Looper, com Bruce Willis e Joseph Gordon-Levitt, pode muito bem revelar-se um dos mais interessantes filmes de ficção científica do ano - como aliás o trailer indica. Em entrevista ao portal The Verge, o realizador e argumentista Rian Johnson fala de Looper, da ficção cientifica e do cinema actual. Destaques:
Looking back at your movies, you’ve made a noir, a madcap comedy, and now a sci-fi film. Is genre a focal point for you when you get started?
Well, it’s strange, because I want to say no, but the thing I’m working on now is also a genre thing. I do really just feel comfortable and enjoy working in genre, at least for the time being. But the reason my instinct was to say no is because it’s not the thing that actually ends up driving the process forward. It’s not the thing that gets me excited. It’s the themes of it, and the specific idea and everything that goes into it. That is to say, I could really easily imagine getting just as excited about something that was not a genre film at all, but they just happen to have been genre films so far.
And another part of that is just that besides it being fun, it does give you just a foundation to work off of. It gives you some limits... a game board to play on. Which is really appealing when you’re just looking at that blank sheet of paper.
(...)
In the trailer there are moments at night that call up Blade Runner, and immediately set a mood of "the future." But there’s also daylight, there’s Emily Blunt in the fields...
There is something dystopian about it. It also is very grounded. It’s not as designed as something like Blade Runner, even. Which is still very grounded and very gritty, but it has such a specific and overwhelming design aesthetic to it. And this, we were just trying to go, like, 10 degrees off from our reality. And so much of it was just about degrading what is already there and picking a couple of key things to tweak.
(...)
Do you think you’ll ever use 3D as we know it today?
No. [laughs] No, I just don’t think it looks good. It’s just hard to look at for two hours. And it also, and I cover all this in the piece so I don’t want to regurgitate it, but even calling it 3D bugs me. It’s stereoscopic. But the truth is that traditional photography is more 3D than stereoscopic photography, I think. And traditional photography mimics how our eyes and our brain see the real world in a much more organic and more accurate and better way than stereoscopic does.
