Android Animals in "Bladerunner" and "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep"

There are some differences in the attitude towards animals (especially in the character Deckard) in “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep”, “Bladerunner 2017” and “Bladerunner 2049”. I would like to illustrate these differences by looking at one specific scene in the book and each of the films.

                                                                                                                                                                      

In chapters four and five of “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep” we encounter an owl. Here Deckard asks Racheal whether or not the owl is real. Rachael tells him that the owl is real and that it is the last owl alive. In the book, there are two long discussions concerning the owl. In the first discussion, Deckard tries to determine whether the owl is real or not (particularly seeing as it is a known fact that owls are extinct). In the second discussion, we see that Racheal and Eldon Rosen trying to bribe Deckard with the owl. It also is in this discussion that it becomes apparent that the owl is a replicant. These discussions are quite long compared with the discussions about animals we see in the films. I am particularly interested in the beginning of the first discussion: In this discussion, it is Racheal who directs Deckard’s attention to the owl.

        Look at the owl,” Racheal Rosen said. “Here I’ll wake it up for you.” There are no owls, he              started to say. Or so we’ve been told. Sidney’s, he thought; they list it in their catalogue as                    extinct…. Sidney’s never makes a mistake, he said to himself. We know that, too. What else can we          depend upon?  (Philip K. Dick, 1999)

The fact that this sentence “There are no owls” is not in quotation marks and that it is followed by the phrase “he started to say” tells us that Deckard did not in fact say this, but that he only wanted to say this, but then neglected to. Here we know that Dickard did not merely say to Racheal that he thought that the owl was not real, but he also has come quite convinced that it is not real, as he has come up with an argument to support his theory. Here we know that Deckard has made up his mind that the owl is not real. This might be the only reason why Deckard decided not to take the owl as a bribe. We can see that owning a real animal means a great deal to Deckard. We can see this in the way he immediately bought himself a goat when he had enough money to do so and, in this way, he argued with his neighbour to buy one of his horses. We can also in this very extract see that Deckard is extremely interested in procuring a live Deckard knew of heart that Sidney’s catalogue stated that owls were extinct. To know this, he must have studied the catalogue extensively: meaning that he is extremely interested in live animals. Owning an animal that previously was thought to be extinct would have been increasable to Deckard. Later in this same conversation and in a later conversation Deckard tries to obtain the owl. He tries to negotiate this with both Racheal and Rosen.  It seems that he has almost made a deal up until the following line:

               It, he thought. She keeps calling the owl it.

After this line, Deckard no longer was interested in the owl. “It” is the one word that gave the owl's identity as an android away to Deckard. The word it indicates that something is a thing as opposed to the words he or she, which indicate that something is alive. This word “it” tells us that the people of this version of the world do not see androids as living things. We also know that Deckard would go to great lengths to procure a live animal instead of an artificial one.

                                                                                                                                                                                   

In the first “Bladerunner” film we encounter an owl just before Deckard’s interview with Racheal Deckard asks Racheal whether the owl is real or not: Is it real. Here we once again hear the word “It” being used, which once again indicates that androids are not viewed as living beings. Racheal’s response to this question could not have been simpler: “of course not” (Bladerunner 2017)

The “of course” indicates that what she is saying is obvious and an established fact. Meaning that it could not possibly be a real owl. After this scene, no one directs their attention to the owl again. Although it does appear in later scenes. however, the characters respond differently to it. When Deckard asks whether it is real or not Racheal responds with “of course not”. Where no one pays attention to the owl. The fact that so little attention is given to the owl in the First “Balderunner” film means that there is less of a stigma against owning replicant animals in the film than there is in the book. There is no shame even for a big company like Rosen’s to openly admit that their animal is not real.  We can also see that Deckard is interested in procuring live animals as the Deckard in the book. This Deckard does not know Sydney’s catalogue of hearts like the Deckard in the book. We Can see this because he asks Racheal whether the owl is real or not instead of proclaiming that it is real like he did in the book. We can therefore say that this Deckard also cares less about whether an animal is a replicant or not.

                                                                                                                                                                                   

In the second “Bladerunner” film we do not encounter an owl, but we do however have a similar scene with Deckard’s dog. Here we also have a question of whether the dog is real, but this time the question is addressed to Deckard. His answer to this question is:

        “ I don’t know. Why don’t you ask him?” (Bladerunner 2049)

We can see that this version of Deckard does not care whether an animal is a replicant or not. The fact that he does not know whether the dog is a replicant tells us as much. Deckard suggests that the dog should be asked whether he is a replicant. It is highly unlikely that the dog would answer to this question and the dog doughtily would not care whether he was a replicant. The fact that he refers the question to the dog (who does not care whether it is an android or not) indicates that he himself feels the same way. This once again shows us Deckard’s disinterest in whether the dog is real or not. It also tells us that Deckard strongly believes that it does not matter. This also is quite a snide remark: meaning that Deckard was insulted by this question. Thus, meaning that he is insulted by the very idea that it could matter whether something is a replicant or not. Here we see that Deckard refers to the dog as “him”, meaning that he views the dog as being a living being. He refers to the dog as “him” even though he might be a replicant. This means that he is a living being even if he is a replicant. Deckard calls both replicants and real animals him. Indicating that he views replicants as being on equal terms with real animals.

                                                                                                                                                                      

We can see that there is an evolution in the role of animals and Deckard’s attitude to them in the different versions of Philip K. Dick's world. In the book, it matters greatly to Deckard if an animal is real or not. In the first film, Deckard seems quite impartial to animals and whether their real or not. In the second film, however, we can see that Deckard no longer cares whether an animal is real or not. In fact, it seems as though he strongly believes that it does not matter whether an animal is real or not.

 

Bibliography

Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (Great Briton,1999)

Bladerunner 2017

Bladerunner 2049

copyright reserved © Baloyi 2024