Audiences have debated for decades over the ultimate question about Blade Runner: Is Rick
Deckard a replicant?
When we first meet Harrison Ford’s Deckard, the bounty hunter or “blade runner” at
the center of Ridley Scott’s 1982 film, he’s tasked with killing android slaves,
called “replicants” [“I need the old blade runner.
I need your magic”.]
Deckard is reluctant, but he completes his assignment, though not before falling in love
with a beautiful replicant called Rachael.
Rachael is so human-like that it takes Deckard an unusually high number of questions on his
test to discern her android nature.
[“I’m impressed[...]It took more than a hundred for Rachael, didn’t it?”]And,
significantly, she asks him…[“You know that Voight-Kampff Test of yours?
You ever take that test yourself?”] Deckard doesn’t respond, but the answer to the question
has significant implications for the film’s overall message and our understanding of Deckard
as a character.
Blade Runner 2049 may add more to the picture, but we can find some pretty clear evidence
to answer this question.
“The subtext of Blade Runner is that we’re not really sure what Deckard is.
There’s evidence that he may well be a replicant himself - he’s just a much older model.
And then the most recent model is Rachael.”
"So the question that is asked that's at the heart of Blade Runner is, what is it that
defines humanity?
And one of the things that is obviously defining humanity is mortality.
Because the replicants have returned to earth simply to ask their creator to give them a
longer lifespan.
And Deckard is a guy whose job is to exterminate them..
The question then becomes, what is it that defines life itself?
Is it the fear of death?
Is it knowing that we're going to die?
And how do we respond to that?
So let's take a look at the evidence.
Most of the debate over whether or not Deckard is a replicant stems from just a few scenes
in the film, and in particular, one near the end in which he finds an origami unicorn outside
his door.
Throughout Blade Runner, Officer Gaff uses origami animals to taunt Deckard, with different
figures representing Deckard’s cowardice and attraction to Rachael, but the meaning
of this unicorn varies based on which of the seven film cuts released over the years that
you might be watching.
These include the 1982 Theatrical Cut (with its voiceover and happy ending), 1992’s
Director’s Cut -- which Scott has confusingly disowned -- and 2007’s Final Cut, over which
Scott had complete artistic control.
First, let’s examine the case for Deckard not being a replicant.
In the first three cuts of the film, the unicorn origami seems random, or a possible reference
to the Philip K. Dick source novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
The title of Dick’s novel addresses the tragedy of environmental destruction.
The story is set in a world almost without nature -- animals are nearly extinct and
robotic animals have proliferated in their place.
Like the replicants, artificial animals aren’t immediately identifiable, but are considered
inferior. [“Is this a real snake?” “Of course it’s not real. You think I’d be working in a place like this if I could afford a real snake?”]
In the book and the film, the characters’ desire to possess symbols of the natural world suggests that, despite
technological progress, something sacred has been lost which has an inherent and irreplaceable
value.
So -- if Deckard isn’t a replicant -- the symbol of the unicorn could simply signify
Deckard’s longing for another lost world that, like the existence of unicorns themselves,
is impossible, and may never have been real or attainable.
This desire manifests in the romantic getaway ending of the U.S. theatrical release.
Like the ending of the dystopian classic Brazil, which also faced studio pressure for a happy
ending, this free-feeling sequence (which features footage from the shining) has an
upbeat escapism that we can’t help but distrust and read as fantasy or, at best, temporary.
Interestingly, this sequence features leftover footage from The Shining. Which Stanley Kubrick gave to Scott.
[" I didn't know how long we had together...who does?"]
“The end of Blade Runner in the original cut, they actually go into those leftover
shots from The Shining that look like the garden of Eden.
And it’s suggesting that they’re retaking what the human beings can’t get to.
Because the human beings are flawed, we have sin.
We were able to make these machines, though, that are actually without sin”
Despite the nuances and layers here, based on the origami unicorn scene alone, viewers
of one of the film’s early cuts would have little reason to believe that Deckard is a
replicant.
Now let’s turn to the evidence in favor of Deckard as a replicant.
In the Director’s Cut and the Final Cut, a wild unicorn also appears earlier in the
film, in Deckard’s daydream sequence.
Because this dream scene comes before Gaff leaves the origami unicorn for Deckard, the
gesture of the origami unicorn now suggests that Gaff knows the contents of Deckard’s
mind.
Since only replicants have implanted memories, Gaff’s apparent knowledge of Deckard’s
unicorn dream could be a hint that the dream is implanted and Deckard is a replicant.
This also reminds us of an earlier scene involving animal imagery: Rachael’s story of a mother
spider eaten by her offspring is an implanted memory . ["The egg hatched..." "And?"]
["And a hundred baby spiders came out"]
["And they ate her."]
["... implants. Those aren’t your memories, they’re somebody else’s.
They’re Tyrell’s niece’s.”]
It’s significant that both involve animals because this world places superior worth on
“real” animals, so replicants dreaming about real animals is a symbol of their desire
to be human, to be valued and quote-unquote “real.”
The title of Dick’s novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
underscores this symbolism, by implicitly asking, What if androids dream of real sheep?
Is a replicant’s dream animal less real than the one a human dreams of?
How can we be sure that replicants’ feelings or inner life are any less real or significant
than ours?
Deckard also doesn’t just dream about any animal -- he dreams about a unicorn, a mythical
creature that’s not even known to exist in our world.
So the unicorn symbol suggests this one-of-a-kind animal that’s so special it’s impossible,
as if Deckard, too, hopes to be the one replicant who’s actually human.
(It’s worth noting, as well, that the unicorn -- with its magical surreal status -- was
used in medieval art to represent Christ.)[“A unicorn is a magical creature.
It doesn’t really exist.
