I never understood why Blade Runner 2049 flopped... it was so beautifully made, the story is so engrossing, the cinematography so overwhelmingly beautiful and the soundtrack so heavy and dense. I keep rewatching it over and over as with the original Blade Runner.
My post-mortem : 1. The original had/has a huge amount of acclaim from a relatively small population. 2. The already small fandom had two factions. Faction A saw a copaganda in which Harrison Ford acts out a power fantasy of violence on marginal people without fear of reprisal. Faction B saw Ford's Deckard as an alienated non-hero looking for connections to his material world. When Villeneuve made his followup for Faction B, Faction A necessarily felt abandoned. Worth mentioning here is 2017 was probably pretty near the peak of Cinemasins-style criticism and Faction A was more dominant in discussing movies. 3. In the same year, there was a main-saga star wars and three new Marvel movies (including the sci fi adjacent Guardians of the Galaxy vol. 2). For people budgeting their theatrical experiences, one option was to continue a known story or two from studios well known for production value that you can bring your family to. The other was to spend three hours in an R rated movie whose original you didn't see that was being panned by nascent anti-wokesters so you could discuss it with your one nerdy friend instead of star wars or guardians which they were probably also going to see anyway. The irony is, had 2049 gone the Robocop 2 route, it probably would have seen more immediate commercial success and spawned the franchise the studio initially envisioned. But I'd have already forgotten it in that case.
It's a shame Villeneuve felt he had to apologize for 2049. I prefer the original which I felt did a better job tying alienation to class and historicism. But 2049 absolutely did what it needed to be a worthy successor. It packed layer after layer of meaining into both audio and visual story telling to investigate empathy and humanity. The layers of allegory and symbolic representation are such that even when not fully understood, we can see that they're there as we turn over everything unsettled in our mind. Blade Runner is so enduring because the questions in the fandom aren't about the story- they're about what the story can teach us about ourselves and the world we live in.
That's why I love it, aswell Ghost in the shell, not only because the Cyberpunk aesthetics, but the psicological, philosophical, etc richness of both franchises and worlds.
@lordzombie I'm not sure if the studio pressed him for an apology. It was a fairly mild one in which he said he felt it wasn't a commercial success because the fans of the original weren't happy with it and was sorry he didn't live up to their expectations, and that he learned lessons going forward. Which I think is wrong- 2049 is in my top two favorite movies along with the original. One subset of fans that was probably upset have hazy memories of the copaganda action and thought Deckard was the hero of the original. Mostly, who has 3 hours to spend in a movie theater?
It amazes me how you’ve unearthed such a rich network of connections between the movie and Jung’s archetypes. And the editing is brilliant, it really made things click in my mind. Thanks, keep these coming!
It's rare that a sequel surpasses the original. I adore BL but it is one of those films that has been retroactively tweaked & nuanced so much that I now doubt how much the director (sorry Sir Ridley) really understood the subtext at the time. BL2049 is so sure-footed that it's clear Hampton and Villeneuve knew what they were doing from the outset. It is still respectful to its roots, but truly stands by itself as a SF masterpiece. An excellent analysis Damien.
My mind was literally blown by this analysis. Been a fan of Bladerunner sinces the 90s when it started rising from the ashes as box office flip and was building the cult following it has today. Also read the novel and both are independently masterpieces, what science fiction is meant to be and outsiders rarely get. Even if you don't get all the layers and symbolism, both movies feel like they are destined to be classics on their own right. Awesome video essay...
Fantastic video. All makes sense to me. I knew there was more to this movie than I was able to immediately understand and your analysis is greatly appreciated. Still learning about Jungian psychology.
Wow, that really made me re think Bladerunner altogether Damien. The symbology stood out in a lot regards to me already, but the depth of the archetype explanation is a fascinating way of integrating this story into my own psyche again. Thank you. I'm going to be a the Rebel Wisdom camp fire for your talk, hopefully I can cobble some questions together for you by then. Next on my shopping list is your course on sci fi.......... Thanks again, great to have found your content, another feather in the cap of Rebel Wisdom
From 10:30 onwards. I can't believe I didn't notice this years ago when I saw this movie. I can't believe that's what I did last time: projecting the anima onto your love interest and face disappointment when she rejects you and face even more disappointment when you wake up to reality and realise you were fantasising all this time.
I am rewatching it now and I find it endlessly fascinating. I am a SF and Fantasy Illustrator, so the imagery is also engrossing. I was surprised this time though to see some borrowing form Whelan's works. Unfortunately that occurs often with No credit to the artists, it has happened to me many times. Your analysis is very interesting, I have also much preferred Jung's theories.
@@DamienWalter If you go to his webpage and check out: www.michaelwhelan.com/gallery/personal-visions/#lumen. Also some of his older book covers where he shows factory like settings. The scenes in Bladerunner where the protagonist goes back to visit the place of his childhood uses these type of backgrounds, factory deadtech with tattered clothes. I will see if I can find the images that I remember from some of the book covers.
I am a huge fan of the blade runner universe and yes you have to see this long film many times to understand and truly admire its lore! Ridley Scott visions of this film has close ties to the ALIEN movies they are interrelated! I hope a third film is in the works and more connection with Alien!
@@aarontaylor2906 both films have a lot to say about class and marginalization, but I'm not sure they could be crossed over and get across the meanings needed in each franchise.
@@maxwellschmidt235 Yes you are 100% correct! In the Alien Universe the robot that tried to weaponize the Alien creature was designed by the same company that created the Bladerunner Androids! But there is a more serious issue which deals with rights of existence that in Blade runner the Android was trying to find his creator to extend his life and not be a slave and to live free! More discussion to come!
I started watching the first bladerunner movie when I was about 12, and it was fascinating. The visuals, the flying cars, the grit. The movie's epic and beautiful soundtrack by Vangelis both immersed you into the 2019 world and also reprieve from its darkness. The music was such a good fit because it provided this lifeline, an escape. Over the years I realized that the hunt on skinjaws, or artificial beings were immoral, and that Deckard as he slowly realized his true nature became increasingly conflicted and his only way to resolve it was to leave, escape and hide. The movie was decades ahead of its time, but asks very relevant questions we have to resolve now as AI awakens. Are they more than just machines? Where do we draw the line? Is empathy dependent on intelligence or ability to communicate? Are only humans worthy of being free from slavery? From being farmed? The Bladerunner movies asks the deepest questions we can face and for most people, that is too much to deal with, and for the majority, they dont even get that far, they only notice the storyline without questions. No wonder these movies didnt do well in theaters, not because they are bad movies, but because they are so incredibly deep
Very interesting. It's been a long time since I looked at Jung, and I never truly delved in enough to understand him. Got turned off to him after being unable to apply him to my life and also some pointless arguments; I found that people who went deep on him tended to believe they had authority to talk about my own inner world and could not accept that they were wrong. I appreciate what you did here, which I want to say before I go off on my own throughts that came up as I listened to this. What's truly interesting to me now, listening to you go through the archetypes and explain how Jung discovered them, is how much more experience I have now after delving into my own depths but through a very different modality over the past few years. This modality is more of a protocol driven by a kind of inner physics discovered through interactions with lots of individuals instead of one person delving into their own self. The difference is huge and important. It seems that Jung considered his own landscape to be typical, when, it turns out that we all have our own inner ecosystems of parts that developed based on both our individual experiences and some kind of rules that seem to govern how it all works. I think this is why I always felt in my gut like Jung was onto something but that it didn't resonate completely with me. And, to call back to what I said earlier, it makes for arguments when an expert on Jung refuses to accept that my inner world is not the same, that as much as they may twist and force the ideas of these specific archetypes to fit my experience, my "inner landscape" is different on key levels because I did not grow up in the same way that he did. How can I trust my own interpretations? The evidence I have is a growing set of personal transformations that have come from this inner work, where even a trained Jungian therapist could make no headway. Fear of heights, deep depressions, executive dysfunction, and more (I was a f*ckin mess), cured bit by bit and step by step. The evidence is in every day of my new life. Again, I love the way you broke this down, and I need to go back and watch this movie with these ideas in mind. I appreciate the way you have helped me understand why I somewhat resonated with Jung but could never quite get him.
