Bladerunner: Was Deckard a replicant?

[Toby Frost]

Yes, there was. They had a human working for them who hadn't realised it. Quite strange.

 

[Swank]

I thought the 'unicorn' scene was quite clumsily done, which is (presumably) why it was omitted from the cinematic release.

It also makes somewhat a mockery of many of the themes of the movie: an android chasing round after other androids is an entirely different film to one where a human starts to question the morality of killing manufactured people who have their own hopes, dreams and aspirations of a life; they just want to be left alone, not forced into slavery and then done away with.

You could edit many films and switch around some of the attributes of the characters - as we saw with Greedo firing first. How about if Cameron had re-editted Sarah Connor to have a glowing red eye at the end of Terminator, suggesting she was also a machine?

There was very little - if anything at all - in the theatrical version of Blade Runner to suggest that Deckard wasn't human. And him being human made the most sense as to how the movie panned out.

If 'they' were to create the 'ultimate' replicant hunter, it wouldn't be one that was far weaker than his quarry, that wasca hard drinker and could fall in love. If Blade Runners are replicants, why leave his predecessor (the one shot at the beginning of the movie) hooked up to life support? Why not simply employ their best 'unit' first?

But most compelling for me are the attitudes of those he is hunting. They are 'elite' models, and have seen him up close, and have spoken to him. Would they not spotted he wasvonevof them? Some telltale signs? Would they not have appealed to him to join them? And would Batty really have referred to him as 'you people'?

For me, Deckard will always be a hardboiled private dick like Philip Marlow; getting the sh***y end of the stick from all sides, and falling for the femme fatale.

The theme of the movie is humanity. It starts with people vs cruel androids, but by the end the androids are the ones exhibiting more humanity and the audiences empathy does a swap around Batty's death that is completed with the revelation that even the MC might not be human either.

There is no reason to think that replicants have some sort of sense for other replicants. Just as people can mistake replicants, replicants can mistake people. Zhora probably realizes what Deckard is when she is unable to kill him - so she immediately runs, despite being built for hand to hand assassination.

Deckard (and Holden) is, if anything, an experiment. He doesn't necessarily have a fully transferred set of memories like Rachel, but enough of a background and belief about himself to not question his humanity and circumstance. Part of what makes him useful may be a certain sense of being a lone outsider that is at odds with the police - it keeps his detective skills fresh and makes him act in solo, preventing losses of human police lives.


We don't know that Holden is on a ventilator - that could simply be another lie that Deckard has been told. But despite being shot twice, Holden's replicant body probably did survive and is out for repair - a process that is not fast enough to wait on. While it hardly proves anything, it is interesting that Holden is not interviewed or discussed in 2049 - as if he has simply been made to disappear when no longer useful to the police.


Sapper Morton in 2049 appears to be a replicant that has aged. As is Freysa - the rebel leader.

Despite Officer K being more than a match to the huge Sapper, 70 year old Deckard still briefly bests him in the casino. Does that seem human?

 

[paranoid marvin]

While I like the Deck's a rep theory if for no other reason that Ridley Scott stated Deckard was definitely a replicant and designed the movie around that, I agree that most of the evidence for it is flimsy and making sense of it in the broader context of the movie's plot and universe requires some mental gymnastics.

The most convincing piece of evidence to me would be the unicorn origami. How can it be anything else than a "I know what you see in your dreams, you're a replicant." moment?


Did he ever quit though? Or was that simply what everyone else told him he did? In a world of implanted memories Deckard could very well be one day old and remember a full life as a hard boiled cop. Indeed how could he ever consider that he was himself a replicant... if he remembered being allowed to quit the force? And if he was a guy whose job it is to hunt down replicants?

While the sequel BR 2049 does not bring any foolproof evidence that Deckard is or isn't a replicant to the table, the movie tells us Tyrell had created replicants capable of breeding. If Rachel was indeed the female prototype of that new generation it only makes sense that Tyrell would also create a male prototype to test his accomplishment...

And let's put our conspiracy theorist cap on... Isn't it entirely possible that the Tyrell Corp and the city made a deal? Allow Tyrell to conduct his little experiment and create that new generation of more obedient, more efficient, more human replicants, in exchange for a prototype that would be leased to the LAPD to hunt down a few Nexus-6 as a test before mass production?

In fact it's entirely possible the whole plot was just an elaborate set up to get Deckard and Rachel to meet and fall in love with one another, and provide the LAPD with a test prototype of what would become K and his colleagues in the sequel.

I'm not suggesting there's any proof of that. Simply that the filmmakers willingly left room for the Deck's a rep theory in the sequel - because Villeneuve was reluctant to go one way or the other and wanted to keep both options on the table.

Some interesting comments by you, Swank and others.

My take on the unicorn was that this represented Rachael: innocent, pure and ethereal yet powerful.

You wouldn't expect Deckard to dream of such creatures; but you might expect a young child to do so - Tyrrell's daughter? Perhaps Deckard was given some of her memories and dreams, just as Rachael was, obviously giving credence to the possibility of him being non-human.

 

[CupofJoe]

As a Film Noir fan, I liked the original narration of the Theatrical Release. it made Deckard sound like Sam Spade or the Continental Op.
I know Scott hated it but for my tastes, it made it a better film to watch.

 

[reiver33]

I agree about the theatrical release, with voiceover, being a better film. I suspect that some of the critics who prefer the later cuts have seen the original and have that spoken narrative playback in their subconscious providing context - without it certain scenes are very opaque.

 

[paranoid marvin]

As an aside, I wonder how many people (after watching the original theatrical release) questioned if Deckard was a replicant? I wonder how many people who watched Star Wars wondered if Darth Vader was Lukes father, or Leis his sister?

It's hard with the benefit of hindsight to unsee sequels and directors cuts, and not impose those views on the original movie. We sometimes look for clues that were never intentionally there in the first place.

 

[CupofJoe]

As an aside, I wonder how many people (after watching the original theatrical release) questioned if Deckard was a replicant? I wonder how many people who watched Star Wars wondered if Darth Vader was Lukes father, or Leis his sister?

It's hard with the benefit of hindsight to unsee sequels and directors cuts, and not impose those views on the original movie. We sometimes look for clues that were never intentionally there in the first place.

Someone seeing the film for the first time, but it was probably in the mid or late 80s asked me why Deckard needed to be told about Replicants if he had been a Blade Runner [and a good one].
And I agree. you can never un-know something.

 

[Dave]

I wonder how many people who watched Star Wars wondered if Darth Vader was Lukes father, or Leis his sister?

I believed Obi Wan's lie that Darth Vader killed Luke's father.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I believed Obi Wan's lie that Darth Vader killed Luke's father.

For all we knew, there would only be one Star Wars, and that would have been the accepted version. Sometimes I wish that there never had been more than one movie.

 

[KGeo777]

I assumed the idea behind it was that in this hi-tech, overpopulated, polluted future, the replicants are more natural in behavior and desire than the humans. That's why Deckard comes across as a lost soul. Plus it was so common then (and now) to promote a "embrace the other" theme and that is what we are supposed to think with them driving off at the end. He's a human, she's a replicant.

Personally, I think Morgan Paull should have been Deckard--he had the right attitude for a film noir based on the first scene.

In the series Petrocelli, Paull and Ford have to physically restrain William Shatner. Such a small SF world.

 

[Swank]

I think it ought to be said, especially in light of all the recent Alien posts, that Deckard's human status is not fact within the story. Blade Runner is not a mystery, so Deckard's nature is not a matter that needs to be resolved for the film to conclude.

In fact, the point is that Deckard's nature is unresolved. That lack of resolution is the frisson of the story: Who is "human" in the most important sense? Deckard is barely a protagonist. He is told to find and kill the replicants, and that's all he does. It is only his relationship with Rachel that shows any moral decision making on his part - but even that is week because he simply allows her to be with him, and he simply quits the force again after starting the movie the same way. Deckard is primarily a witness and audience proxy. And by being ambiguously human/replicant he changes the story for the audience.

The strongest moral choice made in the film is probably that of Gaff, who seems to be fully aware of what is going on with Rachel, Deckard and Batty - but re-arms and allows Deckard and Rachel escape. He shows the most empathy to a fellow being, regardless of whether they are human or not. He knows what Rachel is, and he may know that Deckard is the same. Gaff is the preacher - the moral commentator.


Now, is there a ton of evidence that Deckard is a replicant? Hell yes. The whole point of the exercise is that the audience has to swap who is doing evil in the story - the killer androids, or their enslavers? And the possibility that Deckard is another one of the victims is critical to that empathy swap. But that doesn't mean the evidence guarantees he's a replicant. We could simply be mistaken.

 

[Swank]

Hey Swank, great post. Really enjoy your insight. Your post makes me think about another aspect of all this.

Blade Runner illustrates what can be one of the most amazing things about SF - the ability to pose a story about life that suggests a solution to a problem that does not and maybe cannot exist - and in doing so makes a completely fresh observation about humanity instead of all the old tried and true observations.

You could say that BR is about slavery - but we don't need that lesson anymore. Anyone in favor of slavery is already a sadist. And it really isn't about empathy for AI or aliens. The replicants are clearly just another kind of human. Or you could say that the point is something about identity - but everything is about identity given the way humans see each other through themselves.

Mainly BR let's the audience try on different ways of being a person and witness the violence implicit in different kinds of power. That isn't really a theme - it is an experience.

 

[Swank]

I believed Obi Wan's lie that Darth Vader killed Luke's father.

A lie or a metaphor? Vader clearly subsumed and replaced the good man Ben knew as Anakin.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I agree about the theatrical release, with voiceover, being a better film. I suspect that some of the critics who prefer the later cuts have seen the original and have that spoken narrative playback in their subconscious providing context - without it certain scenes are very opaque.

Yes! It's not just me who preferred the original version!

And that doesn't have the unicorn scene insert, does it? Which to me is the only real attempt to argue that Deckard was a replicant, and I always saw as a strange carry over from Legend with Tom Cruise.

Frankly if Scott had never said anything I doubt there wouldn't even be a serious discussion about Deckard being a replicant, as the original film never attempted to suggest he was IMO.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Yes! It's not just me who preferred the original version!

And that doesn't have the unicorn scene insert, does it? Which to me is the only real attempt to argue that Deckard was a replicant, and I always saw as a strange carry over from Legend with Tom Cruise.

Frankly if Scott had never said anything I doubt there wouldn't even be a serious discussion about Deckard being a replicant, as the original film never attempted to suggest he was IMO.

Exactly this. If he hadn't tinkered by adding extra scenes, it would have stood on its own two feet as a human starting to question the morality of killing people whose only fault was that they had been manufactured rather than born.

I don't like directors playing with movies after release. Unless they are broken (eg Alien 3), they shouldn't be messed with. I don't mind 'extended' movies for the home disc market like LOTR but fundamentally changing the characters or storyline just isn't on.

 

[Vladd67]

Anybody ask the scriptwriter what he thought?

 

[CupofJoe]

From what I remember, the theatrical release version of BR was basically the Studio's making.
Scott had little or nothing to do with it.
It took him years to put back together the film he wanted to make.

 

[Dave]

It took him years to put back together the film he wanted to make.

I think we need to take what Directors say with a huge pinch of salt. Regarding Luke Skywalker and the "I am your father" moment discussed earlier, George Lucas is on record as saying that he hadn't decided on that until he was already making The Empire Strikes Back, which would make Obi Wan a total liar as I have said. However, he is also on record (well, I remember the interview at the time, at least) as saying that he had written a very long story about the Skywalker dynasty that could run to nine films if ever made. (It's just a shame he didn't produce the scripts he had wrote for the final three, because they may have been better than what we got!) No, I don't hardly believe a word of anything they say.

I don't like directors playing with movies after release. Unless they are broken (eg Alien 3), they shouldn't be messed with. I don't mind 'extended' movies for the home disc market like LOTR but fundamentally changing the characters or storyline just isn't on.

I still haven't got over "Greebo shoots first."

However, in the case of Bladerunner, Scott always said that he didn't like the first cinematic release, or what the studio had done. He seemed genuinely upset by it. So, I'd allow him one chance to change the story, but not the constant tinkering around that Lucas was up to.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I think we need to take what Directors say with a huge pinch of salt. Regarding Luke Skywalker and the "I am your father" moment discussed earlier, George Lucas is on record as saying that he hadn't decided on that until he was already making The Empire Strikes Back, which would make Obi Wan a total liar as I have said. However, he is also on record (well, I remember the interview at the time, at least) as saying that he had written a very long story about the Skywalker dynasty that could run to nine films if ever made. (It's just a shame he didn't produce the scripts he had wrote for the final three, because they may have been better than what we got!) No, I don't hardly believe a word of anything they say.


I still haven't got over "Greebo shoots first."

However, in the case of Bladerunner, Scott always said that he didn't like the first cinematic release, or what the studio had done. He seemed genuinely upset by it. So, I'd allow him one chance to change the story, but not the constant tinkering around that Lucas was up to.

Apparently the 'enhanced' editions of Star Wars is what Lucas vision of the movie's should have been.

I dislike the 'Greedo shoots first' as it is poorly edited and is out of character for Solo not to take the initiative. What was worse IMHO was the addition of the Jabba-Solo scene, which just looks plain wrong. Even with the CGI effects Lucas had at his disposal, it looks terrible. I simply can't believe thar Lucy's is content with that addition.