I think Scott's real intent was to be so vague about the issue that we'll keep asking the question decades after the movie was made.
I agree. After all, we're still debating it.
Is Deckard a Replicant?
- Thread starter Harvey
- Start date
I agree. After all, we're still debating it.
It was not Scott's intention to leave this question unanswered - it was only the re-editing of the film and the insertion of Deckerd's voice-over, insisted upon by the studio, which rendered it ambiguous.
This is why Scott can say flatly that Deckerd was a replicant - it was never intended to be a mystery at the end of the film.
In the Final Cut (what I thought was the Director's Cut, in another thread,) Deckard is, unambiguously, a replicant.
Deckard is very much like a Nazi who, after a Jew spares his life, is told by a fellow Nazi he is a Jew so that he can escape with his new found Jewish lover, instead of murdering her. This is a boring story with zero emotional interest, especially since Deckard is burnt out murderer.
Since all the main human characters (which would be only Tyrell and Sebastian!) are murdered by replicants, all of which murderers are themselves dead by movie's end, the moral of the story is that inhumans who murder humans deserve to die, while those who don't can live. This is also trite and therefore boring. And Batty, being an inhuman monster, does not symbolically represent Man meeting his Creator, no matter the dialogue in his confrontation with Tyrell.
A lame argument has been made that Deckard being a replicant doesn't undermine the theme that can be expressed as "Actions makes us human." Batty does not transcend his replicant nature by saving a human enemy. Deckard does not transcend his inhuman nature by saving a replicant. The most "human" character by this standard of actions is Gaff, who saves his supposed enemies by tipping off Deckard and Rachel. Which is manifestly ridiculous, and also bad writing. In that case, Gaff should have been a main character. In short, Blade Runner the Final Cut is thematically empty. That unicorn horn spears the movie's superficial meaning and guts it like a trout.
Deckard is a replicant also is dreadful plotting. Glowing eyes indicating replicants means every scene featuring the V-K test was pointless gibberish. Programming replicant Deckard to think he was retired and had to be strongarmed into returning is senseless. Making Deckard weak meant that he would fail, as indeed he did. It was only Rachel who saved him from Zhora.
Replicant Deckard is also bad characterization. Leon had a photograph collection documenting his brief life (which is exactly why it could provide clues.) Rachel had photographs falsely documenting her faked childhood. Deckard had very old photographs from our time or before, unlike Rachel or Leon, for no discernible purpose at all, except a dumbass notion of all replicants keep photos. By which standard we'd have to suspect every fifteen year old with a digital camera! Tyrell must know that Deckard is a replicant, being one of the experimental models with memories, but he isn't interested in Deckard, the one he hasn't supervised closely, but in whether Rachel passes a test he could adminster himself.
In short, the case for claiming that Deckard is a human in the Theatrical Edition rests solely on the fact that replicant Deckard is a dumb ass "idea" foisted on the film by the director. The Theatrical edition can be saved by simply assuming the red eyes were a mistake. Those who can overlook a mistake in favor of the whole thing can still regards Blade Runner as a good movie.
Those who parrot conventional wisdom that the director is the creator can amuse themselves analyzing the thematic and stylistic developments in the Ridley Scott oeuvre (in addition to Blade Runner, that's Alien; Legend; Someone to Watch Over Me; Black Rain; Thelma and Louise; 1492; Gladiator; Black Hawk Down; Kingdom of Heaven; American Gangster; Body of Lies) They round off the exercise by explaining how, when a powerful star refuses to take direction or a director shoots many, many hours of film that the film editor turns into a movie, the director is still the creator.
If they manage to complete these simple exercises
, they are left with a movie that, bereft of thematic weight, is alternately plodding and obscure, then melodramatic and obscure. And with lots of campy scenes of Harrison Ford getting his ass kicked by women. That great truth, that scifi is dumb shit for people unashamed to admit to low tastes is reaffirmed.
PS Generally, important questions should be answered in dramas. The trick is knowing what is important. Deckard's humanity is important, why Deckard keeps his grandma's photo collection on his piano isn't.
The Theatrical Edition's "happy" ending falls into the latter category. We do not know whether in fact Deckard and Rachel succeed in escaping or if Deckard is just hoping. But whether they do escape is thematically unimportant, so it can be left unanswered. None of us know how long we have, after all. If the sentimental want to accept the ending at face value, that's still true.
Deckard is very much like a Nazi who, after a Jew spares his life, is told by a fellow Nazi he is a Jew so that he can escape with his new found Jewish lover, instead of murdering her. This is a boring story with zero emotional interest, especially since Deckard is burnt out murderer.
Since all the main human characters (which would be only Tyrell and Sebastian!) are murdered by replicants, all of which murderers are themselves dead by movie's end, the moral of the story is that inhumans who murder humans deserve to die, while those who don't can live. This is also trite and therefore boring. And Batty, being an inhuman monster, does not symbolically represent Man meeting his Creator, no matter the dialogue in his confrontation with Tyrell.
