When I grabbed this from Walmart, some dude looking at movies told me, "Don't get that one! It's terrible. You'll be really disappointed!" I can't tell you how sad it makes me that most people can't appreciate this masterpiece.
Well it didn't bomb because of me, Henry! Watched it in theaters three times, and with all of 20 people on opening night... Definitely in my top 10 favorite films. I think a lot of people will regret having not seen it in theaters; It was a supremely satisfying theatrical experience. But I guess think pieces aren't for everyone.
yes, definitely a film you must see at least once in theaters, managed to see it twice while it was still in theaters, and got my blu ray copy the day it was released.
I don't get why people call it a masterpiece, and I liked the original. The villain made no sense, he wants android women to give birth in order to produce more workers, but there is no way that could be faster or more cost effective than manufacturing androids. Just think about it, you'd have loads of android women unable to do physical work because of pregnancy, many of them might die in childbirth and their children would take many years to grow old enough to do real work, compared to just hatching a fully grown android out of a bag. And it doesn't make sense thematically, if he's a villain who just sees them as inhuman machines, why would he want them to go through a process that allowed them to become more human? Plus, wouldn't it be harder to control their attributes and programming if the androids were grown in a womb instead of inside a transparent plastic bag?
You're the second film buff on RUclips to misinterpret the "Her eyes were green" line. Her eyes are clearly brown in the original film. Deckard LIED to prompt Wallace to kill the abomination standing before him, because he knew that Wallace was obsessed with detail and perfection and would "reject" an imperfect Rachel clone. Either that or the screenwriter forgot what color Rachel's eyes were...in which case you're right. But I think you're analysis on that part is wrong.
I agree. In my mind Deckard is being defiant; a brave gesture in the face of an incredibly painful predicament, to the point that he has to turn away, knowing full well what his rejection will mean. You see his anguish written all over his body as he spasms at the sound of the gunshot, having just felt the touch of a ghost he once loved.
Exactly! This whole video is very subjective of his view and he deduze a lot of things that is not film facts and deliberatly omits it. But its a great review nevertheless.
A fascinating scene and open to interpretation. She may be reacting in part to her own reactions to the event she actually lived - but I always thought she was sympathetic to what a mind-job it was for K to have the 'implanted lie' of a memory. Perhaps she also appreciated what a mind-job it was going to be when she was going to tell him that the memory 'really happened', too, but NOT tell him that it didn't happen to him.
@@adlibby6448 I belive being human does not equivilate to being born from human parents. Being human is having human attributes, making choices, feeling for others. K may be a replicant, he became human by making the choice of bringing Deckard to his daughter instead of killing him.
@bigbenhoward It's likely, but I like to think she just finds that to be a terrible memory for someone to have. As far as I know, we were never told if she's human or replicant, therefore it could be possible that she doesn't even know if her memories are true or not and therefore not know if it's her memories or not. I know it's incredibly unlikely but that's how I like to think it goes. The true beauty of this movie is that it can be interpreted in so many ways because we are given enough knowledge to get the bigger picture but not enough to fill in the gaps 100% correctly, so we all have our owb interpretation of how things go and what we see in each scene. This is my favorite movie and I love every bit of it.
it’s was just flat out the best film of the year, and the best film of all time imo. so many snubs at the oscars like best director, best picture, and best actor in a leading role for Gosling. Gosling was clearly better than 4 of the 5 nominees and his only competition was Oldman. Villeneuve hands down deserved best director, and Blade Runner 2049 was a superior film than every other film nominated ESPECIALLY The Shape of Water.
4:20 Rachel's original eyes were brown. Deckard is denying Wallace being able to use this Rachel-copy against him. 5:24 Deckard can't look at Rachel's dead body as he IS connected to her, but has to deny it to protect his child. Deckard may have detached himself from the world but he is definitely very connected to the people he loves.
That was a continuity error which the movie is referencing as a meta-joke AND a jab from Deckard at Wallace's perfect creation. He's rebelling against the doubt the perfect Rachel copy would cast on his memories.
I think her eyes were brown. I agree with those who claim it was a continuity error. It does confuse things. But I can't imagine Rachel with green eyes. She's a raven beauty--dark hair and dark eyes. That's her beauty.
This video makes a pretty common mistake: replicants aren't machines. They are just bioengineered humans. The fact the "humans" in the movies dehumanize others who are themselves human is the point.
Could arguee that in universe their view is that they're seen as machines made of flesh, and that by being bio-engineered to have certain inhuman qualities they may biologically no longer be human, just related (think human and neanderthal, sorta), but yeah, closer look didn't go there either.
@@louisvictor3473 Deckard quoted "Replicants are like any machine, they are either a benefit or a hazard. If they are a benefit they are not my problem." He refers to them as machines and then as they, removing any inclination of humanity what so ever. Everyone viewed them this way, so saying they are machines when people of the world Blade Runner does is fine in my book. Although, yeah he didn't go down that route and he should have.
They are bio-mechanical machines, the movie universe does cause some confusion though and the source material is clearer. They *are* machines and they *are* dangerous, more so as they took more human aspects and learned cruelty and malice before joy or love. Even in the movies though, the artificially of their DNA is clear, its even bar-coded essentially and not even genetic engineering can cause the modifications they have. Not only does it allow them to place a hand in boiling liquid without damage, but lift radioactive warheads (of masses no human could too) without cellular damage and ignore cryogenic temperatures without ill effects. They are not just stronger and tougher, they can be made to be literally immune to things that can destroy almost any known cell on earth (whilst there are microbes that can survive one of these there are none that can survive all three as they are highly specialised in order to do so). There are other lesser examples like Roy Batty and Kay being able to stay mostly functional with significant fatal injuries right up until the moment of death like any machine with failsafes can do, though admittedly our own bodies do this to a limited degree so it could also be advanced genetic engineering behind that but still our bodies survival reactions often bring death quicker or make us more likely to die. Edit, tidied it up a bit.
So for some reason I can't link my site because RUclips thinks it is malicious. Well that cant stop me from trying. The site is called www.sharpe(verse).com except without the brackets. Why is RUclips always drunk?
How can RUclips be drunk. I don’t think it’s possible for a website to consume alcohol. Just kidding. I know I’m not fun at parties. XD. Great job creating a work around.
I don't agree at all. Tyrell was always moved with the most human love for his creation, and only a human could be as merciless as Wallace. Also, he can't see details... because he is blind. There is symbolic meaning to this, of course, but a practical explanation is perfectly fair and frankly obvious there. And that police chief may just be the most human character of all; she had a complete arc starting with a very human self-interest, then showing real care for our boi to the point of sharing weakness and seeking intimacy with him, and ultimately facing certain death without her will wavering in order to protect him. At that moment she represents all the strength of humanity, not despite but because of it's flaws, both physical and moral. Even if the writers, directors and producers of these movies imply that humans lose their humanity, I think they fail to convey this quite a bit. The girl in the bubble creates fake memories, fake lives, lies to herself into thinking she is human (when we know for a fact that genetically she is not). Her only humanizing traits come from her interactions with others, with more human humans, for lack of a better descriptions. The most humans are the ones walking home through the rain or seeking shelter on a bowl of cheap noodles, the kids working amidst the land-fills and the punks and prostitutes that live on the streets. And Joy is not meant as a trap or warning! It's a direct confrontation to the viewers and to the inhabitants of this work of fiction. We spent hours feeling for replicants, across two films now, we've seen them act like humans to the point where people like yourself claim they are more humans than the humans of their time, who would never recognize them as such; well then, how can we say that Joi's AI isn't human as well? What makes her acting out her programming (and refusing to follow it as she goes directly against the will of her creators btw), any different from a replicant police officer killing other replicants because he is been programmed to do so? What makes her different from all those humans programmed by years of social isolation from any other conscious species to believe their humanity is exclusive to them and unattainable by the byproducts of machines? How are her choices not as real as those of others, or in any case how are they more of an illusion based on her circumstances? How can our boi believe he has any humanity while knowing he wasn't born human if he cannot accept Joi to be as human as well? (That is why he goes through a range of emotions, but his thoughts are never revealed. He never tells us his conclusion on whether or not that scene made him denounce Joi as not-human. He knew what he was getting into when he included her in his life and when he started to treat her as equal. He humanized her, despite having bought her like the police had bought him. For all we know his reaction was not dissapointment and realization, but the grief of a broken heart trying to deal with the loss of the one that made him most human.) Blade runner was never a dissapointed look at men losing their humanity, it was a hopeful celebration of how humanity could be so much more than what we understand it to be. Amidst a dystopia, a love story. Inside an existencial crisis, the pursuit for meaning. In doubting one-self, understanding that the other is also human. This work is not Hobbes, nor Camus, nor Sartre. It is Rousseau, and Aasimov, and Buber.
Awwh, all this brings back memories. Intelligent Interpretation of the top Sci-fi movie which is as mysterious as is symbolic. Literally, after checking these kind of videos and reading comments like this; one looks at the movies again with "new eyes"
The only thing I got from this is that humanity is a contradiction, by denying it you affirm it, by destroying it you create a new one, by undermining it you enhance it. Another idea I get is that "humanity" is neither an inert state, a solid definition nor a single constant, humanity mutates itself along with it's definition every time, turning into multiple variables, neither of them wrong or right, it becomes something else and nothing for it's own sake...
