Thu Sep 27, 2007 8:25 pm by dmohrUSC
You know, everyone's flipping out all over again about the Deckard: is he or isn't he? issue. Let's settle this once and for all: Deckard IS a gay replicant who's about to come out of the closet.
Seriously though -- I know how it makes some people squirm to hear Ridley Scott insisting that Deckard is a replicant. And I can understand it, partly. If you read any of David Lynch's latest book "Catching the Big Fish," he mentions how he refuses to interpret any of the ambiguous moments from his own movies (for example, the blue box & key from 'Mulholland Drive'), because he feels that doing so minimalizes or is disrespectful to other people's interpretations. Kubrick took the exact same approach to answering questions re: the ending of '2001: A Space Odyssey.'
But you know, really, so what? Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and for god's sakes, who should be more entitled to an opinion about a movie than the person who directed it? But just because a director says "I think this means this" doesn't make it an irrefutable fact or immutable cosmic law; nor does it necessarily invalidate anyone else's opinion about any given ambiguity in a movie, or any other work of art.
Sure, when Ridley Scott first explicity confirmed he thought Deckard was a replicant back when the 'On the Edge of BR' documentary came out, I said to myself, whoa, that doesn't really make much sense whatsoever! I think I reacted so strongly because it conflicted directly with a decade's worth of my own personal interpretation. But now in hindsight, I think it just serves to add another dimension (and a nice irony) to the movie if you look at it as Deckard being a replicant who for the entirety of the movie believes he's human.
In her review of BR, Pauline Kael said, "You can dope out how the story might have been presented, with Deckard as the patsy who does Tyrell's dirty work." Kael meant it as a criticism, but I think she also overlooked the possibility of her suggestion actually being the case in the movie. Although, like many others out there, she may have been frustrated that the screenwriters and director didn't "spell it out" more obviously.
I love the ambiguities of BR, and if Ridley Scott says he personally thinks Deckard's a replicant, then god bless him. Anyone is free to completely disagree with him, and I have a tough time believing that anything in the Final Cut will scream out, "face it audience, he's a replicant, and you the viewer have absolutely no say in the matter!" But when you really think about it, it's the never-fully-answered POSSIBILITY of Deckard's being a replicant that only adds to the paranoia and questioning-of-one's-self that is such a beautifully played ambiguity and just adds another level of intrigue throughout the movie.
(And c'mon, let's not kid ourselves here folks, it's nowhere near as aesthetically offensive as George Lucas' going back and putting a hologram of Hayden Christensen at the end of 'Return of the Jedi.')