Blade Runner (Beware: SPOILERS!) About Deckard

Kevin, I recall in Future Noir, David Peoples wrote an (unused) voice over. When Ridley read it, he thought oh "Deckard is a replicant" but it was a bit off the mark of People's intention. I think Peoples was trying to illustrate Deckard's own philosophical questioning. I think both the novel and the film get a bit metaphysical, just in different ways. Although, we can grab similar philosophical messages from either presentation.

Kevin, good point. I should have said "linear logic alone is not enough." Being careful again(HTF guidelines), a spiritual awareness of sorts does aid in observing some of DADOES's more subtle philosophical tones.

I'll try and find that People's voice over. Pretty cool read.

All of PKD work does but I'm just saying that when I read it I do not see it going in that direction.


BTW this is totally off topic, start a new thread in the Movies section where this belongs. Ok?

Kevin, stop doing that editing post thing



Kevin, I promise you I would be the first to admit it openly if it were true. Remember, I don't think their is a "hidden meaning" in the book. Just some subtle hints, that yes, I agree with you, end up untrue. This toying by Dick though, plays with our(my) mind while on the journey, at least.
One of my complaints of the film is the "kick" that the screenwriters obviously had running with something very subtle and trying to make it concrete(and spelling it out for us). I hated Blade Runner the first time I viewed it. It took some time for me to shed my snobby "the book is always better." Mind you, my favorite film, has more flaws than any other film I hold in similar regards. It took quite a while for me to warm up to the film also. Strange, although I like DADOES very much, I don't think it is anywhere near his best novel.

Kevin, those are some better titles you mentioned.

I'm sure the moderators will let this stay(or merge it appropriately). I'm fine though, concluding(stopping) this here.


That's fine, pin it all on me.

Kevin, you have PM. Totally non-Blade Runner related

I'm not blaming you (assuming you weren't joking), it's like starting any thread that has Lucas in it.....before too long...they will appear!

We're proceeding in a fresh thread from here.... It's split off of the DVD thread (and just will have too many "views" ).


Cees

Well could you warn a person BEFORE the fact? I thought I was having a bad acid trip.

Yeah, a little was lost in the move here. You can always reach the initial thread through the link in my sig pic.

In my desire to ignore the whole Dek-a-Rep thing, because I feel it undercuts the real Human lesson and character ark for Deckard, I interpret the Unicorn dream as representing Deckard's desire for freedom from the suffocating, cold & artificial city (the music that plays under the scene with Deckard at the piano before & after the dream is called Memories of Green) but when he finds the bit of origami at the end it is a coincidence on Gaff's part but has deeper meaning for Deckard....a rather large stretch I know but I prefer it to the other interpretation.

Ah, I'm sorry, I see what your saying now.
But didn't you also say that Scott misinterpreted a line of voice over in the screenplay and ran with it? If that is the case then Dick's red herring from the novel actually isn't the inspiration for the subtle device in the film.

I disagree. Since his very "birth" the idea of killing Replicants and being forced to assimilate and serve humanity, against his knowledge, is a type of situation that has reoccurred many times in history. And the fact that through his arc and life he eventually finds his own way of discovering the true nature of himself and forgiving those he hated, and in turn being one of them, is very poetic.

Zen,

In my opinion, those are not hints "by" the book (or better: by the writer), but hints by one or more characters in the book. That's a huge, I would say absolutely essential difference!
If Deckard were to be a replicant himself (according to the writer, or "the book"), the meaning of the novel would change considerably - and not in its favour.

So now what we have here is a danger that Scott actually didn't understand the novel at all when he directed the film - weak point - and I prefer not to 'understand' that not-so-subtle hint in the (DC version of the) movie.


Cees

Can't we just take a poll and be done with this? I will continue to enjoy my Criterion LD (the theatrical edition), and not worry about Ridley Scott's second chance at getting Blade Runner wrong.

Fair enough, I of course see it differently.
To me it is a contrivance that while poetic to some is standard "Twilight Zone twist" to others, while it may give the impression of having deeper meaning it is IMO a shallow attempt at adding in one to many twists that obscure the original idea of a man learning to be human from non-humans.
I, as many, feel that if he turns out to be a rep then he and we have learned nothing except perhaps that the real humans who "programed" him are the one's who are inhuman and that only non-humans are truly humane...not the original point of the story at all and although I agree that a film is not a book I still feel it does a great disservice to Phillip K. Dick's original poetic story.

