Distant Relatives: Blade Runner and Moon

Robert here w/ Distant Relatives, exploring the connections between one classic and one contemporary film. A warning today, there are SPOILERS AHEAD for anyone who'd like to go into Moon with as little ruined as possible

When technology gets advanced enough to make suitable replacements for humans, we're going to use them as our slaves. Right now we view the technologically sub-human as means to our needs, and why shouldn't we? We've yet to create anything sentient. But when we do, and I'm more and more convinced that it's a "when" not an "if" (in all fairness this convincing mostly has to do with people showing off their smart phones to me, but still... progress) whether we'll be filled with empathy toward our creations is not likely a given. The android and the clone aren't exactly the same thing, but they often serve the same purpose in science fiction. They're human stand-ins, whose genuine humanity is questionable. In some stories they're not advanced enough to raise the inevitable moral questions, or they're often comic relief, or exist in futures where they've already attained full equality. But frequently they are shown as created with the intent of doing the will of their creators... us. Such tales from the point of view of humans often involve apathetic individuals coming to sympathize with them. Tales from the point of view of the clone and/or replicant can provide more dramatic introspection. In terms of point of view, both of our films today feature a little from column A and a little from column B.

 

At the beginning of Moon, Sam Bell (Sam Rockwell) believes himself to be another in a long line of employees of Lunar Industries, coming to the end of his three-year-stint on the moon, looking forward with great anticipation to going home and working on mending his relationship with his wife. He's almost got it right. He is, in fact, one in a long line of clones implanted with memories, under the mistaken belief that he is the real Sam Bell, when in fact the life and wife he believes are waiting for him back on Earth have long since changed. Oh, and it's not his three-year employment contract coming to an end, it's his three-year lifespan. Blade Runner follows Deckard (Harrison Ford) a retired police officer who specialized in tracking down and "retiring" (if you don't know what that means, guess) replicants, or bioengineered humans. Deckard is brought in to find a collection of escaped replicants whose short life-spans are coming to an end, and in the process encounters more advanced replicants unaware even of their in-humanness.

 
Here we have the two most central issues to the human copies of Blade Runner and Moon. The first is lifespan. Dissatisfied humans don't get the opportunity to confront their creator (whoever or whatever that may be). And most world religions try to foster an attitude of thankfulness not anger. No such option from the replicants of Blade Runner who, like the Sam clones of moon are questioning and attempting to comprehend their mortality. In both cases, hell hath no fury like a human copy with the desire to survive. It's the ultimate motivator, much to the detriment of their human creators and it's the central motivation that fuels both stories. The second issue to these characters is the extent which was taken to keep them from understanding their true nature. Anyone whose ever had even the slightest element of their identity revealed to them as false knows that it's a monumental shock. Imagine the entire essence of your identity being a lie, that it was engineered that way intentionally, so you could be used. It's easy to root for the Sam clones and not surprising that even the intense brutal mug of Blade Runner baddie Roy Batty (Ruter Hauer) has become synonymous with that of the sympathetic villain.

And what of our heroes? In Moon, Sam begins under the belief that he's an original human and slowly comes to accept that he is a clone. We see the story through both the eyes of a human and a clone. And interestingly enough through the eyes of someone who still depends on a lesser sentient servant. Sam's computer Gertie waits on his every need. Perhaps he's not advanced enough to know otherwise. As for Blade Runner's Deckard, he also give us the point of view of both a human and a replicant, since his identity is eternally in question. Whether you believe he's human (like Harrison Ford) or a replicant (like Ridley Scott) is likely to color how you react to the film around him. But whether he's hunting down his own kind or not, it's difficult to cheer for him.

What does it mean to be human? The ultimate question asked by these two films, and ultimately unanswered, though ultimately we see more of ourselves in our copies than ourselves. It's not exactly a message but a meaningful ponderance from two films who suggest that man's long history of inhumanity will maintain itself well into the future.

 

Other Cinematic Relatives: Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1992), A.I.: Artificial Intelligence (2001), Never Let Me Go (2010), Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)

Writers Guild Nominees and Their Oscar Competition

The Writers Guild of America nominations are always interesting to look at -- we love discovering what other writers admire --  but they are greatly overvalued in terms of Oscar prognostication. The tricky part is remembering what's not eligible. The Academy doesn't require you to be a member to receive nominations for your cinematic achievement. Some guilds do and the Writers Guild is notoriously strict about qualification. So several key Oscar-seeking movies were NOT eligible for these honors.

Bridesmaids won a WGA nomination but the Oscar shortlist is far more competitive.

Not Eligible, Therefore We Know Nothing About Their Oscar Prospects: 
(Original) Take Shelter, Martha Martha Marcy May Marlene, Beginners, The Artist, Shame, Margin Call, The Iron Lady, Rango, Melancholia, and Like Crazy
(Adapted) Drive, My Week With Marilyn, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Jane Eyre, Carnage, Albert Nobbs, and The Skin I Live In

 ... and quite a few of those -- especially the originals -- seem like definite threats in the Oscar Screenplay races. 

The WGA Nominations (Three Categories) are  AFTER THE JUMP

Click to read more ...

VFX Oscar Upset: Rainbow Bridge of Asgard Shut Down For Repairs

This post is only illustrated with Hugh Jackman because I'm still reeling from that LES MIZ story! It's like a huge robot shaped like Taylor Swift just punched me!!!This just in (if this post were written last night. Pretend with me!)... The Academy has narrowed their Visual Effects race to ten players.

They'll have to cleave this list in half again by Tuesday January 24th, 2012 when the Oscar nominations are announced. Which five films will remain standing?

Captain America: The First Avenger
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
Hugo
Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
Real Steel
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
The Tree of Life
X-Men: First Class

GOODBYE TO YOU
What does this mean? Only that five previously eligible semi-finalists have been kicked to the curb.

