3x3: Best Unanswered Questions

They have these things called scripts. It’s sort of like the blueprints people use when they make buildings. Or design documents when people make videogames.

As you no doubt know from your own job, sometimes a project shifts as it goes along. And sometimes it’s very clear where this shift happens. With Blade Runner, the shift is after the shooting but before the release. It’s famously documented and it includes things like adding a noire-ish voiceover and removing the reveal that Deckard is a replicant. Feel free to Google that stuff if you like.

Fair enough observations, since I can’t really take issue with whatever you personally find “interesting”. But you’re missing a central facet of noire. Namely, that the detective is already corrupted by the very thing he’s investigating. See, uh, well, pretty much any noire detective story.

-Tom

Except the reveal was ambiguous in the script and in the film. Yes, some of this stuff changed and yes, almost 20 years later Scott gave his interpretation of the ambiguous film he shot. That doesn’t really change the fact that the first released version is very ambiguous and later additions add only hints and not declarative statements of what you’re saying.

“As I know from my job” a project like this isn’t just about one person. Many people working on the project, privy to the script and all of the filmed scenes, had different interpretations of the meaning of the story. The original author had a different interpretation. You’re locked on to your interpretation but that doesn’t make it right. It just makes you one dude on the internet with an opinion. And I still have no idea what the film was “shot at”. By alluding to the script you seem to be agreeing with me though that there is far more to what story a movie tells than the camera work.

And we’re right back where we started.

I maintain that you’re confusing “subtle” with “ambiguous”. Movies like Pan’s Labyrinth, Blade Runner, Birth, and Take Shelter aren’t ambiguous. If you carefully consider the information the movie provides, you’ll find a clear and often direct statement about what has happened. Questions are, in fact, answered. They just are answered in such a way that people can either have interesting conversations about them or silly internet arguments in which they direct each other to Google.

I don’t either, but by all means, keep quoting it as if someone said that.

 -Tom

And you can maintain all you want but it’s still not the case that Deckard is clearly outed as a replicant. Gaff hints at it but Gaff could just be fucking with Deckard (they both know a lot about the implanted memories of replicants) and the whole shared dreams thing could just be an allusion to how replicants and humans aren’t really that different. Gaff says, “it’s too bad she won’t live” and not, “it’s too bad you won’t live”.

And you can maintain all you want but it’s still not the case that Deckard is clearly outed as a replicant. Gaff hints at it but Gaff could just be fucking with Deckard (they both know a lot about the implanted memories of replicants) and the whole shared dreams thing could just be an allusion to how replicants and humans aren’t really that different. And even if Scott intended Deckard to be a replicant he still made the movie ambiguous. For all I know the director of the Italian Job’s came out a few years ago and said that they fell off the cliff at the end. That doesn’t mean the movie is not ambiguous.

If you read Paul M. Sammon’s Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner (which is more or less the definitive literary work on the film), Ridley Scott states unambiguously that Deckard is and was always meant to be a replicant.

From pp 390:

We began this discussion with an examination of one of Blade Runner’s most controversial elements: the unicorn. I’d like to wind our talk up with its other most high-profile ingredient: the question of whether Deckard is or isn’t a replicant.

Well in preparing the storyline, it always seemed logical that Deckard should find out he was a replicant. It seemed proper that a replicant detective might begin to wonder whether at some point the police department hadn’t done precisely the same thing to him.

So I always felt the amusing irony about Harrison’s character would be that he was, in fact, a synthetic human. A narrative detail which would always be hidden, except from those audience members who paid attention and got it. But Tandem felt this idea was corny. I said, “I don’t think it’s corny. I think it’s logical. It’s part of the full circle of the initial idea. Ties it off with a certain elegance, in fact.” That’s why, at the end of Blade Runner, Deckard picks up that teeny piece of foil -

-the tinfoil unicorn origami-

-right, the unicorn, which visually links up with his previous vision of seeing a unicorn. Which tells us that the Eddie Olmos character A) has been to Deckard’s apartment, and B) is giving Deckard a full blast of his own paranoia. Gaff’s message there is “Listen, pal. I know your innermost thoughts. Therefore you’re a replicant. How else would I know this?”

