Blade Runner (Beware: SPOILERS!) About Deckard (1 Viewer)

[JonZ]

Amazing how this movie has become so loved. Back in the 80s everyone hated it.

I never liked the idea of Deckard being a Replicant.

 

[AlexCremers]

Me neither and I loved the film in 1982. I went back to the theatre to see 'Blade Runner' many a times. It took me several viewings to find out that the film made incredible subtle innuendos towards Deckard's nature. And it's exactly on this subject where the 'Original Theatrical Version' is less conspicuous and thus more ambiguous than 'The Director's Cut'.


Alex

 

[rich_d]

Reviving this thread versus just starting a new one. If I can add one suggestion going forward, it seems to me that discussing what happened in the book or even versions of the screenplay have nothing to do with things. It's only what made it to the screen that matters.

An idea that I haven't seen discussed here is one that I find somewhat compelling.

Rachael is HUMAN

Here's the idea. More human then human, Deckard makes a mistake on the test that he gives Rachael. We're even given a hint when Rachael asks him whether he's ever retired a human by mistake probing that that is a risk. We're told by Deckard that it takes 20 or 30 questions to usually spot a replicant. We're then told it took more than 100 questions for Rachael. Deckard is WAY beyond his normal range of observation on a test designed for ferreting out replicants NOT humans. Rachael reacts as we would all react after a long stream of questions, we TUNE things out. Deckard reached Rachael's very human limit and now incorrectly interprets her reaction (or lack of reaction) for something else.

Let's explore the strongest counter-argument against Rachael being human. The strongest point against Rachael being a human is that Tyrell goes along with Deckard's conclusion. I say goes along because he doesn't explicitly say that that she's a replicant. The strongest comment being "she's beginning to suspect" (being one).

My response is that this is a noir / detective film. People lie in every single one of them. Tyrell lies (or at the very least is stringing Deckard along). All along knowing that it really is Deckard that is the replicant. In fact, Tyrell may be teasing Deckard with the truth ... "Rachael is an experiment, nothing more" could mean 'I (Tyrell) just used Rachael in an experiment, nothing more.' Is the idea of powerful men using people to get what they want an odd concept?

Rachel asks Deckard if he's seen her file (inception dates etc.) he admits he hasn't seen it. How about this, there isn't a file because she's human.

The final clue comes from Gaff. "It's too bad she won't live." We take it as meaning that she is due to expire on a certain date. He meant that she's human and will die like any human while Deckard (the replicant) lives on.

 

[JonZ]

One of the problems I had with Deckard being a Replicant is how physically inferior to the others he is. He cant make a jump that Roy does easily. Leone Zora and Pris were all substantially stronger than Deckard.

After watching the dir cut for awhile, it finally got through to me that Roy was created for combat. Its mentioned Leone can lift 400 pounds all day,threshold for pain was amped way up,etc and that Zora was altered for assassination.So that was a problem that was solved and I had to accept Deckard was a Replicant.

A idea I REALLY liked mentioned in the new documentary was while Roy kills Tyrell, he finds out Tyrell is a Replicant. Roy goes up another level and finds the real Tyrell in stasis having died 4 years earlier. Would have loved that as it woudl have been a beautiful touch to the themes of the film.

 

[Matthew_Def]

Your finding things that aren't there. Plus in the film Bryant confirms she's a replicant when he says there are 4 Deckard has to kill. He implies Tyrell confirms she is a replicant. Why would Bryant want Deckard to kill a human? Imagine the legal hassle. And Deckard knows memories Rachel never told anyone, there's no way any human could know that about another.

I have another theory, though, which is probably reading too far. Deckard is a replicant but he's based on a real Deckard, just like Rachel is based on Tyrell's niece. Why he thinks he's retired and his wife left him is because the real Deckard was killed. It would also work great as a prototype for the corporation, as they did the same thing with Rachel.

 

[Mattias Stridsman]

rich_d, I think it's made very clear in the movie that Rachael is indeed a replicant.

1. Tyrell has no reason to lie within the context of the film (bringing up noir/detective is a weak point IMHO), and I think it's pretty clear he is curious to see if Deckard will spot this new advanced form of replicant that Rachael represents.

2. There are many shots of Rachael where we see a light reflected in her eyes similar to the shot of the eagle, which we know is "artificial". This is a device used for all replicants, and there was even a shot of Deckard filmed that showed this light in his eyes, which could be interpreted as a clue that he might be a replicant as well.

