Bladerunner (1982) - Is Deckard a Replicant?

Bladerunner is an odd sort of film. A commercial flop on release, Ridley Scott's mysterious neo-noir sci-fi flick has developed a cult following rivaled only by the illustrious Fight Club. Perhaps audiences in 1982 just weren't ready for Scott's majestically cynical vision of the future. Or, maybe studios forced the poor guy to fuck around with the ending. Yes, that sounds more likely.

Now, over thirty years later, Bladerunner exists in three different edits. The definitive version, according to Scott, is the "final cut" edition released in 2007 to mark the film's 25th anniversary. Interestingly, this version is arguably the less ambiguous of the three, and allows for a more informed reading of Scott's dystopian fantasy.

Set in a futuristic Los Angeles, Bladerunner follows the struggles of Deckard, a reluctant Harrison Ford who specialises in killing dangerous androids known only as Replicants. When four exceptionally powerful Replicants escape and wreak havoc in LA, Deckard is tasked with stopping them.

It's almost impossible to mention Bladerunner without delving into the "is Deckard a Replicant" theory. Scott strives to make it fairly clear in his final cut, perhaps because audiences today don't react well to ambiguity. Although interestingly, Harrison Ford has said on numerous occasions that he did not believe Deckard to be a Replicant. Indeed, Ford has referenced several conversations between himself and Scott where the pair agreed that Deckard was human. Yet despite this, Scott himself has refused to admit that Deckard is a human. So let's look at the facts.

Deckard's apartment is cluttered with photographs, none of which appear to be in colour, which would suggest that they are of significant age. Photographs are highly treasured by Leon, a renegade Replicant who returned to his dwelling despite obvious danger in a desperate attempt to retrieve his photos. Similarly Rachael - another Replicant - uses photographs in a futile attempt at convincing Deckard of her humanity. Scott makes it clear that photographs are of utmost importance to Replicants because it gives them the illusion of having "real memories", providing ties to a non-existent past. This begs the question, what do the photographs in Deckard's apartment symbolise?

Doubt is again cast over Deckard's humanity during his first encounter with Rachael. The Replicant asks him whether he has successfully passed the android test himself, a question to which he offers no reply. Scott is a director who recognises the importance contained in the slightest of details, so do not underestimate what Deckard's silence represents in this scene.

Later in the film, whilst in his apartment with Rachael, the eyes of Deckard glow ever so briefly like those of a Replicant. Whilst very discreet, this becomes clear during repeat viewings, and again I highly doubt this is carelessness on Scott's behalf. The eyes of Replicant's glow very occasionally, as if to portray a design flaw and to suggest that they are not perfectly manufactured at all. Indeed, in Bladerunner the eye is portrayed as a two way mirror; able to see magnificent things, as famously depicted by Roy Batty, but which can also give away just as much, as revealed in Deckard's android test.

Perhaps the most obvious indicator of Deckard's true self is the notorious unicorn dream. Famously absent from earlier versions of Bladerunner, the final cut sees Deckard dream of a startlingly white unicorn whilst asleep in his apartment. Now here's the clever bit. Earlier in the film Deckard was able to convince Rachael of her artificial nature by declaring his knowledge of her most personal memories and dreams. As Rachael is a Replicant, her memories are merely implants that Deckard has been able to research. Meanwhile, throughout the film, Deckard's supervisor Gaff continually manufactures small origami figurines. In the final scene of the film, Deckard flees his apartment with Rachael only to discover a small origami unicorn beside his door. This would imply that Gaff knows about Deckard's unicorn dream, and would strongly suggest that the dream was an artificial implant.

I'm going to run with this unicorn idea for a little while longer. Later in the film, whilst Pris resides in the apartment of J.F Sebastian, we can again see a unicorn, this time in the form of a toy crowded by J.F's numerous other creations. Consider that the job of J.F is to help create Replicants. Isn't it possible that the unicorn is a personal touch added by him in the design process of the artificial mind; a recurring dream that all Replicants share?

After watching Bladerunner, many puzzled film-goers can't understand why Roy Batty would save Deckard. Some argue that Batty wanted to instill Deckard with his knowledge, so that he could live on in some spiritual sense after his body decayed. I'm not buying it. I think Batty saw something of himself in Deckard as he hung desperately from the ledge. A burning desire to live perhaps? Or, something artificial? After all, Batty does shout "kinship" as he saves Deckard by grabbing his hand. Soon after this, Gaff congratulates Deckard by saying that he's done a "man's" job. Now I know that it's a fairly common phrase, but in the context of this film questions have to asked...

