From: andre@rurutu.wri.com (Andre Kuzniarek)
Subject: Re: Deckard as 6th Replicant doesn't hold water
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 01:15:30 GMT

It's probably a bit late for newcomers to enter this foray, but WTH. I've  
only just seen the director's cut and hope I don't re-iterate something I  
haven't caught on this thread:

1. The subject of the thread has already been dismissed a while back, in  
that the the changing number of replicants is a plain continuity boner  
(unless there's any scrap in the film to suggest why Deckard would  
originally have been on the replicant's escape ship which brought them to  
earth). Scott probably didn't fix it because it was probably low on the  
list of priorities. What was needed was a director's cut to be on screens  
with his name on it just before the release of 1492, to help keep his name  
on people's minds and in the press. To make this film distinguishable from  
the initial release, it needed a few big and easy changes. Other things  
that could have been fixed are: 
--the slo-mo dove release scene, which was tacked on after principle  
shooting. Looking closely at it one can see blue sky and incongruous  
architecture.
--the alternately appearing bruise on Deckard'e face near the fight with  
Leon.
--the plainly visible stuntperson crashing through the glass windows  
(instead of Joanna Cassidy)
--the glow in Deckard's eyes when he's standing behind Rachel near his  
kitchen. Her eyes were meant to glow, but because Ford was standing just  
behind Young, the light that created the glow effect also got into his  
eyes briefly. There wasn't enough focus on that detail to suggest anything  
about Deckard's humanity/replicanity, just a technical gaffe.

2. However, it seems clear that Deckard is supposed to be considered a  
replicant because of:
--the unicorn thing
--his obsession with family pictures (like Rachel, like Leon)
--the fact that Rachel originally didn't know she was a replicant
--Olmos's character's comment: "Too bad she won't live, but who does."
--the above comment played over Deckard's nodding of understanding

3. I don't feel interpreting Deckard as a replicant hurts the film mainly  
because it is constantly begging the question of who the real bad guy is.  
Is it Roy, for wanting to live a real life outside of slavery? Is it  
Deckard for having to hunt him down, having been threatened into the job?  
(Roy even asks Deckard whether or not he considers himself the "good man")  
Or is it the "company" (big business in the form of Tyrell), who seems to  
dominate the environment and force people to struggle among themselves at  
every lower level? In terms of internal consistency, it makes sense that a  
replicant would be employed to do what is an ugly task--essentially to go  
out and murder people without questioning their rights. Such a replicant  
could be manipulated into believing it was doing the right thing, to be an  
unthinking servant of the "governments" wishes. This then should make the  
viewer question whether or not she/he could ever be seen as no better than  
a replicant (or automaton or drone) when never questioning authority and  
when "playing the game". Scott's interest in this theme seems apparent in  
other things he's worked on, including Thelma & Louise, and even his Big  
Brother commercial for Apple.

AK

------- andre@wri.com ----------------------------------------------------
                                  "My god, they're using tools!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------