Bladerunner: Was Deckard a replicant?

[Stuart Suffel]

The uncertainty is the point of the book, and movie.

 

[Stuart Suffel]

What he said. B-)

I recently wrote an essay on the book. The main theme of the book (and all of Dick's works), is that there *cannot* be one base reality experienced by everyone. Every person's reality is equally valid as they experience it.

Running throughout the book is Deckard's questioning of his own humanity and a strange duality; Chaos and order/life and death/human or synthetic/ real or unreal - also please look into the 'phantom twin' motif explored in many of his works; he was born with a twin sister who dies shortly after birth; this loss haunted his works

In one chapter Deckard is arrested by a cop who claims he has no record of Deckard on file as a registered blade runner. He takes him to a parallel police HQ, which turns out to be run entirely by androids, with a human blade runner working (the only blade runner and human in the department). Therefore with these themes of duality/mirror realities it is strongly suggested that it is entirely possible that Deckard is in fact a replicant himself, albeit one with implanted memories to make him think he is human. - He may well be the only <i>replicant</i> working in a department full of humans! It all depends on whose viewpoint you choose to take.

-- see also 'Impostor' and 'A Scanner Darkly' for more extreme examples of this same running theme in Dick's work.

Androids are indeed illegal on earth, however; Rachael is living legally on earth as she is technically the property of the Rosen Association. As a programmed android working for the police department (or maybe also for the Rosen association to clear up the mess and bad publicity caused by some of their creations running amok), Deckard would also then technically be allowed on earth.

The book strongly implies that Rick may or may not be synthetic, but is strongly ambiguous. This is to emphasize the point that reality is totally subjective. The film isn't nearly as confrontational in this respect, although the final cut does do more justice to the book in this respect.

Anyway I am producing a series of illustrations for the book (4 plus cover) based around the themes stated earlier; Chaos and order/life and death/human or synthetic/ real or unreal, and would really appreciate anybodies feedback and especially suggestions on where I could take this or suggested passages from the book.

- Look forward to some input guys

 

[Stuart Suffel]

Ah! I was just coming to reference the scene:

- 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.

This older thread has more evidence both for and against (and it really depends on the version of the film.)

I still think the jury is out on this - which makes it an enduring and cult film. Making a sequel with a Deckard still living after the obligatory six years will pretty much put the argument to bed. It will therefore destroy the intrigue and spoil the original.

Actually, perhaps the 'unicorn' motif suggests that Deckard is a rare form of Replicant...

 

[Stuart Suffel]

It won't. Villeneuve stated very early on that the sequel would ignore the issue entirely.

If true, that would pretty much sink the movie, making it just another shoot em up SFX extravaganza.

 

[The Crawling Chaos]

If true, that would pretty much sink the movie, making it just another shoot em up SFX extravaganza.

A rather strange affirmation.

The movie could be about many other things that deal with the nature of consciousness, reality, synthetic life vs organic life without providing an answer to the 'Was Deckard a replicant?" question.

Not only that, but there is nothing to suggest that a sequel that would have placed this debate at the centre of its plot would not have ended up being a 'shoot em up SFX extravaganza' anyway. These are not mutually exclusive elements (the first is substance, the second is form).

At this stage, we know nothing other than this: The movie is in the most capable hands currently working in Hollywood, an intelligent man with an excellent track record of building atmosphere and handling adult and/or cerebral themes, who also happens to be a great admirer of the original film. If he can't pull it off, I don't know who else could.

 

[Brian G Turner]

^ The comments I made above were counters to arguments about Deckard being a replicant. It had been suggested that Deckard was on the crashed ship, and that red eyes was a lue.

Interesting observation on Gaff's comment, though.

 

[Stuart Suffel]

A rather strange affirmation.

The movie could be about many other things that deal with the nature of consciousness, reality, synthetic life vs organic life without providing an answer to the 'Was Deckard a replicant?" question.

Not only that, but there is nothing to suggest that a sequel that would have placed this debate at the centre of its plot would not have ended up being a 'shoot em up SFX extravaganza' anyway. These are not mutually exclusive elements (the first is substance, the second is form).

At this stage, we know nothing other than this: The movie is in the most capable hands currently working in Hollywood, an intelligent man with an excellent track record of building atmosphere and handling adult and/or cerebral themes, who also happens to be a great admirer of the original film. If he can't pull it off, I don't know who else could.

em...fair nuff. Let's hope it'sfab.