Intentionally tvetydig

Den gammaldags frågan om huruvida Deckard är en replikant har debatterats under de senaste 34 åren och inte mindre av direktören för originalet ( Blade Runner ), Ridley Scott, ända upp till direktören - Denis Villeneuve - och författare - Hampton Fancher och Michael Green - av Blade Runner 2049 .

Speciellt, Green och Fancher är båda överens om att detta ämne borde vara tvetydigt, och det är hur de har skrivit det, som de har sagt i en recent intervju med Josh Rottenberg (Los Angeles Times):

Josh: As I see it, this movie seems to suggest that Deckard is a human, not a replicant. But there are other people who interpret it differently.

Green: One of my favorite outcomes from the film from early reactions I’m seeing is that people are coming out of it even more sure of the opinion that they’ve held — and still not agreeing. That gives me tremendous joy. And that includes some of the people that were responsible for the original film and this film. The debate seems to continue, and people seem to think that those who think the opposite of them are nuts.

Fancher: I’ve always thought that if the replicant-cy is a success, then you don’t know that you’re a replicant. So either way you’re … in terms of the ambiguity of it — and life is ambiguous.

Deeming Deckard a replicant closes the door on the party: “Go home, everybody, it’s closed.” It’s got to be up in the air or there’s no dog fight. It’s an aesthetic philosophical equation. Like, I’m not so sure Michael Green is an authentic human being. You know what I mean?

Green: I agree. I don’t think this movie answers definitively one way or the other, but I’m tickled that many people do and I’m also tickled that many people don’t. Some people come out saying, “Thank you for not answering it” and other people come out saying, “Thank you for answering it.” And that’s what we set out to do. We wanted to make sure that the ambiguity is built into the story.

“Blade Runner” is all about questions of authenticity, comfort with ambiguity, and you can’t discuss the film without talking about that particular ambiguity — is he a human or a replicant? — or even about which version of the film is the authentic version of the film. So the film itself is representative of gradations of realness.
-Los Angeles Times, 2017-10-09, Is Deckard a replicant? 'Blade Runner 2049' writers discuss that and other mysteries, by Josh Rottenberg

Fancher och Greens ståndpunkt i frågan (hur det borde förbli tvetydigt) utarbetas också i en annan ny intervju med Adam Chitwood (Collider):

Fancher: “Yeah, I always [believed] he’s not a replicant. I thought if he’s a replicant, the game’s over. I think he doesn’t know, also. So to make him a replicant—Ridley from the beginning [said] he’s a replicant, and I from the beginning said he’s not, or we shouldn’t know if he is, I don’t know if he is. The press has always asked me, I don’t know. And when Ridley put in the ostensible evidence that he is, the red eyes or whatever, in Blade Runner 1 I didn’t like that.”

Green: The fact that it’s a question is what’s important. The puzzle of Blade Runner, one of the many reasons it’s the classic it is, is that the chasing for authenticity is both baked into the narrative of the story and the meta-narrative of the film that there is no authentic answer to that question. Which just meant that telling the further story, that had to be baked into the story as well, that everyone who watches it has that question of which version should I watch, what does that mean, and the answer is you don’t get to know. Generally American audiences are very uncomfortable with that level of irresolution. Blade Runner challenges that and it’s not just an American favorite, it’s a global favorite.”
-Collider, 2017-10-09, 'Blade Runner 2049' Writers on Whether Deckard Is a Replicant, by Adam Chitwood

Vidare har direktör Denis Villeneuve sagt i en Ny intervju med Marcus Errico (Yahoo Entertainment):

“I know Hampton believes [Deckard’s] human, and Harrison believe he’s human, ... I went to see the film with Ridley when it was playing in London on Imax and after it ended, he turned to me and said, ‘See, now you know that he’s a replicant,'... I said, ‘OK, Ridley, it’s your film, you can think whatever you want.’

“But as a fan of the original film I enjoyed the ambiguity and I did not want to ruin the mystery for fans.”
-Yahoo Entertainment, 2017-10-10, Is Deckard a replicant? Director Denis Villeneuve explains how 'Blade Runner 2049' handles the great debate (spoilers!), by Marcus Errico

Jag skulle säga ja. I öppningsplatsen med texten som uppvisar tittarna i snabb takt med 2049-universum nämnde man att replikanterna "pensionerades" (liknande blurb fanns för originalet)

När K besöker Gaff som frågar om Deckard, säger Gaff att du inte kan hitta honom "för att han har gått i pension"

Det faktum att han inte förändrade det faktum att Gaff trodde att han var död och att replikanter inte dödades. Par som med tvetydigheten med enhörningen och den sista klippan hade Gaff lämnar en för Deckard hjälper också att hålla det här tillsammans.

Jag skulle säga nej, på grund av element från den första filmen: i grunden är gränserna för tekniken sådan att Deckard inte rimligen kunde vara en replikant.

Tar filmen (dvs dialogrutan) till nominellt värde :

För att Deckard skulle vara en replikant skulle LAPD (och den bredare regeringen) antingen vara omedveten om Deckards sanna natur (det vill säga har blivit torterad av Tyrrell) eller försiktigt engagerad i ett program - som på ytan är emot befintliga lagar. Alla referenser till vilka hålls hemliga från publiken.

Det hela sagt, jag bryr mig inte om tvetydigheten i frågan - men för mig är det ganska tydligt.