In a time when properties from my childhood are being ruined wholesale, Denis Villeneuve has taken Dune AND Blade Runner and created art that will stand for decades. Bless that man and his abundance of talent.
I feel absolutely privileged to have seen this movie in IMAX. I’m so glad I saw it with a crowd that was as equally enthralled as I was. My brain was in complete ecstasy from beginning to end. It may be a shame that more people didn’t love this film but I tell you I embrace everyone else that loves it right alongside myself.
Here's the thing about the eye color of Rachel. Up close, with the light of the Voight-Kampff machine shining in her eye it appears green. At a distance, her eyes are brown. Without the machine, Decker would not have been able to verify if her eyes were green or not. My take on this is that he was trolling Neander with a bluff. The tactic actually works because it gives Neander pause for thought and demonstrates his fallibility. Rachel's eyes were green only for Decker because he saw her in a private way that no one else had to his knowledge. This is tied together really well because the only other person in the room at that point is Luv, who has only seen Rachel one time: when watching the memory crystal with K where Decker is administering the test and her eyes are clearly green, they fill the screen they are watching. You also see Luv look at Neander in disbelief at the eyes being wrong. I love this scene because it encapsulates many of Ford's characters over the years. He beats the low-level bad guys with guns, fists, planes, etc. But when it comes to the more cerebral, mastermind type villains, he fights them on their terms and shocks them with information they did not have.
Here is my website: www.sharpeverse.com/ I hope you like the post I've put on it. Also a big thanks to Squarespace for sponsering this video and giving me that site for free. If you want to start your own website please use this link: squarespace.com/closerlook Next week I'm going to be making a pretty big announcement on this channel so I cant wait for that :) Have a great day, - Henry
No prob! Keep up the good work! My goal has always been to become a screenwriter, so videos like these, especially yours, are amazing insights to the intricacies of these films!
I love these essays about 2049. I am currently writing an essay for Bio-Ethics about when the line between human and machine becomes blurred, using both Blade Runner and Ghost in the Shell as reference. I would love to see you post a video about ghost in the shell someday.
I have to say that your ability to seamlessly and non-intrusively put in the word for your sponsor site is something many other content creators lack. It was real, genuine, and a bit heartwarming. Keep up with this channel and your website essays, I love it all.
I've gotta disagree with you about Joi. In the scene where he meets the giant ad for Joi, clips play where the replicant rebellion leader gives the line about giving your life for a cause, and then the clip about witnessing a miracle follows it. Put together, along with the fact Joi essentially sacrificed herself to help K, implies to me that K realized that his copy of Joi had been somehow special, gaining autonomy, after all, we see her acting with autonomy throughout the film, holding contrary points to K in some areas where she started out agreeing with whatever he said. Maybe the rain scene is where she changed, maybe the exposure to water caused some kind of damage. Hell we see replicants treating Joi as less than them, perhaps hinting at the same capacity for cruelty humans show replicants.
Donovaneagle2098 The point isn't that Joi had autonomy. All of her emotions, her love for K, all of it was programmed into her. It was fake love. The question isn't whether or not her love for K is real or not. The question is does it matter if it's real or fake? Replicants are born with fake memories. Experiences they never actually had, but they were still experiences and those experiences reflect how Replicants live their lives. Experience is what makes them human. It's what makes US human. So who cares if it's fake? It's still real to US!
We can translate this about Joi into humanity in general. The theme of what makes us human is what is going on here but actually, it doesn't distinguish us from one another. It is common to every human. What distinguishes from each other is the way we empathize with someone. True empathy. We have social rules and constructs that we abide in order to live together and even if some of those rules are built upon, let's say, a judeo-christian set of morals of good, we act upon them. As a program. It is only when we devout ourselves to one another that the best of us comes into play, empathy. So, we are as human as the next fellow in regards to humanity in general but we are truly human only when we come across someone that makes us tick. And shiver. And feel good. That's when we become unique. That's what Joi was to K. Unique.
To deny that Joi doesn't evolve beyond her own programming is to rob her final act of it's meaning. She shows more and more personality as the movie progresses, and while that's still her programming at work when she tells K he's special, her final act is an attempt to keep Luv from beating up K, and her final words, a despairing "I love you" comes from real feeling. The point of the Giant Naked Joi scene is this...the Joi you first see isn't enough to give K meaning anymore and what she becomes can never be replaced.
Although I don't agree on the part with Joi, I think you making a good point with the warning about taking the easy way. I do think that K - the replicant - is really in love with his version of Joi - a hologram - and that she is in love with him. K doesn't have the option to fall in love with a human and be loved by one, because of his status in society. When he meets the giant Joi at the end of the movie in my point of view he realizes that he has lost someone special and that he can become special by choosing the well-being of an other person over his own. That's the moment he decides to save Deckard and unite him with his daughter no matter the costs. Which makes Joi's words true.
Yes, she does very human choices against her programming, and survival, to support Kays needs, even against his resistance.. She is the one to convince him to pursue his indipendence. She is a programm who at least has genuine emotions. Wallace would never build a programm that goes against him, Joi did. The gigantic Joi just reminds him that his joi is dead. And that he probably did what he did afterwards, because she inspired him to do. Even when he dies, he is smilin, as he would ge where joi was going.
@@ReiKennex Joi is real. The question is, if her love towards K is real too, just programmed or wishful thinking of K. The answer is tricky. Because how can you be sure that you love someone and are love in return?
You do realize the irony about spending the time to tell us that losing humanity is by taking the easy and predictable path...then by advertising a service/product that encourages people to take an easy and predictable path, yes? Don't worry. I still love your videos. However, I chose a more nihilistic outlook on bladerunner and its sequel. Ciao.
IMHO this is not about humanity loosing its essence and more about individual humans being more susceptible to do that without realizing. Without this website you would spend, say, 6 hours programming your own webpage, looking as it fleshes out effect by effect as a testament to your progress. Alternatively you can spend them meditating on what you make your vid on and what would make it ingenious (which is a good analogy for everything there would be left to do in a post-scarsity world). If you do come up with the idea then you must have been working, but if you do not how can you be sure whether it was due to lack of time or excess of laziness? I think with enough self-discipline a person can answer this question (but yeah, for general population it looks a little grim). P. S.: Let's hope that, for the record, this makes the comment look less depressing)
This is fantastic. I never noticed those details about Wallace's wealth or the Police Chief's lack of a response to crushed glass in her hand. But more importantly, your overall point on Laziness and giving up on choice was electrifying. I think you've struck gold.
This is not a criticism, don't take it the wrong way, I just find it slightly humorous that you use the phrase "all the difference... in the world" in pretty much every video I've seen.
To me the question asked in both movies is "what is human". And that's what's shown all the time, in all characters, both in by-definition-humans and in by-definition-non-humans. There's humanity in all of them, and that's exactly what I see when watching these movies, all the time, in all scenes. Thanks for your interesting videos!
This is, as usual, very insightful and wonderfully presented. I couldn't help noticing, though, a strange irony. When you talk about how easy Square Space's technology made creating your website, I couldn't help but remember what you said about losing our humanity when technology makes everything too easy.
"When we fall to our human nature, we cease to be human". While I do not agree that human nature is of choosing the "easy path" necesserally, that is a beautiful sentence.
I thoroughly enjoyed this film. The questions it presented, the music, the visuals, it all was quite an experience and I appreciate the time you took to examine it.
Despite what the film suggests about Joi and her arc I genuinely believe that she loved Kay, she is able to think and make her own decisions, she convinces Kay to disassemble her from the hub despite the the inherent danger she would be in. to me the idea that her love was real is to me, more tragic and beautiful.
Also Wallace kills the new born replicant because he can sense Love is secretly experience a profound sense of emotion over the birth of one of her compatriots and it’s his test of her poker face
These videos remind me of why I love film so much. These videos fully explain why these movies are so great and why they need to be appreciated. Explaining the true levels of detail that go in to making these films.
I wouldn't say Lt. Joshi's lack of reaction in 5:40 when Luv hurts her is really a good example of the human characters lacking humanity because to hide that she was human/fragile/etc. was the point. Luv was trying to intimidate/scare Joshi and Joshi wasn't having it, she wanted a bit of dignity.
I appreciate that the studio allowed this film to be what it is. It goes against all studio convention and delivers a smart piece of cinema I will never forget.
No way I could ever keep that up XD I spent about a month on these two and the only reason they are together is because the brands wanted them out by the end of the month. :/
that last part at 10 minutes, really resinated with me, as was a youtube addict and having to give up something I was with for a long time. And it is yesterday when I finally stopped watching youtube when trying to sleep, I have never slept better. Regaining humanity is hard, but god damn it is worth it.
i think you kind of missed the point with joi, its meant to be implied that k sees her as far more than just a product, and its meant to be brought into question whether its possible a sense of free will had risen from that. for example, k didnt need/want to hear her tell him she loved him, he wasnt interested in sex, he didnt want to destroy the chip in the house. all things joi did on her own that a machine that was fully subservient to the owner wouldnt have done against the owners will. the Joi sequence at the end could say alot of things"your love wasnt real, she was a product" "YOUR Joi was different, more than just a product, more than just a hollow representation of a companion" "Joi is like you, created for the purpose of serving others (up until the point he decides to save deckard hes been following others orders)"
'The Closer Look In A Nutshell' "Most people want to believe that the 'Shrek' film involves an ogre, a donkey, and a princess. However, I want to disagree" Me: Oh boy here we go T__T.... Great video though! lol
Amazing vid as usual Henry! No matter how much I may think my story is stupid or too similiar to "this or that", or too cliche - watching your videos always inspires me and makes me think maybe I can do it.
