The Ambiguity of Rick Deckerd

The following post discusses various aspects of the movie Blade Runner. If you haven't seen it, would like to see it, and don't want the ending ruined for you, then don't read this blog post. If you have seen this movie and notice that my interpretations are inaccurate, please let me know in the comments or through email.

Today, my discussion section discussed Blade Runner. I figure this would be an interesting topic to blog about. Please note that I've just seen the original theatrical release of the movie last Thursday for class, and I saw the 1992 director's cut last year for a different class. Having only seen this movie twice and not having the exact scenes and shot composition in front of me, keep in mind that not everything I say will be too accurate.

Blade Runner (1982, Ridley Scott) is based off the novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. Dick. As I've never read the novel, the following analysis will be based off the movies only. The movie takes place in 2019 Los Angelus, California. The Tyrell Corporation has created genetically artificial humans called Replicants as slave labor for off world colonies. Because of an uprising in space, Replicants have become illegal on Earth and are thus hunted down by a special force called Blade Runners. The movie follows ex-Blade Runner Rick Deckerd as he's recruited to hunt down five escaped Replicants who are trying to reach the head of the Tyrell Corporation.

This movie asks questions about humanity which can be debated until the cows come home. But I'm here to initiate a discussion on the main character Deckerd. One of the subtle questions of the movie explores the possibility that he is a Replicant. This question is more prevalent in the 1992 director's cut with Deckerd's dream sequences (featuring a unicorn). Less subtle proof can also be seen throughout the rest of the film.

Replicants are shown with halos in their eyes. The fake owl in the Tyrell Corporation has it, and the other Replicant characters have them as well (Rachael, Pris, Roy, etc). There is one shot, however, where Deckerd has this same thing. This information comes from a classmate who pointed it out, and I can't remember the exact scene when this happens. Deckerd and Rachael are together in the same room. She steps into the light, then Deckerd steps into the light. My classmate pointed out that he thought the halo in the eyes was an indicator of a Replicant, but then Deckerd had it, so he mistook it as a film style. Nonetheless, it's something that most people bring up whenever they're attempting to prove Deckerd's Replicant-cy. Another indicator are the photos on Deckerd's piano, which echo the photos Leon collects and the photo Rachael has of her and her mother. This second one is more of a thematic hinting than physical evidence supporting the theory.

These are fine examples of proof, but I have questions about Deckerd's past that I don't recall being answered throughout the course of the film. How long has Deckerd been a Blade Runner? And how long has he been retired and living the life he currently lives? Replicants are programmed to live a total of four years. This is to ensure that they do not gain an emotional independence and start vying for freedom. (Events in the movie seem to indicate that their life span is indeed long enough to start a rebellion of some sort.) In the scene featuring Deckerd in the police chief Bryant's office, Bryant seems to know Deckerd like they've worked together for a while. To me, this says that Deckerd spent time as an actual Blade Runner during his life. Although, you can point out that he can very well have spent two years as a Blade Runner, less than a year as a retired blade runner, and thus has at least one year left to live.

I suppose one can argue that Deckerd being a Replicant would explain his strong feelings against his old job as a Blade Runner. The job of the Blade Runner was to kill a Replicant on sight. In the voiceover of the original theatrical release, Deckerd refers to himself as an "ex-killer" in reference to his feelings on the matter. I argue that anyone would feel similar to what he feels. Your job is to kill Replicants, who can integrate quite well into human society (see Rachael). After a while, you would see yourself as a killer.

According to my TA, the majority of the people who worked on the film claim that Deckerd is not a Replicant. This gives some certainty to the question, but how positive can you be about someone who's only involved in a small aspect of the story? To me, the only answer I would believe would be from Ridley Scott himself. If you are interested to know what he says, take a look at this interview here. If you would rather not read the interview and discuss this matter in the comments, then don't click the link.

If you've seen Blade Runner, what are your opinions on this matter? Is there anything else the movie suggests that you wish to discuss as well?

(note) If you're going to go watch this movie for the first time, I recommend the 1992 director's cut. The original 1982 theatrical release has this horrible deadpan voiceover that makes me cringe every time I hear it.

Spec Fic or Fantasy?

There's apparently some sort of battle between terminology in terms of genre.  There's speculative fiction, which is a term I just learned that might get me a creative writing degree without ever saying "I write a specific genre."  

For those who don't understand, the creative writing department at UW-Madison, and other institutions of writing, don't want their students to write genre fiction because it's not literary.  I did have a creative writing professor explain that they want students to write character-based fiction, so the goal is to write something based on a character and not focused on an entire world that's not our own.  She went on to say that science fiction takes away from character and focuses more on world development, and it usually takes an entire novel to develop a world where it only takes 10 pages to develop a character.  While I don't agree with this, I felt that I should at least nod my head and agree seeing as she was in control of my grades at the time.

Back on the main topic.  I've just read a series of blog entries involving this Sci-Fi/Fantasy vs. Spec Fic argument.  Here is a post by Cat Valente explaining her hate for the term speculative fiction.  She also mentions a podcast she was referencing.  This is the official website of the podcast mentioned, but I haven't listened enough to find the correct podcast.  Seeing as both podcast and Ms. Valente's posts came out today, I assume the podcast is for January 26.  

One of the main arguments of Ms. Valente's post is that fantasy is a sub-genre of science fiction and thus doesn't gain the recognition of science fiction even though it is just as big.  I've never thought of fantasy being lesser than science fiction.  But I'm going to point out the comment by Pocketnaomi, who explained to her young daughter that science fiction is the sub-genre of fantasy.  This I can agree with.

Because fantasy, to me, deals with the Things that Can't Happen.  This includes all types of fantasy: paranormal, urban, epic, etc.  Among these Things that Can't Happen are various forms of science fiction, like Victorian-era steampunk that takes place during the Great Depression and space operas that span across a make-believe galaxy.  Therefore, Fantasy also includes science fiction and the sub-genres of that: space military (such as Halo), cyberpunk, etc.  So science fiction being a sub-genre to fantasy makes more sense to me than fantasy being a sub-genre to science fiction.  

On the other side, there's Kat Howard who prefers speculative fiction as opposed to science fiction and fantasy.  Ms. Howard mentioned being within academia, and the academics in creative writing prefer the term Speculative Fiction as opposed to fantasy/science fiction.  This caught my attention because I am a student within this academia and if they accept speculative fiction, then that's what I'm going to say I write.  At this moment in my life, I'm powerless to emphasize which term I prefer to use.  If Speculative Fiction allows me to get away with space ships in terms of school projects, then Speculative Fiction I write.  Since I'm too low on the totem pole to make an argument that would be heard, I'm forced to subtly find loopholes in the current mode of academic thinking.  

Which do you prefer: speculative fiction or fantasy/science fiction?