Okay, so THREE COLORS: BLUE already got enough mentions to be on the Top 100 List. WHITE and RED, not quite.

Are all three equally spiritual? Are all three equally significant? Are all three equally strong artistically? (I've only seen one, the one about the eavesdropping judge. Very thought provoking, though I don't know that I would have pegged it for this list.)

Anybody?

I'm not sure how to "measure" the spirituality of each. You'll get some argument from others on this point, but I do think "Blue" is the richest of the three, but both "Blue" and "Red" are great subjects for our purposes with this list. Peter may argue that "White" is equally deserving...

Ron, you gotta see these films. Several times.

Jeffrey Overstreet wrote:
: Peter may argue that "White" is equally deserving...

I certainly remember thinking it was the best of the films when I saw them more-or-less back-to-back several years ago. However, if the PFCC list is supposed to reflect more 'conventional' wisdom, then I would not be at all surprised if it were overlooked in favour of the others.

Question, though. In the list of PFCC nominees, series such as The Lord of the Rings, Star Wars and Dekalog were all counted as a single movie each. Given these precedents, why is the Three Colors trilogy being counted as three separate films?

Please note this this isn't the PFCC list--it includes input from the whole website's user base.

NOW, it might make sense for the PFCC group to come up with its short list or for the Top 100 list to highlight, say, 25 "gold" films selected by the PFCC.

Alan wrote:
: Please note this this isn't the PFCC list--it includes input from the whole
: website's user base.

Okay, whatever -- given that the website's name and identity are in a state of flux right now anyway, I just picked the first name that came to mind.

My point still stands. We should not be treating these three films as separate entries on the Promontory 101 list if we are going to treat those other trilogies and series as single entries each.

QUOTE

We should not be treating these three films as separate entries on the Promontory 101 list if we are going to treat those other trilogies and series as single entries each.

Seems clear to me that LORD OF THE RINGS and the original STAR WARS trilogy stand as a unit: the story begun in the first installment continues in the second and culminates in the third.

Now, I haven't seen all three of the COLORS movies, but my understanding is that each of them is a distinct story, complete in itself. The films do reference each other, but are not part of a continuous narrative.

Have I got that right?

Ron wrote:
: Now, I haven't seen all three of the COLORS movies, but my
: understanding is that each of them is a distinct story, complete in itself.
: The films do reference each other, but are not part of a continuous
: narrative.

They are at LEAST as much of a continuous narrative as the TV mini-series Dekalog is. Arguably more so, in fact, since the closing scene in the third film brings all three films together, which I do not believe is the case with Dekalog.[/quote]

QUOTE

Ron wrote: : Now, I haven't seen all three of the COLORS movies, but my : understanding is that each of them is a distinct story, complete in itself.   : The films do reference each other, but are not part of a continuous : narrative. They are at LEAST as much of a continuous narrative as the TV mini-series Dekalog is.  Arguably more so, in fact, since the closing scene in the third film brings all three films together, which I do not believe is the case with Dekalog.

Yes, DEKALOG is the exception to the rule that governs all the rest. But I see no point in breaking DEKALOG into ten component parts: it's thought of as a whole, talked about as a whole. It was nominated as a whole. So, for our list, it stands as a single entity. As do the original STAR WARS films and the LOTR films. (I leave out the STAR WARS prequels for two reasons: people around here don't seem to regard them nearly as highly, and nobody nominated them.)

If others would like to argue along with Peter that the THREE COLORS films should be similarly bundled, I will have no objection to changing it: hey, it would free up two spots on the Top 100 list. But otherwise, they stay as separate entities - at least partly because they were nominated separately, and nobody thought to object until this point.

Ron wrote:
: If others would like to argue along with Peter that the THREE COLORS
: films should be similarly bundled, I will have no objection to changing it:
: hey, it would free up two spots on the Top 100 list.

Yeah, there is that point, too.

: But otherwise, they stay as separate entities - at least partly because they
: were nominated separately, and nobody thought to object until this point.

Given that Unforgiven was listed TWICE among the nominees, I think it should be fairly easy to concede that a few flaws made it through the process.

QUOTE

Given that Unforgiven was listed TWICE among the nominees, I think it should be fairly easy to concede that a few flaws made it through the process.  :)

A careful observer will note a number of alphabetizational irregularities in the nomination list, though it is believed that the UNFORGIVEN example is the only instance in which this resulted in title duplication. The Committee hastens to assure all concerned Promontorians that the actual vote tally was carried out on a separate spreadsheet, in which no titles were duplicated, and all vote totals were cross-checked mathematically. Nothing further could possibly have gone worng.

