Deckard -- Replicant or Human: Would the film be better?

[Dave]

Is Deckard a Replicant?

Is Deckard a Replicant?

This question causes the most debate among 'Blade Runner' fans. The different versions of 'Blade Runner' support this notion to differing degrees. One might argue that in the 1982 theatrical release, Deckard is not a replicant but in 'Blade Runner Dirctors Cut', he is. This is mainly due to the addition of the 'Unicorn dream'.

In the book 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep' Decker is human. He takes the Voight-Kampff test and passes it, because he is not totally sure himself.

In the film it is less clear. Ridley Scott wanted to make it deliberately ambiguous. Ridley Scott himself has stated that although he made it appear either way, he also intentionally introduced enough evidence to support the notion, and (as far as he is concerned), Deckard is a replicant.

Ford and Ridley argued on set over whether the audience should be told that Deckard was a replicant. It could be that this very ambiguity, and the questions that it raises that is at the heart of the film's enduring popularity.

There is no definitive answer, but I've collected together all the various clues from different sources:

The case FOR

- Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford have stated that Deckard was meant to be a replicant. In Details magazine (US) October 1992 Ford says:
"Blade Runner was not one of my favorite films. I tangled with Ridley. The biggest problem was that at the end, he wanted the audience to find out that Deckard was a replicant. I fought that because I felt the audience needed somebody to cheer for."

- The shooting script had a voice-over where Deckard says, "I new it on the roof that night. We were brothers, Roy Batty and I!"

- Gaff knew that Deckard dreamt of a unicorn, and places a unicorn origami outside his room, therefore Gaff knew what dreams that Deckard had been implanted with. (Blade Runner Directors Cut only)

- Replicants have a penchant for photographs, because it gives them a tie to their non-existent past. Deckard's flat is packed with photos, and none of them are recent or in colour. Despite her memories, Rachael needed a photo as an emotional cushion. Likewise, Deckard would need photos, despite his memory implants. Rachael plays the piano, and Deckard has a piano in his flat.

- Gaff tells him "You've done a man's job, sir!". Early drafts of the script have him then add: "But are you sure you are man? It's hard to be sure who's who around here."

- Only a replicant could survive the beatings that Deckard takes, and then struggle up the side of a building with two dislocated fingers.

- Bryant's threat "If you're not a cop, you're little people" might be an allusion to Deckard being created solely for police work.

- Deckard's eyes glow (yellow-orange) when he is washing the blood out of his mouth in his bathroom, and when he tells Rachael that he wouldn't go after her, "but someone would". Deckard is standing behind Rachael, and he's out of focus.

- Roy knew Deckard's name, yet he was never told it. Some speculate that Deckard might have been part of Roy's off-world rebellion, but was captured by the police and used to hunt down the others. In that case, Bryant is including Deckard among the five escaped replicants.

- When Batty saves him from falling off the building he lifts him up by the arm saying "kinship!" implying that Deckard is a replicant just like Roy Batty and Batty knows this.

- Inspector Bryant calls Deckard out of retirement, saying that the Nexus-6 replicants are too dangerous, and that Deckard is the only one who can handle them.
Bryant: I need ya, Deck. This is a bad one, the worst yet. I need the old blade runner, I need your magic. I need the best.

- The police would not risk a human to hunt four powerful replicants, particularly since replicants were designed for such dangerous work. Of course Deckard would have to think he was human or he might not be willing to hunt down other replicants.

- Gaff seems to follow Deckard everywhere -- he is at the scene of all the Replicant retirings almost immediately. Gaff is always with Deckard when the chief is around. This suggests that Gaff is the real BR, and that Deckard is only a tool Gaff uses for the dirty work.

- Rachael tearfully asks Deckard if he has ever taken the Voight-Kampff test himself. Deckard does not respond.

The case AGAINST

- A major point of the film was to show Deckard (The Common Man) the value of life. "What's it like to live in fear?" If all the main characters are replicants, the contrast between humans and replicants is lost.

- Rachael had an implanted unicorn dream and Deckard's reverie in Blade Runner Directors Cut was a result of having seen her implants. Gaff may have seen Rachael's implants at the same time Deckard did, perhaps while they were at Tyrell's.

- Could you trust a replicant to kill other replicants? Why did the police trust Deckard?

- Having Deckard as a replicant implies a conspiracy between the police and Tyrell.

- Replicants were outlawed on Earth and it seems unlikely that a replicant would have an ex-wife.

- If Deckard was a replicant designed to be a Blade Runner, why would they give him bad memories of the police force? Wouldn't it be more effective if he were loyal and happy about his work?

