Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › Blade Runner (Beware: SPOILERS!) About Deckard
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Blade Runner (Beware: SPOILERS!) About Deckard

post #1 of 152
7/23/04 at 1:14pm
Thread Starter 
Spoilers: Proceed with Caution!!


If it were so explicit, the is Deckard a replicant? debate wouldn't have been so prominent until finally Ridley Scott announced that his intentions where that he was. This only recent.
Although, I prefer the Director's Cut, with "Deckard a replicant", many of the lessons lose a bit of their impact. Almost a human learning a lesson on being human, although he is a replicant. This is one area of the film I agree with Jack Brigg's observation. "These additions appear to be afterthoughts" (paraphrasing). I'll expand and say it contradicts a bit. Now we can view the film either way. Some of Scott's additions are a mere annoyance. The absence of the lifeless voice-over was a very welcome modification for me.
Reply
post #2 of 152
7/23/04 at 1:33pm
Ugg, here we go again.

(BTW, that response was in relation to this subject being brought up yet again in a thread dedicated to the SE DVD being released...all discussion was subsequently moved to this proper thread....just in case someone thinks i was thread farting...is that a HTF cliche? )
Reply
post #3 of 152
7/23/04 at 1:38pm
I don't think I can accept Riddley Scott's authority on this subject. How dare he make Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Deckard a replicant,
while it certainly ain't so in the original novel ('Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?' by Philip K. Dick)? I happen to have read and loved that story a long time before I ever saw Blade Runner, and I even think that the change also distracts severely from the original atmosphere and message.


Cees
Reply
post #4 of 152
7/23/04 at 1:38pm
You guys do realize that the dream was in the first screening and the studio told him to remove the scene because viewers were "confused", right?
Reply
post #5 of 152
7/23/04 at 1:44pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Ugg, here we go again.


I know, I got pulled in again. Well, what else are we going to do?
Reply
post #6 of 152
7/23/04 at 1:51pm
Thread Starter 
Cees, I'm surprised. I was starting to think I was a solo Dick fan here at HTF. Every Philip K. Dick thread I have started has gotten exactly 0 replies. Good, well constructed thread titles too. Being a Dick fan before Blade Runner, I'm surprised, I feel Scott's film surpasses its' source.
Reply
post #7 of 152
7/23/04 at 1:59pm
Quote:
I agree with you Artur, Bryan, and Mark. I don't see these things as "explicit" at all. As Artur said, the DC may IMPLY it stronger than the original version, but that doesn't make it EXPLICIT.


So it doesn't matter then that Ridley Scott has gone on-record over and over, saying the reason why he re-cut the movie was basically to make it clear that Deckard is what he is?

To me, it's definitely EXPLICIT. What was the point of him throwing in the additions and changes? To continue to leave it up to the viewer??

Read Paul Sammon's excellent work FUTURE NOIR: THE MAKING OF BLADE RUNNER, or you can also read his definitive answer here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/825641.stm
Doesn't seem like it's still open to interpretation to me...

Quote:
I happen to have read and loved that story a long time before I ever saw Blade Runner, and I even think that the change also distracts severely from the original atmosphere and message.


Cees, that's totally my point as well. Cheers.
Reply
post #8 of 152
7/23/04 at 2:48pm
Quote:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Ridley Scott didn't write Blade Runner so the decision about whether Deckard is a replicant is not his to make
If I recall correctly, I read somewhere (Future Noir?) that Hampton Fancher originally wrote something in a vague way and Scott misinterpreted it to mean Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Deckard was a Replicant.
Scott thought it was a brilliant idea and despite its origin as a misunderstanding, he used it.
Reply
post #9 of 152
7/23/04 at 2:50pm
Quote:
I happen to have read and loved that story a long time before I ever saw Blade Runner, and I even think that the change also distracts severely from the original atmosphere and message.

