Showing posts with label futuristic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label futuristic. Show all posts

Friday, February 21, 2020

Children of Men














CHILDREN OF MEN           A-                   
USA  Great Britain  Japan  (109 mi)  2006  d: Alfonso Cuarón

Lord, thou hast been our refuge: from one generation to another.  Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever the earth and the world were made: thou art God from everlasting, and world without end.  Thou turnest man to destruction: again thou sayest, Come again, ye children of men.  For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday: Seeing that is past as a watch in the night. ⸺Psalm 90, Anglican Book of Common Prayer (1662)

⸺Alfonso Cuarón interview with Kim Voynar from Cinematical, December 25, 2006, where He says:
What I was attracted to was the concept of infertility as a premise.  I was not really interested in doing a science fiction film, so I had completely disregarded it.  But the premise kept haunting me.  It was not until I realized that the premise of the film could serve as a metaphor for the fading sense of hope, that it could be a point of departure for an exploration of the state of things that we’re living in now, the things that are shaping this very first part of the 21st century, that I wanted to do it.

From the outset, this bleak, colorless, futuristic world reminds us of the nightmarish, apocalyptic vision of the end of the world in Danny Boyle’s 28 DAYS LATER (2002), a survivalist zombie flick, as the sheer look of the film is amazingly similar, even the original use of music, which in this film balances King Crimson, Deep Purple, John Lennon, and some uncredited yet very effective use of the Kills against the transcendent choral music of John Tavener, Fragments Of A Prayer - YouTube (15:02).  This is based on a P.D. James story that originally contains Biblical implications, namely a miracle birth, coming at a time when inexplicably no babies have been born anywhere in the world for the past 18 years, giving the population the desperate feel of a world with no hope of survival.  The film, on the other hand, is more ambiguous and open ended, using post 9/11 modern day maladies as an entry point, a portal to the future.  Here entire societies have already collapsed, Britain has closed its borders to hordes of refugees who are migrating to the wealthier nations, which are run by police states that reflect a virulent anti-immigration bias, rounding up immigrants in Guantánamo-like concentration camps that become so overrun, they begin to resemble the Warsaw ghetto in WWII, a dumping ground where unwanted, neglected people wait to die.  Underground rogue protest groups offer limited opposition, but the state controls all media outlets, so it controls the mindset of the nation.  In this chaotic surge of lawlessness and anarchy, the inexplicable birth of a child completely changes the landscape with a renewed sense of purpose. 

Much like Christian Petzold’s 2018 Top Ten List #3 Transit, these futuristic worldviews resemble the current political climate characterized by the terrifying xenophobic rhetoric of nationalist governments that has left fleeing refugees more desperate than ever, with nation states persecuting the weak, rounding them up and placing them in detention camps while professing to still be freedom-loving countries, turned into little more than police states.  Like many futuristic stories, they look very much like the present, using T.S. Eliot’s poem The Waste Land to personify an alienated modern world that has lost their way, as governmental hierarchies fail to protect or even offer assistance where it’s needed, but instead set a course hellbent on bringing about their own destruction, with exaggerated use of force to overreact to any cause of alarm, used instead to suppress the will of the people, treating human life with an arrogant brutality and disdain.  And they look very much like a Biblical story from the past, as from some small corner of the earth an ordinary person rises to dispel all prevailing beliefs, labeled a threat, a traitor, or a terrorist by a government whose myopic, tunnel vision prevents them from seeing the larger inference, that the dwindling world is only for the benefit of a privileged few who are protected by mightier military forces.  Clive Owen stars as Theo, a weary, disheveled bureaucrat in 2027 London, who as a former social activist has long since stopped believing in causes, sought after by his ex-wife Julian (Julianne Moore), who hasn’t seen him in twenty years, not since they lost their only child to illness.  She leads an activist militia group (described by the government as terrorists) and recruits him as a man who can be trusted to act as a protector for a pregnant African refugee named Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey) and guide her through the various police zones to safety, to the ship of a reputable scientific organization, a secret mission, as no one outside her organization knows of the woman’s pregnancy.  But plans to save her go awry, leading to a gateway through Hell to find providence. 

