Slashdot Mirror
It's Official: Deckard Was A Replicant
ozric99 sent in a great bit over at BBC news where Ridley Scott reveals that Deckard was a replicant. This is of course the question on the mind of any fan of the classic Blade Runner film. I used to have this discussion with friends years ago. Great film: if you haven't seen it, spank yourself and go rent the directors cut (or get the DVD, it's beautiful).
...than someone who raises an objection that's worth answering, but then calls me an idiot. You remind me of my English teacher, who I always had to fight with because he thought that every story had One True Interpretation (with which everyone must agree) and I consider all the possible interpretations to be part of the final work.
the things which aren't in the work are sometimes more important than the things that are in it.
This depends on your definition of "in the work". By my definition, anything which might be perceived by a reasonable person is in the work, not just the things which are blatantly shown, but the nuances and suggestions. The suggestions and possibilities are a real part of the work, the intentions of someone who worked on the project are only real to the extent they are expressed in the final product.
The point I was trying to make is that an unequivocal decision by the director that Deckard was a replicant is unimportant compared to the clearly expressed (but not unquestionably verified) possibility that Deckard was a replicant. I believe he wished to express uncertainty, keep the audience guessing, and he succeeded. I do not believe that he wished to express that Deckard was definitely a replicant; his decision that Deckard was, is something he chose to keep out of the film, making the uncertainty more real than his decision.
ambiguity is very often the essence of good literature
Indeed, and if ambiguity is part of the work, then private decisions about the ambiguous topic are not part of the work (though a bias toward this choice can spring from this decision and become part of the work). If they have to tell you about it afterward, they didn't do their job of telling the story the way they intended.
astute viewers figured it out.
There is no real world that the creators are describing. There's no way to have "figured it out" because there's no reality underlying the expression (aside from the whole thing being a show put on with actors). Plots have holes, and either errors in production or deliberate ambiguity can create a work in which different possibilities are valid. This uncertainty is a real part of the work, regardless of what its makers intended.
Truly astute viewers merely noted the possibility, and did not get stuck in the mental mire of acting as if there's a real world behind the story.
A version of "Wizard of Oz" with a bit of minor editing would remove the final revelation that the whole thing was a dream. What if that had been the release cut? It would certainly match the book more closely (in which Oz is real). Fans of the movie might argue over whether it was a dream (earlier scenes in the movie certainly suggest it, though they don't make it 100% clear).
It wouldn't matter one bit if the director came out years later and insisted that the whole thing was supposed to be a dream, or even if the director's cut included the final revelation. The author clearly intended that it not be a dream. Whose vision is more valid? The director is only one player, and he doesn't even have final control over the editing. Many a director's decision is reversed in the cutting room.
Ultimately, the reality of the film's content is more important than the vision of the director. Whatever he thought, he may not have achieved his vision. Whether it was through interference or incompetence is irrelevant.
Note that the director's cut of Blade Runner is significantly different from the release version, and suggests much more strongly that Deckard was a replicant. Perhaps in the final editing for release, it was decided that people would like the movie better if Deckard wasn't a replicant. What, then, is the "reality" behind the expression?
When you sift out all the fiat decisions, only the uncertainty remains.
This was SUCH a spoiler. CmdrTaco should have put the secret in the "Read More" portion of the post. Now I can't see Blade Runner fresh. BE more considerate next time, please.
Ceterum censeo Microsoftam esse delendam.
Ridley wanted Deckard to be a replicant.. but it was never concretely decided by the writers. It's still unknown to this day whether Hampton Fancher & David Peoples intended Deckard to be a replicant.
At one spot in the book Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner (pg. 361), Peoples states: ".. what I had intended as kind of a metaphysical speculation, Ridley had read differently, but I now realize there was nothing wrong with his reading. That confusion was my own fault." Meaning: Peoples wrote an ambiguous ending suggesting there was no difference between replicant & their creator vs. Deckard (humans) and their creator.. but Ridley interpreted it as Deckard == replicant.
This is regardless to what Phil Dick may have intented in his book; Future Noir also informs us that Fancher read Dick's book, but Peoples did not. Peoples only stared with the script Hampton had at that stage and concentrated on the story/screenplay from that focus.
