 21^st century.  

The Metaphysical Landscape in Blade Runner

‘I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe.’

The main influence for my discussion on the metaphysical landscape in Blade Runner is the analogy of the cave to the nature of knowledge in Plato’s The Republic.  I discussed this analogy briefly in my review of Chinatown where I described the analogy. In the cave the inhabitants are only familiar with images cast by the dim flicker of the flames. They are therefore not aware of the actual physical shape of the items in the cave and are only aware of the various impressions cast by the light of the flame. When one of the inhabitants manages to ascend from the cave he or she is exposed to the glaring rays of the sun. After adjusting to the brightness of the sun’s glare the eye is treated to the actual physical shape of items as opposed to being exposed to the impressions found in the Cave,the shadowy images in the Cave which do not reflect the actual physical shape of the item. True knowledge then, according to Plato, is when one can deduce the actual physical, objective shape of the item as opposed to mere impressions. The actual physical shape then is constant or invariable i.e. this is the actual form and no impression. There is no other form that can be deduced from the physical shape of the item for this is what it actually is for there are no derivatives. After this he will also realize that the sun is the source of all that he sees.  Here is what Plato says when speaking of the analogy of the cave and the eye that gazes on the object:

‘Apply the analogy to the mind. When the mind’s eye is fixed on objects illuminated by truth and reality , it understands and knows them, and its possession of knowledge is evident; but when it is fixed on the twilight world of change, and decay, it can only form opinions, its vision is confused and its opinions shifting, and it seems to lack intelligence.’ (taken from The Republic penguin classics trans. by Desmond Lee)

For Plato the eye, of all sense organs, is most representative of the divine for he says, ‘Yet of all sense organs the eye is most sun like.’ And with regards to the sun’s relationship to the eye, ‘Then, moreover, though the sun is not itself sight, it is the cause of sight and is seen by the sight it causes.’ Then how does this analogy relate to Blade Runner? The answer is quite simple: the opening scene, entitled ‘eye on the city’, gives us a clue but it is still abstract. In that scene a mysterious eye watches the furnaces belch flame and beholds the massive scale of mankind’s development. Is it really clear whose eye it really is? It could be yours or mine (well I don’t have blue eyes). The eye is a witness to the truth because it is now no longer in the cave below and can behold the despairing direction in which man is headed. While in the cave below one could not be aware of the developments that are taking place having been swamped in rain all day and carrying on as if nothing devastating  is happening beyond your control. The glorious advancement of technology is the only salvation of the bourgeois class and so they use it devastatingly to corrupt the minds of the proletariat who marvel at its grandeur from the perspective of one with a commodity fetish. Technology then becomes an appendage whereas prior to the expansion of capital, in the 16^th to 18^th centuries, it was gold and silver that one adorned oneself with to look illustrious. In the future it will be technological tidbits and this is not to say that gold will lose its touch but with the rapid expansion of capital and the excavation of the raw materials of the earth one should expect the cheapening of gold and other metals to the point where one could expect to have gold toilet paper. The metaphysical landscape of Blade Runner is therefore reflective of its physical landscape. The people lurking in the overcrowded streets and swamped constantly by rain and mist are those representative of the cave dwellers. They have no hold on the truth for they live amongst shadows and cannot decipher the true form of an object for they are hardly exposed to the sun which is the giver of true sight or in this case a guide where one can discover true knowledge. True knowledge according to Plato is the discovery of a constant or invariable object i.e. if it is true today it will be true 1000 years from now.

Bryant, the one who brings Deckard into the fold of the Blade Runner unit, says to Deckard, ‘You know the score pal. If you’re not cop you’re little people.’ This is true based on the physical layers present in the film for the police are the ones with the access to the aerial cars and know full well the scope of the city. This constant presence of the police in the form of the aerial patrol is reflective of their sycophantic role in maintaining order for the bourgeois class. They also have access to classified information and this is supported by the following scenes: 1. When Rachel goes to Deckard’s house seeking answers about her status as a replicant she asks him if he checked her files; he replies that they were classified and she counters ‘But you’re a police man.’ Also when Deckard is about to pay the replicant, Pris, a visit at the house of J.F Sebastian you get a sense of this repression as a police car hovers there as he checks Deckard’s identification and it seems menacing and you get a sense of his authority. The midgets flee immediately when they see the aircraft. It is as if the police are intent on keeping the mass of people on the ground level in a state of ignominy and ignorance which would be reflective of the cave dwellers that they are perceived to be. I mentioned before that the only time sun is visible is when Deckard pays a visit to the Tyrell Corporation and it is clear that the bourgeois class so high in their fortresses are able to get the best view of everything. This class is far removed from the various vicissitudes of life that plague the little man in the streets below on ground level for it is a world of shadow. This class is then representative of the scanty few that have access to knowledge and are seemingly godlike to the people below and this is evident in the character of Mr. Tyrell himself who plays god with people’s lives. I will deal with him in the final section.  The final scene in the original theatrical release of Blade Runner, with Rick and Rachel driving out under the glares of the sun,  may seem incongruous to some however within the metaphysical context of the cave as described by Plato it is clear that it has more meaning than is normally attributed to it. They are on the path to knowledge of the constant truth.

This brings me to the character of the replicant Roy Batty (Rutguer Hauer), the leader of the rebellion in the outer world colonies, and his vision of a greater world beyond the earth’s frontier. He is quite poetic and he refuses to come to terms with his status as a replicant which has servile connotations. His poetic oeuvre stems from the fact that he is an advanced replicant- nexus 6- and according to the narrative at the beginning of the film the nexus 6 replicants are mentally equal to the biological engineers that created them.  This would put him on the level of Mr. Tyrell, the brain behind the creation of the nexus 6. Roy, also, does not want to die so soon for he is only given 4 years to live and when we first see him it is clear that his flesh is decaying which is a sign that he is close to termination. He constantly speaks throughout the film about the things he has seen in the vast dimensions of space. When Chew, the biological engineer who designs eyes, tells Roy that he designed his eyes (nexus 6) Roy’s response is, ‘If only you could have seen what I have with your eyes.’ He also introduces himself poetically to Chew prior to this statement: ‘Fiery the angels fell; thunder rolled around their shoulders; burning with the fire of orc.’ This is a deliberate spin (or misquote) of lines in a poem by William Blake entitled ‘America: A Prophecy’ where Blake says ‘Fiery the angels rose, and as they rose deep thunder roll’d around their shores: indignant, burning with the fires of Orc (spirit of rebellion).’ The reference by the screenwriters is a masterstroke and is an element looked over in the analysis by top critics when they assess the film. The absence of such understanding was another reason why critics were unable to embrace the philosophical dimensions of Blade Runner which they felt were absent. The original poem by William Blake dealt with the overthrow of the unwary British by the Americans in the historical event which is known as the American Revolution. The revolution was seen, in this poem, as a spiritual release from the control exerted by the British. Following the revolution the Americans were ostracized by the British however after a while the British were forced to concede that America was a growing influence in the world.   America eventually superseded Britain as the world’s leading economic power following World War 1. The poem speaks of the success of this revolution however the spin made by Roy is quite poignant for now the angels have fallen with the fires of Orc (spirit of rebellion) that once led America to become the wealthiest nation on earth. It is a reference to America’s decay. The ‘fiery angels’ could also be referring to the internal rebellion being led by the replicants themselves in the outer world colonies. As the fiery angels they have to descend to earth to lead the revolution and so they have fallen through the atmosphere.  This reference is just as poignant as the famous ‘Tears in (the) Rain’ where a dying Roy says to Deckard: ‘I have seen things you people wouldn’t believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I’ve seen C-Beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost, in time, like tears in (the) rain. Time to die.’ This is poignant for there is another reference to Blake’s poem which is not discussed for prior to this speech Roy is playfully chasing Deckard howling like a lone wolf despite being wounded and awaiting his death. He even holds tight to a pigeon so he can get some taste of life. His actions are in reference to the character perceived as the demon by the enemy simply because he sought to inspire rebellion to lead his people to freedom. This is how Blake describes the character:

‘Over the hills, vales, the cities, the rage the red flames fierce; the Heavens melted from north to south; and Urizen (the character who Roy is based on) who sat above all heavens in thunders wrap’d, emerged his leprous head (when Deckard is hanging from a ledge Roy’s head is thrust ominously into view in an ambiguous manner: will he kill Deckard? Save him? or let him fall to his death) from out his holy shrine, his tears in deluge piteous (tears in rain) falling into the deep sublime! Flag’d with grey brow’d snows and thunderous visages, his jealous wings wav’d over the deep; weeping in dismal howling (Roy howls as he chases Deckard. He may seem as if he is being playful but he is really smitten by grief) woe he dark descended howling around the smitten bands clothed in tears and trembling shudd’ring cold. His stored snows he poured forth, and his icy magazines. He open’d on the deep (Roy speaking about what he had seen in space) and on the Atlantic sea white shiv’ring. Leprous his limbs, all over white (Roy is decaying as he comes near to the end of his life and his hands do look leprous), and hoary was his visage. Weeping in dismal howlings before the stern Americans (In the movie replicants are to be terminated on sight) hiding the demon red with clouds and cold mists from the earth (the escaped replicants lurk in the shadows on the ground level to avoid termination); till angels and weak men twelve years should govern o’er the strong: And then their end should come, when France receiv’d the demon’s light.’ (Roy reveals himself to Deckard on the rooftops thereby allowing Deckard to understand that the  replicants, which he sees as just machines (either a benefit or a hazard), do have the capability to express genuine emotion. They are not the demons they are made out to be) Plato also said in his analogy of the cave that when one who is exposed to the glares of the sun he or she should return to the shadows of the cave and try  to enlighten them about their conditions of life.  Deckard already came to the conclusion, that replicants are not simply machines, having fallen in love with Rachel however he was not able to extend his vision to the other replicants and I will speak of this in the next section.

Replicants as a reflection of the dispossessed class (Man's revolt against "God")

‘Quite an experience to live in fear isn’t it? That’s what  it is to be a slave.’

The term dispossessed class is referred to those without property. This property, in the context of the film, could be your own thoughts or your place of residence. Also when you are slave, which is what the enlightened nexus 6 replicants consider themselves, then you are considered as one without property i.e. you have no share in the world. When assessing the nature of the replicants in Blade Runner one must refer to the fact that they are reflective of a dispossessed class of people more commonly referred to as slaves.

The human drama in Blade Runner centres on the nature of the replicant (artificial life) particularly the nexus 6 models featured in this film. Are they simply machines or are they capable of expressing genuine emotion? Deckard responds quite lazily to Rachel’s remark about his perception of the robotic industry when he says, ‘Replicants are like any other machine: they’re either a benefit or a hazard. If they’re a benefit it’s not my problem.’ In the same scene he is almost dumbfounded when he discovers Rachel is a replicant yet is not aware that she is. Mr. Tyrell, in the customary capitalist fashion, says ‘Commerce is our goal here at the Tyrell Corporation. More Human than human is our motto.’ He later continues that there was a sign that the replicants were getting restless or a ‘strange obsession’ for ‘they have only a few years to process the emotions which you and I take for granted’ (not exact quote). The decision was taken to create a cushion for their agitation by giving them false memories. Without memories humans live in a void; people who try and avoid their memories by saying that they are moving on are without direction.  This is actually confusing for why make them believe they are human and then act surprised when they revolt, which is a sign that some high level of emotional consciousness has been reached. Throughout the film the replicant’s (Rachel and Leon) hold on to their photos (representative of their false memories) which give them some sense of direction in life or some sense that they are not in a void. There are photos that are fairly recent in the replicant’s actual life such as the picture of Leon’s (a replicant) motel room which becomes one of the keys in Deckard’s investigation of where the escaped replicants are hiding.   Leon tries to retrieve it but the police are already on his trail so he must leave them behind. When Leon eventually corners Deckard, after he kills Zhora (another replicant), what does he say ‘Painful to live in fear (a void) isn’t it? There is nothing like having an itch you cannot scratch.’