Watched this movies three times. I do not have the intellect to explain the themes and philosophy; but when i watch videos like this one i begin understand why i liked this movie so much. Thank you "The Closer Look"
I kind of saw Jois role differently. In my opinion her character was meant to be a visual representation of how memories are what make us human. By that I mean it was Joi and Ks memories together that gave Joi her sense of humanity. Which is why when k sees her on the advert she her eyes are blacked out her soul \ humanity is gone, because it isn't really Joi since her memories and experiences are not in this Joi. Building on top of what I see as a major theme that our experiences and memories are what make us human. IDK Im probably wrong but that's how I see it.
i have learned more about films and storytelling from every frame a painting and closer look than anything else 😊...i hope i make a good film someday.... 😁
almost finished film video essays of every frame a painting, lessons from the screenplay, now you see it, nerdwriter, closer look, kaptain kristain, dan golding, the royal ocean film society, raging cinema, channel criswell, just write, the film guy, sideways, karsten runquist, the discarded image 😅😆😂😂....some more left to cover before i give up on film video essays...
Genuinely impressed that you spent 10 minutes talking about how Replicants can become more human than human without actually mentioning the Tyrell Corporation motto.
Joi became human too. She chose to become "a real girl" and it's not what K wanted. She did it for him. It's not that Joi is an illusion it's that her love for K wasn't special. Just like K wasn't special either. Point: None of us are special but we can all be real.
That's something that people who say all Joi was amounted to programming miss...past a certain point, Joi thinks a "real boy" deserves a "real girl", and that's the point of all she does from hiring Mariette to Luv destroying her.
Agree. I've always taken away that the replicants were more human than human, and in the end had more humanity. Roy's speech showed this. Most humans will willing detach their humanity for little more than a speech from someone they see in charge...
i find dialects amazing, the way language shifts and morphs from one person to another, i was just reminded of that, hearing you say what sound to me like "appresiated", whereas i would pronounce it "appreshiated"
This is why Ridley Scott was wrong to insist that Deckard was a replicant. Everyone accepts the studio screwed up by insisting on the narration and the happy ending where Rachael and Deckard live long and drive into the sunset. But few admit that the director went to the opposite extreme, insisting that all the main characters were machines, meaning there was nothing to compare them to, dramatically. To say nothing of superfluous unicorns.
It's always amazing how you can turn such masterpieces into bigger ones. Surprisingly this video heavily inspired me and made both Blade Runner 1 + 2 better to view!
1 minor gripe: I get where you're coming from with considering Deckard a human, but I'd argue human is too rigid of a biological term to be applicable. I think the term you're looking for is person, via personhood theory. "It expands the conventional definition of "person" beyond "human," to include a number of hypothetical non-human entities, should they ever exist. Personhood theory says "It's not just human beings who are persons; anything which is sapient is a person, too."" Don't get me wrong, I'm a hardcore transhumanist and agree that intelligent beings of independent thought and choice ought be treated equally as humans, but they ultimately aren't human. Person? Yes! Human? No.
joe momma, i think the point of 2049 is to expand on the subtext of the original: it doesn't matter. replicants and humans are biologically identical, except one is manufactured.
Deckard in Blade runner is very similar to K in 2049, slave like and following orders without questioning. That could easily mean that Deckard is in fact a replicant of some sort. Wallace also explains something like this when he talks about how Rachael was programmed to fall for Deckard.
This is one of the reasons why i prefer the "Human Deckard" interpretation. Although before the inclusion of the unicorn sequence there were already signs that showed us that Deckard's nature could be dubious (the huge amount of photos on his piano, at home) the idea that humans go through life with a certain amount of disdain or disappointment while on the other hand artificial beings long for a sense of purpose because they have a definite lifespan and they know when it will end makes some sense in regards to the loss of humanity. And then again, in regards to Joi and the true nature of her feelings we can go back to empathy. Deckard, a cold hearted police assassin was taken by surprise with the empathy he felt towards Rachel. He was another human, she was another replicant. But together they had empathy. That made them special to each other and that's what makes us human. Empathy. That's what also made Joi special to K. There were many Jois in the market, tailored to suit the user's needs. But this one, K's Joi, made him feel empathic. And i believe she felt the same about him. But i digress here, it's my romantic side.
I actually liked Joi and thought that one of the possible reasons K is with Joi is because as a replicant he couldn't have a genuine girlfriend. It does get hard to figure out what is genuine about Joi and what isn't because I'm not sure even K knows himself, especially after her programing gets destroyed by Love and then we see Joi's holographic advertisement hinting she was just a holograph designed to say whatever K wanted. The scene I like is when Joi gets a ride with K in his car and she is free to travel and she looks like she's enjoying the trip, and she is also willing to put her existence on the line when she allows K to delete her primary source so no one will use her information against K if they break into his apartment. So perhaps we're also getting into another question of our humanity when it comes to something that is programed to be human, is she really showing concern? We have to ask ourselves a similar question because are often told our personality is based on our genetic and biological make up, are we really programmed ourselves?
Everyone talks about Roy Batty's display of empathy and choice by saving Deckard, but lets not forget that Rachael saved him too by killing the other replicant who was about to kill him.
I can see what you mean with the humans losing their humanity. Replicants are too innately human to come at it from the android angle. Joi seemed more like the AI becoming human, or a consciousness. Everyone else interprets her as a complete non consciousness, or "just a program." When I watched the film that's not what I saw. She seemed like an intelligence that can learn and grow, but like the replicants can be mass produced with ease, built with a purpose they can one day outgrow.
Fantastic video! I'm currently writing an essay about the why both of the Blade Runner movies are delivering about the same moral message in completely different decades and this video really helped a lot. Thanks :D
blade runner 2049 has so many layers and theme building off each other. It's honestly amazing you can keep coming back to a piece of art and derive a new meaning from it each time
Something else I noticed regarding songs is after K talks with Deckard, he plays a Sinatra song. It came to an "end" where it was a satisfying stop as opposed to the other songs we hear, but it was not the end of the song. I think this represents how K didn't feel like his story was over after meeting Deckard, but if it ended there he could've been satisfied. It was the fact that he chose to continue the story that made him human, not that he was the child of one.
Ok, so I would like to point out something that I've noticed in your videos that you do on a regular basis. I thoroughly enjoy your channel and find that I can agree with you on most of the points that you make, however in many of your videos, such as this and the one about comedy, you seem to be trying to find some form of stance that goes against the norm. I'm not saying that this shouldn't be done, our opinions should be checked and then re-checked on a regular basis, but I feel like in this you were basically asking the same question, just in a different way. Like I said, I love your channel and am under no illusion that I would be able to make the kind of consistent quality content that you do, but I don't want to see you allowing the prevailing view on certain films to effect your opinion, whether it's positive or negative.
Thanks for the feedback but popular opinion truly doesn't affect me (at least not that much). I noticed that every joke has a victim myself and then made a video around that, similar to that I noticed a number of thoughts in blade runner, asked what they meant and got my own interpretation of it.
Ghost of Socrates How did he survive in the radioactive Wasteland where Kay found him then? Both Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford have said that Deckard is a replicant. It doesn't matter what you or the creator of this video think, Deckard is a replicant.
Hazzanger Ghost of Socrates How did he survive in the radioactive Wasteland where Kay found him then? Both Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford have said that Deckard is a replicant. It doesn't matter what you or the creator of this video think, Deckard is a replicant.
asilenth It shows in K's computer in the car that the radiation levels in that area were nominal. Also Ford is adamant that Deckard isn't a replicant while Ridley is, your ideas are all jumbled.
I have a pathological hatred of spoilers. I always avoid watching any video analysis before I've seen the films because invariably they always contain spoilers even if they don't reveal plot specifics. Even trailers usually have too many spoilers for me.
Wow. What a stunning analysis. I didn't think it was possible for me to love these films any more than I already do. You have cast a new light on what I feel is a masterpiece and I somehow strangely feel indebted to you.... thank you.
In 2018 a Belgian rapper said in a music subtly named Blade Runner "Vos propres machines sont devenues plus humaines que vous"... "Your own machines have become more human than you" in English All the track is really good and emotional but this line is connected with what you said.
One point I slightly disagree with, and why I would opt for Joi over a real relationship, if given the choice. You've made the common mistake that she is simply a parrot, designed to say the right thing at the right time. Joi is not programmed to say any specific thing. But she is programmed to feel an unconditional emotional love for the customer. It's from this point of origin that her validating words come from. Her sole purpose is not to validate, but to love. Of course I would choose that, over something that may be unpleasant, non-reciprocal, unfulfilling, and fleeting, which I find most relationships to be like on the men's side.
I'd say Joi's purpose is to validate, even if it looks like love, because even if you love someone you will still question them and disagree with them. They even state it in the in-universe commercials for Joi, the billboards say she's anything you want her to be.
