Kieslowski’s Decalogue speaks from the nature of human imperfection. Midrash as we discussed in class explains the inner meanings. The first piece we watched pointed to the imperfection of man, as man misinterprets what he perceives as truth. The father relied not on faith but on fact, and due to this he lost his son. He typed statistics into his computer and got back data, this data is where the father’s faith resided. The calculations said yes it is ok to skate on the ice. After his son’s death, the father tries to find meaning in life, and he tries to comprehend where his device (his computer) went wrong. All the while the computer consistently displays the message “I am ready.” It’s almost as if the computer is saying rely on me once more so that I may let you down. Imperfect man creates an imperfect contraption that relays statistical information, instead of true knowledge.
Toward the beginning of the film, the boy does math equations that are beyond his years. Next he finds a dead dog and questions his father where has the dog gone. Here we get our first glimpse at the father’s perspective. He says the dog goes nowhere and instead just vanishes. The Aunt in contrast explains souls and she believes in something bigger than statistics and quantitative research. With these opposing points of view the boy is torn between faith and facts. Before he can even decide, death takes him. The audience is moved by this abrupt happening. We like the boy’s character, and then feel sorrow when we find out he is dead. Even as the signs begin to point toward the boy’s death we panic with the father and fight with him in his denial that the boy can’t be dead. We feel with the father, not just for him. We feel the loss of the boy, we don’t just see it. The film transcends beyond the screen and touches us internally, on a deeper intangible level.
In the second Decalogue we see three primary characters; an attorney, a cab driver, and a teen. The cab driver and the teen seem corrupt, when you look at their initial actions. This is until we see the cab driver begging for his life, and the teen reminiscing about his dead sister. We see their previous actions and feel they need repercussions, yet when the cabbie is killed we feel horror and sorrow. We the audience feel that, that kind of punishment was undeserved. When the teen is sentenced to death and we seem that little piece of humanity in him, we can understand better as to how he got to that low point. His death seems unnecessary or harsh. His actions cannot be recanted, yet a life for a life seems unfair. The attorney devoted his life to justice, and to making sure crime is cut down. However when he gets to know the boys story, he does not feel justice is on the teens side. The attorney goes against the justice system he had devoted his life to, and declares he will never be ready to let the boy go. The government has a set of laws to define how justice is meant to be played out, yet how are those laws determined? Is a life for a life truly just? I believe this depends on perspective. If you were the family member of a lost loved one then you may say yes it is just. If you were like the attorney and discovered the humanistic side of the animal, would you have sympathy? I felt differently through the film. When the cab driver was hitting on the lady, and when he left that couple behind I thought it was bad characteristic’s however when he was being maimed and murdered I felt bad for him. The teen even, he was obnoxious to many people, and we saw soft sides of him when he interacted with little girls. When he committed murder I felt baffled; I wondered where did that come from? More was revealed about the teen when he asked about his mom, and told of his sister. It was then that sympathy and a touch of sorrow kicked in. Midrash allows feelings to come when none are expected and allows them to linger even after intangible events have passed.
No comments:
Post a Comment