Many state that Deckard simply couldn't have been a Replicant, as he was noticeably weaker than the androids he fought against. This is true, yet he wasn't weaker than Rachael. And if, like Rachael, Deckard was programmed not to know his artificial nature, the only way to maintain the charade would be to give him "average", human abilities. After all, doesn't it make sense to have a Replicant hunt other Replicants? Surely it would be a job too dangerous for a human.

After viewing Bladerunner multiple times over the years, I stand convinced that Deckard is indeed a Replicant - regardless of what Harrison Ford has to say on the matter. Yet, the very fact that the question cannot be answered with true certainty highlights just how effectively Sir Ridley has portrayed his ultimate thematic debate; what does it mean to be human?

A Closer Look at Alien (1979)

Few films have achieved the iconic status of Ridley Scott’s first fateful venture into space. To this day, Alien stands as a shining example of what the sci-fi genre is capable of. Scott’s masterwork remains one of the most revered films of the past forty years.

Despite the shower of awards bestowed on Gladiator, Scott’s best work can undoubtedly be found in his early futuristic visions. Both Alien and Bladerunner rightfully rank among the best sci-fi movies ever made. Whereas the complex ambiguities of the latter film can divide audiences, the technical mastery of Alien garners universal acclaim.

Released in 1979, Alien is set in the distant future and follows the crew of commercial mining vehicle the Nostromo as they return to earth. When the ship intercepts a distress beacon from an uninhabited planet, the crew decide to investigate. What they discover will endanger everyone on board…

Alien boasts an impressive cast. Sigourney Weaver stars as the now iconic Ellen Ripley, the resilient security officer of the Nostromo. The ships doomed captain is expertly played by the ever reliable Tom Skerritt, and Ian Holm portrays the enigmatic science officer Ash. Alien was one of the first mainstream films to feature a heroic female equal to the men she shares a screen with. Scott would pursue this idea of a strong female protagonist throughout his career, in films like Thelma and Louise, G.I. Jane or Prometheus.

Unlike many horror films, Alien holds back on the scares for a significant chunk of the film. Scott masterfully orchestrates this prolonged build up until the tension reaches fever pitch. When we finally arrive at Kane’s iconic death scene, Alien goes for the jugular and doesn't let up until the credits roll. The claustrophobic interior of the Nostromo only serves to intensify the fear of the alien threat; best exemplified in a thrilling scene where Dallas hunts the creature through the ships ventilation system.

Few films can compete with Alien when it comes to atmosphere. Scott’s technical mastery is astounding; his camera floats through meticulously constructed corridors, gracefully capturing the smallest details of life in outer space. Even now, over three decades later, Alien remains a film of staggering beauty. The set design is flawless, and Scott instills an epic sense of scale that still impresses today. A colossal sense of discovery permeates the first half of the film; watch in amazement as Dallas and his crew enter the alien vessel for the first time. This is clearly film-making on an unprecedented scale.

Alien is a film steeped in sexual symbolism. Indeed, as the film both starts and ends with characters sleeping, Scott’s odyssey of horror can be interpreted as a twisted Freudian nightmare. The alien itself - designed by creative genius H.R. Giger - is a majestic creation of sheer terror. An invader from the boundaries of the subconscious, the alien is a creature of nightmares. 

The various forms of the alien are all undoubtedly iconographically male. The impregnating “facehugger”, the neo-natal snake and the fully grown monster complete with elongated head and retractable jaws all reinforce the hidden subtext of the film; rape.

In contrast, the bio-organic alien vessel pregnant with eggs is clearly symbolic of the female body. The damp, dark tunnels of the Nostromo, controlled by the manipulative “mother” are also an example of this feminist symbolism. These female representations are violated continually throughout the film by the masculinity of the alien. The creature itself can be interpreted as the missing phallus of the “mother”, due to its phallic nature and its origin in the womb of the alien vessel. Indeed, many of Alien's terrors are grounded in archetypal fears of woman’s otherness, her alien body and its natural functions.

A blueprint for the horror genre as we know it, Alien stands as one of the most influential films of the past fifty years. Never again has sci-fi been this scary. Never again has horror been this clever. Never again has Ridley Scott been this good!