Not all
of the Decalogue episodes line up with the commandment they are based on.
Episode 2 is definitely one of them. The entire storyline is one of adultery
and deceit, a clear infraction of the seventh commandment. Until further
research, I was under the impression that this was the commandment that the
movie was based on. I was wrong. Though the entire movie seems to be based on
this commandment, its title is that of the second commandment, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.”
I am not entirely sure as to how this commandment was illustrated in the film.
The issue of adultery never explicitly talked
about in the movie as being wrong. The
main character, Dorota cheats on her husband and is impregnated by her lover. The
fact that her husband is dying in the hospital, confuses Dorota on her true
feelings toward both men. She decides to have an abortion, cuts off ties with
her lover, and gives up on her husband’s recovery. Out of self-centeredness and
hurt, she essentially gives up on the three people in her life who are closest
to her.
Plants
are shown 4 times throughout the one hour film. Though their significance is
never talked about or disclosed in the film, the viewer is almost forced to
place a meaning on them due to their constant reappearances. The meaning I
ascribed to them was that of the preciousness of life. The first and third
times plants are spotlighted in the film, the doctor is shown handling them
with care and nurturing them. This creates a great symbolism about his
character. As a doctor, he cares greatly about the lives of his patients, and
does his best to keep them alive. The second time focus is placed on a plant is
a shot of Dorota ripping the leaves off a tall and healthy windowsill plant. (picture of Dorota and the plant below) This illustrates how she forsakes all hope of her husband’s recovery, and her
total disregard for her baby’s life. The final time Kieslowski uses this visual
trope is in the hospital room. Dorota takes the leaves she ripped off the plant
earlier in the film and places them on the ground next to her husband’s bed. We
are shown an extreme close up of them. Though the husband is confused when he
wakes up and notices the leaves, we, as viewers, are reassured that Dorota has
indeed given up all hope for her husband’s recovery.
 |
| Dorota |
First of all, I agree with Colleen that this episode seemed to have nothing to do with taking the Lord’s name in vain. There must be some hidden meaning that we are both missing, even though this film was packed with many narrative patterns and visual tropes. Specifically, a scene with high symbolism was the scene with the bee. This was a relatively long scene in which the camera is focused on a drink from which the bee was trying to escape. The bee seems to fall in the drink several times, but it continues to fight and attempt to escape. Finally, the bee was successful. The camera also showed the husband intently watching this event. I think that this bee renews the husband’s hope for survival. It shows that although his recovery seems impossible, like that of the bee, with enough determination, success is possible.
ReplyDeleteIn the film we see that the doctor cares for the plant as he is reflecting his duty to tend to life whenever he can. We see Dorota destroy the plant and this action shows that some of her moral decisions posses a destructive nature but at the same time show hope for her troubles to be resolved positively. For Andrej, the bee climbing out of the cup seemed like a task that was impossible to accomplish and this reflects of the state of which Andrej is in as well. Looking at all these situations, we start to see the aspect of life and death incorporated into the story and we see justice and how God fits in with it.
ReplyDeleteWhen first watching this film, many people would ask how it relates to the second commandment, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” Rather than looking at our own interpretations of this commandment, let us take a look at what the director, Kieślowski, was thinking.
Kieślowski “saw God in the Old Testament as someone who is often punitive and uncaring so, in the context of this story, God’s justice would be seen as getting what one deserves. Lives which are lived duplicitously constitutes taking God’s name in vain, and punishment ensues.”
“Kieślowski saw the New Testament portrayal of God as one of kindness, love, and grace. In the film, we see that Dorota is given a second chance despite her moral failures (asking the doctor to play God, having an affair, etc.). Andrej is given a second chance at life, defying medical wisdom. And we see kindness and love grow in the doctor, moving from a place of alienation to one of caring for the lives of Dorota and Andrej.”
One way we could view the film is it being about Dorota. She seemed to take the name of God in vain through her action when she wanted the doctor to “play God.” She decided what was moral in her situation. “In a strange twist of grace, the doctor’s lie (or misdiagnosis) actually paved the way for Dorota’s redemption by keeping her baby and rediscovering her love for her husband. This interpretation reflects a New Testament conception of God, where grace and love triumph over the requirements of the law.” Rather than us thinking of taking the Lords name in vain literally, perhaps we should think about it as not living for ourselves and creating our own ways of life.
Quotes and information from this passage were taken from http://www.damaris.org/content/content.php?type=5&id=704. I personally felt the use of them was necessary due to them expressing the viewpoint clearly and thoroughly. I felt this web site did an excellent job of depicting the film. My depiction of the film is now under the impression of the thoughts and ideas portrayed above.