Full of simplistic Christian themes like hope and salvation, this film is anything but simplistic, yet it does fall into the category of overreach on several occasions, such as the setting where the pregnancy is revealed, a barn surrounded by cows which closely resembles a manger, or again as we witness the mindless devastation in the streets, which suddenly fills with a flock of sheep, or even roosters, well known Buñuelian images that seem out of place here, where so much of the film is guided by the visceral effect of Emmanuel Lubezki’s handheld cameras, by the jostling physicality of the experience, which adds an immediacy to every moment.  There are several amazing moments, such as a riveting action sequence shot from inside a car attempting to flee from an armed mob, Children of Men car scene - YouTube (4:56), a sequence that matches the stunning intensity from earlier films such as MAD MAX 2: THE ROAD WARRIOR (1981), but with a shorter, more focused version that jolts us out of our seats, or the sequence where Owen leads the girl from the heart of the police zone into a netherworld run by outlaws on the “other” side of the zone, Children of Men 2006 Long Take 3 - YouTube (6:28), the setting for the birth scene, which on a dime shifts into surprising tenderness, Children of Men - Born scene (3:10), also each scene with Michael Caine, Owen’s aging pot-smoking friend Jasper living in a remote secluded area under cover of a forest where a unique calm prevails, Sugavision - Cannabis Props - Children Of Men (3:16) underscored by an eerie cover version from Franco Battiato of the Rolling Stones song “Ruby Tuesday,” Franco Battiato - Ruby Tuesday HQ - YouTube (3:33), and finally a long, drawn out sequence where Owen has to zig zag his way through machine gun fire, caught in the middle of a fire fight, pinned down right in the heart of a ravaged war zone in search of the woman and her child, a bloody sequence, perhaps the longest in the film that slowly materializes from a bombardment of bullets and explosions into a mysteriously fascinating moment of utter silence, Cease fire miracle scene (Children of Men 2006) (Full HD) (4:27).

The extent to which this film resembles the current Brexit crisis is stunning, with the world seemingly falling apart, while the division between the rich and poor has never been more apparent, now criminally neglectful, with military forces serving only the wealthy while routinely rounding up the poor who are forced to fight for the scraps left behind, where a majority of the world’s population are losing out to the promises of capitalism, with the government using cliché’d mantras on billboards about how aiding illegal immigrants is a crime, placing them in cages in the street where they are routinely spat upon by common folk with police brutality essentially a sanctioned form of hate speech.  Human values have tanked, personal freedoms have been relinquished, as self-preservation is all that matters, with one group fighting against other groups, each one infiltrated by the government, identified as terrorists, all blaming the other side in a world where chaos and confusion has become the new normal, with such a weakened government that offers no plan for the future, allowing hopes to fade while fear runs rampant.  The film is notable for the extraordinary work behind the camera from Emmanuel Lubezki, last seen in Malick’s The New World (2005), displaying on occasion a virtuosity that is simply dazzling to the eye, the film retains a grim fascination with police abuse and military suppression, envisioning the world’s reliance on ever more expensive weaponry, which, as far as one can tell, only kills people at a faster rate.  It’s all a matter of convenience.  Much like STAR WARS (1977), films are currently feeding audiences large doses of killings with a video game-like instant gratification, which begs the question, why do audiences continue to endorse this methodology as acceptable family entertainment?  And the answer, of course, has something to do with the dazzling virtuosity that quickens the pulse.  Not sure exactly when movies began relying upon bullets as entertainment, but it’s been going on for at least 100 years, now relying upon military overreach to provide that extra heart-pumping adrenaline-racing action sequence that is so prevalent in movies today, where at some point we become saturated with the body count in THE LORD OF THE RINGS TRILOGY (2001 – 2003) or the near pornographic love affair with that BLACK HAWK DOWN (2001) virtual reality experience of physically being there.  All those bullets, and so little time.