3. Deckard knows about her childhood memory (the spider), and it is obvious that she's never told anyone from her reaction.

 

[rich_d]

Mattias,

You make some strong points, no doubt. But let me poke at them a bit:

In the conventional theory, Tyrell ALREADY lied/tricked Deckard when he served up Rachael as a human subject. So you need to move off of Tyrell has no reason to lie to Tyrell is a liar. The next question then becomes why do you think that's his only lie?

Don't you think Tyrell has better things to do with his time then sit around for a long series of questions and answers? Doesn't it seem far more reasonable that Tyrell wants to meet with Deckard because it is Deckard that is special? Thus the true test is not about Rachael, the test is about Deckard.

The odd light in Deckard's and Rachael's eyes? That also happens to Gaff? Is he also a replicant? If it were that easy to detect a replicant why do they need a psychological test? That doesn't make sense. Btw, it's an owl not an eagle.

The possibility of Deckard knowing the memories that are in Rachael would seem to be limited to the memories that he has as a replicant. After all, just the day before he is astounded when Tyrell tells him that he gave the replicants memories. So he's no expert on the subject. So he's just winging out generic memories to see what sticks. IF Deckard has a specific memory within ... why isn't he saying wtf as to how he got his own knowledge of these memories? He doesn't, so it seems more likely he's just winging things out.

This memory thing is also the weakest area of the replicant theory. Where are family and friends? Where are the childhood and school acquaintances?

 

[Travis Brashear]

I'm quite sure each replicant's memories have events like family deaths, a move away from home to pursue dreams/opportunities, and the like to explain no longer being tied to their ersatz pasts. Don't get me wrong, you've made a fascinating hypothesis, I just don't think it holds up to scrutiny.

 

[JonZ]

"a) When do we see the light in Gaff's eyes??? b) The "eye light" effect is a conceit for the audience--it isn't something seen or detectable by the characters within the film."

Exactly. My fav use of this is actually with Pris, talking to Sabastian after spray painting her eyes.

 

[rich_d]

It may not hold up. Just something to noodle on.

 

[Matthew_Def]

The spider being Deckard's implant makes no sense, then he would know he's a replicant. Which is something he never indicates, until the end anyway. I doubt if he knew he would actually kill the others.

I will also repeat this, why would Bryant want Deckard to kill Rachel if she was a human? Imagine the legal hassle. Why would Tyrell want his niece killed?

 

[rich_d]

Well, I don't remember that Rachael's relationship (if any) with Tyrell is truly established. Bryant only knows what Tyrell told him. That Rachael is a replicant. Some sort of mumbo jumbo about her having some brain implant. I guess if you buy that that means Rachael was human. If you don't buy that leads to a murky road with Tyrell being a liar.

Pick your poison.

 

[Mattias Stridsman]

Hmm... I don't buy this, there's nothing in the film that suggests that Tyrell is fascinated with Deckard, at least not that I can remember. And if the test is about Deckard, wouldn't Tyrell want to stay during the test and observe Deckard? If I remember correctly, Tyrell is not present during the test (I could be wrong though).

 

[Travis Brashear]

Actually, you are wrong--Tyrell is present throughout the Voight-Kampff test. I hesitate to add fuel to rich_d's postulation but, of all his specious points (and thank God he at least conceded defeat on his absurd point about the spider), this scene is the one I'm most inclined to agree with him upon, at least so far as to believe Tyrell may be more fascinated in observing Deckard than the results of his test on Rachel.

 

[Matthew_Def]

Of course Tyrell is interested in Deckard, he wants to make a replicant undetectable by the voight-kampff test. His motto is more human than human. He's trying to figure out how to beat these questions.

That can go either way for the Deckard theory too. My guess is Deckard would pass the test.

 

[rich_d]

Whoa, I only tried to answer some interesting questions about the spider. Candidly, the spider sure doesn't help my theory.

Having thought about it a bit, perhaps we're not giving Deckard the full benefit of being more human than human. One human trait is our ability to see the truth about others but often have blinders on about the truth about ourselves. Hence, Deckard IS given clues that he is a replicant that he dismisses initially as absurd. He is the answer to his own question "how can it not know?" Deckard serves up his own memories when giving examples to Rachael and he just refuses to make the logical connection that his memories are false too. He is blind to reality and therefore dismissive to the clues that come his way.

