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

[Bob Spears]

I may have seen it in the "Work Print". The FC and the WP are the two versions I watched over the last two days. I never really understood what Batty was doing in that phone booth and just assumed it was something that was cut from the movie and the hand was just left over. Thanks for the info.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

After I saw the movie originally, with no unicorn scene , that is exactly how I saw this scene. I saw it as Gaff having some humanity (and pity) towards Rachel (and Deckard) because he knew she wasn't going to live that long anyway.

 

[Sean Richardson]

I don't see how anybody can argue with Ridley Scott; this cut makes it absolutely clear that Deckard is a replicant. Any sort of explanation as to how he might not be is not in the text, and, no matter how good it is, will always have a "No-Prize" feel to it.

I mean, if I watch 'To Serve Man', I can certainly argue that the linguistic experts were wrong, or that the main character misinterpreted his secretary, and that the book "To Serve Man" was not, in fact, a cookbook. But there is nothing in the episode to confirm or strengthen this interpretation (and, in fact, several things which seemingly contradict it).

 

[Sean Richardson]

The only thing about the ending that I like at all is Deckard's reaction. The way that he looks at it, takes it in for an almost angry beat, and then shrugs it off as if it doesn't matter. I like to think that moment is Deckard reacting to how stupid and arbitrary the twist is, and then deciding that the only way to live with it is to completely ignore the revelation.

And it seems I'm not alone in feeling that that reaction is the only way to watch the movie. Just ignore the revelation and close your eyes for the earlier unicorn shot.

 

[AlexCremers]

I have my own remedy for that, I just watch the International Theatrical Cut sans unicorn reverie. That version is loaded with ambiguity.

 

[AlexCremers]

Sean, here's another possible explanation for Deckard's physical weakness: A replicant that knows that it's a replicant will not hunt its own kind. It has to believe it's human in order to fulfill its task! Give it special strength and you'll take away that belief.

Then why is Deckard is reluctant to do the job he was "programmed" for? Identity crisis! Deep inside it knows it's killing its own kind.



Alex

 

[Edwin-S]

That explanation just sounds so much like clutching at straws.

 

[AlexCremers]

I don't think it's that far-fetched. A slave might stick up for a fellow slave. Could you give me a reason for dismissing my little theory?


Alex

 

[Kevin C Brown]

Doesn't fly with me either, sorry. If it's kill or be killed, you use every available resource at your disposal. And he still did kill the ones that he could. Physical weakness is different from moral ambiguity and mentally questioning the decision to kill your own kind or not.

There is another problem with Deckard being a replicant. In the physical confrontations with Pris, Leon, and Roy, and maybe even with Zhora too, if he had indeed exhibited more strength and resilience than a human should have, at least one of them should have spotted that he was a replicant, and gee, maybe mentioned it to him. But obviously, that wasn't part of the movie.

I 100% believe that he was supposed to be human, but Ridley Scott changed that in spite of the pre-existing elements in the screenplay (*and* novel), and that's why there's conflicting details in the final cut.

I think the whole point to the movie rides on him being human. That he as a human actually acts less human than the replicants he is hunting down, but ironically, his love for Rachel, a replicant herself, is what shows him beginning to thaw.

If he is a replicant, yeah, it could be seen as a neat twist, but then what's the point?

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

I personally found it rather convincing - the discussion had made me doubt whether Deckard being a replicant actually made sense. But, if hunting replicants is so dangerous, the idea of making replicant blade runners that don't know they're human actually makes sense. You make someone that has, perhaps, above-average strength, intelligence, resourcefulness, while perhaps not being so over-the-top that they start to question their humanity, and they might just be able to retire most replicants, and if a replicant takes them down, then no big loss.
That actually makes sense to me.

 

[rich_d]

I also think that Alex has brought an interesting slant to this.

Obviously there are replicants that aren't doing what humans want them to. With that knowledge, do you give another one a big gun and hope for the best or do you make them think their human?

If the latter, than giving them super-human strength wouldn't make the replicant think their human now would it?

Let's face it, no theory is perfect but this idea is not easily dismissed in my mind.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I agree with Alex's possible explanation for Deckard's lack of super-human strength, etc. - in fact, I've been forwarding the same premise in a discussion on another board!

Is it grasping at straws? I don't think so. I think it makes sense. If Deckard realizes that he's a replicant, then the hunter becomes the hunted and he'll be much less eager to off his own kind...

 

[Nelson Au]

I saw the Final Cut last night. It wasn't till I saw this version that I finally got the reason so many suspected that Deckard is a replicant. I was never one to follow this line. I always felt he was a human.

And like most of you, I have the Criterion laserdisc, the Directors Cut laserdisc and DVD and the recent DVD and now the Final Cut HD-DVD. And I first saw it during my college years back when it first came out in 1982. As a design student, Syd Mead was a hero. His work was influential to me then and still is now as a professional designer. But I have no where the depth of knowledge you guys have for this film. I mostly focused on the production design, a lot of really great work here. I often found it hard to watch the film. Though I know it pretty well, even many lines of dialogue. Not till now that I have really started to delve into the subtle and really listen to the dialogue!