I would highly suggest any interested Blade Runner fans pick up this book (ISBN: 0-06-105314-7). It may not clear up all thing Blade Runner related, but it provides a damn greater amount of insight than even Ridley himself can provide on the topic. It is also one kick-ass read on the entire Blade Runner mystique.
-'fester
I remember having many conversations on this topic with my friends a few years ago. In the end, we concluded that the question of, "Is he a replicant?" was more important than the answer of "Yes" or "No". Rather, the possibility that he's a replicant is what we savour.
We also noticed a few other well thought out sections of the movie. For example, remember J.F. Sebastian, the man with accelerated aging? He represents a human with the same problem as a replicant. His duality is Rachel, who is a replicant with the same problem as humans-- emotions. If I remember, most major characters in the film fit into some kind of pair opposite duality, centered around Decker.
-Ted
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
I, for one, will never rent a DVD, or buy a DVD player, or otherwise put my hard-earned $.$ into those bastards' pockets. Not until they get their ways straight.
Just my ${LOCAL_CURRENCY}0.02.
Here's something I wrote in 96, for a Sci-Fi lit class I took:
I have seen Blade Runner a number of times. I have read the Philip K. Dick book on which the movie is based. I have seen the film several more times since then, in such gory detail that I feel I know more about the movie then most people. I've read several interviews with cast and crew, and I know about the differences between the several versions of the movie in existence.
I can appreciate the movie on it's own merits, and I can see it as a skillful adaptation of the philosophy of P. K. Dick's book. I've become so familiar with the work, that the last few times I've watched it, I've decided to change my point of view. I approached the movie with a preconceived notion, and found a surprising number of substantiating facts and impressions to support my hypothesis. In this paper I will try to show that my alternative view of BladeRunner, though not the most straight forward, is valid and possibly correct.
I propose that Rick Deckard is in fact himself a replicant. I further propose that Gaff, a character not found in the original work by P. K. Dick, is the real Blade Runner and furthermore that he, Gaff, uses Deckard to do his dirty-work.
To show that Gaff is Deckard's handler requires that I first show that Deckard needs handling, that he is a replicant. There are many instances in the film why this could be true.
Throughout the movie, replicants are shown as having a glow in their eyes. There is a slight glow in Leon's eyes as Dave Holden tests him for empathy. The artificial owl in the Tyrell building has eyes that glow. As Pris makes herself at home at J.F.Sebastian's apartment, her eyes have that same glow. So do the eyes of Roy as he speaks to Tyrell and at times while he hunts Deckard.
When Rachel and Deckard begin to fall in love her eyes have this very same glow. At this time Deckard's eyes also glow. This might only be a lighting technique, designed to show that Deckard is somehow connected to Rachel. But since the other replicants also have this glow in their eyes, Deckard is like all of the replicants. He is made to look like a replicant. Though this is the only visual hint that Deckard may be a replicant, it is reinforced with many insinuations of the same in the plot.
It is very striking that Deckard can climb the exterior of the rain drenched Bradbury building after Roy has dislocated two of his fingers. How could he do this? Very easily, if he is a physically superior replicant. He appears to be in pain and struggling, but this is because he believes that he is human, not because he necessarily is human.
Why would Deckard believe that he is human? For the same reason that Rachel initially believes that she is human, implanted memories. Deckard truly believes that he is Rick Deckard - a Blade Runner. He believes that he has always lived his current lifestyle; even that he was once married to a woman who called him 'sushi' due to his 'cold fish' personality. But he calls Rachel, a known replicant, at home and asks her to join him at Taffy Lewis's night club. By doing this Deckard acknowledges that a replicant can have a normal private live. If Rachel can, so can Deckard.
During the course of the movie, we learn that replicants treasure their memories, whether these are real or implanted makes no difference. We can infer that it is not enough for replicants to have memories, they need something tangible to make their memories seem real. Replicants keep photographs. Roy refers to Leon's lost photographs of Zhora as 'precious'; the taunt in his voice serves to show that Leon is extremely attached to them. Rachel offers a picture of herself as a little girl to Deckard, as proof of her humanity. She loses hope only after Deckard points out in gory detail that it is a false memory. Before then, it doesn't matter that the memory is implanted, she has a picture she can hold, proof that it really happened.