No more Cowboys & Aliens (though the ADG bit). No more Sucker Punch (later lobotomized ladies!). No more Sherlock Holmes Part 2 (is it just me or is this movie feeling strangely nonexistent to the world despite being in the box office top ten) No more Thor (the hammer is his penis). No more Super 8.

The latter rejection seems like the biggest surprise to me. It's seemingly the only Movie about Movies containing scenes of the filming of other Movies to not catch on with awards voters this year since The Artist and Hugo and even Drive seem to be doing just fine, thank you).

Which half of the finalist list are you all in for?

Related: Current Visual Oscar Predictions

It's National Bird Day ~ Best Birds on Film!

It totally is! Every 5th of January as it so happens.

There's no reason to post about it other than that I actually threw on this Finding Nemo seagull t-shirt this morning "MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE" ... before I knew! [insert eery music]

It's a sign that silly list-making is required of me. 

Though this year in cinema was definitely the Year of the Dog, we did get at least one memorable bird in Lord Shen, the villain of Kung Fu Panda 2. There were also feathers flying everywhere in Rio but I can't seem to bring myself to watch the screener because it never shows up in "Best Animated Film" nominations. Not that you should trust those when Cars 2 does ferchrissakes.

Favorite Feathered Film Things!

18 Ben Foster as Angel in Let Us Not Speak of That Movie or that guy from Barbarella I forget his name.
17 Kevin in Up (2009)
16 Lord Shen in Kung Fu Panda 2 (2011)
15 Camilla from The Muppets 
14 Those ostrich costumes in Priscilla Queen of the Desert
13 The vultures from The Jungle Book

12 Maleficent's crow in Sleeping Beauty
11 The Crow (1994)
10 The mariachi owls from Rango
09 those seagulls "mine mine mine mine mine mine"
08 Natalie's final pirouette transformation in Black Swan
07 Matthew Barney's flock in Cremaster 5 (1997)

Cremaster 5

06 Björk at the Oscars
05 Babs in Chicken Run (2000). Remember her?
04 The Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill
03 Pixar's For the Birds
02 The Birds (1963)
01 Michelle Pfeiffer as Ladyhawke (1985)

P.S. Tweety-bird and Road Runner are assholes.

P.P. S. images that came up this morning when I searched for "Ben Foster Angel Screencaps"

Click to read more ...

Interview: Charlize Theron on "Young Adult" and "Snow White"

Reason #103 to Love Charlize Theron: The Hello Kitty t-shirt in "Young Adult" was her idea!If I were brainstorming about the imaginary pop culture diet of fictional Mavis Gary, the self-absorbed alcoholic YA novelist at the cool heart of Young Adult I'd put this forth: She's never watched the Oscars but flips absently through fashion roundups in the magazines the day after every year. (Her beauty is only skin deep and her thought processes even shallower.) Her creators director Jason Reitman, screenwriter Diablo Cody and actress Charlize Theron, on the other hand all have a lot going on upstairs and are also intimately familiar with Hollywood's big event. If Academy voters widen their range a little to notice the brilliance of this smart acerbic comedy, who knows? They could be invited back again.

Not that any of this seems to concern Charlize Theron, who calls me herself on the night of our interview, to discuss her new role. As a producer on the film, she seems less concerned with statues and acclaim and more about finding the right audience for such a tricky unique film. "It's not a quintessential Jason Reitman film and it's not a quintessential Charlize Theron film," she says, matter of factly. Anyone expecting another Juno or Monster will be thrown. They planned carefully with pop up screenings and key theater appearances and a quick but not instantaneous wide release. Smart. Young Adult feels like just the kind of film that will grow its audience slowly (we're definitely already on board) and it's easy to imagine a Mavis cult gathering over time. 

"You have to celebrate the spirit of the movie you're making and release it into the world in that way." she says speaking like a producer. Though of course we know her first and foremost as an actress, a great one. And she's an enjoyable conversationalist in that regard, too, though she knows when to keep a secret about her films and her process.

Nathaniel R: When did you first feel you understood Mavis while reading the script. Did you have a moment of "I know this character?"

CHARLIZE THERON: It wasn't something specifically but I guess just an overall feeling. Otherwise i don't think i could have said yes to the film. She felt human to me. She felt real. This overwhelming need and want to be loved and this kind of loneliness and the horrible tool set that she has to go about getting those things.  I guess those things all kind of resonated with me? 

Nathaniel: If we were to look at your script: Is it pristine? do you write a lot of notes? How do you prepare?

CHARLIZE: How do I prepare? You know, it's a little bit like asking a magician 'How did you pull a rabbit from the hat?' I don't know if people really want to know that stuff. I think what we're trying to do ultimately is have people forget about that stuff. On top of that I don't have anything that's concrete. Every time is different. I know that I have a very obsessive compulsive mind. So when I know I'm doing something I think everything in my daily life i'm observing and filing and knowing that I might be able to use it.

From the moment I say yes it's breathing and living under my skin. I'm constantly thinking about it. And conversations with my director are sometimes important. But I don't talk about things too much. For me it's a very intimate experience and an "alone" experience. I have to go through it myself.

That's interesting since Mavis is so solitary. And writing is, too.

Diablo and Jason who are both writers know that world really well. I'm not a writer so I didn't realize how great they were at capturing that until writers came up to me and said "oh my god that's exactly my life." Everything kind of stops and disappears. There is no outside world. So, I have to give them credit for really nailing that.

Beauty is such an important issue to Young Adult but in your most famous role, Monster, your own beauty doesn't factor in. Do you think about your own beauty when playing roles like this? 

[Character Beauty, Three Consecutive Villains and that damn 'Hello Kitty' after the jump] 

Click to read more ...