It's been a question that's plagued Blade Runner for an exceedingly long time, with everyone - from fans to the likes of Harrison Ford and Ridley Scott - putting forward their own opinion. Although different versions lean more heavily on one side of the argument than others, it's still exceedingly vague, hence how we can still discuss it with a sense of ambiguity over thirty years later. So, is Deckard a replicant? In Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sleep, he certainly isn't. In fact, it's one of book-Deckard's major character arcs is about the reality of his existence. Of course, that has little bearing on a film adaptation that has already changed an awful lot. We're going to present a case both for and against Deckard being a replicant, giving you everything you need to draw your own conclusion (as well as presenting what we think).
Arguments For
We've already covered the unicorn, which in the Director's and Final Cut at least, almost serves as proof that Deckard isn't human; it's too much of a coincidence otherwise. Ridley Scott has stated it is his belief he is a replicant and his subsequent cuts of the film are likely to push the argument more towards this side. There are plenty of other elements of the film that add fuel to the idea, some more resolute than others. The biggest is that in one shot, back in his apartment after Rachael has shot Leon, Deckard's eyes flash red, one of the telltale signs of a replicant. This has been emphasised in the DC, but is present in the IR versions as well. This same scene sees Rachael ask Deckard if he has passed the Voight-Kampff test, but as he's fallen asleep we get no response (in the book he takes and passes the test). Gaff's congratulations following his fight with Roy is equally suggestive - "you've done a man's job, sir" - and opens up an ambiguity of Deckard's world; he has lots of mementos and photos, which initially seems pretty normal, but contrasting with Leon, who appeared obsessed with getting his amateur photographs back, it could be a common tic of replicants.
Arguments Against
It certainly seems that initially Deckard wasn't intended to be a replicant. He isn't in the book and many people involved in the production have claimed it was never meant to be a prevalent element of the film (including Harrison Ford, who states the previous red eye trick was a mistake). This side of the theory relies more on semantics - the fight between him and Roy loses much of its significance when it's not man vs. machine - but you can easily argue the onus is on those who think Deckard is a replicant to prove their argument. Much of the argument in favour is based on little more than conjecture, making it a very involved fan theory and not a definitive reading of the film. One little-noted piece of evidence against is that throughout the film the humans are called by their surnames (Sebastian, Tyrell), while replicants use their first names (Roy, Leon, Rachael). As Deckard is never called just Rick, it's a stylistic suggestion he's in the human camp.
The Verdict
Like many ambiguous movie endings much of the power is in not knowing what the truth is. The question of whether he's a replicant plagues Deckard in the short story and him never knowing in the film ties strongly into Roy's talk of fear; is it better to fear knowing your mortality or fearing death? Of course, you came here for some sort of answer and we'll provide you with one, should you want it. In the initial release versions Deckard is probably human (there's nothing concrete to suggest otherwise), but in the Director's and Final Cuts he's got to be a replicant (that dream is too potent to ignore). So even though there's slight differences in the edits, they lead to totally different plot twists. But on top of the leap of saying Deckard is a replicant, there's a nothing, very interesting reading of the character we'd like to highlight...