Gertrud Bondesson I have to say, my interpretation of blade runner and therefore of joi is extremely different from the one shown in this video. There isn’t a tangible point, where one becomes human, nor is there a point where one can lose his humanity. If joi is programmed to simulate love so well that K believes it, then it is real love, because love is just an arbitrary human concept which simply describes the subjective experience of different hormones being released in your brain. Because of that, it is always imagined and it becomes “real” when we decide it to be.
Phm07 I don't doubt K believes Joi loves him, and that Joi probably feels she loves him, but the whole point of their relationship was to make people ask how much was her true feelings for him and how much was her programming. Joi never demands anything from K or questions his decisions, even when those decisions puts both her and K in danger. If someone you loved was about to do something potentially fatal to themselves, wouldn't you call them out on it?
Gertrud Bondesson My point was that love is a human-made concept, so it doesn’t really matter wether it was “true” to your definition of it. As long as it is love to K, it is love.
IMO "humanity" is a nonsensical ideal that people uncritically buy into. Why isn't any other species special just for being themselves? Where's the everyday discussion about whether some dog lives up to its "caninity"? It seems to be human exceptionism and works the same as any form of bigotry - ascribing your best ideals to an arbitrary group identity. When people say that you should "respect them by treating them like a human being", they are (intentionally or not) implying that respect and value are based upon what species one happens to be, and that non-humans are not worthy of equal respect and value. For me, saying that human==respect is as offensive as saying that white==respect, or male==respect. Conceptually it works the exact same way. And bigotry against species has had far greater personal and ecological casualties than any form of inter-human conflict.
"Humanity" as a concept embodies the archetypal social behaviours of people. It doesn't depend on species, but on the individual's ability to consciously acknowledge their separateness from others, to express their interests, and to acknowledge the interests of others. A dog doesn't give a shit about your interests, while you extend human social values to a dog. Humanity.
+P J ""Humanity" as a concept embodies the archetypal social behaviours of people." - Well, that's exactly what I was criticizing. The conflation of humanity as a species with the notion of personhood, which is not species-specific. Humans are a subset of "people", yet they project their values while claiming the identity of the whole, not unlike any other kind of exploitation/imperialism. Claiming to be the inscrutable arbiters of others' agency. "It doesn't depend on species, but on the individual's ability to consciously acknowledge their separateness from others" - That is definitely in line with historical definitions of humanity. But I think it is dubious from a modern perspective. Organisms have been understood more recently to be neither physiologically nor cognitively individual, they simply construct a subjective sense of self which is mostly unaware of how they truly function. "A dog doesn't give a shit about your interests, while you extend human social values to a dog." - I find both of those doubtful. Dogs tend to be quite social, and can recognize their interdependence with others. They can socialize just fine without me anthropomorphizing them. The trickier question is, how can I be sure that I am not simply anthropomorphizing humans? That is, projecting my ideals upon them as being an essential nature.
Humanity is loosely defined but beautiful. I think the most general term for it would be the essence of the human experience in being able to create the arbitrary. To like art even though it has no practical value or love an unfit person ignoring basic biological impulses for an arbitrary ideal like the love of someones personality. I can tell that you view it negatively because it puts a humans above all other life but it is much more than just that. To have humanity is to empathize. To have humanity is to put yourself in another person or animal's skin and see what it's like having a walk. When you give to a poor person but cut down a tree that is not so wrong. We don't see our species as special, we just see ourselves in one another. We see into animals less but we can still recognize their suffering and empathize with them. We just don't as much, and that is what brought us to civilization as we know it. We have caused suffering of other species but not as much ourselves and that allowed us to do what we do today. Without our abuse of the earth I wouldn't be able type this comment. And all though that does suck even now our technology is allowing us to construct remedies to some of our greatest issues and those of the natural world around us. All animals lack proper treatment for one another but still we find ways to overcome these issues. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that value is arbitrary but we place it on things that we most empathize with and that is ok. It led to all the cool stuff and I think that with our efforts with the most humane of intentions we can make the world a better place for ourselves and other creatures. This whole shpeel probably didn't get to you but just remember that if we didn't have the nonsensical humanity than you probably wouldn't have a good chance of living to the age of 79 years old and not have to do have to hunt or farm. You wouldn't be able to give to some poor starving kid in some desolate country. You couldn't experience all the beauty that life has to offer and the potential affect that you would have one the world would be far less. Also humanity isn't as much of an ideal as it is a common trait. Humanity is encouraged because people who lack it tend to be the horrid psycopaths or sociopaths. Caninity is a thing though not in the word necessarily. Dogs are typically seen as loyal when treated well. We aren't special because we are ourselves we are just human and humans like humans which is great. So in the end it isn't human==respect it is human==yourself. Do unto others as you would do unto yourself.
I think that this Joi was a miracle. She was able to look past her programing and defy it to save Kay/joe. A replicant falling in love with a hologram. WHAT MAKES IT LAME? Is it not human if it makes us feel? Where does our humanity end or where does it adapt to satisfy the need for communication and company. Why would he need joy if he doesnt have a soul? How would he know to need it? Why would he need her by his side? Our little Pinocchio wanted to feel what we feel. We as humans sometimes desire happiness like the movies portray it never knowing that we already have it
BRO BRO BRO BRO, I litteraly have that Prokofiev/Joi sound on my phone notifications from the day I saw this movie in cinema. For me it is a reminder about tragedy being in love you know will not last but lost it faster then you expected, I think... I am not sure, but Your points are very intresting as well :) That music trigger is one of my most favourite part of the movie
William Blake inspired both movies. It's about the division of Man, (The Giant Albion) from his Emanation,(Jerusalem) "Man divided from his Emanation is a dark Spectre His Emanation is an ever-weeping melancholy Shadow." -William Blake
![Blade Runner 2049 - Empathy Propaganda [Video Essay]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/WTKmaJa3Ci0/mqdefault.jpg)
When I grabbed this from Walmart, some dude looking at movies told me, "Don't get that one! It's terrible. You'll be really disappointed!"
I can't tell you how sad it makes me that most people can't appreciate this masterpiece.
J Donner this film pretty much bombed in the box office... that's so depressing
If I were there I would have slapped him to the ground XD
Well it didn't bomb because of me, Henry! Watched it in theaters three times, and with all of 20 people on opening night... Definitely in my top 10 favorite films. I think a lot of people will regret having not seen it in theaters; It was a supremely satisfying theatrical experience. But I guess think pieces aren't for everyone.
yes, definitely a film you must see at least once in theaters, managed to see it twice while it was still in theaters, and got my blu ray copy the day it was released.
I don't get why people call it a masterpiece, and I liked the original. The villain made no sense, he wants android women to give birth in order to produce more workers, but there is no way that could be faster or more cost effective than manufacturing androids. Just think about it, you'd have loads of android women unable to do physical work because of pregnancy, many of them might die in childbirth and their children would take many years to grow old enough to do real work, compared to just hatching a fully grown android out of a bag. And it doesn't make sense thematically, if he's a villain who just sees them as inhuman machines, why would he want them to go through a process that allowed them to become more human? Plus, wouldn't it be harder to control their attributes and programming if the androids were grown in a womb instead of inside a transparent plastic bag?
The closer look, the master of the dramatic pause
Well some say I pause too much...I just think...that they...dont appreciate...my skills and are...
...jealous?
YOU GUYS SHOULD GET A ROOM!!!💩💩💩🛌👨❤️👨👨❤️👨
"Action!"
".....PAUSE!!!!"
"We're still rolling..."
Rivals even Nerdwriter 🤓
I keep thinking of "The father of the bride's Speech" by Rowan Atkinson
You're the second film buff on RUclips to misinterpret the "Her eyes were green" line. Her eyes are clearly brown in the original film. Deckard LIED to prompt Wallace to kill the abomination standing before him, because he knew that Wallace was obsessed with detail and perfection and would "reject" an imperfect Rachel clone. Either that or the screenwriter forgot what color Rachel's eyes were...in which case you're right. But I think you're analysis on that part is wrong.
Ninja-Turtle Man It depends. In Rachel's Voight-Kampf, her eyes are green.
That was a continuity error, which Deckard's line is meta-referencing.
I agree. In my mind Deckard is being defiant; a brave gesture in the face of an incredibly painful predicament, to the point that he has to turn away, knowing full well what his rejection will mean. You see his anguish written all over his body as he spasms at the sound of the gunshot, having just felt the touch of a ghost he once loved.
So is her sclera in that shot.
He also said rachel was his wife
6:02 she cries not at K's memory, but because it is her own borrowed memory and perhaps empathically because K's life is based on an implanted lie.
Exactly! This whole video is very subjective of his view and he deduze a lot of things that is not film facts and deliberatly omits it. But its a great review nevertheless.
It’s also questionable that she should be considered “human.”
A fascinating scene and open to interpretation. She may be reacting in part to her own reactions to the event she actually lived - but I always thought she was sympathetic to what a mind-job it was for K to have the 'implanted lie' of a memory. Perhaps she also appreciated what a mind-job it was going to be when she was going to tell him that the memory 'really happened', too, but NOT tell him that it didn't happen to him.
@@adlibby6448 I belive being human does not equivilate to being born from human parents. Being human is having human attributes, making choices, feeling for others. K may be a replicant, he became human by making the choice of bringing Deckard to his daughter instead of killing him.
