Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

[Decalogue] Episode IV

13 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

--content deleted--

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I finally join this discussion feeling like the younger brother of the parable, who said "I will," but doesn't. Guess I'm the unmentioned middle brother - I said I would, and I am, but it took a while.

Anyhow. I viewed the first three Dekalogs (and about 20 minutes of the fourth) back in January, then set them aside: they weren't working for me. Felt like I was doing homework. They seemed drab, I was detached from them.

But now that I've viewed number IV, I'm having quite a different experience. I'm not going to draw a lot of conclusions here, but rather, jot some notes about what I noticed.

*

DEKALOG IV

The opening sequence is disorienting. I don't know these people, who they are to each other. Lovers, I guess, by the way she smiles when she wakes him. By the way he tells her he has to use the bathroom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Ron, you're on fire with this one! Terrific insights, and you've clarified this episode for me. (I have a daughter Anna's age, and I found the incestuous desire issue kinda creepy and distracting -- couldn't get into this one.)

...the film is all about that \"spell\" being broken.

Thank you!

I'm still trying to get a few minutes to comment on Episode III, but wanted to jump in here to respond to your comments about whether the theme is "Honor thy father and thy mother" or lying. This Facets release ascribes a correlation between these episodes and the Ten Commandments -- in order. I don't believe that was Kieslowski's intention, and each episode seems to intentionally intertwine several commandments. As you say, this episode looks at 'honoring thy father,' lying, and maybe adultery/fornication (if indeed Michal is not her father) and coveting.

It's actually impossible to break only one commandment. That seems to be reflected in The Decalogue.

Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

...(I have a daughter Anna's age, and I found the incestuous desire issue kinda creepy and distracting -- couldn't get into this one.)

I know what you mean. I have daughters a bit younger - seventeen and fifteen - but as a father, I felt incredibly uncomfortable with all that. The protracted "seduction scene" was particularly gruelling. But it did cause a somewhat different response in me - I found it creepy and riveting.

Last night I attended a dynamite lecture on AMERICAN BEAUTY (I'll probably post something about it over on the main board), so yesterday and today I watched that film quite closely and wrote a review. Similar creepy theme. Kind of puts you off sex for a while.

(Not.)

I'm still trying to get a few minutes to comment on Episode III, but wanted to jump in here to respond to your comments about whether the theme is \"Honor thy father and thy mother\" or lying. ...It's actually impossible to break only one commandment. That seems to be reflected in The Decalogue.

Excellent insight. Same deal in AMERICAN BEAUTY - a whole constellation of commandment-breaking, though AB adds murder to adultery, coveting and bearing false witness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Found myself a few minutes to (gingerly, so as not to have anything spoiled for me) look through some of the links Alan provided, to see if I could find anything further on the correlation of episodes to specific commandments. Not so far, not directly, but the perceptive Mr Prins does pick up on the lying thing as well;

Midway through both episodes, I expected the sins focused on to be a sexual sin. I was wrong. Both episodes use sex as a backdrop to the underlying sin in most unGodly sexual relationships: lying. Characters in both episodes are constantly telling untruths. Early on in episode four, in fact, the daughter goes even one step further: she lies that she told her father a lie when she actually didn't.

Yes, the lies about lies, lies on top of lies, are part of what's particularly fascinating about this installment. Especially in the context of her insistence upon truth-telling - and her involvement in an acting class: in the theatre, we aspire to "truthful" performance, "true" emotions, "honest" work, in the context of imagined circumstances that clearly aren't "true" (in the sense of actual) at all. "Lies like truth...."

The audience is given information it has no reason to disbelieve because it has given its trust to the film the same way one character gives its trust to another [2]. When the trust is broken between the two characters through a confession of a lie, the confidence the audience has on where the film is going breaks, too.

Ah yes! A variation on the thing I noticed, where our perceptions of characters and circumstances are significantly shaped by identification with specific character P.O.V.