It’s a fanciful creature that appears in folktales or in fairy tales, which are stories
about values and ideals and mythologies.
What is a replicant, but a unicorn?
It’s a fantastical creature in a story that’s really about other things.]
The unicorn symbolism works as a message both between characters and between the filmmaker
and the audience, which is probably why Scott was so insistent on including it in later
cuts.
But there are also a few other clues that indicate Deckard is a replicant.
First, there’s Deckard’s relative lack of backstory -- replicants have no true past,
and at least the newer models live only four years.
Roy Batty, the replicant leader on a mission to destroy his creators, kills only humans
in the film, but stops just before he’s seemingly about to kill Deckard.
We don’t get an explanation for why -- unless Batty’s moral code prevents him from killing
other replicants.
["he talks about how his life is essentially meaningless, all the things he's accumulated
have added up to nothing.
And he allows Deckard -- who he could kill -- to live because he sees in him that same
desire to live.”]
There’s the fact that Deckard doesn’t answer Rachel’s question about whether he’s
taken the test himself.
[“You know that Voight-Kampff Test of yours?
You ever take that test yourself?”]
Since Rachael had no idea she was a replicant, there’s no reason Deckard wouldn’t also
be oblivious to the truth [“I'm not in the business."]
[I am the business."]
[“This whole movie’s about: what is real, what isn’t?
And it takes a machine to determine who’s real and who isn’t.
Like, this machine might not always function properly.
How can a machine determine what’s human, built by humans that are flawed?
So everything is questionable.”]
We know that it’s also possible to mistake a human for a replicant [“Have you ever
retired a human by mistake?”]
["No."] “But in your position that is a risk”], and that advanced models of androids are exposed
only through excessive questioning, and occasionally glowing eyes.
Scott sparks the question of Deckard’s humanity in the apartment scene as both Rachael’s
and Deckard’s eyes glow while they discuss the unlikelihood of her escape to the North
Situating Rachael in the foreground and Deckard behind her,
Scott creates a parallel between the two characters.
The lesser glow of Deckard’s eyes is easy to miss -- and this can be interpreted as
a reflection of Rachael’s more complete knowledge of her identity compared to Deckard’s
ignorance.
Meanwhile, the choice to use illuminated eyes as a marker of androids is a clever reversal
-- we think of inner light coming through someone’s eyes as a sign of inner passion
and spirit, so it’s interesting that it’s the replicants who actually show passion in
this film.
(Sight is also a key focus of symbolism throughout the film as it explores themes of humanity,
parenthood and consciousness.)
[“The replicants are much more emotional than any of the others.
They cry when they lose their friends, they’re awed by things…and you see the human beings
have lost all sense of awe in this future.
They’re all just like zombies walking the streets.”]
If we view Deckard as a replicant, Deckard becomes a victim as much as the aggressor
he appears to be.
Deckard’s relationship with Rachael also seems more cynical, perhaps suggesting that
their attraction to each other comes from a mutual subconscious understanding of the
doomed outsider identity they share.
(The uncomfortably violent lead-up to their sex scene might also be partly explained by
this layer of their relationship.)
If Deckard is a replicant, there’s dramatic irony to many scenes, like the moment when
Deckard realizes that Rachael is an unknowing replicant.
["She doesn't know?"] [She's beginning to suspect I think?"] ["Suspect? How can it not know what it is?"] ["Commerce."]
It explains why Gaff takes pleasure in taunting Deckard [“she’s a replicant, isn’t she?”]
One of Gaff’s earlier remarks [“you’ve done a man’s job, sir.”] could register
as a hint that Deckard is a not a real man.
Deckard being a replicant also explains why Gaff’s final words echo
in Deckard’s head, and we hear them twice [“too bad she won’t live - but then again,
who does?”]
The repetition could be Deckard connecting the dots between his reverie, the origami,
and Gaff’s original comment about Rachael.
Deckard’s stunned look and nod as he studies the origami unicorn indicate an emotional
epiphany.
Gaff’s decision to spare Rachael and let her escape with Deckard suggests once again
that they are two of a kind.
While this can be seen as a happy ending, it’s more likely that Gaff sees no need
to kill Deckard and Rachael because, given the short life spans, Gaff might expect that
they will die soon anyway.
Choosing to end with the unicorn scene, Scott underlines its significance.
In the versions of the film that include both the daydream and the origami, the evidence
that Deckard is most likely a replicant adds up. And we're not the only ones that think so.
Director Scott has repeatedly stated that the origami unicorn does in fact prove that
Deckard is a replicant in which he says [“he is definitely a replicant.”]
But Harrison Ford has said that Deckard was not a replicant in his mind [“there was
a bit of contest between Ridley and I over whether or not Deckard, the character I played,
was a replicant or not[…]I resisted the idea of being a replicant.”]
Deckard is explicitly not a replicant in the novel -- and the character has actually taken
the test to prove he’s human -- but author Dick has stated that, still, the character
becomes “progressively dehumanized,” begging the question of how replicants truly differ
from humans.The book leaves us with the idea that electric animals’ lives might have
some value, too.
The multiple cuts of the film make it easy to keep debating, but evidence from the Final
Cut and Scott’s vision lead us to conclude that the character is a replicant.
Meanwhile, if Deckard is a replicant, that means the film overwhelmingly encourages us
to identify with the oppressed androids over the people in the story.
So this leaves us mulling over the harder question, of what makes us human after all.[“Yes
it’s about the replicants, but it’s really about this larger question of technology and
humanity and how do we know what is real and authentic.
If we can construct a machine that is virtually identical to a person, then what is a person?”]
["And these replicants, are a way for us to talk about some aspects of humanity and our common experience, and also this question of finding meaning in life."]
["All those... moments, will be lost...in time... Like tears in rain... Time to die."]