@bigbenhoward It's likely, but I like to think she just finds that to be a terrible memory for someone to have. As far as I know, we were never told if she's human or replicant, therefore it could be possible that she doesn't even know if her memories are true or not and therefore not know if it's her memories or not.
I know it's incredibly unlikely but that's how I like to think it goes. The true beauty of this movie is that it can be interpreted in so many ways because we are given enough knowledge to get the bigger picture but not enough to fill in the gaps 100% correctly, so we all have our owb interpretation of how things go and what we see in each scene.
This is my favorite movie and I love every bit of it.
Blade Runner 2049 was visually the best film of the year
*all time.
Richard Deakins deserved that damn Academy Award. No joke.
best ever !...certainly for a sci-fi movie
it’s was just flat out the best film of the year, and the best film of all time imo. so many snubs at the oscars like best director, best picture, and best actor in a leading role for Gosling. Gosling was clearly better than 4 of the 5 nominees and his only competition was Oldman. Villeneuve hands down deserved best director, and Blade Runner 2049 was a superior film than every other film nominated ESPECIALLY The Shape of Water.
I've ever seen
Talks about how not to take the easy path
Brags about how easy it is to use squarespace
He lost his humanity 😂
lol
I was just about to point this out. This dude is a genius. He's using contradictions to persuade us into biting the apple. You smart joe, you
"That's what it is to be a slave"
kek
Damn, that transition into the advertisement was probably the cleanest thing I've ever seen. 10/10
We British are used to being silver tonged ;D
The Closer Look
tonged?
Damn I got played and liked it
thonged?
I was thinking the exact same thing
4:20 Rachel's original eyes were brown. Deckard is denying Wallace being able to use this Rachel-copy against him.
5:24 Deckard can't look at Rachel's dead body as he IS connected to her, but has to deny it to protect his child. Deckard may have detached himself from the world but he is definitely very connected to the people he loves.
That was a continuity error which the movie is referencing as a meta-joke AND a jab from Deckard at Wallace's perfect creation. He's rebelling against the doubt the perfect Rachel copy would cast on his memories.
Wrong, continuity error, her eyes was always Brown.
This may be true but Wallace's "re-print" of Rachel was super flawed regardless. When I saw those janky ass bangs I knew Deckard wouldn't buy it.
Look at her sclera in the shots where her iris looks green.
I think her eyes were brown. I agree with those who claim it was a continuity error. It does confuse things. But I can't imagine Rachel with green eyes. She's a raven beauty--dark hair and dark eyes. That's her beauty.
This video makes a pretty common mistake: replicants aren't machines. They are just bioengineered humans. The fact the "humans" in the movies dehumanize others who are themselves human is the point.
Could arguee that in universe their view is that they're seen as machines made of flesh, and that by being bio-engineered to have certain inhuman qualities they may biologically no longer be human, just related (think human and neanderthal, sorta), but yeah, closer look didn't go there either.
@@louisvictor3473 Deckard quoted "Replicants are like any machine, they are either a benefit or a hazard. If they are a benefit they are not my problem." He refers to them as machines and then as they, removing any inclination of humanity what so ever. Everyone viewed them this way, so saying they are machines when people of the world Blade Runner does is fine in my book. Although, yeah he didn't go down that route and he should have.
They are bio-mechanical machines, the movie universe does cause some confusion though and the source material is clearer. They *are* machines and they *are* dangerous, more so as they took more human aspects and learned cruelty and malice before joy or love. Even in the movies though, the artificially of their DNA is clear, its even bar-coded essentially and not even genetic engineering can cause the modifications they have.
Not only does it allow them to place a hand in boiling liquid without damage, but lift radioactive warheads (of masses no human could too) without cellular damage and ignore cryogenic temperatures without ill effects. They are not just stronger and tougher, they can be made to be literally immune to things that can destroy almost any known cell on earth (whilst there are microbes that can survive one of these there are none that can survive all three as they are highly specialised in order to do so). There are other lesser examples like Roy Batty and Kay being able to stay mostly functional with significant fatal injuries right up until the moment of death like any machine with failsafes can do, though admittedly our own bodies do this to a limited degree so it could also be advanced genetic engineering behind that but still our bodies survival reactions often bring death quicker or make us more likely to die.
Edit, tidied it up a bit.
@@Hezigrimm yeah i've got the original 1982 Bladerunner VHS tape and on the back it says Man against Machine in a race against time
So for some reason I can't link my site because RUclips thinks it is malicious. Well that cant stop me from trying.
The site is called www.sharpe(verse).com except without the brackets.
Why is RUclips always drunk?
because it's a lazy machine
How can RUclips be drunk. I don’t think it’s possible for a website to consume alcohol. Just kidding. I know I’m not fun at parties. XD. Great job creating a work around.
I blame the economy
The Closer Look I blame the swans. Society, and the Swans.
The Closer Look thanks Obama
I don't agree at all. Tyrell was always moved with the most human love for his creation, and only a human could be as merciless as Wallace. Also, he can't see details... because he is blind. There is symbolic meaning to this, of course, but a practical explanation is perfectly fair and frankly obvious there. And that police chief may just be the most human character of all; she had a complete arc starting with a very human self-interest, then showing real care for our boi to the point of sharing weakness and seeking intimacy with him, and ultimately facing certain death without her will wavering in order to protect him. At that moment she represents all the strength of humanity, not despite but because of it's flaws, both physical and moral. Even if the writers, directors and producers of these movies imply that humans lose their humanity, I think they fail to convey this quite a bit. The girl in the bubble creates fake memories, fake lives, lies to herself into thinking she is human (when we know for a fact that genetically she is not). Her only humanizing traits come from her interactions with others, with more human humans, for lack of a better descriptions. The most humans are the ones walking home through the rain or seeking shelter on a bowl of cheap noodles, the kids working amidst the land-fills and the punks and prostitutes that live on the streets. And Joy is not meant as a trap or warning! It's a direct confrontation to the viewers and to the inhabitants of this work of fiction. We spent hours feeling for replicants, across two films now, we've seen them act like humans to the point where people like yourself claim they are more humans than the humans of their time, who would never recognize them as such; well then, how can we say that Joi's AI isn't human as well? What makes her acting out her programming (and refusing to follow it as she goes directly against the will of her creators btw), any different from a replicant police officer killing other replicants because he is been programmed to do so? What makes her different from all those humans programmed by years of social isolation from any other conscious species to believe their humanity is exclusive to them and unattainable by the byproducts of machines? How are her choices not as real as those of others, or in any case how are they more of an illusion based on her circumstances? How can our boi believe he has any humanity while knowing he wasn't born human if he cannot accept Joi to be as human as well? (That is why he goes through a range of emotions, but his thoughts are never revealed. He never tells us his conclusion on whether or not that scene made him denounce Joi as not-human. He knew what he was getting into when he included her in his life and when he started to treat her as equal. He humanized her, despite having bought her like the police had bought him. For all we know his reaction was not dissapointment and realization, but the grief of a broken heart trying to deal with the loss of the one that made him most human.)
Blade runner was never a dissapointed look at men losing their humanity, it was a hopeful celebration of how humanity could be so much more than what we understand it to be.
Amidst a dystopia, a love story. Inside an existencial crisis, the pursuit for meaning. In doubting one-self, understanding that the other is also human.
This work is not Hobbes, nor Camus, nor Sartre. It is Rousseau, and Aasimov, and Buber.
Nice writeup. Do you plan on having your own place for it?
Awwh, all this brings back memories. Intelligent Interpretation of the top Sci-fi movie which is as mysterious as is symbolic. Literally, after checking these kind of videos and reading comments like this; one looks at the movies again with "new eyes"
when the comment is better than video itself
The only thing I got from this is that humanity is a contradiction, by denying it you affirm it, by destroying it you create a new one, by undermining it you enhance it. Another idea I get is that "humanity" is neither an inert state, a solid definition nor a single constant, humanity mutates itself along with it's definition every time, turning into multiple variables, neither of them wrong or right, it becomes something else and nothing for it's own sake...
"Blade runner was never a dissapointed look at men losing their humanity"
The book actually tackle that subject, will Phil Resch
In a time when properties from my childhood are being ruined wholesale, Denis Villeneuve has taken Dune AND Blade Runner and created art that will stand for decades. Bless that man and his abundance of talent.
I feel absolutely privileged to have seen this movie in IMAX. I’m so glad I saw it with a crowd that was as equally enthralled as I was. My brain was in complete ecstasy from beginning to end.
It may be a shame that more people didn’t love this film but I tell you I embrace everyone else that loves it right alongside myself.
Here's the thing about the eye color of Rachel. Up close, with the light of the Voight-Kampff machine shining in her eye it appears green. At a distance, her eyes are brown. Without the machine, Decker would not have been able to verify if her eyes were green or not. My take on this is that he was trolling Neander with a bluff. The tactic actually works because it gives Neander pause for thought and demonstrates his fallibility. Rachel's eyes were green only for Decker because he saw her in a private way that no one else had to his knowledge. This is tied together really well because the only other person in the room at that point is Luv, who has only seen Rachel one time: when watching the memory crystal with K where Decker is administering the test and her eyes are clearly green, they fill the screen they are watching. You also see Luv look at Neander in disbelief at the eyes being wrong. I love this scene because it encapsulates many of Ford's characters over the years. He beats the low-level bad guys with guns, fists, planes, etc. But when it comes to the more cerebral, mastermind type villains, he fights them on their terms and shocks them with information they did not have.