QUOTE

My point still stands.  We should not be treating these three films as separate entries on the Promontory 101 list if we are going to treat those other trilogies and series as single entries each.

Amen! I second this. These are one film, one really long film. And they should occupy a spot in the top ten. If I recall correctly, these are the films that pretty much started this board years ago.

I'll go along. Three Colors is one film, not three. Count me as tipping the balance in that direction.

QUOTE

We should not be treating these three films as separate entries on the Promontory 101 list if we are going to treat those other trilogies and series as single entries each.

I am in alignment with this. They are all excellent movies individually but they are complete when together. This should be considered as a single entry, Three Colors: Blue, White and Red.

Cool. So it is, and so shall it be. I'll amend the posted lists accordingly. This means that the various THREE COLOURS films appeared on 10 separate lists.

(Actually, I need to run this by the Queen first, but if Lizzie has no objections...)

: Actually, I need to run this by the Queen first, but if Lizzie has no objections...)

She might, remember its a film based on the French flag


Matt

Personally, I regard Three Colours as three films. By the same token, Star Wars is six films, The Godfather three, etc. This way it becomes possible to adore Blue but hate Red, for example. I don't understand this modern tendency to merge sequels. Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi don't even share the same director, so how on earth can they be regarded as one film?

One entry means one or more films. There are actually 105+ films in the Top100.

Well, I just got Blue and White in the mail today from Netflix, and Red is next up in my queue. (I'm on the 2-out-at-a-time plan.) I'm planning to give Blue a spin at about 9:00 this evening, Eastern time. I've read Jeff Overstreet's review; anyone who sees this before 9 and wants to give me some viewing tips, they'd be much appreciated!

My only viewing tip is obvious... don't watch them out of order. Though I think in terms of quality they go backwards.

I have seen Blue, and I give it a big thumbs up. What really struck me (and this was discussed in one of the featurettes as well) was how Julie tried to cut herself off from the world, but [spoiler]in the ending sequence we see all the people she has affected through the course of the story.[/spoiler] The film reinforces the old adage "No (wo)man is an island".

White is on deck for sometime next week.

Winter/Spring 1996.

These three films literally changed my life and the way I view all art in general. Seeing the entirety of The Decalogue on the big screen at Facets in the same year was enough to seal my fate. Yes, Asher, you are right about me. I love these boards, these people, these movies. But reading the thread I know what I've been missing: a recent visit to Anything Kieslowski. I need to correct this, and soon. Perhaps since it's been ten years Veronique belongs somewhere in my film queue. Speaking of which, Doug -- can't somebody SOMEWHERE do something about getting this gem distributed?

When it comes to Kieslowski, I have a hard time stopping with the mention of Blue, White and Red. It would seem that all of his movies are a woven grand adventure.

-s.

I know you're a fan of HEAVEN, as well, which I saw this summer and really liked. Just realized that, though HELL is going to be in this year's Vancouver International Film Festival, I'll be out of town when it's showing. Hell!

That sucks!

It is funny you should metion revisiting Veronique, I have it waiting for me, on VHS. I have been looking forward to this viewing for years as it is one of the few Kieslowski's I haven't seen.

Stef, Artificial Eye in the UK should be releasing Veronique on DVD sometime soon.

L'Enfer played here at TIFF this week, and Darren and my friend Candace saw it and liked it.

This was the best thread I found for the topic - so here goes:

DeepDiscountDVD is having a sale on a lot of titles - Buy 2, get 1 free. Among those is all three of the Kieslowski Three Colors trilogy.

They have free shipping, so you get all 3 films for around 18.00. (You don't get the box, but all 3 discs have all of the special features of the box set.)

Link to DDD.

I missed this when it was posted last time, but I have to say that this is the best DVD news I've heard in a long time, possibly ever.

Now if I can get someone to put out The Conformist on DVD, I'll be able to rest.

I'm resurrecting this thread since I just caught Blue last night for the first time in a couple of years, again reminding me why I love Kieslowski so much, and simultaneously causing me to wonder how I could have not come back to such fertile ground earlier.