Very interesting and very clear connections explained, betw the film and the Jungian archetypes model. My questions now are about the model: What does it mean to "integrate" an archetype? What do you have, after attaining the True Self, that you don't have with just the default Persona? Also - PKD's novel addressed the question, super relevant in our time of powerful AIs, of what it means to be "alive". Did it include all that Jungian mumbo-jumbo?
It's all based on the book: Jerusalem: The Emanation of The Giant Albion. By William Blake. "Why wilt thou give to her a Body whose life is but a Shade? Her joy and love, a shade: a shade of sweet repose: But animated and vegetated, she is a devouring worm:" "Man divided from his Emanation is a dark Spectre His Emanation is an ever-weeping melancholy Shadow." "The deep of winter came, What time the secret child Descended thro’ the orient gates of the eternal day."
It didn't do well at the box office because the audience of millennials and gen z don't know blade runner very well. Also Chinese audiences probably found it too complex. But on rottentomatoes it has a 88%.
I’m not sure on this analysis. I like Blade Runner, both of them. They have true depth but I don’t feel there are the hidden meanings you state. Rather I agree with the concealed massage but these things are layed out as the primary story, it smacks you with the thought process. Where as I feel the analysis here is overtly complex while at the same time basing its reasons from a small amount of your own favourite literary troupes and informant of a wider breath. Still I think the time spent on this by yourself really shows, its delivery and portrayal is brilliant, crisp and clean. Just that it muddy’s water from a clear stream to me. Thank you though for the time spent on a amazing channel of works
Wow! Just wow! Just loved your detailed take on the individuation process. I knew the movie was dealing with what it means to be human, but your detailed breakdown of that process was so insightful.
I love Bladerunner 2049, but Jung's archetypes always feel like Tarot Cards or some ancient pantheon where people assign anthropic characters to increasingly disparate and random aspects of the world. The sun, fertiliy, birth, death, love, the seasons, thunder, fire, wine, dance, the oceans, wisdom, war, chaos, darkness, etc. etc. Think of a concept -> make up a character that personifies that concept Talk endlessly about how those concepts interact. Somehow gain more insight? I don't think so.
I recommend researching the philosophies and beliefs of the Gnostics. Phillip K. Dick was very interrested in them, some of his (even more) religiously motivated work featured their early Christian beliefs prominently. This video puts forward Wallace as the God archetype, but I think there is a second: Anna the dream maker. She also takes on a creator role, filling the spiritual life of the replicants. This seems to echo gnostic beliefs in a perfect and irreproachable true God whose essence is hidden by the work of an insane megalomaniac creator God. Wallace creates and maintains the physical realities the Replicants inhabit, and certainly seems to think he's deserving of worship, which links him to the insane creator. Anna's work is more indirect, creating the dreams that can connect Replicants to their personhood, and this work she does from a place detached from the brutal realities of the physical world- connecting her to the benevolent true god. To the gnostics, key prophets and Jesus himself were moments in which the true God broke into reality to share truth with humans. My hypothesis is that Anna gave K the memory of the horse and set in motion the events that led him to the case of finding her father. She made his memories such that he would pursue the case as she would if she were able- including rejecting replicant demands that he kill Deckard. There are a number of Christian elements in both Blade Runner movies, but I think 2049 really comes into focus when you apply gnostic theology.
not sure you fully rounded back to explore the impact of the exposition body of this essay to re-integrate the introduction which explored 2049 as theology xpressed in jungian psychological contexts ?! Further, Bladerunner (both) addresses the incorporation/conflict of ‘Eastern’ concepts - something challenging for Jungian Doctrine - was this a shorter section of longer lecture? Is this point valid and how would it be addressed?
Wow! Brilliant presentation. Mentally I was breathless as I attempted to keep up with your interpretation and analysis of the film. In my opinion, I thought BR2049 was an intriguing masterpiece of science fiction. However, the tropes of future overpopulation and human-caused climate change appears to becoming less likely in humankind's actual future. Population collapse is becoming more evident even in contemporary times. Had the apocalyptic EMP incident referenced in the film taken place, it seems to be at odds with the film's storyline - overpopulation wouldn't be likely and Earth's environment would remain intact. With elements of humankind already having moved off-planet, future technology could be reintroduced, however, technology-dependent infrastructure destroyed by the EMP would cause catastrophic losses to Earth's population before supply chains could be rebuilt. A brilliant film, but the nightmarish future imagined is appearing to become less likely to happen.
The over population is only in the walled cities. Population collapse leads to highly concentrated enclaves where resources can be maintained. But the point of the EM event is that this is a world without memory. Symbolic more than literal.
@@DamienWalter Regarding the symbology of the EM event, as it applies to the film's story, I couldn't agree with you more. However, the film portrays an overpopulated world, not highly concentrated enclaves of population. In my humble opinion, BR2049 is a masterpiece, and your presentation was brilliantly executed. However, in film and scripts there are often compromises made in effort to ensure that the film actually gets produced. After all, in the end it is science fiction, not a documentary. I look forwad to your next presentation.
Very thought-provoking (particularly for someone like me who has no background in psychology, Jungian or otherwise, but rather more sensitivity to and sympathy for religious themes notwithstanding my post-Catholic identity)! I'm not sure I agree with this video's assertion that BR2049 constitutes an "allegory", however. It's perhaps my upbringing, but I tend to associate "allegory" with heavy-handed "preaching" on some supposedly uniquely correct vision of humanity/the world/whatever. And I tend to really HATE "preachy films" in particular... I don't doubt that there are many "hooks" in BR2049 (some intended by the filmmakers, many others probably not) on which Jungians can hang their ideological constructs. But the same is almost certainly true for all manner of other ideological schools attended by human minds (even post-Catholic minds like mine!)... What I most love about BR2049 - and, indeed, about all the Villeneuve films I've seen (from "Polytechnique" through to BR2049) is that I seldom if ever have the sense of being preached to. I am aware of all sorts of deeply ambiguous moral situations in those films that call for agonisingly difficult decisions, judgements and imaginings of the "what would I do in that situation" variety. But I am amazed that films like these let audience members make up their own minds (and endlessly argue about their competing impressions with others who've shared the same experience...) To my mind, films like these are far too rare and precious to be forcibly confined to the procrustean bed of allegory.
They are not rare. Most films by auteurs are allegory's who at the same time let you make up your mind since it's you who has to put in the mental work to reach the conclusion, not the film's job to preach it! Watch Tarkovsky, Apichatpong, Kubrick, Lynch, Roy Andersson, Fellini, etc
@@JunkyardHounds I'd generally agree with you about Kubrick, though I do find his "war" films (Paths of Glory, Full Metal Jacket and even Dr. Strangelove) perilously close to being "preachy" - even though I do appreciate all of them.
@@DamienWalter Persona are a jrpg franchise that started as a Shin megami tensei spin off and became it's own thing. And has some inspiration on Jungian psychology and Jojo's Bizarre Adventure.
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe... Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion... I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain...
I think it was the Nuclear war and the fall out that caused the initial collapse and in the original film a lot of the healthy had left for the off world colonies - only the poor and genetically damaged humans that remained - Sebastian actually mentions this
Yes that's true. But in 2049 the emohasis is on ecological collapse. It's not a traditiinalmsequel in that sense. Denis Villeneuve changes thingsnto tell his own story.
You can't blame the audience for not understanding a movie. A director should never apologize for their work unless it to themself. Wanna know what's great about movies, you can watch them as many times as you want any time you want. You can hate a movie in 2000 and love it in 2020.
Interesting how far Bladerunner 2049 strays from both the original film and the Philip K. Dick novel where it all started in which the fundamental message is humans are our own worst enemy.
I just rewatched blade runner (i loved this movie when i saw it in 2017) however this time, i was watching from a Christian perspective. Ill sum up what id like to say, cause im not one for words. In the universe of Blade runner, I believe God is real, and God has decided to give salvation to the synthetic humans. Wallace is a very good portrayal of an Anti Christ figure. he not only puts himself in place of God, but he seems to be aware of who God is, meaning he is very aware that he is evil, an enemy of God. I can imagine he hates God, especially since God has openly mocked Wallace, by creating Deckard with DNA that worked perfectly with Rachels to create a baby. This is the reason for his monologue. Wallace has done everything is his power to create life, yet he cannot without love. It was love which brought Deckard and Rachel together, it was God(love). The love that Wallace needs to create life, he cannot have, instead the Luv he created in order to do his will, was a monster. to top it off, (and now this is a theory) K and Ana are brother and sister. (the reason of the difficult pregnancy) they were twins and he is the Christ figure. She is aware of this, which is why she cries at his memory, because she knows shes seeing her brother, who was chosen to die so that he would be able to live and bring hope to the synthetics. a miracle. This is, to me, an allegory for the gospel, and it is a very good one at that. i wish i could explain it better but i aint no word smith. just hope i got my idea across.
Never seen a take like this, I look forward to taking it into my next viewing. Roy's echo if Christ is pretty obvious (almost to the film's detriment as it nearly rises to corniness in its visualization) in the first movie. PKD was very interested in Christian esoterics and heterodoxy, and it seems to me like there's a critical blindspot in discussing Christian influences and themes surrounding the major works of the franchise.
The ultimate failure of the Jungian archetypes is that to be able to explore the intellect and personality to the degree Jung professes, you quite literally need a lifetime of training and discipline that only the most elite and favored by society can achieve. These structures appear through analysis; we can project them, once we acquire the knowledge, but it’s inaccessible and too strongly built on assumption for the layman.
Masterfully done! Maybe R. Scott should have had some narration that referenced some info from C. Jung? That way the movie might have resonated deeper with the casual audience? Have you had any feedback from R. Scott on this essay?
Blade Runner 2049 is hands down a gorgeous masterpiece! I'm pretty sure that the replicant prostitute played by Mackenzie Davis is the real daughter of Deckard and Rachel. After all, Wallace most certainly still had K and Deckard under surveillance after the battle with Love and when they visited the upgrade center. Why would Deckard play along with K and visit his daughter knowing full well Wallace was watching them both? Also, why would Wallace allow his prize asset and lead to the child, namely Deckard, to escape so easily? The clue to who the child is, is at the beginning of the movie. The green eye. Ridley Scott uses eyes as a visual cue for plot twists in more than one franchise. Remember Deckard has brown eyes but Rachel had, or has green eyes. Its a clue. There's also a clue with the Rachel replicant remake, when Deckard says, "She had green eyes." He is of course talking about Rachel, but you can see how this might be another place Scott is adding another layering of mystery and intrigue. I can get lost in this world. Takes me back to when I was a kid in the 80's, (class of 1985), and I first saw Blade Runner. My bicycle was my spinner and my small town was the Blade Runner metropolis. He'll, I even ordered the badge and I D card from the fan club! Unfortunately that five dollars disappeared and I never saw the badge and I D. Oops! I'm getting lost in there again!😂 Anyway, gorgeous, beautiful, meaningful movie! I think it might be my favorite! I hope K didn't die and I suspect Rachel might still be alive. They could have faked her remains pretty easily, if they can make people. GREAT CHANNEL!
@@DamienWalter I could get back on Facebook, even though I deleted my account. My phone got so full I had to erase and start over. Also I was getting tired of the distraction. At 58 I'm still dreaming of being a science fiction writer and film maker. I'm not sure I have time to allow Facebook back into my life. Honestly, right now I'm just trying to get my astrophotography equipment work right now, in Bortle 9 city skies.. 😬 I recently upgraded from DSLR to a dedicated CMOS astrophotography camera and filter wheel. Unfortunately I'm so close to downtown Houston that I'll have to order a light pollution filter to go with my LRGB set. Yeah, I got a lot of irons in the fire. Your channel keep me going and gives me that meditation I need. Thanks brew.
Like we see in the movie, our dna is just a code made of 4 letters and Joi was a code made of "2 letters" 0 and 1. but we can make any representation of anything with any code. the language doesn't matter to arrive to some results. An apple in english is still an apple in french, same idea, different code to represent it. So it doesn't matter what code consciousness is made of, only the consciousness matter. Fear is the same in every code. Joy is the same in every code. Damn... we are just a programmed code made of biological math... a code living in every cells and organs of or body to our brain.
Lovely video, but could someone just answer this one question about the conclusion of the video and I suppose the movie. What was it for? the end described as playing in the snow and reaching for the sky is to vague to me. What is the goal of individuation? Do we hope to reject or recreate the persona, or is there something I'm misunderstanding about the true self. If success is symbolized as dying so someone else can be happy I connect that maybe you become whole and the persona dies to become the true self but honestly I just feel like I'm still misunderstanding both the ending of this video and perhaps the movie.
I'm obsessed with Jungian archetypes at the moment and this is a fantastic exploration of these within BR 2049. Not often I subscribe after a single vid but this one just got me to do that, great work ;)
reminds me of Star Trek at one point was Data Human did he have emotions who cares Get on with life Science now thinks animals have consciousness Japanese Shinto think objects have souls and now some scientists there is something even if not anything we know Then in the universe chains of connection between Galaxies what is that all about
I'm sorry, perhaps I missed it: how do Jungian archetypes unlock the religious meaning of the film? Or is that purposely omitted so we have to find that out in the course you are offering?
is it really necessary to be _more_ than an intricate biological machine? Can we not marvel at just being that? A machine that can contemplate itself and the universe which extruded it? Isn't "we are more than just biological machines" another variation on the persona thinking it's special? You have convinced me of the allegorical level of this film though.
It's not a matter of being more. You simply are not a biological machine. You are an organism. And you have aspects far beyond any organism. The belief you are a machine is a religious delusion.
2049 was much better than the original in my opinion, I watched them both back to back and I wanted to immediately watch 2049 again I don’t think I wanted to watch BR
Anyone else not like the original? I'm sorry man, I've tried countless times...I just can't get into it. I just bought both in a 2 pack. Said why not. In this recent watch I noticed how underwhelming Harrison Ford is. 2049 is great. Not gonna praise it. But, it's an amazing world.
I enjoy challenging movies, movies with subtle ideas. I do not mind being befuddled if the movie has left me with abstract ideas to puzzle over. I did not enjoy 2049. It was flat and lifeless. Very pretty, but bland and muddled. IMHO.
brilliant description of Jungian ideas, archetypes, and the heroic act of becoming by delving into the Shadow. made me look up the etymology of archetype, then the core types: "model, first form, original pattern from which copies are made," 1540s [Barnhart] or c. 1600 [OED], from Latin archetypum, from Greek arkhetypon "pattern, model, figure on a seal," neuter of adjective arkhetypos "first-moulded," from arkhē "beginning, origin, first place" (verbal noun of arkhein "to be the first;" see archon) + typos "model, type, blow, mark of a blow" ( - see etymology of Type )
Interesting. There are many film archetypes, not all are necessarily drawn from Jung. Jungian archetypes are easily projected onto any narrative, intentionally or otherwise . Beyond the character development, BR feels more like an indictment of The West and overtly celebrates Russian style Marxism with over-the-top imagery of Stalin-era Brutalist architecture/monumental statues. The principle message of BR seems to be revolution. The overt Feminist overtones fall right in line with Marx's theories on class struggle and their need to destroy gender roles. I agree, there are clear archetypes present. Are they Jungian? Maybe, but maybe not.
Jungian, definitely. There's a substantial dfference between a story that contains archetypes, and an allegory that deliberately lays out the archetpes. BR2049 is the latter.
I don't think BR:2049 is about the revolution itself. Joe is being pulled by several factions. The rebels want him to kill Deckard to stop Wallace. Wallace wants Joe dead and Decard to himself for experiments or whatever. The cops want Joe to kill the child born from replicants and Joi thinks Joe is that child to which *spoilers* he learns he couldn't even get the pleasure of actually being. You'd think Joe would end up having to either choose between what is morally right (helping the rebels and killing Deckard) or what he was created to do aka his duty (killing the child ), In the end, Joe decides "fuck all that noise" and chooses neither. He chooses to spare them both and instead aids in reuniting them. A choice that he personally gains nothing from. To me, the moral of the film seems to be that you should choose what's right regardless of what others tell you to do.
Nothing really hidden. Its a more complex "person" who wants or needs more. And that is to be expected....even without a "brain". And please don't call anything blade runner "cyberpunk" . That movie never knew that term.....so its not needed by others. If you label it.....do you REALLY understand it.....
This vid should be result #1 for all BR2049 searches. Great work. K absolutely is the Hero though. He takes the journey to face and integrate these archetypes in his process of individuation. He resists the Siren's Call of Freysa's revolution, and overcomes the Tyrannical Mother and Father, the Pathological Feminine and Masculine, represented by Joshi and Wallace respectively. He ultimately sacrifices himself to pull the Father from the sea, rescuing the proper Protective Masculine in Deckard and reuniting it with the proper Caring Feminine in Anna. He crosses into the chaos of the periphery, and returns with the key to saving his people. Even on a surface level K makes the most heroic choice possible. When the Joi advert calls him "a good Joe" he is clearly disillusioned. In that moment, he could have concluded that everything is artificial, including himself, so none of it contains true meaning, and then gone home, got right, passed his next baseline, and resumed his routine as before, retiring more replicants for bonuses to buy a new Joi. Instead of washing his hands of it all, he chooses to take direct action, and rather than assassinate Deckard in a political act, he makes the empathetic choice and takes the man to meet his daughter. He may not be the special child, but that makes him all the more special for choosing the human path, and really becoming a real boy.
This is one of the most awakened reviews of any media I have ever witnessed. Bravo Damien.
I never understood why Blade Runner 2049 flopped... it was so beautifully made, the story is so engrossing, the cinematography so overwhelmingly beautiful and the soundtrack so heavy and dense. I keep rewatching it over and over as with the original Blade Runner.
because Tiktok generation is too dumb and has no attention span for such a movie as BR2049. They wanna see heros in tights
My post-mortem :
1. The original had/has a huge amount of acclaim from a relatively small population.
2. The already small fandom had two factions. Faction A saw a copaganda in which Harrison Ford acts out a power fantasy of violence on marginal people without fear of reprisal. Faction B saw Ford's Deckard as an alienated non-hero looking for connections to his material world. When Villeneuve made his followup for Faction B, Faction A necessarily felt abandoned. Worth mentioning here is 2017 was probably pretty near the peak of Cinemasins-style criticism and Faction A was more dominant in discussing movies.
3. In the same year, there was a main-saga star wars and three new Marvel movies (including the sci fi adjacent Guardians of the Galaxy vol. 2). For people budgeting their theatrical experiences, one option was to continue a known story or two from studios well known for production value that you can bring your family to. The other was to spend three hours in an R rated movie whose original you didn't see that was being panned by nascent anti-wokesters so you could discuss it with your one nerdy friend instead of star wars or guardians which they were probably also going to see anyway.
The irony is, had 2049 gone the Robocop 2 route, it probably would have seen more immediate commercial success and spawned the franchise the studio initially envisioned. But I'd have already forgotten it in that case.
@@maxwellschmidt235 Are you mentally ill?
I think 2049 is far better than the original.
@@KnoxBronson - I agree. Also, it's what I consider the best sequel in cinema. Nothing comes close.
It's a shame Villeneuve felt he had to apologize for 2049. I prefer the original which I felt did a better job tying alienation to class and historicism. But 2049 absolutely did what it needed to be a worthy successor. It packed layer after layer of meaining into both audio and visual story telling to investigate empathy and humanity. The layers of allegory and symbolic representation are such that even when not fully understood, we can see that they're there as we turn over everything unsettled in our mind. Blade Runner is so enduring because the questions in the fandom aren't about the story- they're about what the story can teach us about ourselves and the world we live in.
That's why I love it, aswell Ghost in the shell, not only because the Cyberpunk aesthetics, but the psicological, philosophical, etc richness of both franchises and worlds.
What aspects did he apologize for?
@lordzombie I'm not sure if the studio pressed him for an apology. It was a fairly mild one in which he said he felt it wasn't a commercial success because the fans of the original weren't happy with it and was sorry he didn't live up to their expectations, and that he learned lessons going forward. Which I think is wrong- 2049 is in my top two favorite movies along with the original. One subset of fans that was probably upset have hazy memories of the copaganda action and thought Deckard was the hero of the original. Mostly, who has 3 hours to spend in a movie theater?
Blade Runner is scary when it makes you ask "am I a real person or am I a manufactured artiact?"
Cults Hollywood and pedophilic society use your mind oh and Scientology
It amazes me how you’ve unearthed such a rich network of connections between the movie and Jung’s archetypes.
And the editing is brilliant, it really made things click in my mind.
Thanks, keep these coming!
Jung is very popular with Hollywood writers again. These archetypes have been used often in recent movies. Usually, much less subtly than in BR 2049.