The Flickerings write-up is a very good one, and touches on the question of direct correspondence between the episodes and the "Thou Shalt Nots";

It would be a mistake, however, to sit down to one of these films with the goal of making simple one-to-one connections between the story and the commandment it takes as its theme. Kieslowski doesn't allow that. ...Even at the end of a screeing of one of the films, the breathless viewer may still be a little unclear as to how it connects to the commandment by which it was titled. With a little luck, however, Kieslowski will have thrown off the viewer's balance to the point that in his grappling to understand, he will at last confront not just connections between a work of art and the Moral Law, but also between the Moral Law and himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

And two weeks later, I finally get around to rewatching this one.

Ron, excellent comments. I'll add more at length later, but I think the squirm factor you and Tim both describe is an essential part of untangling the complex emotional relationship and interdependence illustrated here.

I just wish you hadn't brought up American Beauty! They couldn't be further apart in my mind. Lester's in lust with an idealized idea of what he thinks a teenage sex kitten is, while the father in this story is acutely aware of who his daughter is as a person, and though his feelings for her are complex and stilted by their circumstances, he steadfastly resists imposing his own insecurities on her.

I don't want to spoil anything with Canoe Man, but it is remarkable to see him...

pedaling swiftly against the river's current, looking well-dressed and vigorous instead of like a drifter without purpose.

And the doctor's appearance in the elevator is also keenly relevant. In another age it might have been the mother in this story facing the doctor with a conundrum like Dorota's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

And the doctor's appearance in the elevator is also keenly relevant. In another age it might have been the mother in this story facing the doctor with a conundrum like Dorota's.

I too will jump in here in a bit. I still have yet to go through the III thread. But I wanted to say how perceptive the above comment is. I noticed the Doctor get in the elevator but didn't think more of it than the intertwining of lives that most of us only see the surface of. We rarely know what someone is really going through and when we learn of such experiences we often hear, "I never would have guessed."

If the above insight was purposefully done by Keislowski...well that is not only brilliant but incredibly beautiful. Who knows, maybe there was a similar conversation between the doctor and Anka's mother. It shows that all of us can succumb to the same temptations given the circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

You're right. I'm inclined to think the parallels are intentional, but I also think that Kieslowski has created such a complex and well-developed emotional framework here that nearly any two characters from any of the episodes could pass in the halls or on the street and one could think of at least one or two ways in which they've shared the same pain at a point in their lives. They're all knit together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Did Anka really read the letter?

I think Anka read the letter and what ensued was real, especially if we look back at the playful aspect of their relationship. It was a bit intimate and friendly for a father and daughter relationship.

Anka forged a new envelope so that when she finished reading the letter she could place it back in the envelope and seal it as if it had never been opened. If you look at the writing on the envelope the first time we see it, it is faded and worn, as one would expect from an aged letter. The writing on the envelope they hold over the flame looks noticeably fresh and sharp as if written recently. Of course this does not necessarily offer evidence that the letter was read. She could have felt guilty with what she was about to do and simply sealed it in the fresh envelope without reading it since the other envelope was destroyed.

It is a bit difficult to say whether or not she read the letter. The letter reading and forgery are done so elusively creating the quandary of whether or not the letter was indeed read, the envelope forged and then sealed as if never opened. This creates a wonderful effect for the audience. It almost shows both sides of the commandment coin. What would happen if it were obeyed and what would happen if it were not. This installment of the Decalogue is the only one that seems to offer a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I saw this one last night. Here are a few quick observations.

I think Ron is right about the baptism allusion and Easter monday. The water ritual is part of Polish tradition Called Smigus Dyngus.

Smigus Dyngus (shming-oos-ding-oos) is an unusual tradition of Easter Monday. This day (Monday after Easter Sunday) is called also in Polish "Wet Monday", in Polish: "Mokry Poniedzialek" or "Lany Poniedzialek". Easter Monday is also a holiday in Poland. It was traditionally the day when boys tried to drench girls with squirt guns or buckets of water. "Smigus" comes from the word smigac meaning swish with a cane since men tap the ankles and legs of the girls. Dyngus comes probably from German word dingen which means to come to an agreement since the girls needed to give men money to stop being swish and splash. The more a girl is sprayed with water, the higher are her chances to get married. Usually groups of young boys are waiting for accidental passerby near the farmer markets or in the corners of the streets. Older men behave like gentlemen spraying their wives with cologne water rather than with the regular one. The girls got their chances for revenge the following day. They can spray boys with water as much as they wanted on Tuesday.