This time, I turned on subtles to finally get some lines of dialogue. I finally see the subtle hints in the script. But I never could see the connection with the Unicorn.

Here are some lines that really struck me this time,

“Is this to be a test of empathy, eye dilation....” Is Tyrell’s dialogue, to be a double meaning? His comment referring to Rachael’s testing Deckard rather then Tyrell asking Deckard how the Voight-Kampff test works.

“The experiences you and I take for granted” Tyrell telling Deckard that we have experiences as if he is human.

And a new line I never understood before, because it was hard to understand till I used the subtitle feature, is Gaff’s line after Batty dies, “You’ve done a man’s job, sir.” That one was a new one for me.

It can go either way for me on the question of Deckard. As art, it really is up to the viewer to interprete. Scott can tell us what he meant after the fact, but that's not his job, his job is to tell a story that has points to make that let us believe what we make of it to believe. One funny thought for me is that if he is a replicant, then the humans really don't want to do any of the dirty jobs anymore and have to have replicants kill other replicants.

As for Rachael, to me, she's definitely a replicant. Well, this new Final Cut version has done one more thing for me, a new appreciation for the film!

 

[Zack Gibbs]

Reading over the posts, a lot of people assume Deckard was built to be a Blade Runner and should have suitable capabilities. That is entirely assumed on the viewers part and no one can actually hold the film responsible for their own assumptions. Why is it so hard to accept Deckard was built, like Rachael, to be as close to human as possible? The fact that he doesn't have super human abilities makes it awkward to assume otherwise.

I've always envisioned that there was a real Deckard who was killed in the line of duty shortly before the film that Replicant Deckard was based on. It seems natural that 'Runners would have dealings with Tyrell from time to time and Real Deckard may have even had a loose friendship with Tyrell. Deckard cooperates with Tyrell in his attempts to create a perfect human replicant.

I was never too sure why the police wanted to use Deckard (human or otherwise) to hunt down these particular replicants. If he's human you have to accept the reason given in the film, (He's the best) which is stupid and contrived. If he's a replicant of a real Deckard it's easily conceivable that the Blade Running business has a high fatality rate, and officials wanted to see if they could hunt replicants with replicants. Luckily they had the perfect candidate.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

I think all the conjecture that tries to support Deckard being a replicant in the final cut, a) relies way too much on evidence *not* included in the film at all, ignores the information that *is* there, and, b) ignores the facts that he was a human in the book, he was a human in the screenplay, and he was a human in the original theatrical release. Scott changed that, which results in the contradictions we all see, and why some of us still see him as human (which it seems to me, he was clearly * meant* to be), while others try to justify Scott's decision, which goes right back to (a).

Rachel was clearly based on Tyrell's niece, so yes, she is a "weak" replicant. She's not a combat unit, or an assassin. But I don't believe that it makes any sense to make a replicant whose sole function is to hunt down and kill other replicants, weaker than they are. And remember, replicants have 4 year life spans, so it's not like he could have started out to be a TV weatherman, and then Deckard himself changes "careers" to be a Blade Runner. 4 years is not a lot of time to get good at something, so if he was a replicant, he must have been designed as a blade runner from the beginning.

And also remember that replicants are illegal on earth. So now all of the sudden we have one working for law enforcement? And this isn't some hack police dept out in the middle of nowhere that we're talking about. It's the LAPD, and in addition, since replicants were such a big deal that they were outlawed on earth, it can't be just the LAPD involved, but presumably at least the U.S. government and potentially other world governments too. But again, Deckard is associated with the LAPD, and not in a black ops CIA/NSA/etc unit where it just might be easier to support the notion of an illegal replicant on earth.

It also seems clear to me that he and the captain had a long standing relationship which also negates the idea of a 4 year life span. So then there *was* an original Deckard, and a replicant replaced him? There's nothing in the film which supports any replicant ever being made to replace a human, which we don't even know is possible.

This discussion has been fun. But it seems as though no one is really going to change any one else's mind, so then it becomes people trying to justify their stance, which isn't as much fun. Cheers!

 

[Bill McA]

Nexus 6 replicants have 4 year life spans, other replicants do not.

After being a Blade Runner ("the best") for years, it is only during Bryant's briefing that Deckard first learns of the 4 year life span.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

This was ever in doubt? The movie tells us right from the start that she's a replicant - not sure why you added the "to me" when there's never been a question about Rachael's status...

 

[Nelson Au]

I was commenting on post #63 where Rich_D postulates that Rachael could be human. Like you, I took the information presented in the begining of the film at face value. Everyone tells Deckard she's a replicant and he comfirms she's a replicant.

I saw the first hour and 20 minutes of Dangerous Days, really great stuff!

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Watched Dangerous Days yesterday...about as in-depth as you can get. If a movie ever deserved this much love in a home release - this is it.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Whoops - sorry! That's what I get for not reading all the posts - I didn't realize someone else had theorized that she might be human!

I'll have to take a look at that post, but I can't imagine any justification for the theory that Rachael's not a replicant. We're told she is and there's nothing in the movie that contradicts that concept. She's even got the eye glow of the replicants - what's the confusion?