The book also had a character's main focus being to find a real sheep. The book and the movie are two different pieces of art. Comparing the two is foolish, whether the DC is dealt in this comparison or not.

As for the message of the film, whether or not Deckard is or is not a replicant, the message is still clear. And that it still draws out the question of what humanity truly is. That despite Deckard being a replicant, he still retains the human spirit.

As for the unicorn dream, I have always interpreted it in two ways. In one scenario Deckard is a replicant and I don't think I need to explain the irony and message of such an ending. But the other way to interpret the scene is to say that Deckard is a human in only physical definition. At the beginning of the film it is apparant that the character is tired of chasing runaways. That he fears these creatures in many sense and has resulted in a hint of prejudice that rests inside him. However as he goes deeper into the case we witnessing more and more replicant characteristics residing within the character. He collects pictures, listens to ancient music, and even falls in love with one. Until eventually he becomes one with them in spirit. His deepest desires and dreams are the same as their's. It is only until Gaff leaves the orgami that Deckard realizes his place. That he will in turn be chased as a replicant himself and and that similar to Roy's and Pris' love, their's in time him and his love won't last. But then again who does?
Reply
post #10 of 152
7/23/04 at 4:05pm
Quote:
Ridley Scott didn't write Blade Runner so the decision about whether Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Deckard is a replicant
is not his to make


It's a film, not the original novel. A film is a director's statement. What he says the movie means, the movie means. Period. It has no bearing on the meaning of the source material--even the work of the screenwriter (for good or ill).
Reply
post #11 of 152
7/23/04 at 5:12pm
Quote:
Being a Dick fan before Blade Runner, I'm surprised, I feel Scott's film surpasses its' source.
I agree. I love Blade Runner as one of my very favourite movies. But for that one aspect... I wish Scott wouldn't have put the alteration in.

Quote:
The book and the movie are two different pieces of art. Comparing the two is foolish
???
It's a legal and very sensible comparison, even if I didn't do that in my post.
What I did do was making a slightly ironic remark about my personal weighing of the 'fact' that Scott had expressed an opinion about you know what. I wished he had let at least the ambiguity that was present in his theatrical version exist. AND I think the speculations of Deckard's essence take away from some other important points, like the fate of the replicants and their essential nature and the moral right for "real" humans to treat them one way of another. As depicted excellently by Harrison's and Hauer's performances.
To me, it's essential for that message to come over, that Deckard is human. Were's the tension if he's not? And what does the other possibility bring except another twist to the film (and some uncertainty about his future)? Dick had it right, here.

Quote:
A film is a director's statement. What he says the movie means, the movie means. Period.
Oh no. A director (or a writer or a painter) is responsible for the attempt to create a work of art and try to put a certain meaning in it (or not).
As a viewer (reader, watcher) I have my own responsibility. And must look and think and ponder and make out the truth and logic in that work. We cannot have the director simply coming later and tell us what we saw (or had to see). If he does, he's too late.


Cees
Reply
post #12 of 152
7/23/04 at 6:30pm
Quote:
It's a legal and very sensible comparison, even if I didn't do that in my post.
What I did do was making a slightly ironic remark about my personal weighing of the 'fact' that Scott had expressed an opinion about you know what. I wished he had let at least the ambiguity that was present in his theatrical version exist. AND I think the speculations of Deckard's essence take away from some other important points, like the fate of the replicants and their essential nature and the moral right for "real" humans to treat them one way of another. As depicted excellently by Harrison's and Hauer's performances.
To me, it's essential for that message to come over, that Deckard is human. Were's the tension if he's not? And what does the other possibility bring except another twist to the film (and some uncertainty about his future)? Dick had it right, here.