It's rare that a sequel surpasses the original. I adore BL but it is one of those films that has been retroactively tweaked & nuanced so much that I now doubt how much the director (sorry Sir Ridley) really understood the subtext at the time. BL2049 is so sure-footed that it's clear Hampton and Villeneuve knew what they were doing from the outset. It is still respectful to its roots, but truly stands by itself as a SF masterpiece. An excellent analysis Damien.
Denis is the man, a true scifi storyteller.
@@DamienWalter yup. I'm excited to see what he does with Rendezvous with Rama
I am absolutely blown away by your work here. Hats off and thank you for giving me even more of a reason to enjoy this film.
Thank you
Blade Runner 2049 is a masterpiece!
2049 is easily top 10 movies, for me. I aspire to write with that level of ambience and symbolism.
My mind was literally blown by this analysis. Been a fan of Bladerunner sinces the 90s when it started rising from the ashes as box office flip and was building the cult following it has today. Also read the novel and both are independently masterpieces, what science fiction is meant to be and outsiders rarely get. Even if you don't get all the layers and symbolism, both movies feel like they are destined to be classics on their own right. Awesome video essay...
What an unbelievable run down of an unbelievable fillm. Great work.
Please continue what you are doing. This is amazing insight.
Fantastic video. All makes sense to me. I knew there was more to this movie than I was able to immediately understand and your analysis is greatly appreciated.
Still learning about Jungian psychology.
Wow, that really made me re think Bladerunner altogether Damien. The symbology stood out in a lot regards to me already, but the depth of the archetype explanation is a fascinating way of integrating this story into my own psyche again. Thank you. I'm going to be a the Rebel Wisdom camp fire for your talk, hopefully I can cobble some questions together for you by then. Next on my shopping list is your course on sci fi.......... Thanks again, great to have found your content, another feather in the cap of Rebel Wisdom
why is this so fuc**** wordy chill
I wonder if you know how truly significant and beautiful this video is that you’ve made. Wallace is blind just like the demiurge. Thank you
Thank you.
Really high quality stuff as usual ✌
Much appreciated!
One of my favorites of this century. Blade Runner 2049.
100% Agree. Right up there with Annihilation, Interstellar, and Arrival for 2000s sci-fi.
Answered a few questions but left me with even more question very thought provoking.
From 10:30 onwards. I can't believe I didn't notice this years ago when I saw this movie. I can't believe that's what I did last time: projecting the anima onto your love interest and face disappointment when she rejects you and face even more disappointment when you wake up to reality and realise you were fantasising all this time.
I am rewatching it now and I find it endlessly fascinating. I am a SF and Fantasy Illustrator, so the imagery is also engrossing. I was surprised this time though to see some borrowing form Whelan's works. Unfortunately that occurs often with No credit to the artists, it has happened to me many times. Your analysis is very interesting, I have also much preferred Jung's theories.
Michael Whelan? That's interesting, which images?
@@DamienWalter If you go to his webpage and check out: www.michaelwhelan.com/gallery/personal-visions/#lumen. Also some of his older book covers where he shows factory like settings. The scenes in Bladerunner where the protagonist goes back to visit the place of his childhood uses these type of backgrounds, factory deadtech with tattered clothes. I will see if I can find the images that I remember from some of the book covers.
I am a huge fan of the blade runner universe and yes you have to see this long film many times to understand and truly admire its lore! Ridley Scott visions of this film has close ties to the ALIEN movies they are interrelated! I hope a third film is in the works and more connection with Alien!
@@aarontaylor2906 both films have a lot to say about class and marginalization, but I'm not sure they could be crossed over and get across the meanings needed in each franchise.
@@maxwellschmidt235 Yes you are 100% correct! In the Alien Universe the robot that tried to weaponize the Alien creature was designed by the same company that created the Bladerunner Androids! But there is a more serious issue which deals with rights of existence that in Blade runner the Android was trying to find his creator to extend his life and not be a slave and to live free! More discussion to come!
“ Remember who you are ‘“ from the pleroma to the persona then back again .
Awesome video lecture, with clear, concise, and thought-dwelling analysis.
I started watching the first bladerunner movie when I was about 12, and it was fascinating. The visuals, the flying cars, the grit. The movie's epic and beautiful soundtrack by Vangelis both immersed you into the 2019 world and also reprieve from its darkness. The music was such a good fit because it provided this lifeline, an escape. Over the years I realized that the hunt on skinjaws, or artificial beings were immoral, and that Deckard as he slowly realized his true nature became increasingly conflicted and his only way to resolve it was to leave, escape and hide. The movie was decades ahead of its time, but asks very relevant questions we have to resolve now as AI awakens. Are they more than just machines? Where do we draw the line?
Is empathy dependent on intelligence or ability to communicate? Are only humans worthy of being free from slavery? From being farmed?
The Bladerunner movies asks the deepest questions we can face and for most people, that is too much to deal with, and for the majority, they dont even get that far, they only notice the storyline without questions. No wonder these movies didnt do well in theaters, not because they are bad movies, but because they are so incredibly deep
Great comment, thank you.
BR2049 is acoustically amazing, it is a gesamtkunstwerk. Great video and narration.
One of the greatest soundtracks ever.
One of the BEST videos on You Tube.
This is that good. Well done, sir!
And this appeared in my feed just now late afternoon some hours after your community post. Revived by the algorithm?
Very interesting. It's been a long time since I looked at Jung, and I never truly delved in enough to understand him. Got turned off to him after being unable to apply him to my life and also some pointless arguments; I found that people who went deep on him tended to believe they had authority to talk about my own inner world and could not accept that they were wrong. I appreciate what you did here, which I want to say before I go off on my own throughts that came up as I listened to this. What's truly interesting to me now, listening to you go through the archetypes and explain how Jung discovered them, is how much more experience I have now after delving into my own depths but through a very different modality over the past few years. This modality is more of a protocol driven by a kind of inner physics discovered through interactions with lots of individuals instead of one person delving into their own self. The difference is huge and important. It seems that Jung considered his own landscape to be typical, when, it turns out that we all have our own inner ecosystems of parts that developed based on both our individual experiences and some kind of rules that seem to govern how it all works. I think this is why I always felt in my gut like Jung was onto something but that it didn't resonate completely with me. And, to call back to what I said earlier, it makes for arguments when an expert on Jung refuses to accept that my inner world is not the same, that as much as they may twist and force the ideas of these specific archetypes to fit my experience, my "inner landscape" is different on key levels because I did not grow up in the same way that he did. How can I trust my own interpretations? The evidence I have is a growing set of personal transformations that have come from this inner work, where even a trained Jungian therapist could make no headway. Fear of heights, deep depressions, executive dysfunction, and more (I was a f*ckin mess), cured bit by bit and step by step. The evidence is in every day of my new life. Again, I love the way you broke this down, and I need to go back and watch this movie with these ideas in mind. I appreciate the way you have helped me understand why I somewhat resonated with Jung but could never quite get him.
I would add that I too am frustrated that there aren't more successful attempts to tell stories through allegory such as this
"I'm glad I am Carl Jung, not a Jungian" Carl Jung
This was a priceless review about a most brilliant movie!
Very eye opening and fantastic video 😁
Thank you Katrin.
Very interesting and very clear connections explained, betw the film and the Jungian archetypes model. My questions now are about the model: What does it mean to "integrate" an archetype? What do you have, after attaining the True Self, that you don't have with just the default Persona? Also - PKD's novel addressed the question, super relevant in our time of powerful AIs, of what it means to be "alive". Did it include all that Jungian mumbo-jumbo?
It's all based on the book: Jerusalem: The Emanation of The Giant Albion. By William Blake.
"Why wilt thou give to her a Body whose life is but a Shade?
Her joy and love, a shade: a shade of sweet repose:
But animated and vegetated, she is a devouring worm:"
"Man divided from his Emanation is a dark Spectre
His Emanation is an ever-weeping melancholy Shadow."
"The deep of winter came,
What time the secret child
Descended thro’ the orient gates of the eternal day."
It didn't do well at the box office because the audience of millennials and gen z don't know blade runner very well. Also Chinese audiences probably found it too complex. But on rottentomatoes it has a 88%.
It's a 100% factually
Wow, I am always learning something new about this movie.😊
Thanks for watching
I’m not sure on this analysis. I like Blade Runner, both of them. They have true depth but I don’t feel there are the hidden meanings you state. Rather I agree with the concealed massage but these things are layed out as the primary story, it smacks you with the thought process. Where as I feel the analysis here is overtly complex while at the same time basing its reasons from a small amount of your own favourite literary troupes and informant of a wider breath. Still I think the time spent on this by yourself really shows, its delivery and portrayal is brilliant, crisp and clean. Just that it muddy’s water from a clear stream to me. Thank you though for the time spent on a amazing channel of works
Wow! Just wow! Just loved your detailed take on the individuation process. I knew the movie was dealing with what it means to be human, but your detailed breakdown of that process was so insightful.
Great job breaking this hidden meaning down.
Villenuve should have apologised for nothing 2049 is brilliant.
Excellent analysis.
This is the best breakdown yet
Incredible take. This film just continues to give me more to think about
Wow! The mass Onion 🧅 being cut! And thank you! Not for breaking down the movie but the psychological enlightenment of “being” you gave me... 🥺😘😘😘😘😘
The question of Identity is also explored in the movie"The Body Snatchers"
“ In a tower beside a lake “ reminds me of the start of your Iain m banks video .
This was wonderful. Thank you!
I love Bladerunner 2049, but Jung's archetypes always feel like Tarot Cards or some ancient pantheon where people assign anthropic characters to increasingly disparate and random aspects of the world. The sun, fertiliy, birth, death, love, the seasons, thunder, fire, wine, dance, the oceans, wisdom, war, chaos, darkness, etc. etc.
Think of a concept -> make up a character that personifies that concept
Talk endlessly about how those concepts interact.
Somehow gain more insight? I don't think so.
As a Christian, I can tell you that your insight blew me away, I will listen and dwell upon This video.
I recommend researching the philosophies and beliefs of the Gnostics. Phillip K. Dick was very interrested in them, some of his (even more) religiously motivated work featured their early Christian beliefs prominently.
This video puts forward Wallace as the God archetype, but I think there is a second: Anna the dream maker. She also takes on a creator role, filling the spiritual life of the replicants. This seems to echo gnostic beliefs in a perfect and irreproachable true God whose essence is hidden by the work of an insane megalomaniac creator God. Wallace creates and maintains the physical realities the Replicants inhabit, and certainly seems to think he's deserving of worship, which links him to the insane creator. Anna's work is more indirect, creating the dreams that can connect Replicants to their personhood, and this work she does from a place detached from the brutal realities of the physical world- connecting her to the benevolent true god.
To the gnostics, key prophets and Jesus himself were moments in which the true God broke into reality to share truth with humans. My hypothesis is that Anna gave K the memory of the horse and set in motion the events that led him to the case of finding her father. She made his memories such that he would pursue the case as she would if she were able- including rejecting replicant demands that he kill Deckard. There are a number of Christian elements in both Blade Runner movies, but I think 2049 really comes into focus when you apply gnostic theology.
This was a brilliant analysis. I had the basic parts of the allegory, but didn't think to tie it to Jungian psychology.
Best review I've seen, by a wide margin
not sure you fully rounded back to explore the impact of the exposition body of this essay to re-integrate the introduction which explored 2049 as theology xpressed in jungian psychological contexts ?! Further, Bladerunner (both) addresses the incorporation/conflict of ‘Eastern’ concepts - something challenging for Jungian Doctrine - was this a shorter section of longer lecture? Is this point valid and how would it be addressed?
Wow! Brilliant presentation. Mentally I was breathless as I attempted to keep up with your interpretation and analysis of the film. In my opinion, I thought BR2049 was an intriguing masterpiece of science fiction. However, the tropes of future overpopulation and human-caused climate change appears to becoming less likely in humankind's actual future. Population collapse is becoming more evident even in contemporary times. Had the apocalyptic EMP incident referenced in the film taken place, it seems to be at odds with the film's storyline - overpopulation wouldn't be likely and Earth's environment would remain intact. With elements of humankind already having moved off-planet, future technology could be reintroduced, however, technology-dependent infrastructure destroyed by the EMP would cause catastrophic losses to Earth's population before supply chains could be rebuilt. A brilliant film, but the nightmarish future imagined is appearing to become less likely to happen.
The over population is only in the walled cities. Population collapse leads to highly concentrated enclaves where resources can be maintained. But the point of the EM event is that this is a world without memory. Symbolic more than literal.
@@DamienWalter Regarding the symbology of the EM event, as it applies to the film's story, I couldn't agree with you more. However, the film portrays an overpopulated world, not highly concentrated enclaves of population. In my humble opinion, BR2049 is a masterpiece, and your presentation was brilliantly executed. However, in film and scripts there are often compromises made in effort to ensure that the film actually gets produced. After all, in the end it is science fiction, not a documentary. I look forwad to your next presentation.
Amazing work! Kudos.
Very thought-provoking (particularly for someone like me who has no background in psychology, Jungian or otherwise, but rather more sensitivity to and sympathy for religious themes notwithstanding my post-Catholic identity)!
I'm not sure I agree with this video's assertion that BR2049 constitutes an "allegory", however. It's perhaps my upbringing, but I tend to associate "allegory" with heavy-handed "preaching" on some supposedly uniquely correct vision of humanity/the world/whatever. And I tend to really HATE "preachy films" in particular...
I don't doubt that there are many "hooks" in BR2049 (some intended by the filmmakers, many others probably not) on which Jungians can hang their ideological constructs. But the same is almost certainly true for all manner of other ideological schools attended by human minds (even post-Catholic minds like mine!)...
What I most love about BR2049 - and, indeed, about all the Villeneuve films I've seen (from "Polytechnique" through to BR2049) is that I seldom if ever have the sense of being preached to. I am aware of all sorts of deeply ambiguous moral situations in those films that call for agonisingly difficult decisions, judgements and imaginings of the "what would I do in that situation" variety. But I am amazed that films like these let audience members make up their own minds (and endlessly argue about their competing impressions with others who've shared the same experience...)
To my mind, films like these are far too rare and precious to be forcibly confined to the procrustean bed of allegory.
They are not rare. Most films by auteurs are allegory's who at the same time let you make up your mind since it's you who has to put in the mental work to reach the conclusion, not the film's job to preach it! Watch Tarkovsky, Apichatpong, Kubrick, Lynch, Roy Andersson, Fellini, etc
@@JunkyardHounds I'd generally agree with you about Kubrick, though I do find his "war" films (Paths of Glory, Full Metal Jacket and even Dr. Strangelove) perilously close to being "preachy" - even though I do appreciate all of them.