 

[Travis Brashear]

I agree entirely...as long as we're not taking it to the point that Deckard (believing himself to be human) had an orange and green spider outside his window as a child that was eaten by its young, and that's the same memory he offers up for Rachel's past as proof that she's a replicant. That's just absurd.

 

[Edwin-S]

I wish I could be subtle and erudite in my views of this film, but I'm not. I think Scott did nothing but a huge disservice to the meaning of this film by coming out and stating that Deckard was a replicant. After watching his "Final Cut" my feelings haven't changed. I especially hate the continual addition of the lame, disruptive, Unicorn scene to this film. There were enough hints made in this film that Deckard may have been a Replicant, however they were subtle enough to leave the question open to the individual's interpretation. Along comes Ridley "he-who-knows-best" Scott to set right us poor deluded fools who feel that this film is made stronger by Deckard being human. How does he do this? By adding the "oh-so subtle" Unicorn scene which by some unknown happenstance is tied to Gaff's act of leaving an origami Unicorn in Deckard's apartment near the end of the film. To wit, Gaff had to know Deckard was a replicant because he left a symbol of a dream that Deckard had in Deckard's apartment. Except, that Gaff couldn't have known if Deckard had ever had a dream about a Unicorn in the first place; therefore, the symbolic move Gaff supposedly made to indicate that he knew that Deckard didn't know that Deckard was a Replicant but was now telling him that he was, might have been completely lost on Deckard. The whole idea is just stupid.

I prefer the more rational and simple explanation for the existence of the origami Unicorn in Deckard's apartment: that being the idea of a "calling card" similar to the death cards in "APOCALYPSE NOW". To me, all Gaff was saying was "I was here. I could have blown a hole in your girlfriend.....but I didn't". Why? Answer: Even an inhumane asshole like Gaff knew that terminating "Replicants" was meaningless since "Replicants" and "Humans" ultimately share the same fate in the end. That is why he states, "It's too bad she won't live.....but, then again who does?" Even Gaff, who appears more like an inhuman replicant than anyone else in the movie, admits that "Replicants" are basically human, regardless of their origins.

That was my interpretation of this film and I vastly prefer it to the spoon-feeding that Ridley Scott has attempted with his "Final Cut".

 

[rich_d]

Edwin,

I understand your viewpoint and there is a lot to be said for it. However, I think what Scott was after was a memory, not a dream. Deckard doesn't dream about the unicorn he has an implanted memory of it. That's why it doesn't matter about the timing of a dream coming to Deckard - because it's not a dream, it's a memory. Said another way, Gaff doesn't have to depend on Deckard having a dream about the unicorn so that he has a memory of it, he already has an implanted memory of it. Fair?

 

[Edwin-S]

To be fair, that explanation does make a lot more sense; however, it still relies on a chain of events that no one in the movie could forsee happening. Gaff had to know the memory would surface if Gaff deliberately left the Unicorn as a message to Deckard regarding his origins. Deckard, as a replicant, would have had literally hundreds of implanted memories to reinforce his sense of humanity. How could Gaff have predicted or known that the Unicorn memory would ultimately surface? Furthermore, what actual purpose was served by implanting a memory of a Unicorn in Deckard's memory? In Rachel's case, every false memory was designed to reinforce a false memory of childhood. How did implanting a random memory of a Unicorn serve any purpose in creating a backstory for Deckard's false sense of humanity.

If Deckard had had a childhood memory surface that only he could have known about, and all of a sudden Gaff had created an origami based on something that occurred in that memory then I wouldn't have a problem with it. However, Scott doesn't do that. He just takes a random chunk of film, without context, and inserts it into the film. There is no rhyme or reason for Deckard to remember a Unicorn. There is no foreshadowing that Deckard has any penchant towards flights of fancy or imagination which is what a Unicorn represents. The end result is that every time I watch that scene, all I see is a disruptive, meaningless, insertion that actually disturbs the flow of the film. I get taken out of the film by the insertion of a fairy tale image in a film that is unrelenting in its depiction of a decaying, dying, corrupted world.

Deckard remembering a Unicorn is completely out of character. In fact, judging by his observations at the end, Batty is more likely to have a memory of a Unicorn than Deckard ever would have. That is why, personally, I hate the scene.