Yet Another Bladerunner Topic

[Derf]

Awhile back, I posted a topic asking if anyone knew why it was claimed that Deckard could well have been a replicant, and the answers I got were basically that it was hinted at strongly in the book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. Well, I finally came across a copy of the book and read it. The title of the book does imply that Deckard may be an android ("andy" in the book), since he owns an electric sheep and shows great affection for it (but not enough--thank goodness--to make this a sicko novel). I guess the other main area of doubt arises from the general questions Dick raises about what it means to be human.

Overall, I expected more from the book, but the movie is much more satisfying to me. For one thing, the dialog in the book is amateurish at best; it is stiff and unlifelike, written, in my opinion, on about a high school level (of writing ability, not in regard to the ideas or subject matter). The movie dialog is much more realistic. On another level, the characterization is minimal in the book--most of the characters are cardboard cutouts rather than fleshed-out characters. Even Deckard is minimally fleshed out; he could well be an andy based simply on the fact that he has no human depth, but then, neither does anyone else. The whole Edgar Friendly subplot is pretty transparent; I picked up what was going on there almost immediately. In the movie, Deckard is given a more real-sounding background than in the novel, and he comes across as more of a real character, but, as far as I can see, any real doubts about his humanity are erased from the movie. But then, I only saw weak hints in the novel; the ending in particular seems to go to great lengths to prove his humanity.

I realize this is only a half-on-topic post, but I'd appreciate any further thoughts now that I have read the novel as well as seen the film.

[Mofo Rising]

Well, if you approach the movie with the idea that Deckard is a replicant, it makes some of the characters dealing with him look like they know he is a replicant.  This may not actually be present since I might just be reading that into it.

I think the clincher in the movie, if it can be called that, is Deckard's dream of the unicorn.  In the director's cut, the Edward James Olmos character leaves a little origami unicorn outside Deckard's apartment.  Deckard sees this and gives a nod of understanding.  Along with the repeat of the phrase "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" seems to indicate Deckard will also die when his counter runs down.

That and Ridley Scott came out a few years ago and said Deckard was a replicant, but who cares what he thinks?

Dick is one of my favorite writers.  He was desperately poor for most of his life, and hacked out novels at a fantastic pace.  His writing does have its faults, but what a brilliant, strange and sad man.  Let's see how A SCANNER DARKLY turns out.

[Derf]

I'm not trying to knock Dick as a writer. I've enjoyed the storylines of the movie adaptations of his stories (Bladerunner and Total Recall are both wonderful movies in my opinion). The imagination he shows is great. Some of the questions he poses are fun to ponder. Maybe the problem for me lies in the fact that, according to you, he "hacked out novels at a fantastic pace," and this shows in the quality of writing. I guess I'll have to try reading some of his other stuff before I make any real judgments. Anyway, thanks for the input.

[AndyC]

What a coincidence. The last time this topic came up, I had recently read the book. This time, I've just recently seen the movie again after many years.

I seem to recall Deckard being able to use the empathy box in the book, making it unlikely that he would be an android. I might be wrong on that.

In any case, seing the movie again, I can see that it really is a different story, loosely based on the book. Each has its strengths. Dick's story explains a little bit more about the world, why animals are so prized and why people buy artificial ones, the whole idea of everything being in decay. The theory of "kipple" was especially fun, as was the idea of dialing up your mood for the day. And I've been trying to find some explanation of terms like "chickenhead" and "anthead" for those with diminished mental capacities due to contamination. Of course, like many SF writers of his generation, Dick was often better at discussing cool ideas than fleshing out characters.

The movie, on the other hand, had it's own pluses. Instead of giving the replicants a standard evil plot, as in the book, they just want to live. The replicants are still cruel and lacking in empathy (although they appear to be developing bonds with each other), but the movie does a nice job of exploring just who is more cruel, the replicants or the people who hunt them down and shoot them on sight, calling it "retirement." That provides us with a very poignant moment when the tables are turned on Deckard, but he is then spared. What is not really made as clear, except through their actions, is that the replicants really are without empathy, although I believe it's explained that the Voight-Kampff test is testing emotional responses.

I also thought the movie did a good job with Sebastian. In the book, he serves the plot and the message, but in the movie, being changed from a mental deficient to an emotionally-immature genius, he has a more direct involvement with the plot. It also shows us that even one who cares about his creations and claims friendship ultimately sees them as subhuman toys.

From a dramatic standpoint, I'd say the movie wins hands-down. As science fiction, both the book and the movie do a nice job of advancing some interesting ideas. Dick is still the primary source of ideas in the movie, but the ideas are explored differently.

[LH-C]

I decided for myself years ago that Deckard wasn't a replicant. But it's always a subject that needs to be brought up from time to time.

[Gerry]

My opinion is that it doesn't matter whether Deckard is a replicant or not.  The themes explored in BLADE RUNNER work equally well regardless of whether he was manufactured or conceived.

[Derf]

Gerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My opinion is that it doesn't matter whether
> Deckard is a replicant or not.  The themes
> explored in BLADE RUNNER work equally well
> regardless of whether he was manufactured or
> conceived.


Agreed to an extent. The reason I've brought this up a couple of times now is that I simply don't see much evidence for Deckard being an andy (or replicant, or whatever), but I keep reading that this is a big question brought up by the book and movie. I've got a master's degree in Literature, and so I think I should be able to spot themes and ideas presented in stories better than the average reader. In this case, however, I simply don't see it. It's not important, as Gerry says, whether Deckard is or is not a replicant. I simply have wanted to see evidence for this theme I've missed. Most of what I've heard is interesting but inconclusive. Thus, I keep asking. Maybe I'm the replicant. Andy Replicant, at your service.  

[Ed, Ego and Superego]

I vote that he was human, Deckard that is.   I'm still wondering about Derf.  Once I had a cat and my neighbor had an identical cat.  I ended up referring to it as the replicat.  
-Ed

[Zapranoth]

Dey say youuuu brraaaaade runnnah.

Homeagain homeagain jiggity-jig.  Gooooooood   evening JF!

I just do eyes.