 The narrative that opens the film is quite clear that when a member of a Blade Runner unit kills a replicant it is considered retirement and not an execution. Deckard is now weary of the killing and we gleam this from the beginning of the film where he is reluctant to be called back into the fold. He says in the original theatrical release that he was tired of the killing at the behest of his superiors with no questions asked. This was exactly the same dilemma that besets Jake Gittes in Chinatown (see part one of this review) where he laments that in Chinatown you ask no questions and you are not sure whether you’re helping someone or hurting them in the process of doing your job. Look at Deckard’s reaction after he shoots and kills Zhora in the back for it is evident that he has chills which is a sign that he is haunted by his deeds as a member of the Blade Runner unit. It then begs the question that Deckard asks himself: When I kill these replicants am I taking a life or am I just terminating a machine? When he encounters Rachel for the first time she asks him ‘have you ever retired a human by mistake?’ ‘Never,’ says Deckard. Then why does he get those chills after he kills an unarmed Zhora by shooting her in the back (police are not to shoot in the back; they are only to shoot unless fired on). If she was a machine then it would not be a problem. He is also drawn to Rachel(a replicant), who he flees with at the end of the film, and it seems his question is answered however he still carries out his mission by killing Pris and then going after Roy. Why did he not just see the errors of his ways and cease his killing spree? One possible reason is given near the end when his apartment has been infiltrated and the fear Deckard has that Rachel has been executed or terminated by Gaff (peculiar henchman of Bryant). It seems this is when the reality of his actions has finally hit home: his love for Rachel would see her death as an execution. Also how is his apartment infiltrated by the police? He is, therefore, also compelled to do this because there is a lingering suspicion that Deckard himself maybe a replicant or a slave for his superiors. It is still an ambiguous subject considering how the character of Deckard is portrayed in the film. He does not seem to have a past for one of his memories is that of a unicorn (a quite artistic shot in the film), his piano is also littered with pictures which he cannot seem to connect to; his eyes also glow red at one point in the film like the other replicants however as the shot is not repeated you are left in doubt. Roy, Rachel and Gaff, when they speak to him, seem to imply by their statements that he is also a replicant. Rachel asks him for instance if he ever tried the Voight-Kampff test on himself however there is no answer as he falls asleep; Gaff at the end leaves an image of a unicorn made out of paper outside Deckard’s apartment door: How did he know of Deckard’s vision of the abstract figure that is the unicorn? Also why does he flee? Is it possible that he has been dispossessed out of his private sanctuary? As mentioned before when you are a slave you have no property. Deckard does seem like a man of the world and in that sense he seems human enough having assimilated the lifestyle of the Chinatown in which he resides. Bryant, the police chief, would have known if Deckard is a replicant but does not imply it in his conversations and this could be probably due to the fact that Deckard is so good at what he does as a replicant or he is a human. He also does not seem as strong as the replicants in the film however it is clear that the models he is dealing with are advanced nexus 6 models and even if he were a replicant he would probably have been an inferior model. In the final cut the evidence seems overwhelmingly in favour of the fact that Deckard is a replicant. If he is then it is no wonder his life is one of fear (the void)? A fear he encounters near the end when his apartment is infiltrated by Gaff who seems to have all this access to his private sanctuary and innermost thoughts. A fear he feels when chills take hold of him following his termination of Zhora. This sense of a void in his metaphysical landscape is partly compensated for by his love for Rachel.

Let’s look briefly at the other replicants and how they are dispossessed. Firstly, the escaped replicants from the outer world colony who led this rebellion consider themselves slaves although to the capitalists they are simply machines or objectified constant capital i.e. they absorb the variable labour of human beings and expand, accordingly, the more surplus value (unpaid labour time) is generated by the capitalist through the use of the variable living labour. It is no surprise therefore at the beginning of the film that the nexus 6 models have been created as a reflection of advanced robotic technology for they have absorbed the surplus value generated by variable living labour. This is how capitalism grows and why they advanced robotic technology for the previous models based on the variable input were not adequately developed and so the engineers were now able to advance new models which would absorb the  surplus product of the now expanded variable labour. When the blimp hovers asking Americans to ‘put out’ and seek a new life in the outer world colonies then it is clear that the more surplus labour the capitalist can generate out of these living beings the more likely it is that the advanced nexus 6 replicants will have to be replaced based on the overwhelming amount of surplus value they will have to absorb. This is of course dependent on the capitalist setting up shop on the outside in the outer world and then paying wages and perhaps rent. Another incentive is that the replicants are there to cater to the needs of the population of the outer world colonies.  They would probably have to make them stronger and faster than they are now or in much greater numbers should the population increase in the outer world colonies.  The replicants are also considered to be fixed capital as opposed to circulating capital. They are fixed because their value is determined by the initial cost as well as the wear and tear of their bodies. In other words you buy a machine and you try and preserve it as long as possible but eventually it will go in to a state of decline or its value will depreciate. When its energy is all spent then the capitalist has to replace it and this is done by charging the value of this product through its annual depreciation (it all depends on the type of machine; a printer could be charged by its monthly depreciation. Whatever the case the full value of the product must be recouped by the annual charge for depreciation). In this film you see the wear and tear of Roy for instance for the nexus 6 replicants are only given 4 years to live which means they are expected to absorb as much value as befits their constitution as advanced robots. The wear and tear of robots, measured by the amount of surplus product they can absorb, will be compensated for in the price of the product. Also if it is found that the surplus product is too great then they will have to be replaced by more advanced machines. They are also material commodities like African slaves once were and their value is determined like any other, by the amount of surplus value (unpaid labour time) generated by the variable input of the engineers that created them.   The mistake by the capitalist in this film however is that these machines consider themselves to be human or a variable element and so when a band of them became aware of the state they were living in there was a mutiny. This was a state of slavery for surely, as replicants, they were not being paid and were propertyless.