Very interesting
Here is my website: www.sharpeverse.com/
I hope you like the post I've put on it. Also a big thanks to Squarespace for sponsering this video and giving me that site for free. If you want to start your own website please use this link:
squarespace.com/closerlook
Next week I'm going to be making a pretty big announcement on this channel so I cant wait for that :)
Have a great day,
- Henry
Why's this comment not pinned? It's quite low down.
To quote amazing webcomic Dresden Codak: "To be more than human is to be more human."
And what about Gods?
headbite alien They are the imaginations of humans.
Well said! Greed is good!
Been waiting for this video for so long. Great work!
Glad to hear you liked it :)
No prob! Keep up the good work! My goal has always been to become a screenwriter, so videos like these, especially yours, are amazing insights to the intricacies of these films!
I love these essays about 2049. I am currently writing an essay for Bio-Ethics about when the line between human and machine becomes blurred, using both Blade Runner and Ghost in the Shell as reference. I would love to see you post a video about ghost in the shell someday.
That sounds seriously cool, what a topic! Hope it went well
Using squarespace is taking the easier path
I guess I'm a slave then ;D
"Peter and the wolf, op.67 plays"
I have to say that your ability to seamlessly and non-intrusively put in the word for your sponsor site is something many other content creators lack. It was real, genuine, and a bit heartwarming. Keep up with this channel and your website essays, I love it all.
I've gotta disagree with you about Joi. In the scene where he meets the giant ad for Joi, clips play where the replicant rebellion leader gives the line about giving your life for a cause, and then the clip about witnessing a miracle follows it. Put together, along with the fact Joi essentially sacrificed herself to help K, implies to me that K realized that his copy of Joi had been somehow special, gaining autonomy, after all, we see her acting with autonomy throughout the film, holding contrary points to K in some areas where she started out agreeing with whatever he said. Maybe the rain scene is where she changed, maybe the exposure to water caused some kind of damage. Hell we see replicants treating Joi as less than them, perhaps hinting at the same capacity for cruelty humans show replicants.
Donovaneagle2098 Yes! the message of cruelty on the perceived lesser is also noted on the dialogue between K and Joi about their codes
Donovaneagle2098
The point isn't that Joi had autonomy. All of her emotions, her love for K, all of it was programmed into her. It was fake love. The question isn't whether or not her love for K is real or not.
The question is does it matter if it's real or fake?
Replicants are born with fake memories. Experiences they never actually had, but they were still experiences and those experiences reflect how Replicants live their lives.
Experience is what makes them human. It's what makes US human. So who cares if it's fake? It's still real to US!
We can translate this about Joi into humanity in general. The theme of what makes us human is what is going on here but actually, it doesn't distinguish us from one another. It is common to every human. What distinguishes from each other is the way we empathize with someone. True empathy. We have social rules and constructs that we abide in order to live together and even if some of those rules are built upon, let's say, a judeo-christian set of morals of good, we act upon them. As a program. It is only when we devout ourselves to one another that the best of us comes into play, empathy. So, we are as human as the next fellow in regards to humanity in general but we are truly human only when we come across someone that makes us tick. And shiver. And feel good. That's when we become unique. That's what Joi was to K. Unique.
are you kidding me? i disagree with nearly everything he said... not just joi
To deny that Joi doesn't evolve beyond her own programming is to rob her final act of it's meaning. She shows more and more personality as the movie progresses, and while that's still her programming at work when she tells K he's special, her final act is an attempt to keep Luv from beating up K, and her final words, a despairing "I love you" comes from real feeling. The point of the Giant Naked Joi scene is this...the Joi you first see isn't enough to give K meaning anymore and what she becomes can never be replaced.
i think wallace has no art in his home because hes blind... :^/
Although I don't agree on the part with Joi, I think you making a good point with the warning about taking the easy way.
I do think that K - the replicant - is really in love with his version of Joi - a hologram - and that she is in love with him. K doesn't have the option to fall in love with a human and be loved by one, because of his status in society. When he meets the giant Joi at the end of the movie in my point of view he realizes that he has lost someone special and that he can become special by choosing the well-being of an other person over his own. That's the moment he decides to save Deckard and unite him with his daughter no matter the costs. Which makes Joi's words true.
Yes, she does very human choices against her programming, and survival, to support Kays needs, even against his resistance.. She is the one to convince him to pursue his indipendence. She is a programm who at least has genuine emotions. Wallace would never build a programm that goes against him, Joi did. The gigantic Joi just reminds him that his joi is dead. And that he probably did what he did afterwards, because she inspired him to do. Even when he dies, he is smilin, as he would ge where joi was going.
Amen...Joi went on her own journey to seek being more, and her final act is one of self sacrificial love.
This is exactly what Joi was programmed to make you think :) That she was real. The movie convinced you too. :)
@@ReiKennex Joi is real. The question is, if her love towards K is real too, just programmed or wishful thinking of K.
The answer is tricky. Because how can you be sure that you love someone and are love in return?
@@ReiKennex exactly you wrote the comment for me 4 years ago lol
Incredibly underrated video. The view count should be in the millions if you ask me.
"Appreciate"
I think both pronunciations are correct. It just depends on where you're from.
Of course, that's his accent.
Advert-izment
Just like some people pronounce issue the same way. Ss instead of ish
Apreesiate
That ad at the end was smooth af. Great work as always.
Thanks :)
You do realize the irony about spending the time to tell us that losing humanity is by taking the easy and predictable path...then by advertising a service/product that encourages people to take an easy and predictable path, yes? Don't worry. I still love your videos. However, I chose a more nihilistic outlook on bladerunner and its sequel. Ciao.
Or maybe that was a further comment on how humanity has already lost it's essence ;D
The Closer Look: This guy gets it. Touche' good sir.
Captain J. Panxer Hardluck lol
The Closer Look, it hasn't we've been the same for along time.
IMHO this is not about humanity loosing its essence and more about individual humans being more susceptible to do that without realizing. Without this website you would spend, say, 6 hours programming your own webpage, looking as it fleshes out effect by effect as a testament to your progress. Alternatively you can spend them meditating on what you make your vid on and what would make it ingenious (which is a good analogy for everything there would be left to do in a post-scarsity world). If you do come up with the idea then you must have been working, but if you do not how can you be sure whether it was due to lack of time or excess of laziness? I think with enough self-discipline a person can answer this question (but yeah, for general population it looks a little grim). P. S.: Let's hope that, for the record, this makes the comment look less depressing)
This is fantastic. I never noticed those details about Wallace's wealth or the Police Chief's lack of a response to crushed glass in her hand. But more importantly, your overall point on Laziness and giving up on choice was electrifying. I think you've struck gold.
Love these videos and love that we get two this week XD. Plus love this movie. What a good day
I hate how people did not even watch the original film or searched for it for then saying in social networks “it’s horrible and boring”
This is not a criticism, don't take it the wrong way, I just find it slightly humorous that you use the phrase "all the difference... in the world" in pretty much every video I've seen.
I am secretly gman that is why ;D
The Closer Look
Well, that explains why nobody has heard from you in so, so long
To me the question asked in both movies is "what is human".
And that's what's shown all the time, in all characters, both in by-definition-humans and in by-definition-non-humans.
There's humanity in all of them, and that's exactly what I see when watching these movies, all the time, in all scenes.
Thanks for your interesting videos!
This is, as usual, very insightful and wonderfully presented. I couldn't help noticing, though, a strange irony. When you talk about how easy Square Space's technology made creating your website, I couldn't help but remember what you said about losing our humanity when technology makes everything too easy.
Or was it a comment on how the loss of humanity has already occurred? ;D
"When we fall to our human nature, we cease to be human".
While I do not agree that human nature is of choosing the "easy path" necesserally, that is a beautiful sentence.
Two videos in a row? Am I in heaven?
I thoroughly enjoyed this film. The questions it presented, the music, the visuals, it all was quite an experience and I appreciate the time you took to examine it.
Despite what the film suggests about Joi and her arc I genuinely believe that she loved Kay, she is able to think and make her own decisions, she convinces Kay to disassemble her from the hub despite the the inherent danger she would be in. to me the idea that her love was real is to me, more tragic and beautiful.
Also Wallace kills the new born replicant because he can sense Love is secretly experience a profound sense of emotion over the birth of one of her compatriots and it’s his test of her poker face
That was such a clever, subtle way to introduce your sponser...
These videos remind me of why I love film so much. These videos fully explain why these movies are so great and why they need to be appreciated. Explaining the true levels of detail that go in to making these films.
The film buff side of RUclips is truly the best, rewatching these films after watching these videos always gives you a deeper appreciation
I wouldn't say Lt. Joshi's lack of reaction in 5:40 when Luv hurts her is really a good example of the human characters lacking humanity because to hide that she was human/fragile/etc. was the point. Luv was trying to intimidate/scare Joshi and Joshi wasn't having it, she wanted a bit of dignity.
great video, so glad u explained the tune at the beginning
Ok. This is the second video where he has said "all the difference in the world." If he says it again, Half-Life 3 confirmed.