…and with regards to other clues about Deckards replicant status…

pp391

-but I must say I better appreciate the more subtle suggestions that Decard might be a replicant. Such as the fact that collects photographs, which you see scattered over his piano. And of course the most significant visual clue is that over-the-shoulder, out-of-focus shot in Deckard’s kitchen, when you see Ford’s eyes briefly glowing. Was that setup intentional?

Totally intentional, sir. I was hoping there’d be those who’d pick up on that.

Since Blade Runner is a paranoid film, throughout there is this suggestion that Deckard may be a replicant himself. His glowing eyes were another allusion to that notion, another of the subtle little bits and pieces which were all leading up to that scene in the end where Deckard retrieves Gaff’s tinfoil unicorn and realizes the man knows his secret thoughts.

Actually, though, my chief purpose in having Deckard’s eyes glow was to prepare the audience for the moment when Ford nods after he picks up the unicorn. I had assumed that if I’d clued them in earlier, by showing Harrison Ford’s eyes glowing, some viewers might be thinking “Hey, maybe he’s a replicant, too.” Then when Deckard picked up the tinfoil unicorn and nodded - a signal that Ford is thinking, “Yes, I know why Gaff left this behind” - the same viewers would realize their suspicions had been confirmed.

I don’t think it gets any more definitive than that.

I agree with all that. Despite Scott’s cut being vastly superior to the original bean-counters enforcements, that’s the one point it fails on. That particular aspect of the movie was better with ambiguity rather than Scott’s vision.

Not to mention that Deckard gets his ass kicked by four replicants in a row, including a “basic pleasure model” when in theory Deckard should be a combat model.

Ridley Scott answers this, as well:

Deckard was the first android who was the equivalent of being human - with all our vulnerabilities. And who knows how long he would live? Maybe longer than us. Why build in the “aging” gland if you don’t have to?

…and you may like the story better if Deckard weren’t a replicant, but Scott’s intentions are well documented. He’s a replicant.

See at that point I think Scott is just trolling us. :-)

I don’t think that anyone entered this conversation unaware of Scott’s statements on the matter (so you can guys can stop impressing us with your ability to look up stuff we already know :-). As with all good there are many interpretations possible. I think that Scott (and a bunch of other people; he didn’t write the screenplay, etc.) made a movie that was ambiguous, later patched it to strengthen one interpretation, but that one can still interpret the result in multiple ways.

If you already know this stuff, I’m not sure why this conversation is even taking place…you can coddle your pet theories about Blade Runner all you want, but there’s nothing ambiguous about it. Scott made Ford wear contacts specifically so his eyes would reflect light in the very same way the fake owl and Rachel’s eyes do. He didn’t do so to create ambiguity. He isn’t retroactively creating this interpretation - it was there from the outset. To claim otherwise you have to ignore metric shitloads of production information which supports Scott’s intent.

Insofar as the creator’s vision of the film is concerned, Deckard’s a replicant. You’re free to view the work through any lens you wish, but any other interpretation is counter to Scott’s intent and is to be regarded thusly.

Or just admit that hinting at something isn’t the same as saying it must be true. A major theme of the movie is to contrast human Deckard with inhuman replicants. Creating ambiguity and confusion between them is consistent with the theme without requiring Deckard to be a replicant. In the end, yes, Scott says that he thought Deckard should be a replicant. That’s not the same as him releasing a movie where that was a necessary conclusion. Just as with all good art, multiple interpretations (including those other than one of the creators) are possible. In this case I think we all agree that there were strong hints, and that at least one person involved wanted Deckard to be a replicant, but the fact that we know all that (as did many who worked on the film) and still can’t agree demonstrates the ambiguity.

Well, if you’re not willing to take Ridley Scott’s word on the matter, then you’re not likely to take anyone else’s - so keep on truckin’ with your bad self, homeslice.

So why build it into Rachel? A second experiment that is crippled when the first one worked? Seems likely it could be fallout from different versions of the script not having all internal inconsistencies and ramifications thought out. Anyway, an explanation isn’t always a good explanation, and to me that seems the case here.