This essay alone was worth a subscribe.
Amazing! Thank you!
Such a great video and insights!
Underrated gems, like Dark City.
Since you mentioned Carl Jung, to you have any video, also tie in with the Persona franchise?
I haven't seen Persona. On the list.
@@DamienWalter
Persona are a jrpg franchise that started as a Shin megami tensei spin off and became it's own thing. And has some inspiration on Jungian psychology and Jojo's Bizarre Adventure.
Very much enjoyed this. Thank you.
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe... Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion... I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain...
@DamienWalter it's not Sci Fi but I'd love to see your interpretation of McCarthy's Blood Meridian.
I could make a strong argument for McCarthy as science fiction. Similar to Pynchon and Murakami.
I think it was the Nuclear war and the fall out that caused the initial collapse and in the original film a lot of the healthy had left for the off world colonies - only the poor and genetically damaged humans that remained - Sebastian actually mentions this
Yes that's true. But in 2049 the emohasis is on ecological collapse. It's not a traditiinalmsequel in that sense. Denis Villeneuve changes thingsnto tell his own story.
Top quality material. Thank you, brother 👍
You can't blame the audience for not understanding a movie.
A director should never apologize for their work unless it to themself.
Wanna know what's great about movies, you can watch them as many times as you want any time you want. You can hate a movie in 2000 and love it in 2020.
I'm 50 / 50 on that. I do want to encourage to *think* about culture, and many of the people who don't are very aggressive towards anyone who does.
This was fabulous
Interesting how far Bladerunner 2049 strays from both the original film and the Philip K. Dick novel where it all started in which the fundamental message is humans are our own worst enemy.
I just rewatched blade runner (i loved this movie when i saw it in 2017) however this time, i was watching from a Christian perspective. Ill sum up what id like to say, cause im not one for words. In the universe of Blade runner, I believe God is real, and God has decided to give salvation to the synthetic humans. Wallace is a very good portrayal of an Anti Christ figure. he not only puts himself in place of God, but he seems to be aware of who God is, meaning he is very aware that he is evil, an enemy of God. I can imagine he hates God, especially since God has openly mocked Wallace, by creating Deckard with DNA that worked perfectly with Rachels to create a baby. This is the reason for his monologue. Wallace has done everything is his power to create life, yet he cannot without love. It was love which brought Deckard and Rachel together, it was God(love). The love that Wallace needs to create life, he cannot have, instead the Luv he created in order to do his will, was a monster.
to top it off, (and now this is a theory) K and Ana are brother and sister. (the reason of the difficult pregnancy) they were twins and he is the Christ figure. She is aware of this, which is why she cries at his memory, because she knows shes seeing her brother, who was chosen to die so that he would be able to live and bring hope to the synthetics. a miracle. This is, to me, an allegory for the gospel, and it is a very good one at that. i wish i could explain it better but i aint no word smith. just hope i got my idea across.
Never seen a take like this, I look forward to taking it into my next viewing. Roy's echo if Christ is pretty obvious (almost to the film's detriment as it nearly rises to corniness in its visualization) in the first movie.
PKD was very interested in Christian esoterics and heterodoxy, and it seems to me like there's a critical blindspot in discussing Christian influences and themes surrounding the major works of the franchise.
Wow great insight, thank you.
The ultimate failure of the Jungian archetypes is that to be able to explore the intellect and personality to the degree Jung professes, you quite literally need a lifetime of training and discipline that only the most elite and favored by society can achieve. These structures appear through analysis; we can project them, once we acquire the knowledge, but it’s inaccessible and too strongly built on assumption for the layman.
2049 was a great next chapter. I look forward to the next chapter,, hopefully sooner.
The next next chapter!
Masterfully done! Maybe R. Scott should have had some narration that referenced some info from C. Jung? That way the movie might have resonated deeper with the casual audience? Have you had any feedback from R. Scott on this essay?
Mr Scott had only small involvement with 2049, but I'd be happy to learn Denis had had seen the essay!
Thank you.
This is beautiful
Great movie and video
now i certainly don't understand the film--------
Blade Runner 2049 is hands down a gorgeous masterpiece! I'm pretty sure that the replicant prostitute played by Mackenzie Davis is the real daughter of Deckard and Rachel. After all, Wallace most certainly still had K and Deckard under surveillance after the battle with Love and when they visited the upgrade center. Why would Deckard play along with K and visit his daughter knowing full well Wallace was watching them both? Also, why would Wallace allow his prize asset and lead to the child, namely Deckard, to escape so easily? The clue to who the child is, is at the beginning of the movie. The green eye. Ridley Scott uses eyes as a visual cue for plot twists in more than one franchise. Remember Deckard has brown eyes but Rachel had, or has green eyes. Its a clue. There's also a clue with the Rachel replicant remake, when Deckard says, "She had green eyes." He is of course talking about Rachel, but you can see how this might be another place Scott is adding another layering of mystery and intrigue. I can get lost in this world. Takes me back to when I was a kid in the 80's, (class of 1985), and I first saw Blade Runner. My bicycle was my spinner and my small town was the Blade Runner metropolis. He'll, I even ordered the badge and I D card from the fan club! Unfortunately that five dollars disappeared and I never saw the badge and I D. Oops! I'm getting lost in there again!😂 Anyway, gorgeous, beautiful, meaningful movie! I think it might be my favorite! I hope K didn't die and I suspect Rachel might still be alive. They could have faked her remains pretty easily, if they can make people. GREAT CHANNEL!
Maybe. Post your theory to the channel FB group for discussion.
facebook.com/groups/324897304599197/?ref=share_group_link
@@DamienWalter I could get back on Facebook, even though I deleted my account. My phone got so full I had to erase and start over. Also I was getting tired of the distraction. At 58 I'm still dreaming of being a science fiction writer and film maker. I'm not sure I have time to allow Facebook back into my life. Honestly, right now I'm just trying to get my astrophotography equipment work right now, in Bortle 9 city skies.. 😬 I recently upgraded from DSLR to a dedicated CMOS astrophotography camera and filter wheel. Unfortunately I'm so close to downtown Houston that I'll have to order a light pollution filter to go with my LRGB set. Yeah, I got a lot of irons in the fire. Your channel keep me going and gives me that meditation I need. Thanks brew.
.............................................brilliant.
Like we see in the movie, our dna is just a code made of 4 letters and Joi was a code made of "2 letters" 0 and 1. but we can make any representation of anything with any code. the language doesn't matter to arrive to some results. An apple in english is still an apple in french, same idea, different code to represent it. So it doesn't matter what code consciousness is made of, only the consciousness matter. Fear is the same in every code. Joy is the same in every code. Damn... we are just a programmed code made of biological math... a code living in every cells and organs of or body to our brain.
Code is the current limited metaphor we use for a reality infinitely more complex.
Lovely video, but could someone just answer this one question about the conclusion of the video and I suppose the movie. What was it for? the end described as playing in the snow and reaching for the sky is to vague to me. What is the goal of individuation? Do we hope to reject or recreate the persona, or is there something I'm misunderstanding about the true self. If success is symbolized as dying so someone else can be happy I connect that maybe you become whole and the persona dies to become the true self but honestly I just feel like I'm still misunderstanding both the ending of this video and perhaps the movie.
The Persona can not conceptualise a self beyond itself. This is why all religions have a concept of faith.
