Bladerunner: Was Deckard a replicant?

[Princess Ivy]

Its a silly question, really, decker was not a replicant! finshed and klaar

[Whitestar]

Originally Posted by Morning Star

I also felt that Gaff may have been a replicant. However Ridley himself has now stated that Deckard is a replicant...unless he just threw that into the mix for a laugh.

So now I have to wonder (unless I missed something) was Deckard really a great Bladerunner? I mean, if he is retired and is known for his skill, then surely he must have lived longer than 4 years? Or was that all a lot of malarkey? Geez...my head hurts...ALSO, why was Deckard not as strong as the others? Was he created to be less strong and more human (thus having been granted the longer lifespan, as he was less of a threat.)

If somebody has any insight into this, I would really appreciate it.

Your speculation in regards to Gaff being a possible replicant is intriguing. I must admit that I have often suspected that myself. Also, your suspicions on Deckard not being as strong as the other replicants is right on the money. Roy Batty, Leon and their friends were super strong because their physical level is A. Deckard (as well as Rachel) is most probably a B or C level. The fact that Deckard was able to take a severe beating from Leon reaffirms that he is indeed a replicant. I doubt that a normal human being could tolerate such pain, let alone surivive an encounter with a replicant. Which may also explain why he has a much longer lifespan too. In addition, his actions signify that he is a traitor to his own kind. Since I have yet to read the book, I'm only second guessing. Does anyone know if this is revealed in the book?


Whitestar

[I, Brian]

The trouble with the beatings argument is that near-indestructible protoganists are a staple of film.

[Whitestar]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

The trouble with the beatings argument is that near-indestructible protoganists are a staple of film.

True, heroes in Hollywood flicks have the required ingredient for being indestrucible. However, this film is an unconventional one, a non-Hollywood movie despite being produced by Warner Brothers. That would explain why the film flopped at the box office because it was poorly received during it's initial release in 1982.


Whitestar

[McMurphy]

Like a few have already pointed out, Ridley Scott more than hints in the film adaption that Deckard is a replica. In fact, Mr. Scott came right out and said in an interview that took place during a promotional re-release of the film that he had intended that viewpoint. Personally, I believe that was a big mistake. The film loses a dimension when the android issue is confirmed one way or another. To me, it feels like it underscores both the ethical questions and the challenge of our preconceived notions of what makes a human, well, human.

Philip K. Dick, the author of the novel of which the film is based, chose the wiser and more artistic road by leaving the question of whether Deckard is human or a replica unanswered. Doing so, generations of readers could debate if it really matters if Deckard "isn't one of us" or what makes us all human in the first place. If he isn't human to us, then what the heck does it take to be human? What is our defination of "human"? If he is human, then why do some of the replicas display more emotion (such as anger, love, and fear for their existence) than by the very character we are all supposed to connect with?

I feel that Scott's decision to answer some of those questions makes me question if he really grasped how potent the issues raised in the novel were or if he had any real faith in the storytelling.

As far as the unicorn ending, I dug up an old post I did a while back about the topic. Below is a reposting of what I said at the time:

Originally Posted by McMurphy

In the Blade Runner Director's Cut a dream and a miniature of a unicorn are present. These are interesting images considering the tone of the movie is dark and violent. The contrast between the tone of the movie and the imagery of the unicorn is important because it's the director's attempt at clueing us in.

The fact that the two proceeding miniatures (the chicken and the matchstick man) before the one of the unicorn have meanings that are easy to guess move viewers to speculate if the unicorn is an artifact of symbolism. What the unicorn is representing may not be so easy. The chicken, the first miniature of the movie, is made in the office of Deckard's boss. When Deckard tries to refuse the job of hunting down a new batch of replicants, the chicken is used to poke fun at Deckard's reluctance. The matchstick figure of a man is crafted when Deckard's relationship with Rachel and the violence heats up. Like I mentioned before, the meaning of these miniatures are straight forward, but they are important because the director probably did this purposely to draw viewers' attention to what the unicorn may or may not mean.


What does the unicorn symbolize? The first clue is the dream Deckard has while sleeping at the piano. His dream is of a vital, white unicorn running through a green, lush landscape. Deckard is probably dreaming of what he wants his life to be like. Deckard wants freedom from his job, his dark, oppressive surrounding, and, most importantly, from his impure, meaningless life. This is why the unicorn is white (purity) and why the landscape is lush (lively and rich of meaning). At the time Deckard dreams of his freedom, he doesn't know how it can be achieved. That is where Rachel comes in literally and figuratively. She, through Deckard's compassion and sexual interest towards her, starts to help Deckard see the way.