When the replicants in this film reach an advanced state of consciousness they immediately revolt because the condition of the outer world colonies is inevitably harsh. This is how it comes about that the ‘Fiery angels fell’. They become infused with all sorts of emotions and they need more life so as to understand these feelings. We see this in Roy’s almost childish expressions as he is aware that his companions are dying and we see this in the confused expression of Zhora when she is trying to escape her impending doom; just look at her face when the bustling crowd affects the stationary stance which she is trying to assume so as to avoid attracting Deckard’s roving eyes. That scene reminds one of how the prey seeks to escape the hunter and vice versa.   The memories they carry around are false and so it is only natural that being amongst humans would help to fill this void and so allow them to be able to live and process these emotions and escape the police. This is probably why Zhora joins the strip club etc When Leon is taking the Voight Kampff test at the beginning of the film look at his face when he is being asked questions he does not understand. These are all expressions of a void and these expressions are associated with the dispossessed class or those at the bottom. I mentioned in part one that having control or knowledge of all the institutional based systems and the lives of others determines the extent to which one feels secure. These replicants in the outer world colonies had no property they were only awakened to the marauding demands of the capitalists. It is clear that in Roy’s case he was enlightened through the various streaking images of space which awakened his literary talents. It is clear that being literary is the starting point for security. Look at the conversation he has with Tyrell when he has infiltrated his premises by coaxing Sebastian one of Tyrell’s henchmen; the sentiments expressed are clearly religious and the actions that follow seem to be symbolic of man’s  revolt against God. Mr. Tyrell, like most members of the bourgeoisie, seeks desperately to control the lives of the proletariat or those who work for them or those who are made dependent on them. It reaches the point that the members of the proletariat are besotted by the grandeur of this ruling class, which they helped to create through their servility, who own all the means of production which they expropriated from the little man. In conjunction with their servants such as police, soldiers, lawyers, ministers, senators, priests,  prime ministers and presidents this class is able to seem almost godlike to the proletariat. There are members of the proletariat who have sunk so low that when they see some of their own member employed in these corporations, controlled by the bourgeois class, they revere them with distinction and bow down to them also.

Roy approaches Tyrell saying,’ It’s not an easy thing to meet your maker.’ ‘And what can he do for you?’ asks Tyrell. After some banter Roy approaches Tyrell threateningly saying ‘I want more life father (fucker in the original but rightfully changed to father in the final cut)’ ‘To make an alteration in the evolvement of an organic life system is fatal. A coding sequence cannot be revised once it’s been established. Because by the second day of incubation any cells that have undergone reverse mutations give rise to revertant colonies like rats leaving a sinking ship. Then the ship sinks.’ After some of the same banter about repressor protein and EMS recombination why Roy cannot attain more life Tyrell starts to take control mentally so assured he is in his knowledge for you get a sense that Tyrell can give him more life but as a capitalist he cannot admit this for this would mean less surplus value by the creation of his machines and a decline in productivity and his profits. If every four years following the death of replicants he is assured of a new demand from the outer world colonies to purchase his products why would he want to extend the life of the replicants to ten years. As he rightfully states must of his theorizing is academic without precedence and so it is possible that Roy’s suggestion of a repressor protein that blocks the operating cells would work. Tyrell, however, says that ‘it would not obstruct replication but gives rise to an error in replication (gives rise is not definitive)’. This is a clear sign that it is possible to extend the life of the replicant.   Tyrell is lying from the capitalist point of view when he says, ‘You were made as well as we could make you ‘But not to last’ ‘The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long. And you have burned so very, very brightly Roy. ’ (What a customary bourgeois  statement) Does he really expect anyone with a knowledge of capitalism to believe that Roy was made as good as he could have been made when the capitalist class prides itself on constant innovations in technology to enhance production? He is killed by Roy after he informs him that he has done questionable things however and Tyrell tells him that he has also done extraordinary things,  Roy responds, ‘Nothing the god of biomechanics (Tyrell) would let you in heaven (eternal life) for.’ He then initiates the act of murder. How does he kill him? Thats right he gouges out his eyes which is quite symbolic considering the significance of the eye in this film. He also precedes his gouging with a kiss of death. The kiss is significant because it is a testament to Roy's humanity. The death of Tyrell and his crony Sebastian is a reflection of the innate fear of the bourgeois class that the proletariat will rise up in revolt and overthrow them. Roy has now begun a rebellion which he hopes that Deckard will continue after he is forced to flee with Rachel. This is why the ‘tears in rain’ scene is so affecting and the headlining quotation above for this section, which Roy says to Deckard while he is hanging off a ledge, ‘Quite an experience to live in fear isn’t it? That’s what it is to be a slave.’ It is amazing that most top critics have not assessed the profound nature of the dialogue in Blade Runner.

Conclusion

Rachel is also in the same boat as the other replicants. She was once so assured of herself as a human being and now she is dispossessed of her memories for she realizes that they are not her own but those of Tyrell’s niece. After she flees and is now hunted, for Deckard is instructed to terminate her, she is taken in by Deckard and when he sees her among the crowd on the street it is an affecting scene because of the song playing in the back ground which seems to be one from the mid 20^th century and seems to hit the core of Rachel’s isolation for in that modern age how strange to hear a song so old still holding on; its notes still resonant. Rachel flees when she sees him. She eventually saves him from Leon and when she is taken in by Deckard who refuses to kill her he makes his move after she plays the piano. He has to tell her how to feel and express her emotions and thereby give some form of structure to the void which is created when one is dispossessed. The love does fill the void in both their lives for near the end what does Deckard ask ‘Do you love me?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘Do you trust me?’ ‘I trust you.’ This is all they have as Deckard himself is now dispossessed and has to flee for having taken on Rachel he is now another slave who has rebelled and must flee the dogs and servants of the bourgeois class who have to maintain the law and order of the bourgeois class.  The end is similar to Chinatown for Evelyn Mulwray seeks to flee the clutches of Noah Cross to start over and Jake’s attempts to save her are thwarted by the police.  Jake said he ensured that the woman he was dealing with in Chinatown was hurt although he did not know it; Deckard also realizes this and escapes successfully it might seem. Jake was not so lucky with Evelyn. Deckard and Rachel escape into the unknown (void) with love as their only foundation. 

What makes a film great or destined for greatness (or great influence)?

What makes a film great or destined for greatness (or great influence)?

Intro.

This is a debatable issue and, always, the inevitable conclusion of the debate is that greatness is relative. There must be some form of consensus however and this consensus is formed among certain groups. One group will see The Hangover 2 (2011) as a great film while the other group will say that it is rubbish. One group will say that Vertigo (1958) is a great film while the other group will say it is boring. If it is the conclusion that greatness is relative then if we were to be objective and compile a list of great films from all groups involved then most films would be considered great. This idea about relativity is flawed in some respect and so I will postulate my own concept of greatness (this is a joke about relativity ha-ha, anyways). In this commentary I will explain what the true definition of relativity is with regards to greatness.

The criterion for greatness (or great influence).

Firstly, greatness is tied into influence i.e. someone or thing that is a progenitor for a movement that is lasting. This definition is limited to the extent that if I make people believe that 2+2 =5 it is influential until someone can prove that 2+2=4. My influence would then be shattered and my theory will then be discarded never to be revived.  This brings me to the second criterion which is the extent and reach of the progenitors’ influence that will make it lasting. A large scale  here is important however this is not always acceptable for little recognised projects by persons can be considered great because their ideas were snatched and subsumed (absorbed) into other projects which, through better marketing campaigns, were able to build on the ideas of the lesser known film to become more popular. This is the case when you consider Blade Runner (1982) vs. The Matrix (1999). The dystopian aesthetic in The Matrix originated with Blade Runner however The Matrix can be considered the more popular film in the present day.  It can still be said that the influence of the lesser known film is more significant in scale having  inspired projects that have generated substantially more money and fame than it did at the box office.

This brings me to my third criterion, mastery of the concepts that came before which would require that the original  concepts that came before are subsumed by the creative team so as to create a new concept that builds on the former concepts without disregarding them. This can be called filling a gap that the previous original concepts failed to explore. The Matrix expanded the dystopian vision of Blade Runner with its action driven set pieces such as the famous slow down techniques.   Also in film and music this can be seen with the influence of technology. In music today technology has advanced to the point where the subsumption (absorption) of previous technologies such as individual instruments (guitar, flute etc) has generated some form of synthesis which is electronic music. It will, however, be dubbed electronic although it has subsumed the previous technologies for the sake of advancement. Instruments themselves can be upgraded with more diverse applications. In film technology lies mainly with the quality of the audio-visual picture which is now more advanced in the twenty first century than when it was utilised in 1930. This technology in the 21^st, however, only subsumed the advancements, however slight they may be, of the technologies employed during the twentieth century over time therefore making it the outcome of  a nearly century long progression from the silent era. There was a gradual build up so that technologies once deemed unnecessary were disposed of and newer technologies which have embraced the foundational principles of previous developments will be utilised to make a clearer audiovisual experience. The audio-visuals in film today are now much clearer than they were in 1950 the special effects are now generated by computer whereas before they were mostly made by hand. Technology however is one means of advancing greatness or influence (as mentioned before the two words more or less coincide). Technology in the case of art can simply be seen as corresponding to the advancement of the times in which we live and the increased demands of the consumer. If you have a basic idea of the capitalist system developed in the West then you should be aware that technology merely absorbs the progress made by human labour. Technology then reaches a stage where it seems almost independent of man however it is not since it is the subjective input of man that will continue to advance technology. In capitalist societies technology is seen as objective or constant capital and the labour of man is seen as relative or variable. It is the variable labour of man that will be continuously absorbed by technology until by 2080 it looms like a towering monolith over man where he will see it as something completely independent of him.   

This brings me to my next point: greatness or influence is in accordance with the process of change. This simply means that greatness or influence can still be had even if the advancement of technology goes beyond the time when a certain film was created for technology only channels something it never creates it i.e. its input is not the determining factor. The creative input stems largely from the subjective viewpoint of the individual and he or she utilises the technology to create a distinct impression based on their own observation. This impression, therefore, could still have a lasting impact whether the film or song  was made in 1930 or 2010 since the subjective individual would have been able to use the technological medium (however limited)at his or her disposal to transmit subjective artistic views. It does not affect the overall vision of the performer for audiences will understand what he or she is trying to say. The modern technology could only enhance an earlier production by utilising new technologies which will only bring the picture into a sharper focus however the technology would not be able to enhance the subjective technical input i.e. how the camera was used to create the element of deep focus which is a technique used extensively and famously in Citizen Kane (1941) where you would focus on the character in the distance as opposed to those that are upfront. The character in the distance would then be able to highlight the true physical dimensions of the set or the actual action that is taking place; dimensions which the characters upfront or in the foreground will not highlight for the viewer. In Casablanca (1943) the sets may look dated but the use of silhouettes by director Michael Curtiz, to capture the mood, cannot be radically transformed had updated technology been applied.

It is clear now that the subjective, creative input of the performer is the most essential thing and this brings me to the next criteria: the subjective viewpoint must assume an objective viewpoint to achieve lasting influence. I mentioned that technology as a reflection of objective or constant capital absorbs variable or relative human labour which generates surplus value for the capitalist. This applies also to the creative process and what we consider to be great or something with great influence. When you as the subjective individual puts forward a work of art it is immediately considered a subjective piece. It will be criticised either positively or negatively however over time when it can be determined that the techniques applied by the subjective individual has had a decided influence on later projects then it assumes an objective stance much like how technology represents the outcome of human labour. In this case however the subjective input will become objective because the techniques are now no longer considered variable or relative but a distinct form which later generations will borrow from when advancing their own subjective artistic expression. Initially it is considered to be subjective however when it becomes clear that the subjective input included in the work has a distinct form then it becomes objective. The techniques used in Citizen Kane such as deep focus and the use of black and white to achieve the look of gritty realism in modern films such as Raging Bull (1980) and Schindler’s List (1993) are now objective techniques that one may employ in his or her own subjective artistic expression perhaps to create a new form.

This brings me to the concept of relative greatness or great influence. The vulgar elements of this premise I addressed briefly in my introduction where people state that what is great for you is great for you, what is great for me is great for me. This is a completely vulgar explanation. The objective advancements of mankind in the form of technology were made possible by the relative improvements of human labour. Human labour under capitalist production generates surplus value for the capitalist.  The same applies here for when someone using his or her  subjective input is able to create a distinct objective form that is a sign of greatness or great influence because this new form represents a new medium by which the development of another distinct form may take place. Relative signs of greatness occur when new subjective forms are built on the objective form. The vulgar explanation that what’s great for me is great for me etc is erroneous from an objective standpoint. It is true that women like the thrillers on Life time but this does not make them great because there is no new form of film apparent in these lifetime films. When someone draws a straight line as a form of art it becomes objective having built on the previous objective reality that was the dot which represented the starting point for the straight line. I come along and add two lines in the form of an angle to create a triangle. I have thus built on the objective reality of the straight line, which can never be displaced for straight lines we will have with us always, and have built on it by adding an angular formation to create a triangle. It can be said that what is good for you is good for you but unless what is good for you creates a new, distinct, unquestionable form that can be developed it loses its signature of greatness and becomes absorbed in the existing objective reality i.e. what is already definitively known. It failed to build on what was known already.

