I disagree with the assessment that Deckard possibly being a replicant takes away from the empathy premise of the movie.
After all, the empathy test itself was designed by humans; who applies it is irrelevant.
The central point of the film is that yes, the replicants can be more human than humans — and perhaps they are.
And that the fundamental cruelty isn't even treating replicants as disposable or slaves — the replicants themselves know their worth better than that, and it's the obstacle the main characters ultimately overcome.
The fundamental cruelty is the core premise that the replicants pay for their superhuman abilities with shortened lifespan - an irreversible choice that was made for them.
And at the height of their self-realization, everything that the replicants are is yanked away from them.
All of that will be gone — like tears in rain.
The movie raises the same question as Flowers for Algernon, and is ultimately a very human one.
After all, we have many examples of parents training their children from a very young age for stardom in a particular field — at the cost of depriving them of the choice. Like Tyrell, they think it's worth it; but is it right?
The other side is — given that the replicants are beings who burn twice as bright, the kind that can walk into Tyrell's office and greet the most powerful man with "Hello, fucker", the kind who get to see starships on fire on the shoulder of Orion — are they justified in feeling slighted?
And if Deckard is indeed a replicant — isn't he arguably the more boring one, being effectively just human?
And if the viewer were to discover they are a replicant - which kind would they rather be? And if they are human, then what's the point?
The famous monologue was semi-improvised by Rutger Hauer, and that speech alone adds more meaning to the movie than the author of the article allows themselves to see.
The speech is ultimately Roy's last and ultimate gift. Deckard may not see starships on fire at the shoulder of Orion, and yet those moments won't truly be gone, because he gets to live the carry on even as Roy burns out.
The scene gives an answer to the questions above: that however we were created, there is a meaning to the each life lived; and that ultimately we need each other for that meaning to exist.
For we need memories to be ourselves, and memories are need us to carry them.
The replicant/human distinction, in the end, loses significance.
The climactic moment isn't that Deckard is a replicant — it's that in the end, Roy spares Deckard's life to tell his story — and pass the torch.
It only makes sense for Deckard to be a replicant — something that Roy would know, and choose not to tell.
But whether Deckard is or isn't a replicant ultimately doesn't matter, because the film makes sense either way.
Minor correction, because this is often misunderstood:
> The famous monologue was improvised by Rutger Hauer
It wasn't improvised. Hauer rewrote the monologue by cutting a few words from the original script, and adding the "like tears in the rain", which he showed to Scott and Peoples, who liked it.
The original line in the script was: "I've seen things... seen things you little people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion bright as magnesium... I rode on the back decks of a blinker and watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments... they'll be gone."
Source: "Dangerous Days: Making Blade Runner", great documentary about the film.
It only makes sense for Deckard to be a replicant — something that Roy would know, and choose not to tell.
Maybe I should have recognized this earlier, but I really like this point and feel it adds depth- whether or not the screenwriters or Ridley Scott even intended it. It's not necessary for this to be the case for Batty to spare Deckard, it's also possible that recognizing his end was near he wanted to pass something on and/or communicate his life in some way to another.
Deckard does not have superhuman strength or physical resistance to damage, like the rogue replicants. He got his ass kicked multiple times.
IMO the monologue at the end was Roy coming to terms with the end of his life. There was nothing to be gained by killing Deckard. He wanted to be remembered.
>Deckard does not have superhuman strength or physical resistance to damage
We don't know that from the film, because we don't see him fight ordinary humans.
All we can gather is that he has maybe a bit less strength than the replicants he's fighting... but still enough to come out on top every time.
Weird, huh?
>He got his ass kicked multiple times.
...by replicants with superhuman strength. And made it out just fine. No hospital or anything.
Huh.
>the monologue at the end was Roy coming to terms with the end of his life. There was nothing to be gained by killing Deckard. He wanted to be remembered
Agreeing to that.
My point was that wanting to be remembered by your executioner, who would never have the grasp of what you saw (or what you truly are), makes less sense than wanting to be remembered by one of your own kind, who you know will outlive you by a long shot.
It has been a while, working from memory... We see replicants doing things like: Roy dodging a shot from Deckard with inhuman speed. Priss does amazing acrobatic flips. Replicants dip their hands in boiling water and liquid nitrogen, with no discomfort or pain.
The snake woman by is shot by Deckards large calibre handgun, gets up and keeps running. Priss, when dying goes into a spasm of inhuman twitching. Deckard never does anything like that.
Deckard by contrast is nearly killed by Roy, who toys with him. Casually dislocates his fingers, causing excruciating pain. Then puts the gun back into Deckard's mangled hand.
In the final battle, Deckard is bloody and beaten, and actually loses against Roy. Roy I think laughs off some serious damage, including smashing his own head through a wall; at the end he only stops fighting because his time is up. This isn't "maybe a bit less strength". This is a kid fighting against Mike Tyson.
I don't look at it as Deckard being strong "enough to come out on top every time", I look at is as a human with a gun, barely surviving against inhuman opponents.
I disagree with the assessment that Deckard possibly being a replicant takes away from the empathy premise of the movie.
After all, the empathy test itself was designed by humans; who applies it is irrelevant.
The central point of the film is that yes, the replicants can be more human than humans — and perhaps they are.
And that the fundamental cruelty isn't even treating replicants as disposable or slaves — the replicants themselves know their worth better than that, and it's the obstacle the main characters ultimately overcome.
The fundamental cruelty is the core premise that the replicants pay for their superhuman abilities with shortened lifespan - an irreversible choice that was made for them.
And at the height of their self-realization, everything that the replicants are is yanked away from them.
All of that will be gone — like tears in rain.
The movie raises the same question as Flowers for Algernon, and is ultimately a very human one.
After all, we have many examples of parents training their children from a very young age for stardom in a particular field — at the cost of depriving them of the choice. Like Tyrell, they think it's worth it; but is it right?
The other side is — given that the replicants are beings who burn twice as bright, the kind that can walk into Tyrell's office and greet the most powerful man with "Hello, fucker", the kind who get to see starships on fire on the shoulder of Orion — are they justified in feeling slighted?
And if Deckard is indeed a replicant — isn't he arguably the more boring one, being effectively just human?
And if the viewer were to discover they are a replicant - which kind would they rather be? And if they are human, then what's the point?
The famous monologue was semi-improvised by Rutger Hauer, and that speech alone adds more meaning to the movie than the author of the article allows themselves to see.
The speech is ultimately Roy's last and ultimate gift. Deckard may not see starships on fire at the shoulder of Orion, and yet those moments won't truly be gone, because he gets to live the carry on even as Roy burns out.
The scene gives an answer to the questions above: that however we were created, there is a meaning to the each life lived; and that ultimately we need each other for that meaning to exist.
For we need memories to be ourselves, and memories are need us to carry them.
The replicant/human distinction, in the end, loses significance.
The climactic moment isn't that Deckard is a replicant — it's that in the end, Roy spares Deckard's life to tell his story — and pass the torch.
It only makes sense for Deckard to be a replicant — something that Roy would know, and choose not to tell.
But whether Deckard is or isn't a replicant ultimately doesn't matter, because the film makes sense either way.
And that's the point in and of itself.