Edit a year later: Lousy spelling :b

Hampton Fancher (first writer), in his first draft, at the end of the film, -Deckard goes home to the piano, starts to play and his hand starts to cramp just like Batty's did.- (His intention was, is Deckard like Batty? How human? approach)

David Peoples(second writer), took this and reached further. Here is the section (from Future Noir) that I promised.

"I wonder who designs the ones like me...and what choices we really have, and which ones we just think we have. I wondered if I had really loved her. I wondered which of my memories were real and which belonged to someone else. The great Tyrell hadn't designed me, but whoever had hadn't done so much better. "You're programmed too," she told me, and she was right. In my own modest way, I was a combat model. Roy Batty was my late brother" - David Peoples (First Draft)

Peoples states that this was only [supposed to be] Deckard philosophically questioning his existence. Ridley Scott read it, "misinterpreted, and ran from there. This confusion, Peoples admits is in his writing.

Place the blame of the cinematic notion that Deckard is/could be a replicant on Hampton Fancher. Since, I think we have come to agree that Dick's subtle implications are only stumbling blocks, along the way, to what actually is Deckard's true nature in the book.

Talk about red herrings. With Scott, obviously not a writer, taking it to almost an annoying level. (Glowing eyes, unicorn sequence). In defense of Scott, this notion was not an afterthought simply for the 1992 Director's Cut. No, he pretty much ran with it from the beginning off the misinterpretation of People's first draft. The tacky add-ins are Scott's way of further spelling out his vision for us. Then again, his film. Still not as intrusive as the Original Theatrical ending or the controversial voice-over.

Kevin, I agree, although a popular argument, in regards to Deckard's "human lesson." One of my favorite scenes, is when Deckard, upon the rooftop, exhausted and thoroughly outmatched gazes upon Batty dying. That look, almost pathetic, tells a thousand words. "What have I done?" "Who am I?" Does he feel guilt? Absolutely brilliant scene ,when looked through the lens that Deckard is human and without the failed attempt at a noir voice-over.

In regards to the film, I like that the gap between human and replicant is finer. I like that I'm able to sympathize with the replicants and pity Deckard.

SIDE NOTE: When questions of underrated performances come up. I immediately think of Rutger Hauer's performance as Roy Batty. How electrifying is this man in this role? I think, he nearly stole the movie.

Patrick, I thoroughly went through proper HTF channels before posting this thread. Yes, a poll might state where we all stand. It just that these conversations/debates pop up in the wrong areas, I felt it time to create a place to beat the "dead horse." I must admit, I've been beating this horse since my exposure to the internet. In my 2 1/2 years here, I've kept pretty silent on the film, until now, when Cees allowed this thread to happen.



Cees, I slightly lean differently. I say, from the characters the writer has created. I see where we differ here, only a bit. Our end conclusions are the same. Ultimately, no Deckard in DADOES is not a replicant. Dick, does though, use some of his characters to make us suspect along the way. Which Kevin mentioned, ends up red herring.

Same end result Cees. I just take the long way home. Obviously.

AND spared by Batty,



Cees

Nearly? Hauer owns the film, as far as I'm concerned. He makes every line memorable.

Put me in the camp that thinks the whole Deck-a-rep idea adds nothing to the film, either dramatically or thematically, and arguably weakens it. What is the message of the ending, if it's true? "Us replicants gotta stick together"? Pah.

Roy demonstrates his fundamental humanity by empathizing with Deckard and choosing to save his life (in both the book and film, empathic ability more or less defines being "human"), despite the fact that Deckard has killed most of his friends. A wiser Deckard then applies the lesson to his own life, and demonstrates his own humanity by loving/saving Rachel. He's finally realized that a limited lifespan of four years isn't all that different than a limited lifespan of 80 years.

--Jefferson Morris

Aside from Scott's often imitated eye-candy, I agree with you.

I considered typing "Hauer and Syd Mead jointly own the film." That probably would have been more accurate.

--Jefferson Morris

I have to add that Jeferson Morris' post is exactly what I wanted to say as well. I'm one of those who prefer the theatrical version.

As for the unicorn... maybe in that world of the future, the unicorn is an universal symbol of something we are not aware of, like the nostalgia for unspoiled nature. So both Gaff and Deckard can relate to it, without other darker implications.