A lame argument has been made that Deckard being a replicant doesn't undermine the theme that can be expressed as "Actions makes us human." Batty does not transcend his replicant nature by saving a human enemy. Deckard does not transcend his inhuman nature by saving a replicant. The most "human" character by this standard of actions is Gaff, who saves his supposed enemies by tipping off Deckard and Rachel. Which is manifestly ridiculous, and also bad writing. In that case, Gaff should have been a main character. In short, Blade Runner the Final Cut is thematically empty. That unicorn horn spears the movie's superficial meaning and guts it like a trout.
Deckard is a replicant also is dreadful plotting. Glowing eyes indicating replicants means every scene featuring the V-K test was pointless gibberish. Programming replicant Deckard to think he was retired and had to be strongarmed into returning is senseless. Making Deckard weak meant that he would fail, as indeed he did. It was only Rachel who saved him from Zhora.
Replicant Deckard is also bad characterization. Leon had a photograph collection documenting his brief life (which is exactly why it could provide clues.) Rachel had photographs falsely documenting her faked childhood. Deckard had very old photographs from our time or before, unlike Rachel or Leon, for no discernible purpose at all, except a dumbass notion of all replicants keep photos. By which standard we'd have to suspect every fifteen year old with a digital camera! Tyrell must know that Deckard is a replicant, being one of the experimental models with memories, but he isn't interested in Deckard, the one he hasn't supervised closely, but in whether Rachel passes a test he could adminster himself.
In short, the case for claiming that Deckard is a human in the Theatrical Edition rests solely on the fact that replicant Deckard is a dumb ass "idea" foisted on the film by the director. The Theatrical edition can be saved by simply assuming the red eyes were a mistake. Those who can overlook a mistake in favor of the whole thing can still regards Blade Runner as a good movie.
Those who parrot conventional wisdom that the director is the creator can amuse themselves analyzing the thematic and stylistic developments in the Ridley Scott oeuvre (in addition to Blade Runner, that's Alien; Legend; Someone to Watch Over Me; Black Rain; Thelma and Louise; 1492; Gladiator; Black Hawk Down; Kingdom of Heaven; American Gangster; Body of Lies) They round off the exercise by explaining how, when a powerful star refuses to take direction or a director shoots many, many hours of film that the film editor turns into a movie, the director is still the creator.
If they manage to complete these simple exercises
, they are left with a movie that, bereft of thematic weight, is alternately plodding and obscure, then melodramatic and obscure. And with lots of campy scenes of Harrison Ford getting his ass kicked by women. That great truth, that scifi is dumb shit for people unashamed to admit to low tastes is reaffirmed.PS Generally, important questions should be answered in dramas. The trick is knowing what is important. Deckard's humanity is important, why Deckard keeps his grandma's photo collection on his piano isn't.
The Theatrical Edition's "happy" ending falls into the latter category. We do not know whether in fact Deckard and Rachel succeed in escaping or if Deckard is just hoping. But whether they do escape is thematically unimportant, so it can be left unanswered. None of us know how long we have, after all. If the sentimental want to accept the ending at face value, that's still true.
Last edited:
Doesn't matter - the Final Cut (and before it, the Director's Cut) is the best version of Blade Runner. The original theatrical cut is a hack job.
Deckard is a replicant.
Deckard is a replicant.
Last edited:
We know Deckerd isn't. What about Deckard?
Let's put him through the Voight-Kampff test and see what happens.
I couldn't type correctly to save my life. It is of course Leon who would have killed Rachel if Rachel hadn't come to see him after all.
Godwin's Law is not a law and only the terminally confused think so.
The Theatrical Version is a patch job, not a hack job. The biggest problem in that version is the awful narration, which may help the viewer by providing a familiar and friendly voice but doesn't help the narrative confusion about the importance of replicants as substitutes for real animals. The Final Cut merely relies on the familiarity with the premise provided by time, instead of solving the problem.
Godwin's Law is not a law and only the terminally confused think so.
The Theatrical Version is a patch job, not a hack job. The biggest problem in that version is the awful narration, which may help the viewer by providing a familiar and friendly voice but doesn't help the narrative confusion about the importance of replicants as substitutes for real animals. The Final Cut merely relies on the familiarity with the premise provided by time, instead of solving the problem.
Let me tell you about my mother...
What does that even mean?
Is that supposed to be some sort of flame because you were silly enough to reference Nazi's?
It's certainly true that the line of argument is a lot less impressive if you eliminate the gratuituous and inaccurate association with Nazis. In fact there's not much to it beyond being inflammatory.
Interestingly enough, Dick's original story was sparked by research he was doing into the Nazis - but he conceived the replicants as being similar to Nazis and lacking in empathy.
I'm afraid we're going to have to retire you.
Thing is, the Unicorn Dream dream was added years later. It's a scene taken from another film and added to this one because of that added scene it changes what Decker is. So originally I would say no he is not a replicant but the director has changed it so that he now is in the new cuts. There isn't enough in the original film to say for sure that he is. Director says yes, actor says no.
The director counts for everything -- the actor for nothing.
No, that scene was shot for BR - just cut out at the studio's request. From here: http://www.mediacircus.net/bladerunner.html
Wrong.
Tell me, what "other film" do you figure the scene with the origami unicorn was taken from?
Similar threads