In an increasingly global world, with marketplaces merging into international conglomerates, it’s perhaps not surprising that nations and individuals retreat back into the safety net of nationalism, promoting their own historical record while distrusting the motives of others, falling back into poisoned vitriol that lauds the notion of their own superiority.  Utterly bleak, descending into a disturbingly dark abyss of lawlessness and race hatred, Britain somehow perseveres, viewing itself as the last champion of civilization, as so many others self-imploded, extolling the virtues of their Churchill-like ability to adapt and survive, eradicating all forms of resistance while deporting the entire population of refugees, becoming that lone city on the hill that somehow manages to survive.  What it amounts to are constant references to Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo, mass deportations, a refugee crisis, fear of immigrants, and nationalism run amok, all blended into a Nativity story that offers some version of hope, mostly shot in long takes that add an element of time and contemplation, a sharp contrast to the rapid-fire editing techniques that have become the standard in Hollywood, becoming a first-rate thriller that raises important questions.  Yet more than anything, the film remains immersed in a heavily stylized chaotic violence where you can’t tell the good guys from the bad, as they’re almost entirely viewed as bad guys.  Theo is a reluctant anti-hero, playing what amounts to a last man on earth, in nearly every shot of the film, who eventually comes around and finds a purpose in what he’s doing, even as everyone he knows is dead by the end of the film, becoming a macabre expression of futility and faith, marking the darkest of times of death and disillusionment when faith is nearly entirely lost.  While it may have modeled itself after the Holocaust and Pontecorvo’s The Battle of Algiers (1965), the searing realism of that film surpasses anything seen here, including a novelesque style of multiple characterizations, while this film is more content to follow a sole figure through a dehumanized maze-like wasteland of war, prejudice, and paranoia that has become engulfed almost entirely into a military zone, with bullets whizzing by at an alarming rate, yet there are key moments of emotional poignancy.      

According to Lenin, “Ethics are the aesthetic of the future,” which seems to be one of the guiding principles of the film, reconfiguring a world that has lost any tangible hold on human values, moving recklessly into the future, brazenly using guns instead of ideas to evoke change, where the rest of the world has vanished, with Britain the last bastion of hope, yet their borders remain closed.  Defined by their anti-humanist identity, their approach suggests narrowing interests, where there is no attempt to reach out to or even include the rest of the world, yet the nation is a battleground of differing interests.  Nearly every shot of urban street life includes barking dogs on short police leashes jumping out and attacking ordinary people, even those contained inside cages, much like the Nazi’s herded people using similar fear tactics, personifying how those in power constantly threaten the lives of others, while the aggressive profanities continuously shouted at them are shrouded in racial hatred.  Democracy is no longer a land of opportunity, or a safe haven, but the voice of hysteria and military repression.  The anti-immigration frenzy is met by starkly unethical methods used by the so-called liberating militia group, and while the two forces are pitted against one another militarily, neither one offers a hint of promise for the future, as both are undermined by their own inherent systematic flaws, where neither one can be trusted.  This mirrors the Mary and Joseph scenario at the birth of Christ, as forces conspired against them, but an inexplicable miracle birth altered the course of history.  The same thing happens here, without the religious overtones, where most of the background information remains clouded in ambiguity, forcing each viewer to fill in the blanks as to what kind of future is possible afterwards.  The soundtrack over the end credits of children’s voices playing can provide an affirmative vision, yet it could also be a flashback to earlier times, accentuating the essential void in the human condition.  More likely, the void in Theo’s life that came from losing his son at an early age to a cruel act of fate seemed to take the life out of him, affecting his will to live, mirrored by the world around him when it appears they will be the last generation on earth, but this opportunity with Kee has reinvigorated his outlook and renewed in him a sense of purpose.  For the world’s salvation to be connected to a dark-skinned, illegal refugee is no accident, cutting through all the pre-conceived, stereotypical notions of bigotry.  The film’s immersion in perpetual anguish and strife give very real expression to the many horrors in life, only to give way for a new and as yet unheard voice, leaving an exasperated audience exiting what has come to resemble the devastation of Dante’s Inferno, hopefully anticipating a new vision or aesthetic where profound grief may transition to a more equitable world.  

Sunday, February 17, 2019

Alphaville
















ALPHAVILLE                      A                    
aka:  Alphaville, une étrange aventure de Lemmy Caution
France  (100 mi)  1965  d:  Jean-Luc Godard

And because I love you everything moves--
One need only advance to live, to go
Straight forward towards all that you love
I was going towards you
I was moving perpetually into the light
―Paul Éluard

Sometimes reality is too complex for oral communication.  But legend embodies it in a form which enables it to spread all over the world.
―Alpha 60 opening the film

