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

[rich_d]

I think Chuck makes a great point. Each viewer will find a solution that works for them. And while I think Scott leads too much rather than just telling the story, the takeaway Chuck suggests is both true and poetic.

 

[42nd Street Freak]

Agreed. That was a fine way of putting the fact that it ultimately does not matter into words.
And indeed Batty could be seen as having more humanity at the end than a lot of the human characters.

But that is ultimately a different topic. That's not 'is he/isn't he'. That's 'does it really matter'.

The simple fact is (as we have heard with comments like 'my own backstory is that...') to make Deckard a replicant you have to not only re-write parts of the film, ignore parts of the film but make-up entire bits of the film that aren't even there!

All because of a completely open to meaning 5 second unicorn in the woods shot! A shot that was not in the novel, not in the screenplay and not in any version released for years.

Whereas seeing the paper unicorn as simply ironic coincidence, a perceptive warning and message, while leaving Deckard human, requires NO re-writing, NO changes and NO utterly made-up backstories.

To have a theory he's a Replicant is fine. To then make-up entire chunks of story to actually make it fit and then ponce around with an arrogant smirk saying how its the logical conclusion is anything but fine!

Unless you write and make-up your own story to add into the film the replicant idea does not hold up to what we have actually seen in the movie.
As such it's anything BUT a logical conclusion.

 

[Yee-Ming]

Either theory requires a number of assumptions and/or leaps of faith. Admittedly "Deckard is human" requires just one, but a big one: that Gaff coincidentally made an origami unicorn, without having any additional knowledge or particular reason for doing so, then left it at Deckard's apartment.

"Deckard is a replicant" needs us to make some other assumptions, none of which IMHO are particularly huge leaps of faith, though. E.g. he 'replaced' an earlier human Deckard and received his memories as implants (not a huge leap since Rachael has Tyrell's niece's memories implanted), was deliberately built no stronger than humans to avoid detection (not a huge leap since Rachael appears to be 'ordinary') etc.

Either interpretation works, as Chuck described very eloquently. So why get all riled up when you disagree with someone else's interpretation? We can all politely agree to disagree, but there's no need to call someone else's views asinine or nonsensical.

 

[Edwin-S]

You're joking, right? You can't really believe that it takes less of a leap of faith to assume Deckard is a replicant based on a group of assumptions, none of which are ever indicated or even hinted at in the film, than to believe that Gaff could have coincidentally made a Unicorn origami?

The original cut of this film did not require a person to make any large leap of faith regarding Deckard's humanity. The origamis, except for the first one, could be interpreted as calling cards. The first one, The Chicken, was Gaff's way of calling Deckard a coward.

 

[Yee-Ming]

FWIW, I personally prefer the Deckard is human interpretation, so that the contrast between humans and their lack of humanity in coldly retiring replicants is contrasted with Batty's 'earned humanity' in sparing Deckard, and appreciating his short life and what he saw during it.

But why is that a larger leap, you ask? Remembering that Deckard's daydream is specifically about a unicorn, since unicorns are mythical creatures, there is simply no reason why Gaff would make one other than to send the message "I know what you dreamt" to Deckard; there is no reference elsewhere in the movie to mythical creatures, nor does Gaff make any other such. In particular if we take your "I'm telling you you're chicken" point, this would arguably reinforce the notion that Gaff very deliberately sends coded messages through his origami. If the message was to say he spared Rachael, why not leave an origami snake, to remind Deckard of his retiring Zhora?

So it is to my mind a huge coincidence if Gaff randomly decides to make a unicorn without any knowledge as to Deckard's daydreams, just to tell Deckard that he was there and spared Rachael to let them run off together. And believing it be just a coincidence is therefore a bigger leap of faith than the other little points going the other way (e.g. replicant doesn't know he's one; replaced a real person and got his memories), which have some basis in the movie (Rachael/Tyrell's niece).

In the original theatrical cut, there is no other context as to why a unicorn origami was made. So that is a purely random event/choice, even if a bit odd bearing in mind my earlier note that unicorns are mythical. Indeed I'd take the view that Deckard's humanity isn't even questioned at all in the original cut. And the fact that the fracas about the missing 'fifth replicant' was purely a continuity error (now proven to be one by its removal in the FC) goes to show reinforce this, since this was one of the main reasons previously advanced for this interpretation under the original cut.

