The "passion" that comes in regarding Deckard is the controversial changes that were made with Ridley Scott's "Director's Cut" and "Final Cut". While most of these changes were good, others were not so good. After these changes were made, the film was re-released in theaters. During this time Ridley Scott himself came out and made the statement during a press release saying that Blade Runner now indicates that Deckard (with these changes) is also a replicant.
No doubt such a powerful statement may stir the fans of this film to fork over the money and see Blade Runner again - if anything just to see what the heck Ridley Scott was talking about. The beauty of the original theatrical cut is there is a hint of some ambiguity to whether or not Deckard is a replicant, yet the overriding consensus was that he is human. The dynamics of the plot work much better this way.
With the changes made (by increasing the likelihood of Deckard being a replicant), it now gives way to other funky ideas shown in the film... like the motivations of Roy suddenly saving Deckard near the end of the film. Him choosing to save Deckard was a shocking surprise (with the assumption Deckard was his "enemy"). But NOW... the audience can speculate things like: "Well... he must have saved him because he didn't want his own replicant race to die". Deckard being a replicant also removes the brilliant psychological layer of him being human passing judgment against replicants (and killing them) when he, himself, lives an empty soulless life. Or, the human fallling in love with a replicant. Etc... I can go on & on. The movie just works SO MUCH BETTER with Deckard being a human and not a replicant. The story just isn't as fascinating with a replicant killing off other replicants (or a replicant falling in love with a replicant, or being saved, etc.).
That's why there was so much PASSION in this argument. Many people are FOR the notion of him being a replicant - but I think they feel that way mostly because it makes Blade Runner a different movie than what they've seen before (and they are fascinated by this difference). There are other supportive shots like Deckard's eyes glowing in one shot - but to me that's why him being a human was so neat... an artistic shot giving him (as a human) that same "glow" that replicants have. Other interesting bits of evidence like how Deckard seems to collect photographs - which is something that replicants also tend to do. I don't hold too much value in that theory because people, as a whole, DO value photographs. I think the point of showing it that way was two fold: 1) It gives Deckard a layer of subtle "creepiness" with the seemingly random photos. But 2) Showing how replicants ALSO value the memories seen in photographs should indicate their EMOTIONAL connection to things isn't different from what real humans experience.
reply
share