I think my interpretation is pretty similar to yours right up until the end, and differs from Kermit's. You can only get from any work what you agree to take from it, and all he was interested in taking from it was a stylish noir-styled detective yarn. I agree that the style is excellent and something in many ways the sequel absolutely fails to match, but as a detective story it's thoroughly mediocre, and taken as a whole in this view is insignificant except for its visuals (which are obviously very significant).

I do think the style is the strongest element of the film, but just because I appreciate the film noir aspects of it doesn't mean I don't appreciate the philosophical questions the movie raises, which it does regardless of what Deckard is or isn't. I think some of the anti-V.O. sentiment comes from a bias against the detective genre (as if that genre isn't substantial enough to handle existential questions), but just as the film combines visual elements in ways that hadn't been done, it was also, from the start, a genre-bender, taking bits of this and that to make its own stew. Pondering the "is he or isn't he?" question has been a fun pastime for fans for many years, and makes the original film more interesting. My favorite line from the new film renders the question moot: "I know what's real," Deckard says. The implication is clear. If he's a replicant, his life is real to him, and if he is human, Rachel's life was real to him regardless. The question of what either of them are is irrelevant.

We're told that distinguishing replicants from humans is so difficult that you need specially-trained operators using specialty equipment in order to make this distinction. But we NEVER actually see it work successfully; in fact we might be forgiven from concluding that it does not, and perhaps never has, worked.

The test supposedly looks for an absence of emotional reaction to content that is expected to produce an emotional reaction. (The film's obsession with emotions as evidence of humanity I abhor, but this is the film's premise so I have to roll with it in order to discuss.) Ford's predecessor is doing the V-K test to Tyrell employees when he runs into Leon. When asked about his mother, Leon shoots the interrogator.

I’m not sure this is true. The test looks for abnormalities in emotional responses, but I don’t think it tries to prove a negative so-to-speak. This makes sense because the emotional development of the replicants is truncated and unpredictable. They only get this ability after a few years and they don’t live long enough to develop mature responses.

Only if you have a really stupid and twisted idea of what "human" is. There don't happen to be any extant intelligent humanoid species on Earth (at least, not one roughly equivalent to homo sapiens) but I often wonder what the world would be like if there was.

You don't have to imagine: this was the Earth thousands of years ago. Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapien were alive at the same time.

And there's evidence that we basically killed them all.

Where I differ is that I think this interpretation works just as well if Deckard isn't actually human, right up until past the Batty fight, where the human audience just presumes Deckard is human-- despite no one ever actually saying so.

That's true, but it'd be a boring movie if to satisfy the theme you just watch a guy doing normal stuff for two hours, then say see! He's actually a replicant and not a human. Shame on you audience for thinking so!

True, but I'm not sure why you're saying it? I'm not saying that everything up to that point is meaningless or unnecessary, or that the revelation undermines anything else. It's more that knowing about it in advance would undermine the revelation in the end.

So the first portion of the film sets up what everybody believes-- that there are humans and there are replicants, and that the distinction is real and meaningful even if making the distinction is arbitrarily difficult. It's the perfect setup allowing a society to dehumanize any groups or individuals it wants for any reason

Let's look at the sequel and see how a replicant Deckard ruins that theme as well.

Already addressed that. Ford is known to adamantly support the "Deckard is human" interpretation and likely his involvement was contingent on supporting this idea in the sequel. There's also the practical matter of whether or not replicants age. So for this purpose I'm considering only the original.

If he's a replicant, that means replicants and humans cannot reproduce together. Only within their own.

That's faulty logic. Just because replicants CAN reproduce doesn't mean they can't interbreed. Frankly, the new film's focus on this I find to be deeply stupid, and it barely makes sense with what we do know about replicants.

Replicants aren't robots or cyborgs. They aren't crude facsimiles of humans fashioned by advanced materials science. They are genetically engineered beings. Their DNA is human DNA-- modified to allow for the desired characteristics. They're more like modified clones than anything else, then speed-grown in an artificial womb. (Also interesting to note that DV wants to do Dune next, although I doubt he'll be able to get near the parts of the story that relate to this topic.)

It seems to be a popular myth that clones are sterile, and now they've made this part of the distinction between replicants and humans, just in time to make it a big issue that it's not a distinction anymore. In reality, the bigger challenge would probably be a Monsanto-like decision to attempt to PREVENT replicants from reproducing. Think about it. If Tyrell was selling docile, sexually mature, reproductivity-capable adult replicants, everybody would buy 2 and just order them to make more. It honestly makes you wonder why the bowels of the company isn't filled with Axlotl tanks instead of plastic bags... if you get my drift. THAT would be a real and brave investigation of a horrific possible future.

Anyway. The idea that the company WANTS this capability and has been trying and failing to recreate it doesn't make much sense. It'd be more sensible for them to want the opposite, because free range replicants hurt their profits. This would also give the rebels and the company guys conflicting purposes-- instead I was wondering at the end why they didn't just join forces, because apparently they want the same thing. The substance of their conflict is over control, not the actual goal.

>This gives a pretty bright line as to their status as 'human', and provides a perfect justification to seeing them as the 'other'. But if they can interbreed? Now that throws a wrench into things.

Only if you have a really stupid and twisted idea of what "human" is. There don't happen to be any extant intelligent humanoid species on Earth (at least, not one roughly equivalent to homo sapiens) but I often wonder what the world would be like if there was. What you're saying is that people wouldn't recognize their "humanity" because they are a distinct species. That's pretty terrifying and worthy of its own dystopian film, but I don't think it's the point being made in either the sequel or the original.

I also don't think that Deckard and Rachel escape society in the end of the first one in order to reproduce. That's a new theme, I think mistakenly introduced in the sequel that either should have been avoided or handled differently. The ability to control reproduction would certainly be of political importance to an oppressed group-- fer crissakes THAT IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW-- but it's not a necessity to either earn or prove "humanity".

I don't just think that it's being questioned that Deckard is human or not. I think it's being questioned whether he would pass the VK test whether he was biologically human or not.

How do you find Nazi replicants? Run the Mein-Kampff test on them.

Ugh.

I honestly doubt Roy wants or needs to "prove" anything to Deckard. I think he believes what he believes, and is being threatened by someone who clearly believes differently-- as the entire system does.

That's literally why he goes after him but does not finish him off… otherwise he'd have just let him drop. Roy could have gone out in a more public manner, with more of a flash as per what Tyrell says. But he didn't.

I think my interpretation is pretty similar to yours right up until the end, and differs from Kermit's. You can only get from any work what you agree to take from it, and all he was interested in taking from it was a stylish noir-styled detective yarn. I agree that the style is excellent and something in many ways the sequel absolutely fails to match, but as a detective story it's thoroughly mediocre, and taken as a whole in this view is insignificant except for its visuals (which are obviously very significant).

Yes I agree. In fact I've always felt the style is really all the film has going for it.

Where I differ is that I think this interpretation works just as well if Deckard isn't actually human, right up until past the Batty fight, where the human audience just presumes Deckard is human-- despite no one ever actually saying so.

That's true, but it'd be a boring movie if to satisfy the theme you just watch a guy doing normal stuff for two hours, then say see! He's actually a replicant and not a human. Shame on you audience for thinking so!

So the first portion of the film sets up what everybody believes-- that there are humans and there are replicants, and that the distinction is real and meaningful even if making the distinction is arbitrarily difficult. It's the perfect setup allowing a society to dehumanize any groups or individuals it wants for any reason

Let's look at the sequel and see how a replicant Deckard ruins that theme as well. If he's a replicant, that means replicants and humans cannot reproduce together. Only within their own. This gives a pretty bright line as to their status as 'human', and provides a perfect justification to seeing them as the 'other'. But if they can interbreed? Now that throws a wrench into things.

I don't just think that it's being questioned that Deckard is human or not. I think it's being questioned whether he would pass the VK test whether he was biologically human or not.

How do you find Nazi replicants? Run the Mein-Kampff test on them.

Roy doesn’t know the audience is watching! He’s not trying to demonstrate this to US, but to someone who is human. This display of his humanity completely goes to waste if Deckard isn’t human. He doesn’t need to prove this to a replicant, because they’d be like, duh dude.

Roy is a fictional construct acting as an author insert, just as Deckard is a fictional construct functioning as an audience proxy.

A character doesn't need to comically break the fourth wall in order to function that way, or to act in a way that is symbolic.

I honestly doubt Roy wants or needs to "prove" anything to Deckard. I think he believes what he believes, and is being threatened by someone who clearly believes differently-- as the entire system does.

I think my interpretation is pretty similar to yours right up until the end, and differs from Kermit's. You can only get from any work what you agree to take from it, and all he was interested in taking from it was a stylish noir-styled detective yarn. I agree that the style is excellent and something in many ways the sequel absolutely fails to match, but as a detective story it's thoroughly mediocre, and taken as a whole in this view is insignificant except for its visuals (which are obviously very significant).