- Deckard was not a replicant in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, although he has another Blade Runner test him at one point just to be sure. All the bounty hunters in the book question whether they are Replicants themselves.

- Ridley Scott said that the Replicants eyes did not really glow, it was simply a 'cinematic technique', so if it is not an important characteristic of a Replicant, it isn't important that Deckards eyes glow either.

Any More?

 

[Dave]

Do you think the film is better with Deckard as a Replicant or as a human?

Rutger Hauer said at a recent Sci-Fi and Fantasy Creators Convention in NYC on June 30th 2002 that having Deckard as a replicant took away a lot of the dramatic impact of the film. He said that a replicant saving a replicant lacks the power of a replicant saving a human. I would agree with that, it spoils the theme of the machines becoming human while the humans become machine-like. In Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, the barrier between man and robot is more unsettlingly blurred than in its cinematic version, where that point is already buried and reduced in its plot to simply that that of a bounty hunter seeking an errant robot. The Directors Cut makes the point even less clear still.

 

[Tabitha]

I liked the implication Deckard might be a replicant, but only if he is unaware of it.
The dramatic device of having a replicant save a human remains if both Batty and Deckard believe Deckard is human.

 

[King Donut]

It would be better if he was a replicant, not a human. That'd be a good twist. It's like "unbreakable" where (gaff, maybe?) tells decakrd and it ends. Cool!:rolly2:

 

[L. Arkwright]

I watched a special on the making of Bladerunner a while back on the TV. It showed various locations and techniques that went into the film for example the horizontal panning shot of the interior of the police station was actually a Train station in the states somewhere. The thing is that at the end of the program was an interview with Ridley Scot. When asked directly if Dekard was a replicant he smiled and gave a very definate yes. Theres a clue early on in the film. When he takes on the job hes told that Six skin jobs escape, one fries on an electric fence. That leaves five but we only ever see four. You could believe that Dekard is the fith and that hes somehow been reprogrammed with new memories to catch the others. It takes a thief to catch a thief, that sort of thing but there is no recognition between him and the escapees so that begs the question, wheres the other. Also the worried looks that Bryant gives Dekard in the viewing room. So all in all I strongly believe he is.
Thing is when I watch the film I wish he wasnt. Its Deckards aura of human frailty at the end that lend strength to the story. The nervousness on his face and the desperation of his actions contrast against the calm selfaware superiority of the replicants. This gives us a division that causes you to think that ultimately mankind has gone too far and superceeded itself. To find that after all this, the Bladerunner is himself a replicant is true, very poignant but a let down and the message is lost.

 

[Darth Simpson]

Originally posted by L. Arkwright
When he takes on the job hes told that Six skin jobs escape, one fries on an electric fence. That leaves five but we only ever see four.

I always thought Rachel was meant to be the fifth. There are definately four others. The two guys, the girl who hides in the room full of toys and does all the cartwheels, and the girl wearing a see through coat who Dekard shoots through several pains of glass in the market. (sorry about the descriptions it has been ages since I've seen it)

 

[Dave]

I think one the possible ideas is that Rachel was the fifth, and Deckard was the sixth, reprogrammed as a Bladerunner and kept under surveillance by Gaff, who was the 'real' Bladerunner of the story.

I always got the impression that Rachel was Tyrell's "pet" android and had been with him a long time, but that could be simply due to the fact that she had been reprogrammed with his niece's memories, and that she was more advanced than the others.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by L. Arkwright
I watched a special on the making of Bladerunner a while back on the TV... The thing is that at the end of the program was an interview with Ridley Scot. When asked directly if Dekard was a replicant he smiled and gave a very definate yes.

This is a news article with that Ch4 interview in full...

BBC Sunday, 9 July, 2000.

Blade Runner riddle solved

Ridley Scott breaks his silence

Director Ridley Scott has finally revealed the answer to a plot twist in his film Blade Runner which has been the topic of fierce debate for nearly two decades.

Movie fans have been divided over whether Harrison Ford's hard-boiled cop character Deckard was not human but a genetically-engineered "replicant" - the very creatures he is tasked with destroying.

Little suspicion was raised by the 1982 original version of the film, based on Philip K Dick's novel: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

But a decade later the Director's Cut edition - although deliberately ambiguous - convinced many that the hero was indeed a replicant and in a Channel 4 documentary Scott at last reveals they are correct.

'He's a replicant'

The acclaimed British director, who also directed Alien, Thelma and Louise and current box-office hit Gladiator, settles the issue when questioned on key aspects of the film's imagery.

In the Director's Cut version, the biggest clue for analysts was the appearance of a unicorn on screen while Deckard is lost in thought.

The image of the mythical creature appears again towards the end of the film when he picks up an origami model discarded by another character, Gaff.