Science fiction film noir, creating an eerie atmosphere where form is the content and technology destroys the essence of what is human, the prototype of many stylized films that have followed.  Shot in black and white almost entirely at night by Raoul Coutard, the film perfectly encapsulates the subterranean feel, a decade ahead of the paranoid conspiracy thrillers of the 70’s in America, complete with sleek, super modern exteriors that reveal an architectural affinity for glass reflections, creating a futuristic, apocalyptic world reminiscent of Mike Hammer in Robert Aldrich’s Kiss Me Deadly (1955), particularly the low down and dirty aspect, where behind every door is a sinister presence, someone out to take your life, as people are constantly eliminated to eradicate rebellion and disobedience, creating a worker state completely beholden to a super authority, which is little more than a massive computer, like the HAL 9000 computer in Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968).  In this advanced technological universe, a perfectly programmed robot is the ideal life form, as it flawlessly obeys what it’s programmed to do.  It’s incapable of thinking for itself, as it’s not human and doesn’t have a human conscience, which can establish the difference between what’s wrong and what’s right.  The limitations of technology are obvious, as the body count of those put to death for authoritative disobedience continually rises in a futile search for perfection, or allegiance, like an ethnic cleansing, with absolutely no remorse shown afterwards, but we don’t live in a completely rational world, nor would we choose to, yet that’s the ideal portrayed by the authoritative state that assumes power through absolute control, eliminating anything that disagrees.  It’s an absurd portrait of a false utopia, where nearly everything that matters is forbidden, and anyone showing signs of emotion or memory are viewed as damaged goods that must be eliminated.  Using no constructed sets or special effects, Godard creates a futuristic world in the cold manner in which this is filmed, using a gun-toting, trenchcoat-wearing 40’s style gangster prototype in a fedora as the hero, like a creature out of time, yet his mission is similar to that of Martin Sheen in Coppola’s APOCALYPSE NOW (1979), sent into the heart of darkness to eliminate the high command that is deemed too dangerous and unstable to continue in a position of authority, having elevated his status to that of a god, with legions of followers carrying out his every request, subject to death if they refuse.  In this case, it’s a mad scientist on the loose in command of his network of computers that have all but eliminated free will. 

At the time Godard associated modernization in France with the government’s conservative push for more absolute control, which President de Gaulle sought with his new constitutional amendment in 1962 consolodating executive power, hoping to ride a wave of popularity, which Godard associated with the robotization of the French people, where commerce and technology were emphasized over human values.  Godard’s faith in the values of love, culture, and individual liberty over the dehumanizing effects of the modern world forms the thematic crux of the film, which he viewed as a fight for humanity.  Godard was actually proven right, as a year after the film was released the government censored many New Wave films, including most famously Jacques Rivette’s THE NUN (LA RELIGIEUSE) in March of 1966 before its first public screening, reportedly because of its cynical views of the Catholic Church, allowing an exception to premiere at the 1966 Cannes Film Festival where it was received to great acclaim, yet even a mention of the ban was banned from television reporting, with Godard writing a stinging denunciation of de Gaulle’s minister of culture André Malraux for his cowardice in allowing this to happen, describing the censorship as the “Gestapo of the spirit,” lifting the ban after more than a year in September 1967.  This was followed by the ministry of culture (still presided over by Malraux) removing Henri Langlois from the Cinémathèque Française in March of 1968, an icon and cultural fixture in the preservation of film, resulting in the cancellation of the prestigious Cannes Film Festival that year in protest, with filmmakers around the world like Akira Kurosawa, Alfred Hitchcock, Orson Welles, and Fritz Lang sending telegrams in support, leading to the infamous Parisian riots of ’68, including Godard and Truffaut on the front lines, with French police seen beating students and artists alike.  In April 1968, 75 days after Langlois was ousted, he was reinstated as head of the Cinémathèque.  By that time Godard had already embarked on a new career of political activism.