On this viewing, I found myself attentive to the "chance" meetings and experiences Julie has in her journey from life to death and back to life again. These include a variety of encounters with individuals, a gust of wind blowing her door shut, a man playing a tune on a flute, and Julie seeing her own picture on a television screen. With such a great degree of this so-called randomness, surely Kieslowski is highlighting these signpost moments on Julie's journey, thus revealing something to us about the way this world works - that in spite of the suffering it doles out, there's also a kind of benevolence that sits right along with it.

Yet I was struck that the benevolence only seems to come upon the scene once Julie makes her break from life as she used to know it. In seeking a descent into nothingness and forgetfulness (becoming her mother), she becomes nearly overrun with these chance encounters or moments. It's as if through the circumstances of life, Julie receives this benevolence or grace, which works to bring her back to life. I can't help but wonder if any of this would have happened had she covered her suffering over with the busyness and noise of normal life.

A couple of questions I am wondering about: What are the circumstances that give Julie ears to hear? Is it purely a work of benevolence from outside her? Does she engage in certain practices that help this process along, however unknowingly she does it?

Okay, I'll respond with my first film comment here. First, I herebye disinvest myself of any misconcieved "expertise" by others re movies. What I like I like, though, and...

And that is why I just had to throw a comment in about "Blue." I've seen all three of these. And liked all three, very much. In fact, I told my wife it is about time for us to (once again) rent them and do a triple-feature.

But blue is my favorite of the three. The story is beautifully told, the images... ah. The one that sticks in my head is there, I think, because it was filmed perfectly: that coffee cup, and the ultra-closeup of the pure white sugar cube as it is slowly lowered into the cofee and the first drop of dark brown is absorbed by the sugar... I have my own interpretations of what such an apparently meaningless image means. But I'm playing 'em close to the vest, because I'm in here with a bunch of MOVIE people.

Okay, now all you geniuses tell me why I liked that image so much. Maybe after I watch it again I'll be able to tell you.

Hehehe.

Blessings,
Jon

You clearly want some sugar... baby.

Jon, thanks for chiming in here--Blue is also my favorite of the three. Maybe you liked that scene because it's not only a beautifully captured moment--one that would ordinarily be as mundane as anything--but the camera's focus and music and the emotional intensity of the film makes that moment almost iconic in regards to Julie's life of isolation. She's as focused on the act of putting sugar into her coffee as a doctor in surgery, blocking out everything else that surrounds her. It's a very powerful moment, and "life" seeps into hers and overwhelms it, dissolves it, just as her tragedy has overtaken her. And yet, ultimately, she's just putting sugar in her coffee; there's no grand symbolism or obvious reading, making the moment linger uncertainly and evocatively in our thoughts...and hers.

What matters is the Hitchcockian precision of the image, and thus of the moment. It's a psychological and emotional use of suspense. Suspense is a trick to increase our investment in these's figures of light on the screen. We are suddenly aware of time, seconds (callibrated precisely by Kieslowski by his search for the right cube) ticking away. The "bomb under the table" is Binoche.

I wrote a chapter about Blue and The New World to serve as a sort of culminating chapter in my film book. In both films, a woman must find her way through pain, loss, and betrayal and determine how to approach future relationships, responsibilities, and risks. I chose these two because they've been as personally significant and rewarding as any films I've seen.

Examining Blue, I chose to focus closely on the sugar cube moment, although there are so many other moments that would have served just as well.

Does it suggest that eventually she will let the grief well up within her to the point that she'll surrender to it?
Does it suggest that the music she's listening to is filling her up, ministering to some deep need?
Or is it about absorbing the immediate moment, part of her attempt to attain "liberty" from her past, her pain, her responsibilities.

I also love the moment when the camera focuses on the cup and saucer and spoon. We cannot see Julie, but we can guess that this long shot means she is staying at her table for a long time, absorbed in the music. After all, we can tell by the shifting shadows that hours are passing. We can tell by the way nothing is disturbed that the waiter has not taken her dishes. But we can also see that she hasn't refilled her cup or touched her spoon. She is transfixed by the music floating in from the sidewalk outside.

FWIW, ISTR reading (or seeing?) an interview with Kieslowski where he talked about how absolutely precise the timing of that sugarcube shot needed to be. Anybody here remember the reference?

I really need to watch it again! (I'm jonesing for the movie now). But as I recall it, it was seeing that cube, yes, as her own condition, or at least what she wanted it to be. Absolutely pure, crystalline, and formed in a perfectly symmetrical way. But the muddy, shapeless coffee invades the sugar's absolutes, transforming (and I suppose being transformed) by them.