Ford and others pushing the Deckard-as-human narrative, as I understand it, need and want the confrontation that occurs in the climax to be between a human and a replicant so, as you put it, Batty can "prove" to the human Deckard, and through him the audience, that the distinction set up in the early part of the film, starting with the text crawl, is a false and arbitrary one; to reveal replicants as human slaves rather than glorified toasters.

Where I differ is that I think this interpretation works just as well if Deckard isn't actually human, right up until past the Batty fight, where the human audience just presumes Deckard is human-- despite no one ever actually saying so.

So the first portion of the film sets up what everybody believes-- that there are humans and there are replicants, and that the distinction is real and meaningful even if making the distinction is arbitrarily difficult. It's the perfect setup allowing a society to dehumanize any groups or individuals it wants for any reason-- see, these things *look* human but really aren't because of some secret information produced by experts on the subject and we should just trust them.

So I think the climactic fight where Batty demonstrates his humanity functions just as well-- Deckard presumes his own humanity, because why wouldn't he, and we do too. So we see it as the confrontation between replicant and human where the replicant asserts his humanity.

I just add another layer onto that which I don't think in any way detracts from the previous one, where Deckard's presumed humanity is brought into question. The thing is, though, that it's been in question for almost the entire film, along with the very basis for making the distinction between humans and replicants in the first place!

We're told that distinguishing replicants from humans is so difficult that you need specially-trained operators using specialty equipment in order to make this distinction. But we NEVER actually see it work successfully; in fact we might be forgiven from concluding that it does not, and perhaps never has, worked.

The test supposedly looks for an absence of emotional reaction to content that is expected to produce an emotional reaction. (The film's obsession with emotions as evidence of humanity I abhor, but this is the film's premise so I have to roll with it in order to discuss.) Ford's predecessor is doing the V-K test to Tyrell employees when he runs into Leon. When asked about his mother, Leon shoots the interrogator.

One interpretation of that is Leon knows the test is going to find him, and so he uses violence to escape.

Another would be that Leon has had a violently emotional response. In fact, Leon and most of the replicants throughout the film emote more strongly than the presumed human characters! Leon displays actual glee in doing violence to Deckard. Batty displays sadness over the corpse of Pris. Pris and Batty display fear about what will happen to them after Zhora and Leon are killed.

Deckard, mostly, stares into space with a flat expression.

So anyway...

Then we get Deckard going to Tyrell and doing the VK test on Rachel. Rachel asks if Deckard has ever retired a human by mistake. She asks if Deckard has ever taken the VK test himself. Interesting.

I don't just think that it's being questioned that Deckard is human or not. I think it's being questioned whether he would pass the VK test whether he was biologically human or not.

Deckard ultimately concludes that Rachel is a replicant, but claims it was difficult to make the determination. However, he was operating under the assumption that Rachel was human. If he had been told in advance she was a replicant, he might have made the judgment more quickly and easily-- the film does not really give us much (if any) insight into how automatic the test is-- after all, it is administered by a (presumed) human operator and does not function automatically, so it's not hard to imagine that a judgment call is involved-- one that could be influenced by the tester's state of mind.

So that's two replicants who underwent the test; one who ended it with a violent and emotional reaction before it was finished, and another that very nearly escaped detection, either because of changes in her answers caused by the memory implants Tyrell gave her, or simply because Tyrell influenced the test by telling Deckard that Rachel was human.

At this point the integrity of the VK test rests entirely on the credibility of the text crawl. We have never seen an unambiguous example of it operating as advertised, and it is the only explicitly referenced method of distinguishing human from replicant within the text. Even the description of its method of operation is questionable, as every single replicant in the film behaves contrary to the assumptions on which the VK test is based.

To sum up-- I think the portion of the film where Deckard's humanity is presumed to exist is there to make the point you are focusing on-- that either replicants are, or at the very least are capable of demonstrating the qualities we describe as justifying calling a self-aware intelligence "human".

The last reveal-- the idea that Deckard's memories might be false, and that he might be like Rachel, a replicant that was unaware of its nature, is there to make you question whether or not the humanity you have is real or presumed-- because as we've just seen, those born homo sapiens are just presumed to have it, and those created replicant apparently have to earn it.

So I guess the question I have is this: if humanity needs to be earned, did Deckard earn his?

From the root philosophical questions the film asks it only truly works if you accept that he can be either and that it is actually not important either way.

I substantially agree although I'd phrase it perhaps a little differently.