But in the DC and Final Cut, the unicorn dream sequence is there, and at the end Gaff leaves a unicorn origami. In those versions, we are therefore presented with this to mull over: mere coincidence, or did Gaff actually know what Deckard dreamt of? If the latter, Deckard is a replicant. (Unfortunately, I might add, in my view.)

It is still inconclusive: there is no indication in the movie whether Gaff actually knew about the unicorn dream, or just coincidentally made a unicorn. You can opt for your version and I won't disagree, both are viable. But Gaff not knowing, i.e. it's sheer coincidence, is to me a huge coincidence, and therefore oddly now a bigger leap of faith.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

Well, if you want to go with a non-replicant interpretation of the unicorn origami, you could argue that Gaff is saying that Deckard's hope for a life with Rachel is just a fantasy?

 

[42nd Street Freak]

Yes, the unicorn points to the Replicant idea.
BUT the unicorn crud only exists because Scott alone put it in because he misread the damn screenplay/misunderstood remarks by the writers.

Which is WHY you have to re-write and make-up big parts of the film as a whole to get the idea to fit.
Because it DOESN'T fit. Because it was never MEANT to fit!

That's because he's not a Replicant and only this misreading by Scott and his out of place unicorn rubbish even opens up such a silly idea.
The rest of the film simply does not work and/or is less effective if you go down the replicant route.

So ignore it and have another more flighty reason for the unicorn to save the rest of the film from imploding then.
Coicidence does happen, irony is real. And yes I would far prefer to go down that route, and not have to make-up whole chunks of screenplay and backstory that simply don't exist in the film, to try and make the otherwise utterly spurious replicant idea fit (barely).

It's like the director of "Die Hard" doing a 'directors cut' anddeciding that John was part of the gang at the end as a big twist and everybody going along with it just because the director shoved it in!

The fact that the rest of the entire film then does not fit/make much sense suddenly doesn't matter??
That it means John did things he should not have done, but also that he that didn't do things he should have done suddenly isn't important??
And that you have to re-write half the film and create your own backstory for John to have any hope of making the idea fit is valid now??

No, it's not. Because nothing in the structure/logic/story of the film (that you don't have to make up yourself!) was ever meant to mean he was a member of the gang.

Just as nothing in the structure/logic/story of "Blade Runner" (that you don't have to make up yourself!) was ever meant to mean he was a replicant.
And from a simple artistic level AS WELL the idea hurts the film for many of the reasons stated above by me and others.

You're trying to make a mistake/misunderstanding by the director valid by changing the rest of the film.
No thanks, I'll stick with coincidental irony (and enjoy the moment for that) and thus leave the rest of the film unmolested.

 

[AlexCremers]

Personally, I don't see how you are still able to enjoy this film. But hey, in the meantime we are living proof that the discussion never ends.


Alex

 

[42nd Street Freak]

I can't enjoy it because I don't make-up entire backstory plot to get around all the things that point to him not being a replicant?

I have to think he's a replicant to enjoy the film? And if not you can't see how I can enjoy it?

The arrogance of replicant fanboys summed up in one handy sentence.

 

[rich_d]

In the last page or so, I think things have heated up a bit much. May I suggest that it's been an interesting discussion? So let's keep it that way.


Well, perhaps somewhat overstated. After all, Deckard does:

1. Finds the snake scale and follows up on it.
2. Finds the clue in the picture
3. Follows-up on the Sebastian lead.

He does seem to have a bit of J.J. Gittes (CHINATOWN) in him. Both men a bit smarter with their mouths than how they use what's given to them.

 

[Don Solosan]

I agree. I watched the Workprint the other day, and was reminded of all the subtle details that have no apparent function. Like the little girl's voice whispering in one of the JF Sebastian scenes.

 

[Yee-Ming]

That's a good interpretation/explanation, IMHO.

In the last page or so, I think things have heated up a bit much. May I suggest that it's been an interesting discussion? So let's keep it that way. [/QUOTE/]
Very true. I think that's why some of us have felt the need to chime in against 42nd Street Freak, not because we disagree and support the Deck-is-a-rep theory, but it's the vitriol poured on what is in our mind still a vaid interpretation.

Like it or not, it's in the movie. Even if its genesis was via a mistake on the part of Sir Ridley, it's there, deal with it. No one is saying "Deckard is absolutely definitely 100% positively a replicant and if you think he's human you're an idiot". So likewise, please don't take the attitude that those who feel he is a replicant are.