Blade Runner - The Final Cut (SPOILERS)

[Hermiod]

The alternative title for this thread is "Explain Blade Runner to Hermiod Because He's Not Very Bright".

I watched the "final cut" (2007) version of Blade Runner on Blu-Ray last night. I had previously watched the last DVD release as well. I believe that is the 1992 Director's Cut version of the film. I have never seen the original theatrical release. I have read this excellent Wikipedia article but I still have questions.

My understanding is that the theatrical release had a voice over from Ford (which apparently is very poorly done) and a "happy" ending showing Deckard and Rachael leaving Los Angeles (using footage from The Shining).

My questions largely surround the "Is Deckard a Replicant ?" question. Since the 1992 and 2007 cuts restore the Unicorn dream sequence, I assume that is what gives people this idea. However, of particular interest is the lighting in the film. At several points in the film, the Replicant characters eyes are lit in such a way that their eyes appear to glow red. For a very brief moment in the scene in Deckard's apartment after Rachael kills Leon and then asks Deckard if he will chase her if she runs away, Deckard's eyes glow red the same way. This is presumably more prominent and noticeable in the high definition release.

I noticed that (the Wikipedia article backs me up on this) Deckard appears to be awake while he is dreaming about the Unicorn whereas he was clearly asleep in the 1992 cut.

So, am I missing more obvious clues here or are the eyes and the Unicorn all the clues I need ?

 

[Deckerd]

It's up to you whether you think he is or not. It's deliberately ambiguous but the anniversary hype shouldn't confuse you: this is purely to make more money and adds nothing to the original film.

The voice over was good, despite what Harrison Ford said in retrospect. This is because he's a professional and couldn't actually make it so cheesy it would reflect badly on him and the film.

The improvements in the Director's cut were more to do with editing than voice over, IMO. The interference from on high story has been done to death. Nothing can detract from what a lasting artistic achievement this film was from the first incarnation onward.

 

[Hermiod]

I bought the five disc set which contains the 1982 US Version, the 1982 International version and the 1992 Director's Cut as well as the pre-release "workprint" version. I shall watch the US theatrical cut at least.

Further reading suggests another clue - the origami Unicorn left behind by Gaff outside Deckard's apartment at the end.

 

[Deckerd]

One unicorn obviously relates to the other. I would have thought that was the point.

 

[Hermiod]

One unicorn obviously relates to the other. I would have thought that was the point.

Yes, but I misinterpreted it. Throughout the film, Gaff leaves small origami objects behind. The object Deckard picks up is not clearly a Unicorn at first glance so I interpreted it as meaning that Gaff was aware of Rachael and Deckard's relationship and would chase her and Deckard if they tried to leave Los Angeles.

 

[Steve Roby]

The alternative title for this thread is "Explain Blade Runner to Hermiod Because He's Not Very Bright".

Here's the explanation:

As far as the original novel's author was concerned, Deckard was human.

As far as the screenplay's writer was concerned, Deckard was human.

If I remember correctly, as far as the actor was concerned, Deckard was human.

As far as the director was originally concerned, the situation was ambiguous.

And then the director decided ten years later that he'd finally figured it out, and Deckard was a replicant, so he added the unicorn dream scene.

So it's still up to the viewer. You can decide which version of the movie you prefer, and you can decide which interpretation you prefer. Personally, I think Deckard is a human who gets a reminder of what it means to be human from the replicants who want to be human. If he learns that he's less human than the Nexus 6 models because he's an older model of replicant himself, he hasn't really learned anything he can act on in any way. If you think movies are about exploring characters who grow and change, Deckard's human. If you think movies are stories that end with a Twilight Zone/M. Night Shyamalan twist, Deckard's a replicant.

 

[Aragorn]

Well if you watch any of the featurettes on the latest Blade Runner release, Edward James Olmos calls them Cylons, so there!

 

[MyCylon]

It's ambiguous, really though I certainly lean towards saying Deckard is a replicant myself (especially with the hint with the unicorn that has been in there since the 'Director's' cut).

The original theatrical release isn't quite as clear but there's still enough to make you question whether Deckard is human or a replicant (including the red eyes but also IMHO the fact that we learn NOTHING about his past, he's also got those strange photographs and how much of a beating he can take).

On a certain level it doesn't really matter what Deckard is. What's important is that - in any case - his humanity is brought into question by how the human system acts (inhumanely) and by how the replicants act (despite being artificial they show signs of humanity).

 

[Worf412]

So, am I missing more obvious clues here or are the eyes and the Unicorn all the clues I need ?

Another interesting thing is that all replicants are called by their first name (Pris, Rachel, Leon), while all humans are referred to by their last name (Holden, Bryant, Sebastian).

In the movie, Ford is never referred to by anything but Deckard (even in the credits), a name that could be either first or last. Although his name is Rick Deckard in the book, I'm simply going by what's contained in the movie.

 

[Christopher]

On a certain level it doesn't really matter what Deckard is. What's important is that - in any case - his humanity is brought into question by how the human system acts (inhumanely) and by how the replicants act (despite being artificial they show signs of humanity).

I agree. If anything, the point of the film is to call the definition of humanity into question, to suggest that artificial beings can be as human as natural-born ones. So what matters isn't what Deckard is, it's who he chooses to be.

 

[Roshi]

If Deckard is a Replicant, then the question is: what kind of Nexus is he? (I'm talking of life span).

 

[Aragorn]

For thematic purposes, it's better that it takes a replicant to teach a human about humanity.

 

[Roshi]

^And that's how i see it too! Roy's speech would be pointless if Deckard was a Replicant.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

It's up to you whether you think he is or not. It's deliberately ambiguous but the anniversary hype shouldn't confuse you: this is purely to make more money and adds nothing to the original film.

The voice over was good, despite what Harrison Ford said in retrospect. This is because he's a professional and couldn't actually make it so cheesy it would reflect badly on him and the film.

The improvements in the Director's cut were more to do with editing than voice over, IMO. The interference from on high story has been done to death. Nothing can detract from what a lasting artistic achievement this film was from the first incarnation onward.

Agreed on all counts.

I'm one of those people who, apparently, have more money than I know what to do with. I bought the "collector's case" with all the various versions (including the "preview cut") of the film.

I saw the original theatrical cut in the theaters and I loved it... the voiceovers didn't bother me at all (in fact, they made me relate it even more to the "film noir" style which it largely attempts to follow!)

The whole "Deckerd is a replicant" bit was an idea of Ridley Scott, and is absent in the novelette it's based upon. While I like the idea that he COULD be... I really viewed things in very much the exact OPPOSITE fashion.

See, the whole point of the movie was that we're being told that these are "robots" and so forth... not human. Yet, throughout the film, we're shown that they are biologically human, that they have human (if undeveloped human) feelings...

What is a replicant? It's a person, no more and no less... just like us. It's just a person created to be a slave.

To me, the ambiguity towards Deckerd wasn't saying that "Decker isn't human." It's saying that "Decker, though born human, is possibly less "human" in a MEANINGFUL sense than the so-called "replicants" are.

I remember watching this in the theater... I was still just a kid, a teenager... but I remember it as clearly as if it were yesterday. I remember the sudden transfiguration of my perception at the very end, as I finally see Batty as human... as even MORE human than Deckerd, DESPITE which one was "grown" and which one was "born."

It's a far more meaningful experience when viewed from the perspective than when viewed from any other, IMHO.

(Now, I'm pretty sure that Gaff was a replicant... but that's a whole 'nother topic!)

 

[Harvey]

^And that's how i see it too! Roy's speech would be pointless if Deckard was a Replicant.

"You people" could have a variety of meanings in that speech, and even if it means human, Batty could just be unaware of Deckard's true nature.

But, as others have stated, the answer to the OP is that it is left ambiguous in the film.

Personally, I find it believable that Deckard is a replicant. The unicorn dream suggests this, as does Gaff's "you've done a man's job sir, but are you sure you are a man?" The italicized portion is cut from the film, but I think it captures the original intention. Further evidence can be found in one of the deleted endings with Deckard and Rachel in the spinner, where she says "I think we were made for each other." Made as in manufactured.

Additionally, the deleted scene where Bryant and Gaff watch Deckard talk to Holden via surveillance suggests they are keeping a special eye on him for some reason. There's a brief shot in Deckard's apartment where he stands next to Rachel, and for a brief moment both his and Rachel's eyes reflect red like all the other replicants. Interviews in the book Future Noir note that this was a deliberate act by the filmmakers. Lastly, Gaff's line "It's too bad she won't live, but then again who does?" puts the humanity of everyone in the film into question, which is entirely the point. Maybe Deckard was constructed as a replicant. Maybe he was born a human. But is one being there denied humanity, while the other is granted it?

 

[Reverend]

The whole "Deckerd is a replicant" bit was an idea of Ridley Scott, and is absent in the novelette it's based upon. While I like the idea that he COULD be... I really viewed things in very much the exact OPPOSITE fashion.

Actually the question does briefly come up when he find that fake police station, though it's quickly resolved. Of course the replicants in the book are almost the exact opposite to the ones in the film in terms of their emotions and empathy. In a way the Nexus-6 live up to what Tyrell says; "more human than human". So the question of Deckard's true nature becomes a question of self determination and empathy. Stay human and and be a mindless killer, become a replicant and become free.

 

[Tim]

The movie seems to suggest to me that Deckard is a replicant (unicorn dream, red eyes, hoarding photographs, origami), but then Roy's "lesson" about teaching Deckard what it is like to be hunted and live in fear loses much of its meaning. I'm more confuzzled now.

Unfortunately, I have to send my 4-disc set back to WB as one of the bonus discs is defective (months after the time of purchase). Grr.

 

[Christopher]

The movie seems to suggest to me that Deckard is a replicant (unicorn dream, red eyes, hoarding photographs, origami), but then Roy's "lesson" about teaching Deckard what it is like to be hunted and live in fear loses much of its meaning.

I don't see why. Whether Deckard is a replicant or not, he defines himself as a human and lives as one. His beliefs are those of a human who considers replicants to be something less. Either way, Batty is helping him shake off a prejudice and change his sympathies. If anything, I'd think that's even more meaningful if Deckard had been in denial about his own true nature. (By analogy, imagine a story about an anti-Semite learning to overcome his prejudice against Jews. Does it make it more or less meaningful if he discovers he was adopted and his birth parents were Jewish?)

 

[Tim]

The movie seems to suggest to me that Deckard is a replicant (unicorn dream, red eyes, hoarding photographs, origami), but then Roy's "lesson" about teaching Deckard what it is like to be hunted and live in fear loses much of its meaning.

I don't see why. Whether Deckard is a replicant or not, he defines himself as a human and lives as one. His beliefs are those of a human who considers replicants to be something less. Either way, Batty is helping him shake off a prejudice and change his sympathies. If anything, I'd think that's even more meaningful if Deckard had been in denial about his own true nature. (By analogy, imagine a story about an anti-Semite learning to overcome his prejudice against Jews. Does it make it more or less meaningful if he discovers he was adopted and his birth parents were Jewish?)

From a storytelling standpoint, I think the irony of the machine teaching the man about humanity to be more powerful. Deckard operates like a robot, worn-out, unfeeling (very much the film noir hard-boiled detective) but through his experience with Roy is able to regain his emotions and perhaps begin to appreciate the Replicants as sentient beings (as Rachael is). Such a rooftop change of sentiment would also explain well why he decides to be "finished" with being a Blade Runner. Personal preference, of course, but I feel the end of the film has more meaning with Deckard as a man and not a Replicant.

 

[Christopher]

But whatever Deckard's "race," his identity, his psyche, is that of a human. Isn't that the whole point? That the distinction is irrelevant? Deckard is a who, not a what. Natural-born or manufactured, he's a person who needs to learn a lesson about humanity (in the philosophical and ethical senses, not the biological one).