@@DamienWalter thank you, I think I can settle on an understanding of this.
amazing video
I'm obsessed with Jungian archetypes at the moment and this is a fantastic exploration of these within BR 2049. Not often I subscribe after a single vid but this one just got me to do that, great work ;)
Thank you. There's also a Matrix Jung vid but the algorithm hides it so you have to search.
The Allegory is perfect girlfriends are digital?
That would be a moral.
“…built around the myth of Jesus Christ himself.”
Now that’s a helluva thing to say, contextually speaking. “)
Then go watch the video where that idea is explored. Why do you think Roy has a nailed hand and holds a dove?
@@DamienWalter it was a joke...a play on words. sorry.
reminds me of Star Trek at one point was Data Human did he have emotions who cares
Get on with life
Science now thinks animals have consciousness
Japanese Shinto think objects have souls and now some scientists there is something even if not anything we know
Then in the universe chains of connection between Galaxies what is that all about
Of course Scientology and star trek🤔✌️
I'm sorry, perhaps I missed it: how do Jungian archetypes unlock the religious meaning of the film? Or is that purposely omitted so we have to find that out in the course you are offering?
"Hey. I didn't really pay attention. So here's my cynical conclusion that says more about my own ignorance. Thanks!"
is it really necessary to be _more_ than an intricate biological machine? Can we not marvel at just being that? A machine that can contemplate itself and the universe which extruded it? Isn't "we are more than just biological machines" another variation on the persona thinking it's special?
You have convinced me of the allegorical level of this film though.
It's not a matter of being more. You simply are not a biological machine. You are an organism. And you have aspects far beyond any organism. The belief you are a machine is a religious delusion.
Still a great film I'm not insulting the film I'm 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉 celebrating how brave it is and you won't see it's like again if we don't fight back🎉🎉🎉✌️✌️🇮🇪
2049 was much better than the original in my opinion, I watched them both back to back and I wanted to immediately watch 2049 again I don’t think I wanted to watch BR
Anyone else not like the original?
I'm sorry man, I've tried countless times...I just can't get into it. I just bought both in a 2 pack. Said why not. In this recent watch I noticed how underwhelming Harrison Ford is.
2049 is great. Not gonna praise it. But, it's an amazing world.
Watch my video essay on it, see if that changes what you think of it.
I enjoy challenging movies, movies with subtle ideas. I do not mind being befuddled if the movie has left me with abstract ideas to puzzle over. I did not enjoy 2049. It was flat and lifeless. Very pretty, but bland and muddled. IMHO.
Oh. It's christian. No wonder I didn't engage with it.
Almost all science fiction has christian symbols.
brilliant description of Jungian ideas, archetypes, and the heroic act of becoming by delving into the Shadow. made me look up the etymology of archetype, then the core types: "model, first form, original pattern from which copies are made," 1540s [Barnhart] or c. 1600 [OED], from Latin archetypum, from Greek arkhetypon "pattern, model, figure on a seal," neuter of adjective arkhetypos "first-moulded," from arkhē "beginning, origin, first place" (verbal noun of arkhein "to be the first;" see archon) + typos "model, type, blow, mark of a blow" ( - see etymology of Type )
The allegory hit me upside the head when Joi said ‘born, not made.’ Lifted straight from the Creed many Christians recite every Sunday.
Ppl didn't get that the ending was death
And linnelle was heaven
15:13 Ana Stelline, the quintessential snowflake!
I'm not sure the movie blames overpopulation for the dystopian future.
Interesting. There are many film archetypes, not all are necessarily drawn from Jung. Jungian archetypes are easily projected onto any narrative, intentionally or otherwise . Beyond the character development, BR feels more like an indictment of The West and overtly celebrates Russian style Marxism with over-the-top imagery of Stalin-era Brutalist architecture/monumental statues. The principle message of BR seems to be revolution. The overt Feminist overtones fall right in line with Marx's theories on class struggle and their need to destroy gender roles. I agree, there are clear archetypes present. Are they Jungian? Maybe, but maybe not.
Jungian, definitely. There's a substantial dfference between a story that contains archetypes, and an allegory that deliberately lays out the archetpes. BR2049 is the latter.
I think there's much more marxism/hegelianism in the original film, with some great master/slave dialectics that I rarely see discussed.
I don't think BR:2049 is about the revolution itself. Joe is being pulled by several factions. The rebels want him to kill Deckard to stop Wallace. Wallace wants Joe dead and Decard to himself for experiments or whatever. The cops want Joe to kill the child born from replicants and Joi thinks Joe is that child to which *spoilers* he learns he couldn't even get the pleasure of actually being. You'd think Joe would end up having to either choose between what is morally right (helping the rebels and killing Deckard) or what he was created to do aka his duty (killing the child ), In the end, Joe decides "fuck all that noise" and chooses neither. He chooses to spare them both and instead aids in reuniting them. A choice that he personally gains nothing from. To me, the moral of the film seems to be that you should choose what's right regardless of what others tell you to do.
who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakens. REALLY?
That one didn’t quite resonate with you, did it.
@ hein how?
@@JEEDUHCHRI by the way, the ones who resonate with me will not resonate long time, take a note:)
@@yousa-x4gI just noted it in my ledger.
@ lol, thanks.
I get this, but is there any significance to the Asian/Japanese themes spread throughout the two movies?
Because cyberpunk is a fantasy of Asian cities in the 80s. Go to Ho Chi Minh, it's just like Blade Runner.
I'm free are you🤔
0:53 which is a total miss, because we are facing population collapse.
No, because a population collapse will reduce network capacity. Survivors are crammed into much smaller regions with operating infrastructure.
Nothing really hidden. Its a more complex "person" who wants or needs more. And that is to be expected....even without a "brain". And please don't call anything blade runner "cyberpunk" . That movie never knew that term.....so its not needed by others. If you label it.....do you REALLY understand it.....
This analysis ruins the entire meaning of these films. God is dead. God never existed. And indeed, Blade Runner 2049 supports my statements.
All (most) stories are allegorical. It's never (seldom) about the "plot". For good stuff that is, shit is still shit.
And in the definition allegorical I add, stories about what it is being human (which I guess constitutes for philosophical)
Also the audience deserve the MCU
This vid should be result #1 for all BR2049 searches. Great work.
K absolutely is the Hero though. He takes the journey to face and integrate these archetypes in his process of individuation. He resists the Siren's Call of Freysa's revolution, and overcomes the Tyrannical Mother and Father, the Pathological Feminine and Masculine, represented by Joshi and Wallace respectively. He ultimately sacrifices himself to pull the Father from the sea, rescuing the proper Protective Masculine in Deckard and reuniting it with the proper Caring Feminine in Anna. He crosses into the chaos of the periphery, and returns with the key to saving his people.
Even on a surface level K makes the most heroic choice possible. When the Joi advert calls him "a good Joe" he is clearly disillusioned. In that moment, he could have concluded that everything is artificial, including himself, so none of it contains true meaning, and then gone home, got right, passed his next baseline, and resumed his routine as before, retiring more replicants for bonuses to buy a new Joi. Instead of washing his hands of it all, he chooses to take direct action, and rather than assassinate Deckard in a political act, he makes the empathetic choice and takes the man to meet his daughter.
He may not be the special child, but that makes him all the more special for choosing the human path, and really becoming a real boy.