Deckard himself hoards photographs, his apartment is literally cluttered with them. This suggests that Deckard has memories that go back for generations. But didn't Tyrell himself tell Deckard that replicants can be better controlled through implantation of memories? If Deckard is a replicant he has the potential for causing a great deal of suffering to the humans that surround him daily. He must be kept under strong and constant control. This would require that he have a great deal of memories. He has pictures to prove that he does.
The most blatant suggestion that Deckard is a replicant comes from Rachel. At one point she asks him if he has ever taken the Voight-Kampff test himself. Rather then answer, Deckard conveniently and instantaneously falls asleep, 'like a switched off light', or a shut off machine.
All this certainly suggests that Deckard is a replicant, and if he is one, then he must somehow be manipulated in order to have him act as a Blade Runner. A replicant would not willingly hunt down other replicants. I propose that Gaff is the true Blade Runner, that he uses Deckard as his work-horse, and that his lieutenant - Bryant - is fully aware of this arrangement.
The opening scroll of the film clearly states that replicants are used where the work to be done is too hazardous for humans. The hunting of replicants is certainly hazardous work. After all, Dave Holden has been placed on life-support after being shot by Leon. Gaff certainly makes his job much less hazardous by having Deckard do the dirty-work for him. Gaff does his job as Blade Runner, but manages to keep himself out of danger. He monitors Deckard's performance without putting himself in Deckard's view. He chauffeurs Deckard to the precinct to meet Bryant, and takes him to the Tyrell building. Gaff also gets Deckard started on the hunt for Leon by joining him in his search of Leon's apartment. Other then these direct interactions, Gaff keeps to the shadows, emerging only to verify that replicants have been retired, or to make sure Deckard is doing his (Gaff's) job.
While Deckard is researching the snake-scale found in Leon's bath-tub, there is a police officer in the background. Though he might be going about routine police business, he could also be monitoring Deckard for Gaff. In fact it might even be Gaff himself in uniform. While Deckard is pursuing Zhora through the streets, an instant after he passes a Hari-Krishna procession, the careful viewer can make out a man in the crowd. This man is carefully watching Deckard run after Zhora. This man is Gaff. After Deckard retires Zhora, the police are on the scene as soon as her body hits the ground. How did they know to be there? Easily, Gaff was watching and notified them to stand by. Gaff also arrives shortly after Roy's death, again only to verify that the replicant is no longer on his list.
All conversations between Deckard, Gaff and Bryant seem to have a double meaning alluding to Deckard's replicant identity. After Deckard is escorted to the police precinct (by Gaff), Bryant informs him that "if you're not cop, you're little people" meaning both that if Deckard doesn't do as he is told he will be disposed of, and that Deckard is not much of a person, since he's not human. After Deckard retires Zhora, Bryant tells him "You look as bad as that skin job..." - meaning Zhora, and then comments to Gaff "You could learn a lot from this man, Gaff...". The former implies that Deckard looks to him like a replicant, and the latter that Deckard the replicant is doing a better job then his puppet master, Gaff, would do in person.
Following Deckard's retirement of both Roy and Pris, Gaff tells him: "You've done a man's job, Sir" referring to himself, as in 'you have done this man's job', or saying that 'you have done this job as well as a man.' Gaff's next comment: "I guess you're through." and Deckard's reply: "Finished!", could quite possibly signify that now that Gaff has no more use for him, Deckard expects Gaff to retire him. Gaff also tells Deckard "Too bad she won't live. But then again, who does?"... This last statement is particularly interesting since it shows that Gaff knows Deckard so well as to know of his plans to run away with Rachel. Gaff knows what Deckard is thinking. He knows Deckard's motivations, thoughts and dreams, as well as Deckard knows Rachel's memories. Deckard has seen Rachel's memory implants. Gaff must have seen Deckard's.
Gaff's deep understanding of Deckard's mind comes out through his origami. While in Bryant's office, Deckard is unwilling, and quite possibly afraid, to engage the missing replicants. Gaff folds an origami chicken out of a discarded napkin. "I know you" says Gaff through this action, "You're scared". Once Deckard gets involved in the detective work of hunting down the replicants, once he becomes excited to be searching Leon's apartment, Gaff makes a match-stick figure of a man with an erection. By doing so he is saying "I know you, this turns you on, you're getting off doing this job".