I'd perhaps say that humanity is a characteristic not necessarily granted to each member of homo sapiens at birth, nor necessarily denied any self-aware intelligence not born a member of homo sapiens.

Is it still up for grabs?

Yes. Those who hold either belief can find confirmation in the sequel if they are looking for it. Nobody ever comes out point-blank and asks the question, and nobody ever makes a definitive statement on the matter.

The credits are the giveaway.

The actors who play replicants have their names flicker in with an effect, while the actors who play humans have heir names appear solid. Harrison Ford’s name? Solid.

Ford has pushed the Deckard-is-human angle since the original film was released. I would not be surprised if his participation, which the studio probably considered non-negotiable, was contingent on at least minimal support for this interpretation.

Batty breaks Deckard's fingers in retaliation for those of his partners that Deckard kills - Pris and Zhora. He does NOT break a finger for Leon, which means 1) he's only breaking fingers for female replicants (dumb), or 2) he knows that Deckard wasn't the one who killed Leon.

If 1 is true, I'm simply disappointed. But if 2 is true... how does he know?

Beyond that, I think the Final Cut is probably the closest to Scott's vision.

Is it still up for grabs?

Yes. Those who hold either belief can find confirmation in the sequel if they are looking for it. Nobody ever comes out point-blank and asks the question, and nobody ever makes a definitive statement on the matter.

The credits are the giveaway.

The actors who play replicants have their names flicker in with an effect, while the actors who play humans have heir names appear solid. Harrison Ford’s name? Solid.

If I like it, I'll go do the other one.

The biggest difference between the theatrical cut and the other two, if you discount the voiceover, is the ending. However, the new film makes that difference almost moot... so I think you're making a decent call. (The theatrical version is definitely more understandable for newcomers.)

...sort of. Hard to discuss without bringing in spoilers for each.

For instance, I think the version without the epilogue is superior *even if I admit that all the information in it is canonically true*.

It's about the presentation; the epilogue presents things in a light too close to "they lived happily ever after" which is a big tonal shift.

There's a good parallel to be drawn between the theatrical and later releases of Brazil and Blade Runner in that respect.

Oh no, I'm woefully behind. I don't think I've watched Brazil in years, although I count it as one of my favorite movies, and like Blade Runner, saw in the theaters twice.

How have they screwed it up? ;)

My dad has the directors cut on DVD. Is this the one to watch?

I heard bad stuff about final cut, and also bad stuff about director's cut, and tons of bad stuff about theatrical.

The theatrical version is fine if you want a hard-boiled detective story set in the future. The director's cut has more ambiguity, and is more of a sci-fi art house film. Big fans tend to prefer it, especially because it makes it easier to imbue the film with (perhaps not quite warranted?) deep philosophical significance. As far as I can tell, the final cut is the same as the director's cut with some color adjustments.

Not just that. Also has restored dream sequence footage not seen in any other version and is pivotal to interpreting the film.

The unicorn scene IS in the director's cut. It may not be exactly the same as what's in the final cut, but any of it is enough to enable the theory.

It is incomplete in a manner that allows for the dismissal of the interpretation.

It can still be dismissed.

Yeah, yeah. All the cool kids think so.

That's a lousy argument.

I wasn't making an argument.

as nearly the entirety of Deckard's detective work consists of a nonsensical "zoom and enhance" sequence done ON A POLAROID

I HATED that scene, and pointed out it flaws frequently. It was such BS that zooming in would let him see around a corner or behind something.

Now a few decades later and we have light field cameras that actually do let you shift perspective and allow you to see behind another object. That scene has been rendered relevant, it is not an exact match with current capabilities but we are on track for that sort of thing..

My dad has the directors cut on DVD. Is this the one to watch?

I heard bad stuff about final cut, and also bad stuff about director's cut, and tons of bad stuff about theatrical.

The theatrical version is fine if you want a hard-boiled detective story set in the future. The director's cut has more ambiguity, and is more of a sci-fi art house film. Big fans tend to prefer it, especially because it makes it easier to imbue the film with (perhaps not quite warranted?) deep philosophical significance. As far as I can tell, the final cut is the same as the director's cut with some color adjustments.

Not just that. Also has restored dream sequence footage not seen in any other version and is pivotal to interpreting the film.

The unicorn scene IS in the director's cut. It may not be exactly the same as what's in the final cut, but any of it is enough to enable the theory.

It is incomplete in a manner that allows for the dismissal of the interpretation.

Yeah, yeah. All the cool kids think so.

That's a lousy argument.