Eddie Constantine plays secret agent Lemmy Caution, riding into the heart of Alphaville in his white Ford Mustang that he calls a Ford Galaxy, assuming the name of Ivan Johnson, posing as a journalist in town to cover a convention, continually snapping flash pictures, which seem to startle the locals who do not have a high opinion of journalists, as their existence is counterproductive to the will of the authority to control residents by forbidding free access to information.  This is a repressed state interested in programmed mind control, not free thinking, where Lemmy represents an ancient tradition from the “Outlands” that has all but been outlawed in Alphaville.  The initial sign of the hotel hospitality is to provide a programmed robotic “seductress” to keep him occupied (Christa Lang, who married American director Sam Fuller a few years later), who caters to his every whim, even providing sleep sedatives, though in typical tough guy, Bogart style, this will never do, as he’s perfectly capable of choosing his own girls, finding her a distraction and throwing her out.  But she’s soon replaced by another one, none other than Ana Karina as Natacha von Braun, daughter of Alphaville’s authoritative leader, Professor von Braun (Howard Vernon), the creator of the Alpha 60 supercomputer, the man he’s been assigned to capture or eliminate, almost always seen wearing a lab doctor’s smock and dark glasses, leading a contingency of scientists (otherwise known as Professors Heckell and Jeckell, amusingly played by two Cahiers critics) through a labyrinth of computer rooms and empty corridors, interrogating subjects by the minute, many left dazed and crawling the walls afterwards.  Natacha sparks Lemmy’s interest immediately, not just because of her family name, hoping she can lead him to her father, but she exhibits a quality unlike the rest, retaining human habits and characteristics, showing signs of vulnerability, though she’s obviously been trained exactly like the others, finding a strange attraction to Lemmy as well, as he speaks his own mind and demonstrates a stalwart resistance to authority, believing he’s the last of a dying breed, still capable of imparting wisdom, making him someone to pay attention to.  Karina stands out as a revelation in this mass of uniformity, as her female charms are on full display, providing warmth in this arctic blast of frigid air, becoming adorable throughout (often shot in extreme close-up), even as she plays a mixed-up and confused “seductress” who’s been programmed to forget, yet still remembers words and phrases that have been outlawed, including the barest outlines of personal memories―in other words she still shows signs of being human.  The film drags a bit when she’s not in the picture, allowing Lemmy to get lost in this myriad of drab corporate offices, getting interrogated by the robotic voice of Alpha 60, the lead authority in Alphaville, who wonders what his actual intentions are, believing he’s hiding his true identity and does not conform to their ultimate mission, which of course is an absolute and unhindered totalitarian control where computers run the world. 

Like Antonioni’s RED DESERT (1964), the film concerns itself with alienation and the threat of dehumanization in a technological society, using an exaggeration of Paris in the present as a kind of science fiction depiction of the future, but really it’s only Lemmy Caution who is out of time, a product of the past, seemingly immune to the adverse effects of computerization and the accompanying indoctrination that removes all human instincts, as his life includes love and poetry, with constant references to literature, all of which provide a foundation for what is essentially the unanswered existential question, wondering why we exist, a question that’s been asked for centuries.  In Alphaville, however, “One should never say why; but only because,” believing there is a logical explanation for everything, creating a mathematically precise universe where everything makes sense, eliminating all irrational thought, effectively becoming a police state, rounding up all dissidents and outlaws who violate the rules, where men are killed at a ratio of fifty to every one woman executed, condemning them to die in an unusual ceremony at a swimming pool, all lined up along the deep end, shooting them in unison by machine-gun fire as they fall into the water, with mermaid-like girls in the pool collecting the remains in an Esther Williams style Hollywood tribute, yet they’re armed with knives to finish off any survivors, while specially invited bored guests politely applaud.  Easily as memorable an execution style as any in memory, this grisly ordeal provides graphic evidence of how this society devalues human life, yet only the invited few ever get a chance to see it, headed by Professor von Braun himself (a reference to World War II German rocket scientist Wernher Von Braun), who explains that they are being executed for “behaving illogically” (One man was observed crying after his wife’s death), providing ample reason to rebel against the state.  Alphaville is making strides to become a super intelligence, advancing far beyond the norm, but at what cost, with Lemmy Caution resolutely declaring, “I refuse to become what you call normal.”  The film opens with a flickering white light turning off and on, with an overdramatic musical theme by Paul Misraki that sets up the suspense, allowing the perfect entrance for Lemmy, lighting his cigarette in the car that allows his face to appear, a recognizable icon in France at the time, already appearing in half a dozen different films as a private detective under the recurring character’s name of Lemmy Caution, a popular role that made him a star, with that weather-beaten look of a gangster, a glass of whiskey in one hand and a cigarette in the other, developing a reputation as a charming womanizer.  Here he’s the only one in town who seems to sense any impending danger, finding himself at risk under interrogation, but he coolly and calmly speaks in metaphors, not really answering direct questions, leaving the computer to search for any cryptic meaning. 