…and you may like the story better if Deckard weren’t a replicant, but Scott’s intentions are well documented. He’s a replicant.

You’re confusing two separate issues, and for the record, I previously noted that Scott’s intent was clear in his Final Cut.

Yeah, I don’t really understand the purpose of Rachel since Deckard is a replicant. It’s a replicant that thinks he’s human teaching a replicant that thinks she’s human how to love. Or something. Aw man, you guys have made my head hurt. I’m going to go watch Eegah!

Great stuff, Musashi.

Which is exactly what I meant by saying that as shot, Blade Runner isn’t at all ambiguous. As it was eventually edited for the theatrical release, I still think it’s not ambiguous because the question is pretty much removed from the story.

And just to single out something Ridley Scott says in the passage Musashi cited: “So I always felt the amusing irony about Harrison’s character would be that he was, in fact, a synthetic human. A narrative detail which would always be hidden, except from those audience members who paid attention and got it.”

That’s exactly what I’m talking about when I bring up the difference between “subtle” and “ambiguous”. So many movies hand things over on a platter, or they pronounce things through a megaphone for people in the cheap seats. So when something is subtle, many people mistake it for ambiguity. Why does paying attention have to be such an unreasonable expectation in a good movie?

StGabe, you’re absolutely right that many interpretations are possible. That’s true of pretty much anything. But not all interpretations are equal. Some interpretations have to ignore things like evidence, authorial intent, or facts. Some interpretations are weaker than others. They’re like theories that way.

 -Tom

I think you’d have to ask the guy who got his eyes thumbed out.

I seem to recall there are other slightly confused bits of Blade Runner lore. Does M. Emmett Walsh egregiously miscount the number of replicants at one point? There’s an unanswered question for you: “Who taught him math?”

 -Tom

Look. The movie that is Blade Runner is ambiguous – the first released cut very much so and later cuts still so albeit with stronger hinting. If it isn’t clear I don’t really care about authorial intent nor do I think that a few hints makes it “not ambiguous at all”. I also thing you guys are giving Scott way too much credit as many people were involved in the movie and many had other interpretations. But get in your parting shot as I’m pretty sure we’ve said all there is to say about 5 times each and I’m over it. :-)

So if in ten years, Chris Nolan comes out and gives his version of what happens after the end of Inception, will what was on the screen be any less ambiguous?

No one disagrees that Scott intended from the outset to build in hints that Deckard is a replicant. There is a considerable about of material in the movie that obfuscates and directly contradicts on film that as well, which is why a number of people here take issue with the ambiguity of it. In fact, large chucks of what we see on screen doesn’t make sense with Deckard as a replicant; at very least, off-screen alternate explanations could be developed for all of the contested plot points.

Coming from the story and the original theatrical release, I really don’t like “Deckard is a Replicant”; it significantly disrupts (I would say ruins) the wonderful narrative about the “cold fish” desensitized Blade Runner and the growing ever-so-more-human robotic replicants and how their arcs cross. That moment on the rooftop is one of the most powerful scenes in cinema and to have Roy save another robot who doesn’t know he’s a robot tarnishes its luster for me. It’s certainly a twist worthy of M. Night., and I mean that in the worst way possible.

Inception is ambiguous because Nolan copped out. There is no answer. It’s a zen koan puzzle movie that you can pretty much make of it what you will.

Okay, I’ll bite. What in the movie contradicts the idea that Deckard is a replicant? And I don’t mean uncertain bits like “What’s the deal with Sean Young?” What are the “considerable [amounts] of material” you’re talking about? Or what “large chunks” don’t make sense? I’m genuinely curious, because it seems to me the movie is pretty meticulous.

-Tom

Those of you who don’t want Deckard to be a replicant can always just read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, wherein he isn’t. (At least, I don’t remember it being that way, and my memory places this among several major differences between the book & the film.)

But you may as well accept the reality of the film. To deny the Deckard is a replicant in Blade Runner is like denying that Stanley Kowalski rapes Blanche DuBois in A Streetcar Named Desire.