Now did I really think all that right then? Nah. But I did later on. And Doug the coffee cup and spoon did also play into it. But it all went back for me to that cube and the coffee and the perfection of their intersection.

Okay, I'm done. Must go to bed.

Yes, Kieslowski discusses it in the "masterclass" included as one of the extras on the Region 2 DVD edition of Blue. He talks about the precise timing of the scene, and his search for a five-second sugar cube lol.

Regarding its meaning, he says this:

Wow, I like that; it's taking the isolation/saturation metaphor even further.

But of course none of this is textual so while many of us wouldn't have articulated its poetic meaning the first time we saw the scene, I think most of us were aware of the moment's poignancy on a subliminal/intuitive level. Such is Kieslowski's artistry.

And GG, I love your comparison to Hitchcock and the odd suspense of the scene. It's as if we ask ourselves, "How much can Julie absorb and when will she utterly dissolve?"

I have just finished watching Red again, and once more am completely blown away by Kieslowski's film-making.

I think I was even more struck than previously about the apparently random coincidentality of the world he creates. It's obvious in all three right from the start, of course, but there was a greater intensity of awareness of it this time.

Maybe it's because I've recently been writing a short section on the use of coincidence in films for my book. It struck me when I was writing it that there are two types of coincidence in fictional narratives. First, there are justified coincidences - occurences which have at least some measure of motivation from within the story. They may be unlikely events, but they are not impossible since they are the result of chains of cause and effect just as much as the non-coincidental events. However, we are either shown two chains of events coming together, or the preparatory causes are hidden from us yet we can tacitly accept that such an event could conceivably happen (perhaps because of 'fate'). Second, there are unjustified coincidences - genuinely random or utterly improbable events (infinite improbability drive). These are often a lot of fun, though they can be intensely annoying. I suspect that they reveal something significant about the writer's worldview. (Clearly the fact that these are invented occurences makes them entirely non-random at one level - they are deliberately created events, but you know what I mean by genuinely random).

Now with Three Colours, the coincidences all felt to be of the first type - until the very last scene in which KK ties together the three films. It seemed extraordinary to have this situation unfolding on the judge's television and I had to stop and remind myself that it is not at all unlikely that the couple from each film should be rescued in order from the same disaster. It feels exceedingly improbable because we've just sat and watched their stories. But those stories are only linked by the fact that they were in the same place at the same time. This time it seemed to be Kieslowski's way of underlining just what a profoundly important role coincidence has played.

By the way, what is it with Kieslowski and old people putting bottles into bottle banks?

Don't forget to rate this trilogy by clicking "Film rating", selecting a rating, and clicking "Rate this film". When five users have submitted a rating, the group rating will be displayed.

For guidance on selecting or understanding ratings, please click here.

Alas, the rating will apply to the entire trilogy, not the individual films: Please remember to have ONE thread PER FILM

Pat Graham at the Chicago Reader Blog asks if Blue is "art" (or "aahhrrt") or "kitsch":

My own bete noire in this--well, obviously just one of many--is Krzysztof Kieslowski's Blue (playing at the Siskel Film Center this week), or at least the acclaim it conventionally enjoys, in which artful aspiration serves as more or less a cover for the class-bound attitudes that suffocate the tale.

Can't help wondering if the fact that these films were distributed by Miramax plays any part in this.

Steve Innes has written three articles for Culturewatch on the trilogy. The first two (on Blue and White) are available now, and the third will be published later this week. They're very insightful explorations into Kieslowski's masterpieces - in particular looking at the themes of grace and redemption.

"Red" is the one that I really struggle with. I have moved beyond merely dismissing science fiction films as unchristian and have now started turning my nose up at anything that sniffs of postmodernism.

I'll be interested to see how you respond to the CultureWatch article when I publish it in the next day or two. It has made me look at it in a very different way.

I will be sure to check it out. My simplistic reasoning may be flawed so I am always open to persuasion. For what it's worth, I figure it like this:

1. Any film that contradicts a Christian worldview is unchristian (hence my dismissal of much science fiction).

2. "Red" presents chance and fate as universal forces.

3. Chance cannot exist in a Christian universe so "Red" is unchristian.

I also regard Kieslowski's "The Double Life of Veronique" as unchristian but for slightly different reasons.

Steve Innes's article on Red is now up on Culturewatch. Very thought-provoking though I imagine some people here will read it differently, which is, after all, part of the joy of Kieslowski. Here's one paragraph to whet your appetite: