Question concerning Blade Runner

[Derf]

I recently got the Blade Runner DVD. The cover brings up a question of whether Deckard might be a replicant himself. I understand that the novel the movie is based on, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, raises this question, but I see nothing in the movie that even hints at the possibility, other than maybe the fact that Deckard isn't a mutant like just about everyone else in sight.

Does anyone have any further insight on this?

Also, on a side note, did anyone else notice the similarities between the cityscapes in Blade Runner and The Fifth Element? In both movies, there are scenes looking down from a great height at flying cars (which also look somewhat similar). Both movies feature the hero being served by an ancient Chinese cook (Deckard goes to the booth in BR, while the booth comes to Dallas in TFE) who offers some advice. And in my most convincing observation, both movies even feature Brion James! Spooky, no?

[Mr_Vindictive]

The thing about Dekkard being a replicant doesn't come up at all in the theatrical cut of Blade Runner.  But then, if you watch the directors cut you kind of get the idea that he is a replicant.

He's pretty much emotionless throughout the entire film and the big thing for me is the Unicorn scene.  One can take it as Dekkard dreaming or having a memory.  If it's a memory then he is obviously a replicant due to the fact that unicorns are obviously mythical creatures.  

Ridley Scott has said in the past though that he wanted Dekkard to be a replicant and that in his opinion, Dekkard is.

Take from that what you will.

[Master Blaster]

The only reference I recall is when Deckard is asked "Have you ever taken the test yourself?" by his replicant love interest. (I forget the name). Ridley Scott said Deckard was a replicant in 2000, but Harrison Ford turned around and started b***hing saying they agreed Deckard deffinately wasnt a replicant, so people still wonder.

[Master Blaster]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083658/trivia

Oh, trivia page on IMDB has some insight.

[raj]

I think it was designed to be ambiguous, which really comes out in the director's cut.  Another advantage of that version is that it doesn't have the annoying voice over.
I suspect Deckard is a replicant.

[LH-C]

I have never suspected that Deckard might be a replicant, even after watching the director's cut for many years. It think it's all in how one analyzes it, I guess.

[Derf]

The DVD I got is the director's cut. The unicorn scene looks more like a dream to me; Deckard isn't in it--it's just a one-second scene of a unicorn running. If it's a memory, then yes, Deckard would be a replicant. However, it isn't really presented that way. While I can't claim to be a world-renowned expert at literary analysis, I do have my master's degree in the subject, so I do have some skills; more than most when it comes right down to it. I watched the movie specifically looking for ambiguities and didn't really see any, not in the way the police treated him (okay, stretching things a bit, we never see Deckard in his former glory days; he is simply told that he was the best), not in the way he is portrayed with normal human strength (the replicants regularly kick his bootay; his only "strength" is in surviving it all), not even, as mentioned, in his lack of emotions (replicants have emotions; they are simply unprepared to handle them like normal humans).

I read the trivia on IMDB. I can superimpose some of the behind-the-scenes stuff to create ambiguities, but I don't think that is a good way to approach any work of fiction. If the ambiguities don't exist in the work itself, then they don't exist for the purposes of analysis. I don't mean to slough off all your comments; I appreciate your taking the time to answer. I guess I'm just looking for something more accessible within the finished film since the cover made such a big deal out of it.

[Ed]

I agree, all my times watching it and I never got that he was a replicant.  The dream sequence seems to me to me a nod to the original book.  Deckard tended to drift off into animal dreams, I recall.
-Ed

[Eirik]

If he was a replicant, then he was the biggest wuss replicant I ever saw.  Any time a replicant got their hands on him, they caused serious bodily harm that he was more or less powerless to prevent.  I think it's just one of those things fans of the movie like to argue about and people involved in the movie like to fuel to perpetuate rentals and DVD purchases.  I don't think that was the film maker's intent when making the movie.

[ulthar]

I watched the movie many, many times and NEVER got the idea he was  replicant.  When I heard it mentioned somewhere, I watched it again looking for those clues.  It's an interesting debate, but one I don't think holds up to scrutiny.  At least not in the theatrical release.

(I've never seen the director's cut).

[dean]

Anyone read the book?

I can't really remember, but was it more obvious in it's hints that Deckard might be a replicant?

Not that it really has any baring on the film itself, but it would be interesting to see what Dick thought about it.

Eg. In Fight Club the novel, it was more obvious what the deal was with Tyler Durden.

Damn.  I wish I payed more attention in class...

[BeyondTheGrave]

I never believe Deckard was a replicant. Like someone stated he did get his ass served a number of times in the movie. He was emotionless but that could be explained that he was a cop and might have seen alot of things that made him detached and cold.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can’t give it, you can't buy it, and you just don't get it!-Aeon Flux

[blkrider]

There's also a part where his eyes glow in a similar fashion to the replicant characters.  I believe Ridley Scott has put it on record that Deckard was supposed to be a replicant, an experimental variety like Rachel.  

In the book, if I remember right, Deckard is not a replicant but at one point he is taken in by a replicant Blade Runner who takes him to a police station that is staffed by replicants.  Need to read it again--I believe the movie only took the basic premise from the book--otherwise they're quite different from each other.

[dean]

Yeah, the book is alot more political based then the movie from what I remember.  Though, that's about all I really remember to tell you the truth.

[Derf]

Thanks everyone; at least I now know that I'm not the only one who can't see any real "ambiguity" in the movie. I understand the book may add that dimension, and that's fine, but this is the movie version, not the book version. They are two very different stories. One day I may read the book to see just how different. . .