The next time the viewers see the unicorn is at the end of the movie when Deckard and Rachel is fleeing from his apartment. In the hallway, on the ground, is a miniature unicorn constructed from an empty bubblegum wrapper. It's very important that it is made of a gum wrapper---one side paper, the other side tinfoil---because it introduces three possible interpretations. First, the unicorn is simply referring back to his dream. It is a sign to both Deckard and the viewer that his desire of freedom and happiness is actually going to happen. He and Rachel are going to travel together in freedom with whatever time Rachel still has to live. It is a very "happily ever after" ending for a movie so grim, but it is possible due to the graceful images in his dream. Second, the unicorn made from a gum wrapper may also be reminding viewers who holds Deckard's "unicorn". The wrapper is paper on one side to represent the humanity of Rachel, and the tinfoil on the other side to represent the fact that she was created as a replica. Third, and probably the most controversial, the unicorn may be hinting to the viewers that Deckard is a replica. In this case, the tinfoil is representing the fake, replica side of Deckard, the man who has his dream of the "unicorn". In the movie, there is evidence that the director is using imagery a couple times throughout the movie to convey who someone really is. The first miniature was of a chicken to show that Deckard was acting cowardly in some people's eyes. The snake in the dressing room hinted that Zhora was a replica (remember the tattoo?). The third would then be the unicorn symbolizing Deckard as a replica.

It is quite possible that all the interpretations suggested in this post is right (or, to be cynical, wrong). Why would Ridley Scott stop at only one possible meaning of the unicorn? He wouldn't. All well respected and important works of fiction have multiple meanings, and Blade Runner has endured the test of time far better than a lot of science fiction movies in the past. Heck, how many people even bothered watching Mission to Mars that came out less than a decade ago? Enough said.

When looking at the last paragraph of the quoted post, I am starting to think that I had given Ridley Scott too much credit.

[Morning Star]

Thanks for your speculations Whitestar, much appreciated and I like your attention for detail Mcmurphy. The book leaves the reader questioning Deckards humanity right? The film did the same. Then surely Scotts statement that Deckard is a replicant should not be taken to heart by those who enjoy pondering the question. Personally I feel this question is the culmination of everything the movie/novel was trying to bring across to us, who really has the right to decide that something that feels and thinks is any less human than us.

It is especially interesting in light of the very real question of clones.

[I, Brian]

Good posts in this thread.

[Morning Star]

I am enjoying this debate as well. Another theory I had was after Deckard got exposed to the Nexus 6 model Replicants, this jaded seen-it-all cop was genuinely shocked at the realism of these replicants and bewildered at Rachels total ignorance to her true origins.

I think it would frighten a lot of people into questioning their own humanity and mortality as to whether they were truly born or not. Perhaps the paranoia was a heavy burden to bear for him and a part of Deckard quietly began resigning itself to accept that it was a replicant as well.

I mean, did he ever have any doubts before taking on this case?

[Princess Ivy]

As he had quit the force, and only took the case under duress, i'd deff say he'd been questioning before he met the nexus 6 models or racheal. as shown in his sadness at killing zorah, basicaly an unarmed woman running for her life, by shooting her in the back. I'd say that made him feel very unmanly.

[Foxbat]

For me, the story (and film) posed a question more about our own so-called humanity than whether Deckard was a replicant. After all, often when we talk about 'Humanity' we mean feelings of compassion, love etc. And the way we treat others reflects our own Humanity.

Going around destroying sentient beings (whether manufactured or otherwise) or condoning such a thing as Deckard's whole society basically does, poses more questions about ourselves as a People rather than Deckard as an individual.

[I, Brian]

Good point, Foxbat - the primary question in the film was "What makes us human?"

Roy letting go of the dove when he died was a metaphor for the soul leaving the body - which added extra poignancy to the replicant characters.

[Princess Ivy]

trying to get hold of a copy of the book, went online to e-bay and amazon, found a copy, online for £400 starting bid!
honestly

[Foxbat]

online for £400 starting bid

Is it a first edition or something?

Checkout The Science Fiction Masterworks series (£6.99)

[Princess Ivy]

nah, will stick to e-bay and pick up a copy for 99p plus post and packaging

[Princess Ivy]

I've found my copy and finished it. It seems that there is a hell of a lot of difference between the book and film. But what to expect?
Anyway, in the book, its very deffinatly stated, on several occasions that deckard isn't a replicant. In fact. it goes out of its way to point out why he isn't, and that it doesn't make him a better being.
The unicorn doesn't feature at all, and the only dream mentioned is fom the empathy boxes. I found the book very niave and innocent, even although it tried to be grown up and cynical. No Gaff either. and there were eight replicants on earth. the first blade runner got two and got knocked out of action by a third. Deckard had to track down the other six and retire them. There was no precinct of replicant police on the city payroll, rather the replicants had set up a police station to help each other out.