Delve I am from the future ES 6 is confirmed.No more skyrim.
Half Life 3 confirmed.
Well.. sorta.
I appreciate that the studio allowed this film to be what it is. It goes against all studio convention and delivers a smart piece of cinema I will never forget.
Two videos I one week I like that keep it up
No way I could ever keep that up XD I spent about a month on these two and the only reason they are together is because the brands wanted them out by the end of the month. :/
that last part at 10 minutes, really resinated with me, as was a youtube addict and having to give up something I was with for a long time. And it is yesterday when I finally stopped watching youtube when trying to sleep, I have never slept better. Regaining humanity is hard, but god damn it is worth it.
one of the best films in a decade
Gawd, listening to this Limey grind through some obscure premise is exhausting!
i think you kind of missed the point with joi, its meant to be implied that k sees her as far more than just a product, and its meant to be brought into question whether its possible a sense of free will had risen from that. for example, k didnt need/want to hear her tell him she loved him, he wasnt interested in sex, he didnt want to destroy the chip in the house. all things joi did on her own that a machine that was fully subservient to the owner wouldnt have done against the owners will.
the Joi sequence at the end could say alot of things"your love wasnt real, she was a product" "YOUR Joi was different, more than just a product, more than just a hollow representation of a companion" "Joi is like you, created for the purpose of serving others (up until the point he decides to save deckard hes been following others orders)"
Your analysis is beautiful, true, and inspiring. A great message exists here. Thank you for making this.
'The Closer Look In A Nutshell'
"Most people want to believe that the 'Shrek' film involves an ogre, a donkey, and a princess. However, I want to disagree"
Me: Oh boy here we go T__T....
Great video though! lol
Amazing vid as usual Henry! No matter how much I may think my story is stupid or too similiar to "this or that", or too cliche - watching your videos always inspires me and makes me think maybe I can do it.
Thanks, there is nothing wrong with a cliche, only if it is used correctly :)
You forget: Wallace is blind and for some reason he does not have that changed. I think that is why he would not decorate his apartment.
Watched this movies three times. I do not have the intellect to explain the themes and philosophy; but when i watch videos like this one i begin understand why i liked this movie so much.
Thank you "The Closer Look"
I kind of saw Jois role differently. In my opinion her character was meant to be a visual representation of how memories are what make us human. By that I mean it was Joi and Ks memories together that gave Joi her sense of humanity. Which is why when k sees her on the advert she her eyes are blacked out her soul \ humanity is gone, because it isn't really Joi since her memories and experiences are not in this Joi. Building on top of what I see as a major theme that our experiences and memories are what make us human. IDK Im probably wrong but that's how I see it.
This is one of your bests, yet!
Outstanding video
Thanks :)
When your ad transition is so smooth that friction ceases to exist.
i have learned more about films and storytelling from every frame a painting and closer look than anything else 😊...i hope i make a good film someday.... 😁
Anon i recommend cinefix
It ain't easy
I would also recommend Lessons From the Screenplay.
almost finished film video essays of every frame a painting, lessons from the screenplay, now you see it, nerdwriter, closer look, kaptain kristain, dan golding, the royal ocean film society, raging cinema, channel criswell, just write, the film guy, sideways, karsten runquist, the discarded image 😅😆😂😂....some more left to cover before i give up on film video essays...
Anon I hope you will become a great filmmaker one day. Who knows, maybe you will make the next citizen kane.
Genuinely impressed that you spent 10 minutes talking about how Replicants can become more human than human without actually mentioning the Tyrell Corporation motto.
Joi became human too. She chose to become "a real girl" and it's not what K wanted. She did it for him. It's not that Joi is an illusion it's that her love for K wasn't special. Just like K wasn't special either.
Point: None of us are special but we can all be real.
That's something that people who say all Joi was amounted to programming miss...past a certain point, Joi thinks a "real boy" deserves a "real girl", and that's the point of all she does from hiring Mariette to Luv destroying her.
Agree. I've always taken away that the replicants were more human than human, and in the end had more humanity. Roy's speech showed this. Most humans will willing detach their humanity for little more than a speech from someone they see in charge...
Is this gods realm? TWO UPLOADS IN THE SPAN OF TWO DAYS?
Hehehehe ;D
It BLOWS my mind how this film wasn't nominated for Best Picture or Director
This essay made me cry. Please keep doing what you do
i find dialects amazing, the way language shifts and morphs from one person to another, i was just reminded of that, hearing you say what sound to me like "appresiated", whereas i would pronounce it "appreshiated"
This is why Ridley Scott was wrong to insist that Deckard was a replicant.
Everyone accepts the studio screwed up by insisting on the narration and the happy ending where Rachael and Deckard live long and drive into the sunset. But few admit that the director went to the opposite extreme, insisting that all the main characters were machines, meaning there was nothing to compare them to, dramatically.
To say nothing of superfluous unicorns.
It's always amazing how you can turn such masterpieces into bigger ones. Surprisingly this video heavily inspired me and made both Blade Runner 1 + 2 better to view!
1 minor gripe: I get where you're coming from with considering Deckard a human, but I'd argue human is too rigid of a biological term to be applicable. I think the term you're looking for is person, via personhood theory.
"It expands the conventional definition of "person" beyond "human," to include a number of hypothetical non-human entities, should they ever exist. Personhood theory says "It's not just human beings who are persons; anything which is sapient is a person, too.""
Don't get me wrong, I'm a hardcore transhumanist and agree that intelligent beings of independent thought and choice ought be treated equally as humans, but they ultimately aren't human. Person? Yes! Human? No.
joe momma, i think the point of 2049 is to expand on the subtext of the original: it doesn't matter. replicants and humans are biologically identical, except one is manufactured.
True
joe momma The lady who makes the memories is a replicant (kind of) she is Deckards daughter. It was her own memory. That is why she cried.
I was really waiting for this video, and I wasn't disappointed
Deckard in Blade runner is very similar to K in 2049, slave like and following orders without questioning. That could easily mean that Deckard is in fact a replicant of some sort. Wallace also explains something like this when he talks about how Rachael was programmed to fall for Deckard.
This is one of the reasons why i prefer the "Human Deckard" interpretation. Although before the inclusion of the unicorn sequence there were already signs that showed us that Deckard's nature could be dubious (the huge amount of photos on his piano, at home) the idea that humans go through life with a certain amount of disdain or disappointment while on the other hand artificial beings long for a sense of purpose because they have a definite lifespan and they know when it will end makes some sense in regards to the loss of humanity. And then again, in regards to Joi and the true nature of her feelings we can go back to empathy. Deckard, a cold hearted police assassin was taken by surprise with the empathy he felt towards Rachel. He was another human, she was another replicant. But together they had empathy. That made them special to each other and that's what makes us human. Empathy. That's what also made Joi special to K. There were many Jois in the market, tailored to suit the user's needs. But this one, K's Joi, made him feel empathic. And i believe she felt the same about him. But i digress here, it's my romantic side.
I actually liked Joi and thought that one of the possible reasons K is with Joi is because as a replicant he couldn't have a genuine girlfriend. It does get hard to figure out what is genuine about Joi and what isn't because I'm not sure even K knows himself, especially after her programing gets destroyed by Love and then we see Joi's holographic advertisement hinting she was just a holograph designed to say whatever K wanted. The scene I like is when Joi gets a ride with K in his car and she is free to travel and she looks like she's enjoying the trip, and she is also willing to put her existence on the line when she allows K to delete her primary source so no one will use her information against K if they break into his apartment. So perhaps we're also getting into another question of our humanity when it comes to something that is programed to be human, is she really showing concern? We have to ask ourselves a similar question because are often told our personality is based on our genetic and biological make up, are we really programmed ourselves?
Everyone talks about Roy Batty's display of empathy and choice by saving Deckard, but lets not forget that Rachael saved him too by killing the other replicant who was about to kill him.
I can see what you mean with the humans losing their humanity. Replicants are too innately human to come at it from the android angle.
Joi seemed more like the AI becoming human, or a consciousness. Everyone else interprets her as a complete non consciousness, or "just a program." When I watched the film that's not what I saw. She seemed like an intelligence that can learn and grow, but like the replicants can be mass produced with ease, built with a purpose they can one day outgrow.
Fantastic video! I'm currently writing an essay about the why both of the Blade Runner movies are delivering about the same moral message in completely different decades and this video really helped a lot. Thanks :D
blade runner 2049 has so many layers and theme building off each other. It's honestly amazing you can keep coming back to a piece of art and derive a new meaning from it each time
i found this channel a few months ago by accident.. and wow, each video is amazing! keep up the great work
True. I can't believe he killed his wife.
I don't care.
@@o00nemesis00o Idiot
Best Squarespace ad I've ever seen
Bruh, even real girls would just say what you want to hear.
in what universe?
what girls do you talk to
More of these. And thank you.
It's marble not wood. I'm an architect btw
I think the office might have had objects made out of wood.
Something else I noticed regarding songs is after K talks with Deckard, he plays a Sinatra song. It came to an "end" where it was a satisfying stop as opposed to the other songs we hear, but it was not the end of the song. I think this represents how K didn't feel like his story was over after meeting Deckard, but if it ended there he could've been satisfied. It was the fact that he chose to continue the story that made him human, not that he was the child of one.