Sorry if I came out as a little hostile in that post. It was not intended. But back on topic, IMO the message of morality resting in humanity should already be apparant with or without Deckard being a replicant. That morality is bound by no limits. And that a replicant, an artificial being, can hold more humanity than many of humans represented. That he himself can go through his own journey as we all do in life. That the creation carries the same will and spirit as the creator. That Deckard found humanity in his own light, demonstrates the true nature of human spirit. And brings to question of what exactly it means be human. All such attributes such as love, hate, fear, hope, and defeat existed within the replicants. Perhaps I'm wrong, but wasn't that the true message of the story?
Reply
post #13 of 152
7/23/04 at 7:00pm
Well, true, Cees--what something means to one personally is one's own interpretation, and is just as legit--for that person.

Me, if someone wants to maintain that the Mona Lisa is a statement about the state of women in Renaissance Italy, and Leonardo had stated "this lady wanted a portrait so I painted her and that's it", I'd stick with the latter. (I made up the examples, of course.)

A "what it means to me" argument is very different to "what it means" argument. And the director of a film has the ultimate say in the latter, imo.
Reply
post #14 of 152
7/23/04 at 7:11pm
Quote:
"A film is a director's statement. What he says the movie means, the movie means. Period."

Oh no. A director (or a writer or a painter) is responsible for the attempt to create a work of art and try to put a certain meaning in it (or not).
As a viewer (reader, watcher) I have my own responsibility. And must look and think and ponder and make out the truth and logic in that work. We cannot have the director simply coming later and tell us what we saw (or had to see). If he does, he's too late.

I agree! This is why I wish the Wechowski brothers would do their own commentary track for the Matrix box set. I heard they were concerned that their statements about what meaning they intended to put into the films would become gospel, with no one ever doing any more interpretation after they'd said what they intended. But that's an unfounded concern, because what an artist may *intend* to put into their art's subtext is not always what actually ends up in it. Who knows how it all ends up there -- some is conscious and intentional, some is unconscious though still intentional (even if they aren't aware of their intent at the time), and some is unintentional and probably doesn't mean anything.
Reply
post #15 of 152
7/23/04 at 8:26pm
Thread Starter 
Alex, bravo. I missed seeing that sig pic around here.

Quote:
And must look and think and ponder and make out the truth and logic in that work. We cannot have the director simply coming later and tell us what we saw (or had to see). If he does, he's too late.


Well said Cees. And I prefer the Director's Cut for many reasons. I have problems with this "spell it out for me" type of direction. I didn't like it, in the theatrical version with the flat, noir type narration(implying one thing). Or the inserted scenes of the DC(implying another). Part of the beauty of my favorite film of all time is in its' imperfections. I think neither version is void of faults and I can understand the differences in preference across the board.

I do agree that a film is the directors, regardless of its' source. Doesn't mask the fact though, that there is some confusion here in his vision[s] and it's not our(the viewers) fault.
Reply
post #16 of 152
7/24/04 at 1:43am
Thread Starter 
For the record, original screenplay writer, Hampton Fancher toyed with Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Deckard as a replicant
as well as re-writer David Peoples who expanded on it, with his voice over writes. This notion was never originally Scott's or his own idea.

Most importantly, if we're discussing where the source of this implication stems, it is from its' source, Philip K. Dick originally. A very observant Fancher picked up on this, and he didn't care much for the novel his first run.

I'm suspect if all that throw themselves into the debate know that the often playful Dick himself is responsible with the toying of this. It's subtle and is not an underlying hint or message.

The controversy(better worded, debate) is, as it should be, with Scott's two obviously very different suggestions. Not what he(and he not the first) implicates.

If you want your arguments to hold any water, drop the Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Deckard is or isn't a replicant
as support. If loyalty to the film's source is your problem, there are far better elements in which to take issue.
Reply
post #17 of 152
7/24/04 at 2:42am
Well, I guess I just prefer to differentiate between different types of analysis. There's the kind that only considers the work of art itself, within its own rules and context, taking no outside factors into consideration, and this is of course legitimate.

But this kind of analysis should exist within its own context and not be used to pooh-pooh the stated intentions of the art's creator!