More Here http://www.warsawvoice.pl/view/5245

Baptism gives us a new "name" in a sense. Marking our paternal identity with "Our Father in Heaven". Jesus said to the Pharisees, you are of your father the devil.

Also, Theophany crossing the river is a clear allusion to Charon and the ferry to Hades. Anna is sitting on the shore, a place of arrival and departure, with the letter to be opened upon death. The scene harkens back to the garden of Eden. "On the day you eat of the fruit, you shall surely die." Because of this letter, paternal identity is in question, much like the doctor parallell from Decalogue II in the elevator, her identity may never be the same. It is a type of death and a type of baptism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Nice work, Visigoth. That makes several things clearer.

It also raises an interesting question, if baptism does indeed give us a new identity. In the cultural context you have identified, the 'baptism' foreshadows marriage, which traditionally has meant a 'new' identity (or at least, surname) for women. So maybe the death is related to the question of paternity (in that she lays the question of her relationship to her father to rest), and moves into that new identity as her father's daughter, and as a future wife (although her husband is yet unknown).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

So maybe the death is related to the question of paternity (in that she lays the question of her relationship to her father to rest), and moves into that new identity as her father's daughter, and as a future wife (although her husband is yet unknown).

Good observation. I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

And the doctor's appearance in the elevator is also keenly relevant. In another age it might have been the mother in this story facing the doctor with a conundrum like Dorota's.

I too will jump in here in a bit. I still have yet to go through the III thread. But I wanted to say how perceptive the above comment is. I noticed the Doctor get in the elevator but didn't think more of it than the intertwining of lives that most of us only see the surface of. We rarely know what someone is really going through and when we learn of such experiences we often hear, "I never would have guessed."

If the above insight was purposefully done by Keislowski...well that is not only brilliant but incredibly beautiful. Who knows, maybe there was a similar conversation between the doctor and Anka's mother. It shows that all of us can succumb to the same temptations given the circumstances.

I was able to see this last night. There is also another thing special about having each one of these stories take place in the same apartment complex. I don't know how to describe it other than that everyone else you don't get to know is a stranger, but watching this show teaches that anyone and everyone can have an interesting story, can be lovable, can be sympathetic, can be worth taking the time to get to know. In the first episode you get to know three characters and don't notice everyone else. In this episode, you see the doctor again, and he's an old friend. But when I saw the couple in the second episode, I didn't care about them. They were worth caring about. It's almost the same impression to took away from the Narnia books when I was younger. Aslan always called every man, woman, or child "sons of Adam" or "daughters of Eve" indiscriminately - and every singe person in The Decalogue has their own nobility and potential. In fact, so does everyone we meet.

Also, I still refuse to believe the tramp/hospital nurse/bus driver who is now the man paddling the boat is meaningless. The first half of the episode, you have the impression that is is wrong for her to open the letter. She's sitting there, hesitantly and slowly deciding to open it, during which the entire time he is almost furiously rowing towards her. He just so happens to make it on the shore and make eye contact with her at the precise second she's about to finally make it through the second envelope? Yeah, that's not a coincidence. And then she doesn't open it after he makes eye contact with her.

The one thing I didn't quite get was whether the last lines at the end of the episode were supposed to be from the unburned fragments of the letter. I pretty sure it went something like - "My darling daughter. I have something very important to tell you. Michal isn't ..." and then Anka says it's burnt. But those seemed like the wording exactly of what Anka recites/makes up to Michael halfway through the episode.

She criticizes her father for not wanting to be involved in anything - and that's why he wrote "to be opened upon my death." But while it would hurt him to find out she wasn't really his daughter, biologically, there's a sense in which he doesn't care if she is or not. At the beginning, it seems like part of the "honoring your parents" commandment would include not opening envelopes they've instructed are only to be opened after they've died. Anka argues it was wrong for Michal to write that and keep the letter from her. But given that she was always going to be his daughter no matter what, deciding to leave the question unanswered in his lifetime doesn't really seem wrong. She voices and explains his motives and his desires throughout the story, and while she gets some of them right, she also gets some of them wrong.

I also found it humorous that, when she before provoked a response from him, at the very end when she reveals the truth, he has almost no reaction of any kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0