As the replicants had no memories of their own, they had to be implanted, and fans interpreted the appearance of the model as a sign that Gaff knew what Deckard was thinking because it was an image shared by other non-humans.

In Channel 4's documentary On The Edge Of Blade Runner, Scott discusses the scenes and asked what they mean, he confirms with a grin: "He's a replicant".

Another hint in the film comes from the number of replicants which Deckard is hunting.
We find out that six had made their way to earth, one of whom was killed. Deckard is looking for four, begging the question: "Who is the fifth replicant?".

Blade Runner's futuristic urban imagery was hugely influential on later movies but at the time of its release it was a relative box office flop.

However the film noir-style movie proved to be a success when released on video with repeated viewings revealing hidden depths.

When it was first made, poor reception at preview screenings prompted the film's backers to call for a happy ending being added, as well as a voice-over from Ford.
Scott removed these for his revised version. "What we'd done was kind of a dark novel, it was rather novelistic," he said.

"I didn't really realise that that eventually became the true longevity of the whole film - you revisit it constantly like re-reading one of your favourite books. You always find you get sucked in again.

"I still think it's one of the best films I ever made," he added.

 

[Kanazaka]

I'm a bit disappointed to know that Ridley Scott intended Rick Deckard to be a replicant in Blade Runner, since in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, Deckard's grasp on his humanity drove the story. True, in the novel, there are a couple of times where he or we question his humanity. Dave already mentioned the Voight-Kampff test, but the androids also try to trick him into believing that his life was a lie by impersonating police officers from another district and leading him to believe that his district does not exist (and neither does his job, wife, etc.). But Deckard eventually uncovers the lie, thus proving that he is smarter than an android, and that intelligence makes him human. I agree with L. Arkwright that it is a let down to know that humanity can and has been replaced, so that the world no longer needs humans. This is thought-provoking, true, but ultimately the revelation begs the question: Why does it matter if Deckard hunts replicants if humans and replicants are so similar on almost every level, and replicants are no longer a threatening "other"?

 

[greenman]

Do you think the film is better with Deckard as a Replicant or as a human?

Rutger Hauer said at a recent Sci-Fi and Fantasy Creators Convention in NYC on June 30th 2002 that having Deckard as a replicant took away a lot of the dramatic impact of the film. He said that a replicant saving a replicant lacks the power of a replicant saving a human. I would agree with that, it spoils the theme of the machines becoming human while the humans become machine-like. In Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, the barrier between man and robot is more unsettlingly blurred than in its cinematic version, where that point is already buried and reduced in its plot to simply that that of a bounty hunter seeking an errant robot. The Directors Cut makes the point even less clear still.

That might have been the theme of the book but I'd say Scott always intended to take the film in a different direction. His version of the story was IMHO half about Deckard/Rachael and the uncertainies of humanity/memory then half about Roy's personal growth.

Deckards part of the story does afterall focus far more on his relationship with Rachael and his general malaise that it does the negative effects of his job(although they play into it aswell). The fact its hinted he's a replicant rather than confirmed 100% works well too for me as it plays on the uncertainy of the rest of the story.

I don't think Roy's character is really weakened by the suggestion of Dekchard being a replicant either. Theres no real reason to believe he knows but even if he did I'd say the fact he saves the person has killed two of his friends and his lover is more important than him saving a human/replicant.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Ridley may suggest that Deckard was a replicant, but to me there's compelling evidence of that in the normal film.

The idea of Deckard being a replicant would really kill the pathos of the ending, IMO

 

[carrie221]

Okay I never knew that there was a question of this. From the first time that I saw the movie I assumed/knew that he was a replicant. So that is my opinion, that is what I think both versions of the movie show.

 

[phase38]

I think Ridley wasn't right to say that yes he is a replicant. Its one of the things that makes a lasting effect on you. It means you can watch the film again and again, looking for hints as to whether he is or not... but this just puts a lid on it.

Having said that, i do love the film, and still prefer to make up my own mind about it..

 

[warhammer]

Do you think the film is better with Deckard as a Replicant or as a human?

Rutger Hauer said at a recent Sci-Fi and Fantasy Creators Convention in NYC on June 30th 2002 that having Deckard as a replicant took away a lot of the dramatic impact of the film. He said that a replicant saving a replicant lacks the power of a replicant saving a human. I would agree with that, it spoils the theme of the machines becoming human while the humans become machine-like. In Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, the barrier between man and robot is more unsettlingly blurred than in its cinematic version, where that point is already buried and reduced in its plot to simply that that of a bounty hunter seeking an errant robot. The Directors Cut makes the point even less clear still.

