I somewhat disagree with the last few paragraphs, about Life being life and all that. To me this is presented much, much differently. Roy (Olmos’ character) wants to live. He loves life. The Tyrell corporation created life and couldn’t use the old models for profit anymore so it wants them scrapped.
I also think Decker not knowing he’s a replicant works very well, specifically because of this dichotomy. For all he can tell, he is a regular human doing his job. Decker portrays the 9-5 workforce, mostly faceless, simple humans just going about their day to day, until they die. When we get to interact with the Blade Runner world, we see the chefs and the other officers. Some of them have strong feelings, some of them are just puttering along. This is you and I living our lives without any revelation about life.
And then there’s Roy (and Pris). Roy is one of the most emotive characters in Blade Runner, at times inhumanely so. But all of his motivations aren’t just centered around survival, they are centered around finding freedom for the beauty of life. His character portrays the western outlaw, to live free or die.
I’ve always felt that in Roy’s death he becomes human. Or at least he lived as a human would have. In life, Roy was enslaved, escaped, and lived on the lamb. He sought vengeance towards God (Tyrell), found love, exacts vengeance once more before, in my opinion, realizing and accepting that God was right. There is no extending life.
Not Roy’s. As he sees Deckard about to die, with the understanding that Roy himself will soon as well, Roy saves Deckard not as an act of mercy but as a birth. To extend life.
For me, the story isn’t much about Deckard. It’s about what Deckard’s piece represents for humanity. Whether Deckard is a replicant or not, IMO doesn’t much matter. The question is “Does Deckard live free?” And I believe that Roy’s revelation in saving Deckard allows Deckard to carve his own path to freedom, followed up in 2049. I felt this way before I saw 2049 and thematically I think it fits very well.
I agree 100%. I’d go a bit farther and say one of the points of the movie is that it doesn’t really matter if Deckard’s a replicant.
At the end, Deckard suspects he’s a replicant, but the unicorn could be coincidence. Gaff could just be messing with him, or maybe Gaff’s having the same dreams as Deckard.
The original story definitely makes it clear that Decker was a replicant in the final scene when his boss leaves the marker after letting him escape.
It’s subtle, but the literary twist is there for those tracking the implications. The movie adaptation shouldn’t have changed that, and if anything provides a bit more evident foreshadowing.
Add comment