Content, Form, Characterization and Expression in Film

Great films have certain elements that are necessary for the title: content, form, characterization and expression. The content comes first and this is usually in the form of a screenplay which represents the birth of the idea. The form is the means by which the screenplay is shaped and this is where the director comes to the fore for he and his team must give the screenplay form so that it can be transmitted visually. What is expressed on paper is not necessarily visualized in the minds of others. You might know what you want to say but other people simply don’t. You can have 100,000 words on paper but if it is not given form it is useless. This is why sometimes you have directors who take part in the screen writing process or another screen writer is brought on board to flesh out your initial concept. In film the form is brought to bear through the use of technology such as the camera and the computer or the reels that will be edited, the musical score, set design etc. These elements will give the visual cues to the audience and make them aware of the content on display in a distinct form. The human elements behind the camera or in the editing room are guided by the director who is most responsible for giving form to this content. Another aspect of the form which is crucial is the characterization by the actors and this is another element of the form but must be distinct on its own grounds for there are films with great characterizations and poor form from the director’s standpoint. The actor is supposed to give form to the character as presented on paper; whether or not the character is written as a caricature is not the actors concern he must give form to the content as it is presented. Bad acting can be described as a poor characterization of how the character was supposed to be based on the content. It is bad because it is shapeless or almost without form. The characterization can be linked with form but the actor can make his or her own improvisations to give the character a more distinct personage without the aid of the director (check Heath Ledger as the Joker in The Dark Knight (2008)). The expression is the final outcome of the form that the content has assumed. The form in which the film will be expressed depends on the work behind the scenes with the director, producer, editor, actor etc and sometimes what you envisioned takes a shapeless form of expression and collapses or it does not improve on the existing objective techniques but still has either great direction or a some great characterizations that give it life but do not add a new distinct form. Lastly, the expression will take on a new distinct form based on these elements of production when compared with previous films that helped to create a new form of expression. Ironically what may be considered a shapeless form may actually  be found, after awhile, to have developed a new form of expression.  It cannot supplant the previous objective reality created by earlier films but builds relatively on these advancements to create a new distinct reality or a new form to filmmaking. This is how a great film is born. This ends my brief treatise on what makes a great film or a very influential film.

Next Review will be A Vision of Los Angeles, part 2: Blade  Runner (1982)

Why I do not review more current releases?

Why I do not review more current releases?

There are a plethora of films out right now which one may review and build up the hits on your blog however there is a reason why I have restrained myself from following the path of ‘pandering to vulgarity’ so I can get a quick dollar or some attention in the spotlight. There is a whole host of films out right now that are simply not worth reviewing much less seeing. Firstly there is the abomination Pirates of the Caribbean: On stranger tides. Why people flock to see this film is beyond me. The only probable explanation is the compulsion that the casual movie goer feels i.e. wondering what’s next in Jack Sparrows story. Having identified with Jack from the previous three films the casual filmgoer cannot seem to resist the compulsion to view the film not knowing that the story of Jack Sparrow could be scripted by anyone with an imagination. The first three Pirates of the Caribbean films were hardly worthy of praise only a justification for the bourgeoisie who were reluctant to highlight that these pirates became statesmen after years of plunder. It simplifies the experience of pirate life in the Caribbean by relying on caricatures such as Jack Sparrow to make people laugh. It reminds me of other films made from a western perspective that are incapable of understanding the culture and so they rely exclusively on style over substance. It is like Darwin said some Men only rely on what they see as opposed to carrying out a systematic and intrinsic investigation of the subject’s internal composition.  There are some who realise their mistake after viewing a film like the fourth installment of the Pirates franchise and others like me that have successfully resisted the temptation knowing full well that the executives in the media houses have some of these moviegoers hooked as if on drugs. The minds of some casual moviegoers are now saturated with the vulgarity squeezed out by these executives however like drugs they keep coming back. A lot of the summer blockbusters released so far this year have justified my point although (I will not call names since there will always be some moviegoer who is transfixed by the film.) having little or no thought behind the production. Movies are now cheapened commodities which is a feature of the capitalist system: A dime a dozen. Anybody can make a film because it seems that a certain standard is not being set and this is why when the Oscars come around the vulgar film goers have never heard of any of the nominees and say that it must be boring etc. The days are fading when most of the casual filmgoers would watch most of the films nominated at the Oscars now some of them see these films as art house projects which is disappointing for they will be ignorant of the fact that it is these same so called boring art house films that are supposed to set the standards for the next generation whether they like it or not. It is not the vulgar films that they cherish so much which are the progeny or inheritors of the films they consider to be boring. This is the case you have: those who cherish the vulgar films are the ones driven by compulsion and are considered those who are ruled; the rulers are the ones who decide what the vulgar filmgoer will like and feeds their minds with it; they do this by choosing elements from the great productions which were considered boring when originally released and then transform that element into a film which the vulgar filmgoer is certainly going to see (feed him the drugs). It is only a fool who will think that the vulgar films that they watch are the real deal and this will reveal a breathtaking ignorance on the fools’ part; for what is for them entertainment is just one element of a masterpiece; the masterpiece probably was from a production in the 1930’s or more recently in the 2000’s. When that masterpiece came out the vulgar filmgoer dismissed it as boring and not worth watching but instead takes a bite out of its progeny which is in the form of forgettable blockbuster entertainment. I went to watch Super 8 because the preview suggested a more small scale production which would reveal some mysterious element I never knew before. It did not however but what it did do was to lure me in and confound me when I saw it. I was taken in I could not resist the urge. The film executives won that round. The fact that you hear so many people commenting on the influence of various masterpieces on the film is just a sign that what you are appreciating when you go to see it is just a progeny i.e. a film that just inherited one element of something greater than itself. It is true that no masterpiece can say everything it needs to say and so there are elements in the masterpiece that are ripe for development so you can either advance the ideas promulgated in that masterpiece or you can retard it in the form of a vulgar production which then becomes fodder for the casual filmgoer to laugh or experience some false sense of shock. Next will be Transformers 3: The Dark Side of the Moon, which will be another element in the lucrative transformers franchise however the transforming elements in the film will be the only highlight that will be a standout. I will not review that film however the casual filmgoer will be driven by compulsion because he or she needs to have a snort and while he or she is high they will feel that Transformers 3 is the greatest thing they ever saw although they will not be able to tell you exactly what makes the film remarkable. They will marvel at the explosions and the noise that the action will generate. They will marvel at the fact that the robots still transform and marvel at the graphics as they did for the first 2. The casual filmgoers will go in packs so that transformers can give them a fix and fill a longing that they have for something better but they probably will never find what that better something really is for the rulers have all the answers. When transformers 4 comes out they will still be searching.

