From: mlh@eddy.austin.ibm.com (Mike Haskell)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
Subject: Re: Deckard as 6th Replicant doesn't hold water
Date: 1 Oct 92 22:40:11 GMT
Organization: IBM, Austin

In article <1992Sep30.215705.20802@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dleibow@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (David E Leibow) writes:
>In article <BvA2GF.IBo@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>In article <10538@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk> imcc@cs.strath.ac.uk (Iain McCord) writes:
>>>Peter Alexander Merel (pete@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au) wrote:
>> 
>>>: The crux of the matter is whether or not Scott intended Deckard's nature to 
>>>: be ambiguous. Given the years of debate on the issue, with no resolution 
>>>: either way, I think you'd have to agree that the ambiguity is intentional.
>>
>>>  I thought that Deckard said he retired because he was begining to emphasise
>>>with the replicants.  It's common for good hunters/cops to learn to think
>>>like their prey.  Deckard was one of the best, until he became too involved.
>>>  Unicorns are a fertility symbol,  this could have been what Gaff intended
>>>when he left it.  This would be ironic as androids are probably infertile.
>>>He may also have access to Deckards psychiatric records.
>>
>>Considering the way Deckard was being tossed around by the replicants throughout
>>the movie, I would say that he couldn't have been a replicant himself.  The
>>only question that remained for me is how the other cop knew about the unicorn.
>>One explanation would be that HE was a replicant and has Deckard's memories
>>implanted, although this seems unlikely given that Deckard didn't know all
>>the languages the other guy did.
>
>I think that this endless analysis of every last detail of the movie to
>determine if Deckard is "really" a replicant is ridiculous.  The bottom
>line reason for everything that happens in the movie is thematic.  The
>plot has to have internal logic and the events in it reinforce the theme
>or themes.  In light of the theme of (to put it entirely too bluntly)
>"what does it mean to be human" it is either entirely irrelevant whether
>he is a replicant or not or it is thematically unsound.  Everything in
>the film sets up comparisons and contrasts between Deckard and the
>various replicants.  As long as we are aware of theses comparisons either
>it makes no difference or it works a lot better if we assume he is human
>so we can more easily see his similiarities and contrasts with the
>replicants.  You can argue the intricate plot points all you want but I
>can't believe that the director or writers could care less as long as you
>understand what the movie is really *about*.  
>
>As for the unicorn, the origami found at the end need not imply anything 
>about him having any knowledge of Deckard's dream.  We know he makes 
>those things and we can guess that he left it behind as a kind of calling 
>card to let Deckard know he was there.  This is consistant with his 
>last line.  If it seems a bit like too much of a coincidence that its 
>a unicorn, well, many directors have taken much more artistic license 
>than that to symbolially emphasize a thematic point.  If this wasn't 
>SF nobody would have given it a second thought...
>

I hate to disappoint you but movies are *about* seperating you from your
cash.  period.  Now, the better they depict and portray their writing and
filming skills, the more easily they will be able to seperate me from
my cash for their movie.  Its this kind of discussion about whether or
not Dekard is a replicant, that helps me see points about a movie I may
have missed while watching it.  It also keeps it fun.  Your belief of 
what the theme is irrelevant to most of us.  If you dislike the forum so
much, you can read all the thema you want out of rec.art.cinema with all
the other more refined (read English Lit. arrogance) people.  I do hope
you are patient for postings there.  :-)  See ya!
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies