Subtext as we all know, is one of the trickier parts of screenwriting. How do you make characters say things without saying them? How do you convey an emotion or an idea without speaking it directly? How do you show characterisation with how things are said and not what things are said?
Blade Runner 2049 contains lots of great subtext examples, but one of its more unique expressions lies in how Agent K will actively avoid another character’s subtext, giving a different kind of subtext back to us and back to the character in question. And no, we can’t simply assume that K is genuinely ignorant to subtext due to him being a replicant, as from very early on in the script he demonstrates his perceptive nature and apparent humanity. This is a character for whom the human part of being human is only accentuated by his replicant abilities – K never misses a thing, he reads people easily, and he knows exactly what people are trying to say. K even uses subtext himself throughout the script to intimate what he wants.
So when K chooses to gloss over another’s hints or ignores them completely, we read him loud and clear – I’m not going to engage with you. This tactic of avoidance is used quite powerfully three times within the script, each time with a different potential love interest.
Example 1
The first rejection here is against his replicant adversary and angel of death, Luv. Here we see Luv stating a rule about how personal questions make people feel desired and then immediately she follows it up with a personal question. She’s inviting K to play, openly testing him and mirroring the actions of Rachel to Deckard in the past. This is her subtext.
Interestingly here in the script over the film, it is more ambiguous as to whether K is reading her insinuation correctly with an unfilmable italicized question: ‘Did she just ask him a personal question?’ but regardless of this ambiguity, K’s response is all the same. No, we’re done here – I’m not going to engage with you on either level.
Example 2
Above is K’s second rejection through avoidance. Mariette is trying to flirt with him (albeit for her own ulterior motives of finding out what he knows) and get him to engage with her. She knows full well that K is dangerous but she turns that fact into an instigator for sexual tension. This is her own personal subtext.
K replies, but without a hint of anything flirtatious – he is dangerous and would kill her if she was the wrong model. He won’t answer her deeper question but he’s happy to answer her at face value. Not batting an eyelid Mariette’s rebuttal is simple – why don’t you get close enough to find out. An open invitation for K before the chiming-in of Joi in his pocket interrupts their conversation. Finally, Mariette leaves K with a taunt, trying to provoke him further by questioning his manhood.
This is another mirroring of how Rachel sought to provoke Deckard in the past and an echo of his previous provocation by Luv. K doesn’t respond to this slight at all. Despite the fact he has something ‘in the chamber’ he chooses to ignore it instead – and why? Because to fight back would suggest his interest, and he won’t engage with Mariette either.
Example 3
This is K’s third rejection. This time to his boss Joshi. She tells K everyone is looking for connection and then immediately after she asks him what will happen if she finishes the bottle of alcohol on the table. Well, I think we can all guess at what might happen if someone gets incredibly drunk and looks for connection… This is Joshi’s not-so-subtle subtext.
K replies officiously ‘shouldn’t I get back to work, madam’ – avoiding her insinuation entirely. Joshi then (quite rightly) calls K out on his unwavering brand of calculated ignorance ‘you do polite like some folks go screaming’ – and she hits the nail on the head, this is K to a tee, mechanically polite and very aware.
These two traits inform K’s subtext tactics and how they’re perceived. To be polite to people, sometimes you have to feign ignorance of their intentions – allowing them to save face after the pain of your rejection. But he’s also a suped-up replicant with excellent powers of deduction and hyper-awareness. This makes his ‘polite’ subtext throughout the script more often than not come across as biting and dismissive – his ignorance difficult to believe.
Takeaway
Each of the above examples demonstrate K’s character traits but they also serve as a reminder of his unwavering fidelity to his holographic companion, Joi. Consequently we’re shown who he is personally, what method he thinks is best to navigate the world around him, and ultimately what he’s trying to protect in his inner world. They also provide us with clear insight into his would-be suitors, each with their own method of dealing with his ignorance, each with their own brand of subtextual gambits. This is at the core of good subtext practice, we’re revealing things about our characters and reminding the viewer that we all have our own way of saying things, even if that’s saying nothing at all.
What do you think? How do your character’s traits govern their subtext tactics? And how are those subtext tactics received by other characters? Something for you to think about for your WIP? Alternatively, you can just pretend like you missed the point of all this entirely and politely tell me to have a nice day.