Agreed. I initially thought the Director's Cut "twist ending" was cool, but after thinking about it for a bit, I came to the conclusion that the cinematic ending (more strongly suggesting that Deckard is human) is a lot more interesting in regards to the characters' arc.

 

[j d worthington]

I, too, prefer the ambiguity. For one thing, that ties in much better with PKD's concern with epistemology, already a strong theme in the film, and would emphasize it through focusing on the character of Deckard. If, however, Deckard and Batty are both unaware of this, once again we have the blurred lines and it adds a turn of the screw for Deckard at the end when he finds the unicorn and the question is resolved for him... because it would be at that point that he would truly know he's a replicant and has been hunting his own kind.

But as said, overall I prefer for the point to remain ambiguous.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I watched this again at the weekend - still a brilliant film, and could easily compete in the cinema as a new release, IMO.

As for the replicant issue - I watched the Director's Cut but although there is some innuendo, I really don't think there's anything that points to clear evidence.

The only attempt to really stake a claim is with the Unicorn scene tying up with the origami - but this seems more an attempt by the director to suggest a point, rather than the actual script. As has been mentioned in the other thread, there's a lot of symbolism involved around Unicorns, and the unicorn scene insertion I never felt really sat in the film.

Issues such as Deckard climbing with broken fingers I'd put down to just artistic licence - "heroes" traditionally do such feats - and Roy knowing his name as a continuity/scripting issue.

That there were 6 replicants, 1 died, and only 4 to hunt doesn't necessarily implicate Deckard IMO - it could even imply Rachel was the 6th. And if Deckard had been among them, why no apparent recognition from the hunted replicants if they should have known him?

Personally, I don't think the film can have so much impact if Deckard is a replicant - it's a classic "man vs machine" exploration as a theme, and Deckard as a replicant weakens that considerably.

Still, there's enough innuendo to suggest the possibility, the script itself never really tries to offer any real evidence, IMO - simply applying a more interesting ambiguity to open up the scope of the film to possibilities.

2c.

 

[phase38]

I watched this again at the weekend - still a brilliant film, and could easily compete in the cinema as a new release, IMO.

As for the replicant issue - I watched the Director's Cut but although there is some innuendo, I really don't think there's anything that points to clear evidence.

The only attempt to really stake a claim is with the Unicorn scene tying up with the origami - but this seems more an attempt by the director to suggest a point, rather than the actual script. As has been mentioned in the other thread, there's a lot of symbolism involved around Unicorns, and the unicorn scene insertion I never felt really sat in the film.

Issues such as Deckard climbing with broken fingers I'd put down to just artistic licence - "heroes" traditionally do such feats - and Roy knowing his name as a continuity/scripting issue.

That there were 6 replicants, 1 died, and only 4 to hunt doesn't necessarily implicate Deckard IMO - it could even imply Rachel was the 6th. And if Deckard had been among them, why no apparent recognition from the hunted replicants if they should have known him?

Personally, I don't think the film can have so much impact if Deckard is a replicant - it's a classic "man vs machine" exploration as a theme, and Deckard as a replicant weakens that considerably.

Still, there's enough innuendo to suggest the possibility, the script itself never really tries to offer any real evidence, IMO - simply applying a more interesting ambiguity to open up the scope of the film to possibilities.

2c.

All excellent arguments.. but Ridley Scott gave it away that he is a replicant.

But I agree with everything yo`ve said, and still like to watch the film from a different point of view.

 

[Paige Turner]

In the original screening, before the unicorn, I thought it was the photographs that suggested that Deckard was a replicant. It's as if they gave replicants the sense of history they needed. Rachel clutched hers desperately, and was quick to offer it as proof of her humanity. Leon risked his life to go back to the hotel to retrieve his. And Deckard's place was conspicuoulsy filled with old family portraits. He just didn't know he was a replicant.

I don't think this detracts from the pathos in any way. Shortened time lines nowithstanding, the truth that unites people and replicants is that, inevitably, one day, it will be "time to die."

 

[phase38]

I don't think this detracts from the pathos in any way. Shortened time lines nowithstanding, the truth that unites people and replicants is that, inevitably, one day, it will be "time to die."

How very morbid... but true i suppose.

 

[Loner]

But as said, overall I prefer for the point to remain ambiguous.

I agree. I thought ambiguity was the point. The fact is that the line between humans and replicants is so fine that we cannot tell the difference. It makes you ask yourself why do replicants have less right to live as they choose than a human? They are portrayed sympathetically so that you feel for their plight. They feel just as a human does but are made to do all of the horrendous work humans don't want - even hunting and exterminating their own kind.

It's that old cliche - man's inhumanity to man (or replicant)