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

[Cees Alons]

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

 

[Zen Butler]

Kevin M,(and Cees) I think I was very careful in my wording.

?

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.

 

[Jay Pennington]

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.

 

[Cees Alons]

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):
(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

 

[Kevin M]

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.

 

[Zen Butler]

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"

 

[Cees Alons]

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

 

[Kevin M]

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?

 

[Zen Butler]

Yes Kevin, and a VK test proves
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?

 

[Kevin M]

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.

 

[Zen Butler]

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.

 

[Kevin M]

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?

 

[Zen Butler]

Kevin, stop doing that editing post thing


That's fine, pin it all on me.

 

[Zen Butler]

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

 

[Kevin M]

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!

 

[Cees Alons]

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

 

[Henry Gale]

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

 

[Zen Butler]

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

 

[Kevin M]

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.

 

[Kevin M]

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.