At the outset, Caution comes across a billboard designed to keep the population in tow, marked by direct imperatives, “ALPHAVILLE:  SILENCE. LOGIC. SECURITY. PRUDENCE,” a coercive reminder of what is deemed “correct” behavior within the city.  Sometime later he comes across a book that is viewed as subversive, likely banned as well, Capitale de La Douleur (The Capital Of Sorrow, 1926), perhaps the best-known book of poetry by Paul Éluard, one of the founders of the French Surrealist movement launched in the 1920’s, with the title seemingly standing for the gloomy town of Alphaville.  Natacha, in particular, finds the book fascinating, as it uses words she can barely recall that have been outlawed, where she no longer understands their meaning, words like tenderness, consciousness, love, and why.  Each hotel room is provided with a Bible, which is little more than a dictionary of acceptable words, continually updated, suggesting the embrace of technology results in an alteration of the way of thinking, distorting memories, making individuals forget large portions of their personal identity.  Yet when Alpha 60 asks Caution what illuminates the night, he responds, “la poésie (poetry).”  Among the more intriguing scenes is a suggestion of lovemaking, never really showing any signs of sexual activity, yet Natacha spends the night, filled with poetic description that she rapturously speaks aloud.

Your voice, your eyes, your hands, your lips.  Our silences, our words.  Light that goes, light that returns.  A single smile between us.  In quest of knowledge, I watched the night create day while we seemed unchanged.  O beloved of all, beloved of one alone, your mouth silently promised to be happy.  Away, away, says hate; closer, closer, says love.  A caress leads us from our infancy.  Increasingly I see the human form as a lover’s dialogue.  The heart has but one mouth.  Everything by chance.  All words without thought.  Sentiments adrift.  Men roam the city.  A glance, a word.  Because I love you.  Everything moves.  We must advance to live.  Aim straight ahead toward those you love.  I went toward you, endlessly toward the light.  If you smile, it enfolds me all the better.  The rays of your arms pierce the mist.
 
This is accompanied by unique hand and face gestures, blending both faces into the same shot, using a choreography of movement that resembles another film that had yet to be made, Ingmar Bergman’s PERSONA (1966), released the following year, also including a long monologue spoken by Bibi Andersson, yet both are distinguished by a blending of two distinct personalities merging into one, forging a completely new identity, beautifully realized simply by the way they are photographed.  This sequence has a way of intensely connecting Natacha to Lemmy, actually shedding a tear when he is arrested, a startling realization, as she begins to see how she’s transforming back to being human again.  This film, however, is not without moments of humor.  A young Jean-Pierre Léaud, famous for working with Truffaut, now appears in a Godard film, making an uncredited cameo as the hotel clerk who brings breakfast to Lemmy and Natacha.  When asked why he carries a gun, Lemmy responds “I’m too old for discussions―I shoot first.”  Yet perhaps the most subtle use of humor occurs in the darkened hallways of the central offices of Alphaville, when suddenly the florescent lights turn on, alighting the entire hallway, when a voice can be heard remarking “Ah, dawn is breaking.”  While the plot is silly, and the grand finale never in doubt, much of this film’s charm is simply the look of the film, with Godard accentuating modernity in existing Parisian structures, including a vast industrial network of office buildings, neon signs, shots of electricity towers, dual glass elevators in the hotel, featuring a marble lobby, elegant winding staircases, and buildings shot in total darkness illuminated only by the lit windows, yet creating a shadowy darkness that pervades throughout the film, exhibiting signs of German Expressionism, including dramatic contrasts in neon and total blackness, where Alphaville is perceived as a city of darkness, a gloomy, claustrophobic world, beautifully contrasting darkness and light, even incorporating this into the poetic themes on the elusive nature of love and freedom.  Borrowing heavily from Jean Cocteau’s depiction of the darkened underworld in ORPHEUS (1950), including an open acknowledgment in the humanizing power of poetry, Lemmy’s rescue of Natacha from the dark city is reminiscent of Orpheus rescuing Eurydice from the hellish depths below, similarly instructing her not to look back as he liberates her from the dead, bringing her back to the land of the living, recalling the memory of something long forgotten, anticipating the climax of Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner (1982).