You do remember what happened to Holden, right?
Great review, Ronnie!
This is a perfect summation of what the film’s about and makes me appreciate its thematic content a bit more. If K can be his most human when he realizes all of the things outside of himself that are influencing (controlling?) his actions, and Joi’s, then that says something quite interesting about our own relationship with the exterior things that influence us–genetics, society, culture, circumstance, time. Namely, that they’re not so exterior after all–they’re inextricable parts of the selves we create and inhabit over time.
Wonderful review Ronnie.
Actually when I first saw the original, I thought the Replicants were the bad guys. Is The Terminator insensitive because it doesn’t consider the feelings of the machines?
This film started from that perspective and only questioned it obliquely. Did anyone really sympathize with Eve, though? She was “human” but it all the wrong ways. It would have been better if she just was a machine - like Joi - who only did what she was programmed to. In Eve, humanity made her brutal and sadistic.
A machine is a benefit or a hazard, right. What if the point is that human Replicants are a bad idea? Not that Replicants are human.
Imagine you get into a car and it starts talking to you. Telling you about its hopes and dreams. But you just want to go to work. Is that wrong?
All the people in the Blade Runner movies are equally entitled to human rights. A slave owner like Tyrell, a slave like Roy, an executioner like Deckard, an AI like Joi, even a murderous nutcase like Wallace.
All people, and they should all be treated as people.
Human rights are not earned by good behavour, they’re innate. If they can be given or taken away they’re not rights, they’re privileges.
So it’s not about personal sympathy, you can hate the person, but they should still have rights.
I’m lost. Who is Eve?
I need a refresher there too.
Does it refer to the biblical Eve?
Possibly referring to Luv.
That’s what I was thinking but didn’t want to assume. Luv was a Replicant though and seemingly instructed/programmed to be Wallace’s enforcer. So was she acting of her own will or merely fulfilling orders? There were points where it seemed that she did not support Wallace’s actions (like when he killed the newly born Replicant for not being able to reproduce) but was unable to act.
I’ve heard one theory that I like.
Given the fact that K notes how unusual it is for their model to have a name, and that she bears a passing resemblance to Rachel, maybe she was an initial attempt by Wallace to recreate what he needed. Although unsuccessful.
It would explain why she seems to have looser limitations in her programming and why she seems to intent on being seen as “the best”.
I had assumed that was meant to be an undercurrent to the character. She seems intent to please Wallace.
Right - I meant Luv. I was thinking of the robot from Ex Machina.
Wallace’s replicants are meant to do what they’re told, even to point of killing themselves if ordered to, but that doesn’t mean they’re mindless.
Luv tells Joshi that she’s going to lie to Wallace, despite being a replicant, something humans believe they cannot do?
And K goes off on his own, following his own agenda and making his own choices.
Exactly what they can, or cannot do, is a bit fuzzy.
That was an odd difference between what was apparent in the film and what the short had put forward.
I imagine that early ones like the one in the short were more proof of concept. I doubt that particular model was long lived, perhaps made just for the presentation. Thus, no memories or semblance of an inner life.
Which would make the people who let Wallace sell replicants on earth really incompetent for not checking his claims in more detail.
The people making the film needed replicants on earth, legally, but they also needed a replicant hero who could go off on his own quest.
I liked the movie but when we pull at the loose threads, some of it’s going to unravel.
Yeah, that short is honestly my least favorite even when I saw it before the movie. Just felt like the council or whatever were cowed far too easily. It’s something that would have been better off not being shown than quickly done off in a small little clip.
I believe it may be a Nature vs Nurture argument. Nature says they are programmed to behave a certain way because of a physical component of their creation. Nurture tells us that how we behave is determined by our experiences. We interpret our experiences through our memories. Dr Stelline alters and implants memories. She can alter Replicant programming if you believe in the Nurture side.