   It is rare now to find a director that has a singular vision that will shape the future of the industry like, Orson Welles, John Huston, Francis ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese, Stanley Kubrick and Stephen Spielberg or stars like Humphrey Bogart, Marlon Brando and Robert Deniro who do not pander to audiences by choosing stellar roles that will ensure that they remain prissy and photogenic for the camera. Everyone seems to be hitting the middle of the road. I sincerely hope that the likes of Christopher Nolan will continue his path of success and strive to reinvent the form of film as we know it today so that future audiences will have something to look forward to. Christopher Nolan should not worry that people find his films boring or too mind numbing simply because they are used to vulgarity. He should persevere knowing full well that if he succeeds in his vision there will be a whole host of vulgar films following in his footsteps. I am sure he has seen the influence of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight on recent superhero films such as Iron Man and X Men-Origins (which I will never review since what it wants to say is so clear and it is only trying to save face following the debacle that was the abomination X–men, part 3). Persevere Chris and do not pander to clichés or you will fall in a rut. Keep the vision alive. I know what I am searching for and I have found it. Question: Do you know what you are searching for and have you found it?

Super 8 (2011) ***/ 5. Middle of the Road

Super 8 is a so so film that manages to achieve a middling ground: the ground where you are neither offended nor impressed. It never challenged my sensibilities, not one iota, but I was impressed that it was shot on a small scale which would reduce the reliance on overblown special effects in some instances and thereby rely on the trite emotions on display. The word of mouth is that the film is similar to vintage Spielberg in films such as E.T: the Extra terrestrial and Close Encounter of the Third Kind however the middle ground that the film treads is sufficient for the casual filmgoer to appreciate the film’s own identity, however superficial it may seem. The primary weakness of the film, however, is that it does achieve the middle ground thereby reflecting the cowardice displayed by the screenwriter and director, J.J Abrams, who failed to make this film into a definitive sci-fi experience.  Daring in filmmaking is characterised by both failure and exaltation i.e. if you dare to make someone see something they have never seen before you will either soar or kick the bucket (some films have been known to fail at the box office and be resurrected later on DVD however this film does not achieve such a status). I will discuss these weaknesses in depth later.

The film centres on Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney), a pre teen who has just lost his mother in an accident at work and his complicated interactions with Alice Dainard (Ellie fanning) who he has feelings for and his father, deputy Jackson Lamb (Kyle Chandler). While filming a Super 8 film (mini films project) with his friends at a train station they witness an mysterious accident of a train belonging to the U.S air force carrying a mysterious passenger. When the mysterious alien passenger escapes the small town in Ohio is put on alert with the intervention of the air force that is determined to capture their escaped prisoner at any costs and the mysterious disappearance of mechanical appendages (no spoilers here). It is up to Joe and his friends to discover the mysterious origin of this alien and the reason why he does what he does.

What’s good about this film?

Firstly, the film is shot on a small scale which is reflective of the small suburban town where Lamb lives with his father. The key to shooting on such a small scale is that when the visual effects are put on display they normally standout. The small scale also allows for some time spent on the various characters and why they do what they do and thereby try and incorporate this into the main plot which is the mystery surrounding this alien on the loose. It is safe to say that the back-story is not remarkable but, as I said before, it ‘neither offended nor impressed’. It hit the middle of the road. I did not care for the characters in so far that there is a love interest etc which is complicated by other elements in the back story. I also liked the idea of the kids making a super 8 film which provides some of the original moments in the film. One critic (Betty Jo tucker) pointed out the scene where Alice (Ellie fanning) turns on the charm in one of the scenes featured in the super 8 film (not the actual production that you watch) and stuns not only the kid director but you as a casual filmgoer, is one of the most memorable movie moments of the year so far. I don’t know whether or not I agree but this scene is an original moment which gives the film some form of an identity thereby tying it in the concept Super 8 which is the title of the film. It is also reflective of the small scale of the film where some kids are out filming a mini movie and then the female lead in that mini film is able to generate a performance worthy of the major league. It is obvious to say that when the kid director and his crew see this performance they are seeing something remarkable. It may not be that original from an objective standpoint but within the context of the film it gives it some form of an identity. From an objective standpoint King Kong (2005 & 1933) had the same element that the crew were going to film on location only to discover the nature of the beast which is a 20 foot gorilla. There were scenes in King Kong where the characters were filming a movie alongside the action taking place in the actual Peter Jackson production (or 1933 production). It is no surprise therefore that Kyle chandler, the deputy in this film, is one of the leads. He played the egotistical movie star in KING KONG (2005). This is why I say that from an objective position the concept in Super 8 is not original for aside from King Kong there are probably other instances of a film within a film which I can’t highlight right now. The only difference in this 2011 production is that the film within a film is being made by children.   The train crash that follows this scene in the mini film could have been just as tragic when the boys fear that after giving such a memorable performance in that one scene in the mini film Alice would have died so young and full of talent. When, or if,  you watch this scene look at the reaction of the boys when they gather round to determine whose blood it is and their fear that it might be Alice because she gave that wonderful performance in the mini film. There are other scenes with the kid director who is desperate to get production values or elements that will stand as a back drop to the main action of the film (his film). One of the reels of the kid director’s camera also revealed something about the mysterious alien in the crash and so super 8 gains some trite relevance as a title.  Another good element in the film (which can also be seen as a bad element) is the middle ground that this film achieves. It is not spectacular and it is almost forgettable but you don’t walk out of the cinema saying what a waste of money etc. This middle ground cannot be explained fully but in the film there are the elements which could have been developed to make it simply mindless and there are the elements such as the scene at the train station that could have made it unforgettable and a definitive film going experience. J.J Abrams plays it safe however and so he neither soars nor disappoints.

What’s bad about this film?