Making up an extreme example that is not meant to suggest participants of this thread have taken this anywhere near this degree:

If I were to make a film about the horrors of child abuse, and I was told by pedofiles on the internet that it was "really" about the joys of man-boy sex/love, I'd be obliged to tell them they were "wrong". People could make their own interpretation, but no one's going to tell me what my statement is. I'd know what it is.
Reply
post #18 of 152
7/24/04 at 3:14am
Quote:
I do agree that a film is the directors, regardless of its' source. Doesn't mask the fact though, that there is some confusion here in his vision[s] and it's not our(the viewers) fault.
That's the point Zen!

I hate artists who create work and then later force me to listen to their explanations and clarifications of what they apparently left out of their work in the first place. Be it intentional or not.
As I said: they're too late. I can politely point them to their work and say "see? it isn't that clear at all".

And a new version of something that has been published already is a new work of art. The old one cannot be retracted (although it can effectively, and perhaps even legally, be destroyed - but that's entirely something else).


Cees
Reply
post #19 of 152
7/24/04 at 9:00am
Quote:
A film is a director's statement. What he says the movie means, the movie means. Period. It has no bearing on the meaning of the source material--even the work of the screenwriter (for good or ill).


I don't disagree with you about Ridley Scott, but do you hold the auteur theory to be true with EVERY movie?

I certainly wouldn't go along with that all the time -- there are certainly instances of producers and writers sharing as much or more so in the meaning of a film than a director. Not in the case of BLADE RUNNER, but definitely in other instances.
Reply
post #20 of 152
7/24/04 at 11:08am
Quote:
Most importantly, if we're discussing where the source of this implication stems, it is from its' source, Philip K. Dick originally. A very observant Fancher picked up on this, and he didn't care much for the novel his first run.

Actually I remember reading an interview with PK Dick circa 1981/82 just before his death in either Starlog or Fantastic Films where he vehemently hated the idea which had been brought up even back then, the quote that stands out the strongest for me, since it was the opening tag line for the interview in bold print, was Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
"Deckard is not a fucking replicant! That was not the point at all."

I strongly remembered this particular interview later on when the DC came out and all the Deck-a-Rep talk began.
Try as I have I can't find the interview online, if anyone has a link then please provide it.

Quote:
I'm suspect if all that throw themselves into the debate know that the often playful Dick himself is responsible with the toying of this.

Where do you get this impression? Not from the novel that I read.
Reply
post #21 of 152
7/24/04 at 11:46am
Quote:
I'm suspect if all that throw themselves into the debate know that the often playful Dick himself is responsible with the toying of this.
Not in his book! And I doubt anywhere else (not that it matters in relation to the novel ).
And I repeat: it might be fun as a twist to a film, but it completely changes the subject of the novel (and the original film).


Cees
Reply
post #22 of 152
7/24/04 at 12:29pm
Thread Starter 
Kevin M,(and Cees) I think I was very careful in my wording.

Quote:
the often playful Dick himself is responsible with the toying of this.


I get my impression from Dick's novel itself. Please, I'm not making an argument for or against the notion of Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Deckard as Replicant.
I'm quite aware of Dick's statements. It's very important to note, that Mr. Philip K. Dick is not to be grasped or understood easily. I think there is proof of that with many failed attempts at adapting his novels to screen. Blade Runner is no exception, there are problems with interpretation, obviously not just here in this thread. Your Dick quote comes as no surprise Kevin, as Dick was quite the moody and suspicious personality. Okay enough primer and I'd like to respond to your question directly.

Carefully, the possibility that Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Deckard could be a replicant
is toyed with, by Dick in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

Dick uses Rachel in the novel several times to question his humanity. Which unfortunatley, only one line made it to Blade Runner.

