Yes. It’s implied in the book as well. Director’s Cut revealed all.
There’s a lot of hints throughout (like the pictures on the piano or the fact that he never tested himself). However, I think Ridley Scott could have done a better job placing clues. Like why does Rutger Hauer beat the crap out of him so easily if he’s supposed to be just as strong? Why doesn’t he die and why can he “teach” emotions? The problem with placing hints throughout the movie is the incosistencies. No matter how well you do it (there’s always going to be inconsistencies or else you give away the answer too easily (the Sixth sense is a good example it’s well done but there’s also inconsistencies).
I think that Scott wants people to think of Deckard as a replicant, but it really is up for interpretation in the movie, haven’t read Dick’s book. But, if you were to look at him as a replicant it does make sense, and Deckard not being as strong as Hauer’s character only means that he could be a less-advanced model. However, if he is a less-advanced model this begs the question, how long does deckard have left to live? But are there variations of strength between the replicant models? And did Deckard get a job as a blade runner because he is a replicant? If so that may be why he’s the best at his job, he can recognize others as replicants because he feels a sort of connection to them that he just never understood. Actually, maybe all the blade runners are replicants, but instead of going to distant planets they were created as insurance to hunt down stray models. But if they were created after the replicants revolted then why is Deckard only as strong as the average human? Perhaps they didn’t want other cops to know that replicants were being used in the department, so they gave them average strength so the replicants would better blend in with other cops and there wouldn’t be a cop revolt. Also, maybe the reason Deckard hasn’t died yet is because the blade runners were created special so they don’t have the 4-year lifespan, but can be de-activated once all the replicants have been accounted for as dead.
However, I think that not enough people ask if Edward James Olmos’ character is also a replicant.
The book is very different from the movie. A whole subplot about the influence of television is removed, Isildore is more mentally disabled than “sick”…the list goes on and on. I haven’t read it in a while, so not an expert, but it is made explicit, say, that there was a nuclear war that led to the colonies being founded.
Rick Deckard > Rene Descartes > “I think, therefore I am” > Mind/Body Duality > Deckard uses the Voight-Kampff to test emotional reaction but shows little to no emotional reaction himself, and virtually no compassion for Rachel when he reveals to her that she is a replicant > He is a model at the same level as Rachel (i.e.not built for combat like Roy Batty), which explains the differences in their strength > Why does Roy Batty let him live? Because he knows that Deckard, “the little man”, is the same as he > And finally, Deckard’s “memory” of a unicorn in the Director’s Cut shows that his memory is as false as Rachel’s, as the creature is mythical. Hence the origami unicorn left behind by Gaff > “It’s too bad she won’t live. But then again, who does?”
The book implies many things about Deckard’s existence, and in fact the film is a hybrid of a couple of Philip K Dick’s works, so although there are some implications that Deckard is replicant, “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep” meanders around themes of religion, propaganda, creationism, cultism and the poisoning of the environment, and leaves the question open. If you read the film as a film without reference to the book(s), then it’s fairly clear that every character is under question, and nothing is what it might appear. In this sense it’s a massive success, because it captures Phillip K. Dick’s schizophreniac paranoias and inquiries into the nature of consciousness exactly.
deckard only make’s out he’s a replicant to hide his real identity – he’s a real estate agent
Deckard collects photographs like replicants do and there´s the unicorns stuff too. And Scott said that Deckard is a replicant.
Yes but fancher said he isn’t. So who has right the writer or director?
even though I have read the book and seen every released cut of the movie, i still think about this every other fucking day.
the next forum question is “is this why i do not have a girlfriend?”
What’s the difference between a replicant and a human? Or less specifically, where do you draw the line and say one is human and one is not.
That’s what the movie is about.
You start the movie thinking Deckard is human but clues throughout the movie say maybe he’s a replicant. But if having dreams and collecting pictures make one a replicant, couldn’t we all be replicants?
That’s what the movie is trying to do. It’s bringing up a philosophical question. What does it mean to be human?
The existence of this forum topic is a tribute to it’s success.
I hold the view that everyone is a replicant save those Asian locals. But the question is: Does it matter?
yes, he is a replicant.
Of course he is. Are people really still arguing about this?
Even if it wasn’t so obvious by the clues in the movie, and the implications in the last scene, would it really matter anyway?
Scott says he is a replicant, Ford says he isn’t, but in the book I thought it was said out-and-out that he was not a replicant. I could be wrong; haven’t read the book in a while.
On a side note, I greatly enjoyed the book and feel that it could almost be re-adapted (more like the book, because the movie was vastly different) and STILL be great.
No matter how many times Ford denies it, Deckard is a replicant.
In my mind, not much needs to be said about this topic in regard to the movie – the Final Cut anyway. As noted above, the unicorn lends itself only to the conclusion that Deckard is in fact a replicant.
In regard to book, however, it is much more interesting. It’s exactly (part of) what the title of the book is asking – “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” – referring to Decker’s hang-ups about not being able to afford a live sheep, or other animal.
Is Deckard an android?
What’s so beautiful about Philip K. Dick, and this book, is that he never really answers this question. Instead, to characters (like Deckard) who we initially assume to be human, Dick bestows traits and attitudes of androids. And of the androids, Dick grants such complex human emotion as love and empathy.
Dick intentionally confuses the difference to get us to ask, I think, questions like: What is the difference between my life and the life of something electronic? especially with the continued advance of electronics and robotics? What is the difference between real emotion and simulated emotion if it is a perfect simulation? And how, if at all, can I avoid my thoughts, decisions, and even emotions being “programmed,” as thoughts/decisions are both outright and incredibly abstrusely affected by any number of influences (past events, environment, etc.)? (something like the philosophical concept of determinism) And in a broader sense, seconding J03 (you’re right on I think), what exactly does is mean to be human?
…I slipped back into English major mode there for a bit. But really, I dig both the book and movie and I just think…well, i think we’re all androids.
T writes:
“Deckard uses the Voight-Kampff to test emotional reaction but shows little to no emotional reaction himself, and virtually no compassion for Rachel when he reveals to her that she is a replicant”I think this might be more due to H Ford’s limitations as an actor.
I’ve always looked at every version of the film as a separate entity, in which case it really depends on which cut you’re watching. In the 1982 Theatrical Cut, he definitely isn’t. In the 1992 Director’s Cut, he definitely is. Likewise with the 2007 Final Cut.
As others have said, I do think that people who get incredibly hung up on the question to the point where it’s all they take away from the film are kind of missing the point. Does it ultimately matter? No. But the fact that you’re asking the question is more important than whatever the answer is. It just drives home one of the main themes of the picture.
The question is more interesting than the answer.
HAHAHAHA ah Prudence, I think you might be right…
I agree with Number 6. The question is indeed more interesting than the answer. I prefer the ambiguity, something that is reflected in the various interpretations by the individuals who made the movie. Obviously Philip K. Dick and Hampton Fancher conceived Deckard as a human who was dehumanized by his job of hunting down replicants, yet Ridley Scott says Deckard is a replicant and leaves the viewer with tons of clues. But these clues only point to the possibility that he is a replicant. If the Tyrell corporation is capable of implanting memories into replicants, they could conceivably do the same to humans, which may account for the unicorn dream. Insisting on an either/or interpretation of this is, I think, fruitless and unsatisfying. The fact that this question still lingers 25 years after Blade Runner’s release is a testament to the movie’s greatness.
The unicorn angle doesn’t convince. Deckard has spent his professional career hunting down and murdering replicants. This time around he has fallen in love with one. Really, now, is it so remarkable that he would have a dream of a fantastical creature? What are these “tons of clues” beside this unicorn? Gaff leaves behind a unicorn. I take this as an interesting example of how this figure gains metonymic weight, rather than an indictment of Deckard as replicant. It’s all interpretation. I’m satisfied with mine. The fondness many have for this movie notwithstanding, I do believe there is much over-thinking going on.
Well, the various clues are listed above in the thread, but I think we’re on the same page here. I’m not convinced either. The point is, the clues only lead to the “possibility” that Deckard is a replicant. Besides, over-thinking this issue tends to be a lot of fun, since there really is no correct answer to the question.
Let’s move on: are those pigeons in the flock that lives in the Bradbury towards the end of the film replicants or not? That’s what keeps me up nights now… If they aren’t synthetics, the flock’s worth millions. If they are synthetics, “life” goes on, and eventually the question becomes a moot point after multiple generations.
I guess it’s all in how you interpret it. The first time I watched the version with the unicorn was recently, after the Blu-ray came out. I’ve liked this film for many years but see it totally different now. I never really gave much thought to the unicorn scene before, but then again without that dream, it really doesn’t mean very much. It completely makes sense to me that Deckard is a replicant when you consider the dream. Why else would that scene be there? I’d heard of the theories before but never bought into them. To me the ending is so much better with that dream sequence earlier in the film. It seems very obvious now.
I think it’s important to question if Deckard’s a replicant because it requires we question what it means to be a replicant and in turn opens the larger discussion of the self-worth of the synthetic vs. the organic and/or the simulacrum vs. the original.
If someone were to reveal to you tomorrow conclusively that you were artificial or more ambiguously on a spiritual level your soul or personality was artificial, pre-fab, a cast-off construct of much larger powers and forces (beyond your comprehension), would you still have the courage to treat your existence with self-respect? Furthermore, if you were living day in and day out in a civilization technologically advanced to a point of media-saturation that makes you question the validity of the origin of your thoughts and emotions at every turn, would you still be able to…well, go on…continue. That’s a Phil Dick crisis classic. And Ridley Scott, slicker in his style than Dick ever was, was still a perfect choice as a former director of commercials to direct a commercial (attempted) blockbuster about how the virtual has infiltrated our everyday belief system.
Is Deckard a replicant? It’s an important question with no one correct answer and MULTIPLE correct answers, as we’ve learned from the diversity of opinions from those who created the progressive, evolving versions of the movie which has in fact been a work-in-progress and an open text for 25 years.
Am I a man dreaming I’m a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming I’m a man.
After just seeing the film again, in the ‘final’ cut and watching the accompanying dvd on the film’s making, the commentators on the companion dvd makes it clear that the official answer is that Deckard is not a replicant. Supposedly the unicorn dream sequence, in the director’s cut version, was thrown in by Scott to give a human dimension to Deckard’s character – or as a red herring. Scott himself doesn’t give any answer on the accompanying dvd, that I caught. Seeing Deckard picking up the paper unicorn is just a reference to the dream, not a sign he is a replicant. But don’t let the ‘official’ explanation of some of those involved in the film deter you in thinking whatever you want.
If he is supposed to be a replicant, it does make the whole violent scenario with him shooting the other replicants, including the female replicants, just that much more reprehensible. Mind you, in the accompanying dvd, they claim that Tyrell, the creator of the replicants, was himself envisioned as a replicant. Supposedly, when Roy confronts Tyrell, he was to have crushed Tyrell’s skull to reveal nuts and bolts. This version was altered and not shown, even though they had made a mock-up skull just for this. Fascinating! This makes the whole issue even more absurd.
I agree, the question is more important than a definitive answer. But having said that, here’s my answer! Deckard is human. I don’t think the unicorn imagery automatically points to shared implanted memories, that Gaff knows about. The unicorn image is first seen on a necklace (or somesuch knicknack) Rachael has. Deckard, at the point when he daydreams (his eyes are wide open in the Final Cut) of the unicorn, is falling for her but resists it, and probably feels guilty and confused by it. His job is to retire her kind. It’s unprofessional, unethical (in his cultural context), and painful for the cold, closed off guy he is. So he’s taken her unicorn charm as a symbol of Rachael herself (and perhaps, love itself, especially in it’s early stages: wild, free, majestic, fantastic – we’ve all been there, eh?). To daydream of the symbol is more palatable than to daydream of an artificial “human,” and potential job/target, with a short shelf life. This is realistic; we often come up with symbols for that which we aren’t ready to accept yet. Why does Gaff knows of the unicorn symbolism? Perhaps he saw Rachael’s necklace charm. I like to think Gaff brought Rachael to Deckard’s apartment, saw her charm, and left her and the origami figure as a way of saying to Deckard take off with her, enjoy what time she’s got left, we won’t pursue (or, if they had used an early ending, Deckard performs a mercy killing, that she wanted). That’s why Deckard nods, and smiles slightly upon picking up the unicorn. I doubt that would be his reaction if this was the sudden revelation that he was a replicant.
The fact it is a unicorn is interesting, too, as all animals are fantastic in these bleak future culture. The idea that Rachael, an unnatural human, is represented by an unnatural animal, rather than a regular horse or an owl or some other beautiful, but proven-to-exist creature, is significant.
As for the glowing eyes thing? Big deal. Similar to “red-eye” effect in photos. Even Scott has discounted it. And I discount Scott for saying Deckard is replicant. That’s a myopic and simplistic conclusion, lacking in poetry. ‘course, maybe he’s just putting us all on . . .
Judicial Joe
In the final cut, Edward James Olmos (his character’s name slips me) leaves an origami unicorn at Deckard’s doorstep. This corresponds to an earlier dream/memory Deckard had of a unicorn walking through a forest, implying that Olmos had access to Deckard’s dreams. The only way he could have access to those was…by Deckard being a replicant.
Makes sense? Yes? No?