MovieChat Forums > Blade Runner (1982) Discussion > Deckard is imho a replicant also accordi...

Deckard is imho a replicant also according to the theatrical release

posted 7 years ago by kimloss (10)
9 replies | jump to latest

I was always wondering why the acting of h. ford (whose acting is usually well balance) in this movie is so strange and unnatural, sometimes even constrained.
I suppose, there was a hint in his behaviour from the very beginning indicating deckard was a replicant, with gestures similar to Ray´s.It is quite obvious . in those scenes with Rachel, esp. during the famous "agressive" love scene) .
It might have been an "evil" intention of ridley scott, as harrison ford later admitted that he wasnt sure, how he was supposed to approach the role. My point is that r.scott maybe let him play a replicant without h.ford´s knowledge :-)

what do you think?

sorry for my english, am not a native speaker..

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

There was not enough proof in the theatrical cut. With the edits, they make him one.
To me, everyone in this world acted a little wonky, not just Deckard.

Depending on which version you watch, he is or is not. The newer edits making him one, does NOT make him one in the previous edit. That would be like altering time which is impossible. In the early edit, he is not. Done deal.

[–] MikeCable (1656) 7 years ago

I always thought his acting was down to the "film noir" style of the movie. It is a gloomy, overcrowded, rainy future, so people were generally depressed or something.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Thats exactly it , according to the book

[–] DracTarashV2 (4474) 6 years ago

His acting does suits the film noir vibe of Blade Runner more than anything. After all, Deckard is someone who can no longer bear to do what he does/did for a living, which is similar to the tired and uninterested detectives you see in many noir films. And on top of that, he lives in a dystopian world where a lot of people appear apathetic.

In my eyes, even Roy and Pris behaved more human than Deck. For example, they weren’t as expressionless and indifferent as the man hunting them down. I’m not saying whether or not this proves that Deckard isn’t a Replicant (for what it’s worth, I prefer the idea of him not being one), but I doubt Ford delivering a calm and unmoving performance was design to give his true identity away. Plus, according to Ford filming this classic was a grueling experience for him, so... perhaps he wasn’t even acting.

[–] Quint (935) 6 years ago

Deckard always was a human. Otherwise the complete movie wont make any sense at all, when replicants show themsleves how human they became.

[–] Cheepshooter (672) 6 years ago

It is intentionally vague. Him being a replicant gives the movie a novel twist. Him being human gives the movie a nice character commentary on how the humans are losing their humanity while the replicants are become more human, seemingly bridging the gap. That brings up some of the original ideas of Phillip Dick, and others, mainly "What defines humanity?" I think him being human makes a better statement, but I also like that it's left to the viewer to decide.

[–] Quint (935) 6 years ago

Absolutely not. Blade Runner is a mastepiece of postmodernism (when it was a good term). All of the film cries postmodernism. Thats why the voicer over of the theatrical release fitted perfectly and Scott was completely wrong to remove them. Cause they were as anachronistic as the sets build up from arts from different era.

So Deckard must be a human. Otherwise this movie kills its one and only point. Metareality is more real then reality. So replicants (metahumans) are more human then human. If that is removed by some stupid director (wehich still doenst get the message of this movie), then the whole movie is worthless. But thank god, it was saved by the studio. Once the studio knew a movie way, way better then its director.

[–] slimone (7996) 6 years ago

In the special features (commentary by Ridley Scott) he pretty much said that Deckard was a replicant, but really left it up to the audience. I would say that Deckard was a replicant. Just my opinion.

[–] Quint (935) 6 years ago

Deckard cant be a Replicant!! Deckard being a replicant makes the whole movie piintless. Is it that hard to understand the ONE and ONLY message of that movie?

Its good that Scott didnt decided how the theatrical cut was edited and other things. Cause he was a newbie without much knowledge beside visual experience like noone else (he made the most famous TV ads back then .... like Apples 1984). Thats why the studio didnt trusted him with important decisions and thats why it doenst matter what Scott states on this topic. Cause he didnt understood his own movie at all, cause he didnt understood the message of the novel AND the message of the movie. If Scott would have released Blade Runner the way it was released later with the Directors Cut, noone would remember that boring and stupid movie anymore.