I have read Paul Sammon's book, and lots of other things posted on the 'net... and while the Deckard=Replicant thing may sound like a nice gimmick, it doesn't add anything to the movie itself.

Its been a while since I saw the film, but as I recall having Deckard be a replicant violates not just the theme of the film (deadened, cold human learns humanity from the non-human) but many of the fundamental premises of the world the story creates. Replicants were illegal on Earth; creating a replicant roaming free to hunt replicants is not only illegal but foolish in the context of the story. I can understand the creation of Deckards love interest as an experimental model, kept closely observed by the corporation.

It is entirely possible that Scott wanted to suggest that Deckard is a replicant but he does so to the serious detriment of the story and its emotional content.

I feel as though the story itself, and the movie, are much stronger if dek is not a rep. I think him finding something so in common, so open, about a replicant makes it have more impact if he himself is not. Which I always felt was part of the original story; that humanity could be found in what we become, not as what we are

From a pure writing/theme standpoint, the film isn't significantly stronger or the theme changed if D is or isn't, so throwing the twist in there just adds needless layers that could confuse your audience. I think that's why it was taken out for the original release and I think it was the right decision.

On a slightly off-topic tangent, you also want to avoid narration or exposition whenver possible. Better to show the audience than to tell them, even done heavy-handed it makes a stronger impact. When done right, wrapping narration into images or dialogue can be sublime, like Hitchcock and the intro to Rear Window.

So what I want to see is a version of Blade Runner where the new scenes are not included but the voice-over narration is also not included. Is there such a version available (or is it in this SE?) Damn that would make this movie tight.

Horselover Fat had it right. As far as I am concerned he ain't, regardless of directors intent. Thats what I see on the screen.

Great thread.

I've always believed D to be human although, echoing something Zen wrote, I feel as though one of the themes of BR is that, in the particular world it demonstrates, the line between human and simulacra is blurry. This is one of the central conflicts that drives D, as I see it. How can one be certain of one's own humanity, beyond the physical sense? Do androids have a sense of themselves beyond an understanding that they are synthetic creations? Do they feel? Do they dream? Do they dream of electronic sheep?

Anyway, I have no problem with leaving D's nature open-ended, although I think of him as human.

The question is perhaps more important than the answer.

(It's my favorite film. I'd love to watch it with the folks I've "met" on HTF over the last couple of years.)

A: Deckard isn’t a replicant.

B: But the director has come out in interviews and said…

A: Why should the director know more about what a movie says than me?

B: Uh, really? Because he’s creatively involved…?

A: Nah. Besides, I cling to this notion of a character arc, you know, and the whole replicant protagonist thing violates that.

B: No it doesn’t. There is a very clear arc for both the story and the character if Deckard is a replicant.

A: But he wasn’t in the theatrical version.

B: Which was bastardized and distorted in post, and after the sneaks. Have you read the history of this movie? Why did Ridley have the unicorn footage and the glowing eyes and -

A: Who’s Ridley?

B: Ridley Scott, the director you so easily dismiss, and who shepherded this movie -

A: Whatever, dude, what does he know?



For the record, I say that Deckard - in the intended FILM - is a replicant. But part of the appeal of BR is that it leaves this question up to open minds.

Part of the brilliance of the film.

Angelo, great post. Unlike the novella, I simply don't sympathize with Deckard. I see the film through the eyes of the replicants.

Not our first lesson on what it is to be human, better yet, "humane" but a damn good one.

Zen, thanks. I've enjoyed reading your posts in this thread as well.


I think you have to take a text (a film) on its own terms. What does it, itself, say to you?

The film doesn't come with a printed concordance, footnotes, viewing guide, essay from the director or Cliff's Notes; you have to extract meaning from it on your own.

What the film says to me is that D is human. But, ultimately, there is a set of interpretations that is reasonable given the data the film presents. If one wants to go outside of the film for the answer, fine, but that denies you the fun (and right) of interpretation. As Eco writes (far more eloquently than I do), a given text is always open to interpretation (not to all interpretations, but to a reasonable set of them).

In the end, the film's central question--what does it mean to be human?--is more important than whether or not D really is.

I loved this thread and wanted to revive it for the newer BR thread participants to see how a "nice" Dec-a-Rep debate can exist.