Ok, so I would like to point out something that I've noticed in your videos that you do on a regular basis. I thoroughly enjoy your channel and find that I can agree with you on most of the points that you make, however in many of your videos, such as this and the one about comedy, you seem to be trying to find some form of stance that goes against the norm. I'm not saying that this shouldn't be done, our opinions should be checked and then re-checked on a regular basis, but I feel like in this you were basically asking the same question, just in a different way. Like I said, I love your channel and am under no illusion that I would be able to make the kind of consistent quality content that you do, but I don't want to see you allowing the prevailing view on certain films to effect your opinion, whether it's positive or negative.
Thanks for the feedback but popular opinion truly doesn't affect me (at least not that much). I noticed that every joke has a victim myself and then made a video around that, similar to that I noticed a number of thoughts in blade runner, asked what they meant and got my own interpretation of it.
In that case I'm glad to hear that you're just being honest with your audience, can't ask for more than that.
"our laziness will destroy our humanity" brooo igot the chilllllssssss
Deckard is a replicant though :P
Alice Pope-Terry Wrong
Ghost of Socrates
How did he survive in the radioactive Wasteland where Kay found him then? Both Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford have said that Deckard is a replicant. It doesn't matter what you or the creator of this video think, Deckard is a replicant.
Hazzanger
Ghost of Socrates
How did he survive in the radioactive Wasteland where Kay found him then? Both Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford have said that Deckard is a replicant. It doesn't matter what you or the creator of this video think, Deckard is a replicant.
Deckard is a replicant. Movie doesnt make sense if hes human.
asilenth It shows in K's computer in the car that the radiation levels in that area were nominal. Also Ford is adamant that Deckard isn't a replicant while Ridley is, your ideas are all jumbled.
Fantastic work! Love your channel!
Thanks :)
You may want to put a spoiler warning in the title. Great video though...
I have a pathological hatred of spoilers. I always avoid watching any video analysis before I've seen the films because invariably they always contain spoilers even if they don't reveal plot specifics. Even trailers usually have too many spoilers for me.
I mean, what did you expect....
Wow. What a stunning analysis. I didn't think it was possible for me to love these films any more than I already do. You have cast a new light on what I feel is a masterpiece and I somehow strangely feel indebted to you.... thank you.
Appreesiate
In 2018 a Belgian rapper said in a music subtly named Blade Runner "Vos propres machines sont devenues plus humaines que vous"...
"Your own machines have become more human than you" in English
All the track is really good and emotional but this line is connected with what you said.
One point I slightly disagree with, and why I would opt for Joi over a real relationship, if given the choice.
You've made the common mistake that she is simply a parrot, designed to say the right thing at the right time.
Joi is not programmed to say any specific thing. But she is programmed to feel an unconditional emotional love for the customer. It's from this point of origin that her validating words come from.
Her sole purpose is not to validate, but to love.
Of course I would choose that, over something that may be unpleasant, non-reciprocal, unfulfilling, and fleeting, which I find most relationships to be like on the men's side.
I'd say Joi's purpose is to validate, even if it looks like love, because even if you love someone you will still question them and disagree with them. They even state it in the in-universe commercials for Joi, the billboards say she's anything you want her to be.
Get a dog if you want unconditional love, bro. Human relationships are complex and therein lies the beauty of them.
Gertrud Bondesson
I have to say, my interpretation of blade runner and therefore of joi is extremely different from the one shown in this video. There isn’t a tangible point, where one becomes human, nor is there a point where one can lose his humanity. If joi is programmed to simulate love so well that K believes it, then it is real love, because love is just an arbitrary human concept which simply describes the subjective experience of different hormones being released in your brain. Because of that, it is always imagined and it becomes “real” when we decide it to be.
Phm07
I don't doubt K believes Joi loves him, and that Joi probably feels she loves him, but the whole point of their relationship was to make people ask how much was her true feelings for him and how much was her programming. Joi never demands anything from K or questions his decisions, even when those decisions puts both her and K in danger. If someone you loved was about to do something potentially fatal to themselves, wouldn't you call them out on it?
Gertrud Bondesson
My point was that love is a human-made concept, so it doesn’t really matter wether it was “true” to your definition of it. As long as it is love to K, it is love.
I love your videos, man! Keep them up!
IMO "humanity" is a nonsensical ideal that people uncritically buy into. Why isn't any other species special just for being themselves? Where's the everyday discussion about whether some dog lives up to its "caninity"? It seems to be human exceptionism and works the same as any form of bigotry - ascribing your best ideals to an arbitrary group identity. When people say that you should "respect them by treating them like a human being", they are (intentionally or not) implying that respect and value are based upon what species one happens to be, and that non-humans are not worthy of equal respect and value.
For me, saying that human==respect is as offensive as saying that white==respect, or male==respect. Conceptually it works the exact same way. And bigotry against species has had far greater personal and ecological casualties than any form of inter-human conflict.
"Humanity" as a concept embodies the archetypal social behaviours of people. It doesn't depend on species, but on the individual's ability to consciously acknowledge their separateness from others, to express their interests, and to acknowledge the interests of others. A dog doesn't give a shit about your interests, while you extend human social values to a dog. Humanity.
I've never thought of that before. Interesting.
+P J ""Humanity" as a concept embodies the archetypal social behaviours of people." - Well, that's exactly what I was criticizing. The conflation of humanity as a species with the notion of personhood, which is not species-specific. Humans are a subset of "people", yet they project their values while claiming the identity of the whole, not unlike any other kind of exploitation/imperialism. Claiming to be the inscrutable arbiters of others' agency.
"It doesn't depend on species, but on the individual's ability to consciously acknowledge their separateness from others" - That is definitely in line with historical definitions of humanity. But I think it is dubious from a modern perspective. Organisms have been understood more recently to be neither physiologically nor cognitively individual, they simply construct a subjective sense of self which is mostly unaware of how they truly function.
"A dog doesn't give a shit about your interests, while you extend human social values to a dog." - I find both of those doubtful. Dogs tend to be quite social, and can recognize their interdependence with others. They can socialize just fine without me anthropomorphizing them. The trickier question is, how can I be sure that I am not simply anthropomorphizing humans? That is, projecting my ideals upon them as being an essential nature.
Humanity is loosely defined but beautiful. I think the most general term for it would be the essence of the human experience in being able to create the arbitrary. To like art even though it has no practical value or love an unfit person ignoring basic biological impulses for an arbitrary ideal like the love of someones personality. I can tell that you view it negatively because it puts a humans above all other life but it is much more than just that. To have humanity is to empathize. To have humanity is to put yourself in another person or animal's skin and see what it's like having a walk. When you give to a poor person but cut down a tree that is not so wrong. We don't see our species as special, we just see ourselves in one another. We see into animals less but we can still recognize their suffering and empathize with them. We just don't as much, and that is what brought us to civilization as we know it. We have caused suffering of other species but not as much ourselves and that allowed us to do what we do today. Without our abuse of the earth I wouldn't be able type this comment. And all though that does suck even now our technology is allowing us to construct remedies to some of our greatest issues and those of the natural world around us. All animals lack proper treatment for one another but still we find ways to overcome these issues. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that value is arbitrary but we place it on things that we most empathize with and that is ok. It led to all the cool stuff and I think that with our efforts with the most humane of intentions we can make the world a better place for ourselves and other creatures. This whole shpeel probably didn't get to you but just remember that if we didn't have the nonsensical humanity than you probably wouldn't have a good chance of living to the age of 79 years old and not have to do have to hunt or farm. You wouldn't be able to give to some poor starving kid in some desolate country. You couldn't experience all the beauty that life has to offer and the potential affect that you would have one the world would be far less.
Also humanity isn't as much of an ideal as it is a common trait. Humanity is encouraged because people who lack it tend to be the horrid psycopaths or sociopaths. Caninity is a thing though not in the word necessarily. Dogs are typically seen as loyal when treated well. We aren't special because we are ourselves we are just human and humans like humans which is great. So in the end it isn't human==respect it is human==yourself. Do unto others as you would do unto yourself.
I'm just here nomming chicken wings while you cry that animals are people too.
I think that this Joi was a miracle. She was able to look past her programing and defy it to save Kay/joe. A replicant falling in love with a hologram. WHAT MAKES IT LAME? Is it not human if it makes us feel? Where does our humanity end or where does it adapt to satisfy the need for communication and company. Why would he need joy if he doesnt have a soul? How would he know to need it? Why would he need her by his side? Our little Pinocchio wanted to feel what we feel. We as humans sometimes desire happiness like the movies portray it never knowing that we already have it
BRO BRO BRO BRO, I litteraly have that Prokofiev/Joi sound on my phone notifications from the day I saw this movie in cinema. For me it is a reminder about tragedy being in love you know will not last but lost it faster then you expected, I think... I am not sure, but Your points are very intresting as well :) That music trigger is one of my most favourite part of the movie
What makes you so sure that K and Roy Batty can deny their programming but Joi cannot?
William Blake inspired both movies. It's about the division of Man, (The Giant Albion) from his Emanation,(Jerusalem)
"Man divided from his Emanation is a dark Spectre
His Emanation is an ever-weeping melancholy Shadow."
-William Blake
Okay... Real quick, just one small thing...
WHY ARE THESE VIDEOS SO GODAMN GOOD!