"Have you taken that test yourself?" Further, in the novel:
Deckard: "Yes, a long time ago."
Rachel: "Maybe that's a false memory.." further
Rachel: "Maybe there was once a human who looked like you, and somewhere along the line you killed him and took his place. And your superiors don't know"

Garland: "This man-or android-Rick Deckard, comes to us from a phantom, hallucinatory, nonexistent police agency.........the list he carries isn't of androids; it's a list of humans"

My examples are in support, that Dick surely toyed with the notion as you would expect Dick to do. The nature of Dick is to shift reality and the often wonderful Roger Zelazny, in one of my editions, even struggles to grasp and describe the man. He does well here "The worlds through which Philip Dick's characters move are subject to cancellation or revision without notice. Reality is approximately as dependable as a politician's promise."
Do my examples indicate that the novel's end result insinuate Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Deckard is a Replicant
?

No, but they do support that the notion was indeed thrown in the mix, many times. I'll add, that this raises the question How human are we? not so much Are we human? If you reread a few of my longer(lumbering, I know) posts, notice that my arguments are purposely a bit circular. If we are going to insist(us, the thread body) on trying to grasp PKD, conventional(stodgy) linear thinking will get us nowhere and in the end creates its' own revolving door.
Although, I prefer the Director's Cut as a whole. It would be utter hilarious to be able to see Mr. Dick's reaction to the inserted sequence(unicorn). Anyone who is an avid Dick reader, should understand why that makes me laugh out loud.
KevinM, you and I have been on the merry-go-round before right? This, my friend is a fun one because there is no end to any Dick interpretation. In discussing Dick, much like reading one of his novels, we are but trapped in his world.
Reply
post #23 of 152
7/24/04 at 12:40pm
Quote:
do you hold the auteur theory to be true with EVERY movie?

I certainly wouldn't go along with that all the time -- there are certainly instances of producers and writers sharing as much or more so in the meaning of a film than a director.


True, in some instances the waters would be muddier than others. And for the record, I don't mean to disparage the influence of producers and writers and everyone else. It's just that usually the director's thumb is the last in the pie...not counting the editor, but the director is usually actively involved with the editing.
Reply
post #24 of 152
7/24/04 at 12:49pm
Zen,

Of course Rachel would say a thing like that. But that doesn't mean the writer toys with the thought himself. I didn't know that quote (and thanks, Kevin):
Quote:
..."That was not the point at all."
(I'm avoiding a spoiler blanket here.) I strongly believe that Dick makes his point there. That's exactly what I would say about the book myself, in this matter.


Cees
Reply
post #25 of 152
7/24/04 at 1:38pm
Quote:
KevinM, you and I have been on the merry-go-round before right? This, my friend is a fun one because there is no end to any Dick interpretation.

Yes, and I was also aware that your statements were in all likelihood meant to goad another endless discussion with the main defence being that "P K Dick was psychologically unpinned during his life so you can't take anything he says for granted" however (as I stated in countless threads with you...all of which seem to have disappeared BTW) as he was quite lucid during his last four or five years thanks to advances in drugs & therapy I'll take his assessment of what deckard was and wasn't on face value...it's kind of hard not to understand Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
"Deckard isn't a Fucking Replicant!"
IMHO
And yes you are indeed using circular logic and his sketchy mental states to, IMO, reinterpret what he was saying with the book & basically saying that you can interpret it anyway you wish because we will never truly know, but he himself laid it out fairly well in a magazine interview I do still have on hand from Starlog in early 1981: "Basically it was a way of exploring what the term "Human" really means when looking at one's behavior compared to one's rationalization, it was loosely based as an allegory to the Nazis and their "Superman" ideals and the hypocrisy under which they rationalized their behavior. The fact that you are Human does not guarantee your Humanity, which is in part what (Deckard) was used for."

Now I'm sure you can interpret that differently but to me it says Deckard was Human yet Inhumane, even in his shallow treatment of his wife and his desire to find something "real" in the subtly oppressive and increasingly artificial world he lived in.

