Blade Runner riddle solved
(from BBC NEWS)
Ridley Scott has finally revealed the answer to
a plot twist in his film Blade Runner which has
been the topic of fierce debate for nearly two
have been divided over whether Harrison Ford's
hard-boiled cop character Deckard was not human
but a genetically-engineered "replicant" - the
very creatures he is tasked with destroying. Little
suspicion was raised by the 1982 original version
of the film, based on Philip K Dick's novel: Do
Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
But a decade
later the Director's Cut edition - although deliberately
ambiguous - convinced many that the hero was indeed
a replicant and in a Channel 4 documentary Scott
at last reveals they are correct. 'He's a replicant'
The acclaimed British director, who also directed
Alien, Thelma and Louise and current box-office
hit Gladiator, settles the issue when questioned
on key aspects of the film's imagery. In the Director's
Cut version, the biggest clue for analysts was
the appearance of a unicorn on screen while Deckard
is lost in thought.
of the mythical creature appears again towards
the end of the film when he picks up an origami
model discarded by another character, Gaff.
As the replicants
had no memories of their own, they had to be implanted,
and fans interpreted the appearance of the model
as a sign that Gaff knew what Deckard was thinking
because it was an image shared by other non-humans.
In Channel 4's documentary On The Edge Of Blade
Runner, Scott discusses the scenes and asked what
they mean, he confirms with a grin: "He's a replicant".
in the film comes from the number of replicants
which Deckard is hunting. We find out that six
had made their way to earth, one of whom was killed.
Deckard is looking for four, begging the question:
"Who is the fifth replicant?".
futuristic urban imagery was hugely influential
on later movies but at the time of its release
it was a relative box office flop.
film noir-style movie proved to be a success when
released on video with repeated viewings revealing
When it was
first made, poor reception at preview screenings
prompted the film's backers to call for a happy
ending being added, as well as a voice-over from
these for his revised version. "What we'd done
was kind of a dark novel, it was rather novelistic,"
really realise that that eventually became the
true longevity of the whole film - you revisit
it constantly like re-reading one of your favourite
books. You always find you get sucked in again.
I still think
it's one of the best films I ever made," he added.