Besides writing for No Film School, I am currently studying at Columbia University.
As the author of this post as well as the source of the erroneous picture, I'd like to extend my sincere thanks as well; that was a bone-headed move on my part, and Chris fixed it quick, but you pointed it out, and I'm glad you did. Thank you, sir.
Thanks! Indeed. Check this out maybe you'll find it helpful... http://nofilmschool.com/2015/12/what-can-you-learn-david-mamet-adding-su...
I'd aver that it's ambiguous in that the dream etc. point us in a direction but if the film flat out said Deckard=replicant there would have been some sort of revelation/confrontation. In a Hollywood film, the omission of Deckard declaiming, "OMG I'm a freakin' robot!", and the inclusion of dreams and motifs and etc. make it relatively rich. Perhaps not 'of all time' but that's not my dept. Thanks for your thoughtful engagement. Appreciated.
I wanted to call it 'The Eyes Have It' but voted down. So, yeah...
Well the stock footage supposition is Ager's, but the effect if it was actually DP/director manipulation is the same, viz. a subtle visual disorientation. The point I was trying to make is an intentionality behind the eye color difference, cf. the so called "continuity errors" in 'The Shining' which are arguably meant to disorient and alienate the audience from some notion of cinematic "reality." I digress.
Just saw this. Duly noted, and thanks for catching that!