sciereless fiction

Okay, the first reason I don't like Deckard is because he raped Rachael in the movie. The Replicants, framed as antagonists, never raped anyone, but Deckard did.

You probably know what I'm referring to. Deckard and Rachael's implied sex scene is extremely controversial - apparently, the director's intent was for it to be a "love scene" - that's how he and the actors called it. But the way it landed? That's painfully clearly what it was: a rape scene. Deckard blocks Rachael from leaving and forces himself on her, telling her to say she loves him and wants to kiss him, even though she's crying and trying to get away. Then the scene cuts and you can imagine what happens.

It's okay, of course, if you prefer going with the director's intent. Authorial intent is important to take into consideration in a story. But I personally like to apply some death of the author in this case: the idea that the author's intent isn't more right than audience interpretation.

Because, I do think reading it as a rape scene actually adds to the narrative, instead of taking from it.

You see, another thing is, I have enjoyed this movie way more once I started seeing the featured Replicants - Leon, Zhora, Pris and Roy - as the victims, and as characters you should be rooting for on at least equal grounds with Deckard, or even, entirely more than him.

Deckard is a cop. He didn't want to be one, but the movie makes it very clear at it's start that he's also spineless. That no matter how bad he feels about killing the Replicants, no matter the fact he gets tremors when killing them, or falls in love with them - in Rachael's case - he doesn't stop killing them. Because "if he's not a cop, he's little people" (line from the movie).

Meanwhile, the Replicants are bred to be slaves - even with different bioengineered levels of intellect, meaning some are very innocent, like Leon - and they only have four years to live. Four years in which they live as nothing but work beasts - until, in the movie, that group kills their slavers and escape to Earth. In Roy's case, we see he's capable of romance, of friendship, of caring for his replicant family. He tears up and despairs when each of them dies.

But he's also a combat model, all he's ever known is violence. It's a nice "nurture versus nature" dichotomy, in which all replicants we meet in the movie are innocent and unstable, having an identity crisis due to having so little time to form memories, and yet, being born extremely competent at what they do. Hell, In Roy's conversation with Tyrell, you realize "oh god this guy is actually extremely intelligent" because he's literally talking about bioengineering with his creator, his "god".

And I'm gonna mention Pris and Zhora too. They are "pleasure models", in Zhora's case she was converted to a combat model too. They are four years old and yet born to be sexually exploited. The "born sexy yesterday" trope, subverted to show the actual weight of it's implications. Pris literally dresses up as a doll, a childish thing, which makes her assigned role extra creepy. The only consensual relationship she could find in her life was with Roy, another replicant, so he wouldn't put her through the same exploitation he - in a different way - also suffered.

And Zhora, once she stablished herself on Earth, began to work as a stripper. When Deckard "interviews" her, he asks all sorts of invasive questions which objectify and deeply offend her.

Seeing the replicants as victims makes the movie a tragedy - because they can't be saved. Deckard kills Pris and Zhora, then Rachael saves him by killing Leon. Roy then dies on his own, because his four year lifespan expired.

Roy clung to life at the very last second, and his "tears in rain" monologue is actually a celebration of that life. The experiences he got to have, the memories he got to make, the family he found and lost. In that moment, you see the tragedy of the Replicants.

So yeah, Deckard might be our POV character, but his role feels more like the villain, to me. He actively hunted characters the movie itself wanted us to empathize with.

Some extra thoughts: if Deckard is a Replicant, you could also explore the nurture vs nature thing with him as well. Cause in that case, he was created to be a cop - nurtured steeped in violence. And so no matter how much, in his nature, he doesn't wish to be violent, he still is. He never goes against his orders. He doesn't want to be little people, which is why I think he takes off his wants and desires on others, like Rachael.

That's part of why I didn't vibe with the second movie that much. It decided to pursue the questions of who is a "real person", but ignored all other themes from the first movie, such as nurture vs nature, slavery, even Deckard's choices, somewhat. 2049 hinted at a Replicant revolution, but didn't do anything with it. Didn't explore K's motivations for wanting better rights outside of him thinking he deserved it for being a "real boy". What made the Replicants in the first movie real were them - and us as the audience - acknowledging their desires, hopes, personalities, despite the world telling them they didn't have any. I feel like in the second movie they started digging into that and then derailed.