The most significant piece of origami, one that most definitelly shows that Gaff is inside of Deckard's head, is the tin-foil unicorn. After Gaff seemingly turns his back and allows Deckard to escape with Rachel, he leaves the unicorn on Deckard's door-step as if to say "I am always watching you, I know you're with her and neither of you is real. You are both myths, not really alive". An even deeper significance of the origami unicorn is available to the viewer of the Director's Cut version of Blade Runner. This version of the film includes Deckard's dream sequence about a real, living unicorn. The appearance of the origami unicorn at the end of the movie shows that Gaff knows Deckard's mind so well that he can even see into his dreams. For Gaff to be so familiar with what makes Deckard tick, he must certainly have seen Deckard's memory implants.
There is another, additional message contained in the tin-foil unicorn. As Gaff's last words to Deckard echo from the past: "Too bad she won't live", Gaff seems to say "Here, I'm leaving her for you". Deckard nods, as if in the realization that he will now have to live in fear (of losing Rachel), just as all other replicants before him have lived in fear of being retired.
Gaff's origami could also be seen as a form of subliminal mind-control over Deckard. The chicken, a symbol of fear, to instill anxiety and tension that would make him appear and behave like a real Blade Runner on the trail of rogue replicants. The aroused male figure to program Deckard with an excitement, an urgency and the desire to complete his job and achieve his goal. The unicorn, as a reinforcement of his psychological grasp on Deckard, to make Deckard feel like a prisoner in the Panopticon, always under scrutiny, and trying to hold on to a dream.
Through the origami unicorn and his other origami figures, his words to Deckard, and his constant presence in Deckard's shadow, Gaff is shown as being intimately familiar with, and in complete control of, Deckard. Deckard's show of unusual physical prowess, his sentiment for photographs and the replicant glow in his eyes all suggest that Deckard is a replicant.
This may be a far-fetched interpretation of the film, but considering the wealth of circumstantial evidence from the film, and the fact that the same implication is made in Dick's original book, it certainly is a valid one.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
....
....
--Hey Doctor Jones! No time for love!
If it wasn't completely resolved in the film, it doesn't matter. The uncertainty was made part of the film (a very interesting and important part), the conclusion was not.
;) ).
It's about as relevant as if George Lucas came out one day and said "Star Wars is actually about a dream Luke had, like Wizard of Oz, except I didn't bother to include the part about him waking up." For that matter, Doug Adams telling us the question to life, the universe, and everything, would add nothing to his stories (though it might add quite a bit to life outside of his stories if he got it right
Mr. Scott could just as easily say "Deckard was a highschool kid, playing a game in a virtual reality world. Nobody was a replicant, none of it was supposed to be real."
If it's not in the film, it doesn't matter.
Everyone knew Deckard wasn't human. The real question is whether Titanic's Jack Dawson was a replicant.
Trees can't go dancing
So do them a big favor
Pretend dancing stinks!
Who cares what Ridley Scott thinks? "Blade Runner" is just the movie interpretation of Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. Do Androids, in fact, achieves its high level of poignancy by merely SUGGESTING that, under the right circumstances, humanity itself is subjective. Dick didn't need to say whether Deckard was an android... I believe the story is much more interesting by leaving it as a mere possibility. God forbid we should actually ponder something anymore, instead of waiting for the de-facto answers.
I believe Phil K. Dick would not be happy, were he alive today, to learn that other people were deciding to simply change his characters like this.
Intercarve Networks, LLC
Who gives Scott the right to tell us what was happening in the film? The book Future Noir reveals that there was disagreement among the actors and writers about whether Deckard was a replicant. It has been suggested that Scott came up with the idea by misreading the screenplay, and that others were not aware of it. A film is a collaboration of many people's ideas. To give Scott the right to tell us what the film means would be accepting the most extreme extension of the auteur theory of filmmaking: the notion that the director of a film is the sole creative force behind it, and has a stranglehold on its meaning. And that flies in the face of how films are made and enjoyed.