Blade Runner 2048 opened to generally good reviews. For example, Katie Walsh of the Tribune News Service calls it “a meditative and moving film, sumptuously photographed by legendary cinematographer Roger Deakins in the finest and most astonishing work of his career.” Yet, 2048 did not do well in theaters. Lauren Jernigen of The Mary Sue tries to explain why: “Throughout the nearly three-hour philosophy lesson [of the film], we are presented with the idea that women are only there to help move the story of men forward, rather than act as protagonists in their own right in a story very much about oppression against them.” Simply put, suggests Jernigen, many women didn’t like the film, and some men didn’t like the film’s treatment of women.
Analyzing two conflicting review of the same film creates the opportunity to discuss how two writers can have such different perspective on the same topic. Moreover, the contrast fuels an analysis of audience. In addition to discussing the two reviews, students might examine other articles and reviews posted by the two publications. Likely, readers of the Tribune News Service have characteristics that differ distinctly from that of The Mary Sue, and articles in those publications will reflect the writers’ audience awareness.
“Blade Runner 2049: Bad Representation Is Not Representation,” https://www.themarysue.com/blade-runner-2049
“Blade Runner 2049 is a Wondrous Spectacle,” http://host.madison.com/gallery/entertainment/movies/movie-review-blade-runner-is-a-wondrous-spectacle/article_abd0ad42-a899-5fa4-845c-856f0129525b.html