The disappointing elements of the film are those moments that go for mindless action over the definitive experience and this rests with the concept of the super 8 in the film. The relevance of the term super 8 as a title disappears near the end and so you don’t know what sort of film you’re looking at by the closing shot. The closing shot is clearly reminiscent of E.T. and this is why criticisms abound for that shot could still have been kept but within the context of the definition of the concept that is super 8. Within the context of that definition of the term super 8 the film would still manage to stand on its own.  Here is a suggestion from yours truly as to how they could have kept the super 8 concept alive throughout the film. (I pointed out in my review of Thor that if I start making suggestions the film is far from perfect but certain elements in the film had they been developed could have made a startling difference to the film’s conclusion.) The concept, super 8, could have been stretched to the boys filming about the alien and its life on earth. They would get to understand the alien etc take him in and hide him from the parents. Using the super 8 principle the kids would do a documentary style film about the alien and his quest to return home. This quest to return home would involve breaking into a military base (as what happened in District 9) to retrieve the stolen items and the action could be developed here where the boys are in a race against time to retrieve the necessary elements needed for the repair of the alien’s spacecraft . All this would have been done while filming and so the final scene where the alien takes off could have been an element in the film. The super 8 film would be entered in some competition and would be the means by which knowledge on aliens is gathered. In another sphere the concept could have been stretched to speak about the imagination of children and their own vision of space and time. The process of the creation of their film would be the means by which we would get some insight into their vision of the universe. The regular filming would take place but when they discuss ideas about the universe we would see this on display in real time. This could be done based on all the special effects we have available to day which would mean more money. How would these children have explored the nature of the universe through their mini film? Would they make it into a Star Wars Episode 4 (since the film takes place in the late 70’s) spin off or a mysterious journey into space which occurs in 2001: A Space Odyssey? The final shot of the film could have been a wink at the camera with full knowledge that they were taking a sample from E.T. This would have been the real challenge for J.J Abrams if he wished to give the concept some more substance thereby making the conclusion of the film more palatable. This is why I am not sure if I agree with the critic that stated that the scene involving Alice is as remarkable as it really is although I am not denying its effectiveness within the limited definition of the concept that is super 8. In King Kong (2005) a similar teary eyed scene occurred with Naomi Watts as the actress Ms. Darrow being filmed by Carl Denham (Jack Black) who was moved to tears because of the performance. In this film there is not much elaboration on the character of Alice that would merit her emotional resonance in that scene, in the mini film, because she is an underdeveloped character although the performance of Ellie fanning in that scene is effective and adds to the super 8 experience. In Peter Jackson’s King Kong we were able to understand the dynamics of Ms. Darrow's character which is why she could almost make you empathise with her while she performed before the camera. In that film her source of grief was that everyone that she loves either dies or leaves (something like that). This definition is not outlined for the character of Alice in Super 8.

I illustrate these alternatives for the focus of the Super 8 shifted from the concept of the super 8 to a generic alien film and this is why critics are complaining about its resemblance to other great sci-fi films. They could have done away with the heavy handed back-story and started from the out set about the crew on the super 8. The concept of the super 8 would then hit forcefully home immediately. This is what the great sci-fi films do: they  get the ball rolling immediately; try and recall the opening act of Star Wars Episode 4, Blade Runner, 2001: A Space Odyssey, E.T  etc and you will get the drift. This great emphasis on his mother’s death at the beginning could have been deleted and the focus placed squarely on the concept. The mother could be mentioned throughout the film. In the film Joe walks around with a locket he could just say to Alice ‘this is my mom she passed away couple years ago’ or she really supported my super 8 drive; not like my father who is disappointed in everything I do’ etc. Little things like that. Science Fiction is not here to make us cry but to make us wonder at the alternate realities in space or technology. The ham handed approach to the emotional moments early on robbed the film of time to develop a definitive visual experience which is what great Sci-fi films are known for: A palatable alternate reality which is enhanced by its art work. This film does not do this.

Look at the alternate alien in this film. He or she is presented at first as a monstrous and by the end everyone seems to care although he is eating some of their fellow citizens. It is almost incomprehensible. The presentation of the alien did not seem to have much thought behind it. It reminds one of previous alien incarnations: ugly, superior intelligence and ugly. In this film it has no distinctive character like that of E.T (which was the main reason why the film was successful). It’s just a big mess. J.J Abrams tries to wrap up the film in a botched manner which does not do justice to the potential of the concept of the super 8. After firing bombs at the alien everyone watches in delight its ascent into the skies as the spaceship in E.T did. Where did this turn come about? District 9 approached the matter from a more palatable point of view for when the Alien was trying to escape it still had to deal with the marauding soldiers who were hell bent on killing it. It escaped under some harsh conditions and so, following the escape, there was some sense of relief. In this film everyone grows quiet after just trying to blow the alien into little pieces. Incomprehensible. Incomprehensible is the effort of J.J Abrams trying to blend District 9 with E.T. The bourgeois inhabitants had to be forgiven for their excesses against the poor beast so some apologetic scenes were in order. This approach was botched and it shows.

People are hell bent on comparing this to films by Steven Spielberg but there are elements of other films such as District 9 (2009) and King Kong (1933 & 2005) which are both affiliated with Peter Jackson (he directed a remake of the classic King Kong and produced District 9). I am sure there are references to E.T and Close Encounters of the Third Kind but the use of the super 8 mini film component is not an element seen in those films. This is why I suggested that Mr. Abrams could have still winked at the camera knowing full well that he is borrowing from Spielberg and others.

Also some of the characters of the air force are mere caricatures, stunted in their presentation and hardly effective in generating some sense of mystery.

Conclusion

 In a scene where the townsfolk are in an uproar over their missing electrical and mechanical appliances they say that it must be the Soviets. I find that highly improbable and maybe that is the point Abrams is trying to make although he does not develop it sufficiently for  in the late 1970’s, with the events involving  Nixon and Watergate, the people would not be able to trust themselves much less the Soviets. The ire of the town members should have been directed at the air forces who were pillaging their neighbourhood. In one scene where the boys, in an army bus, feel they’re going to die who should they fear the most? The Soviets or their own government? Who is going to foot the bill for the destruction of property? God Bless America. At least they have the final E.T. shot to console the audience and shield it from the hysteria that is likely to follow.  Middle of the road.