The film is something else.
Reply
post #26 of 152
7/24/04 at 1:44pm
Thread Starter 
Cees, for my own sanity may I state
a.) Do I feel Deckard in the novel is ultimately a replicant? no
b.) In either film version do I feel Deckard is a replicant? yes

As to the novel, from here described as (DADOES), it's not only Rachel. The possibility is toyed with(don't like "implied") several times. Yes, Deckard's dehumanizing (by killing replicants) is a central theme of the book. Kevin, to say that Dick plays the realities fair all the way through, doesn't play with us and play with the notion that Deckard may not be human is inaccurate. We should expect that from Dick before reading page 1.



Dick's quote is not a new one. He was very cynical of Hollywood and of Scott. His irritated demeanor(around that time) may have been in response to the fact that Ridley, never fully read the novel. He made similar outbursts all the way until he got a real glimpse at Ridley's future. As noted by Sammon, in which he watched twice, and "Dick went away dazed" They both took swipes at each other all the way up to this viewing. Four months later Dick died. So the quote is to be expected.

Kevin, I am in no way using circular logic to make a point. I make some very concrete observation, not held by myself solely. It(circular approach) must be used, in this case, to even observe Dick. Linear(left-brain) logic doesn't apply very well. Also, his defensive very concrete "...isn't a fucking replicant!" sounds like a man irritated. Of course, he's not. His exclamation doesn't void his own shifts in reality, only the end result.

I think it's very possible I'm trying to illustrate my views a bit unsuccessfully. That's the wonder of Dick. Even from beyond the grave, he challenges our observation.


A sweet note: in Future Noir, after all the bickering, and before his first stroke Sammon recalls Dick saying "I can't wait to see Blade Runner"
Reply
post #27 of 152
7/24/04 at 1:49pm
Zen,

Also for the record :
a.) Do I feel Deckard in the novel is ultimately a replicant? no
b.) In the theatrical film version do I feel Deckard is a replicant? no
c.) In the DC version do I feel Deckard is a replicant? I hate to say it's being strongly toyed with.

d.) Do I feel he should be? NO!


Cees
Reply
post #28 of 152
7/24/04 at 1:55pm
Quote:
The possibility is toyed with

Yes, toyed with and revealed as a red herring, a mental game the replicants are playing with Deckard (with Rachel as an agent mind you) to throw him off the trail while attempting to expose the oppressive society that the humans have grown numb to, in fact Deckard and the young officer on the roof "test" each other just to be sure.

Is that what you are saying? That even though it went nowhere in the book it was the inspiration for the very subtle notion in the screenplay?
Reply
post #29 of 152
7/24/04 at 2:11pm
Thread Starter 
Yes Kevin, and a VK test proves Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
him human
in the book.

Quote:
a mental game the replicants are playing with Deckard

If I may add, a "mental game" played by Dick on us. Which worked quite well on its' first read.


Anything from the book you would have liked to have seen in the film?
Reply
post #30 of 152
7/24/04 at 2:19pm
Quote:
It(circular approach) must be used, in this case, to even observe Dick. Linear(left-brain) logic doesn't apply very well.

Perhaps with something like his last novel The Transmigration of Timothy Archer, The Penultimate Truth or The Man In The High Castle but IMO not with Do Androids... as the intent and purpose was fairly clear and straightforward, especially considering the times he wrote it under and his treatment at various releasing houses of the time...oppressive society indeed.

Quote:
If I may add, a "mental game" played by Dick on us. Which worked quite well on its' first read.
Zen, I think you're reading a lot more into it then Dick intended. I flat out disagree with your interpretation of any hidden meaning in the book, I think your reading into it what you would like to be there more than what actually is there because you get a kick out of the implications that the screenwriters tried to add to the story. IMO it was a standard "Twilight Zone - Gosh isn't that a mind blower" twist that the story didn't need.

My opinion.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movies (Theatrical)
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › Blade Runner (Beware: SPOILERS!) About Deckard