Part V of Krzysztof Kieslowski’s masterful Decalogue focuses on the 5th commandment, which reads in the King James Bible, “Thou shalt not kill.” This chapter is easily the most intense and leaves an indelible impression on the viewer. The viewer is presented with three characters: a taxi driver on a power trip; a young man who mischievously roams around Warsaw; and a lawyer who has recently passed the bar exam. The taxi driver is a man who has fallen into corruption, albeit relatively harmless corruption. He leers at young women and drives away from potential fares for reasons known only to him. He is not an evil man per se, but represents a humanity that has fallen from grace.
The lawyer, on the other hand, is a clear representation of idealism. He truly believes that things can be better and that he can make a positive impact on his surrounding society. The troubled young man perhaps is the one that swings (dramatically) from the extremes of evil and innocence. One moment he is dropping rocks onto cars from an overpass. The next moment he is pausing to look at a portrait of a young girl. There is an inner struggle within this young man. He is drawn to mischief and evil but is equally drawn to innocence. Emotionally, he is like a toddler.
His naivete is on display in the photography store where he inquires about blowing up an old photograph of a young woman and asking the clerk with sincerity whether it possible to determine if someone was alive from a photograph. The clerk laughs it off, but this is a glimpse into this young man. Here is a person who has been emotionally stunted possibly from abandonment and was clearly never raised by a mother who taught him how to control the evil inside him. The taxi driver is a good example of someone who has succumbed to evil, but only displays just enough to never really get into trouble. He can control his evil. The young man, however, has no such filter. He has no societal concern whatsoever.
The inner struggle comes to a head when the young man murders the taxi driver then turns on the car stereo. Immediately after allowing evil to prevail, the man is confronted with sheer innocence in the form of a kids song. The lyrics even cut to his quick, singing about a brave lion, and he rips the stereo out of the car and throws it into a mud puddle. The image of the stereo in the puddle lingers, leading one to surmise that this is the man discarding his innocence once and for all.
The lawyer may, in fact, be a voice of God from within the film. Because of His love, God has given humankind free will, allowing for the choice of sin. God is morally opposed to sin; God and evil and two utterly disparate entities. God is necessarily and essentially good and does not create evil. Therefore, when the lawyer exclaims, “I abhor it!” over and over again at the end of the film, this is perhaps how God feels. Stephen Innes in his article on Culturewatch: Decalogue, agrees. He writes that the lawyer’s “anguish is a reflection of the anguish of God. God abhors murder, thus the commandment was given which prohibits it.” God’s desire is for humans to follow Him and grow closer to Him in a relationship forged through guidance found in Scripture and His heart breaks for all that choose evil over good.
Kieslowski demonstrates an amazing control of tone, timing, and visual spacing. The tone is pitch-perfect. He establishes realism without sacrificing feeling. There is an ever-present undercurrent of tension that affords an uneasiness that assists in furthering his message. The pacing and editing brilliantly establish an unsettled realism. The best examples are the two death scenes. The murder of the taxi driver has all the uncomfortableness of a Coen Brothers murder scene without the flash. Kieslowski uses long cuts, adds a cyclist riding by, and a body that won’t die as devices to add to the viewer’s unease. It works. Everyone should feel uncomfortable at these moments. Murder is simply outside the way God intends things to be. Innes rightly points out that there is also a cold emptiness in the killing. This is not a Hollywood death scene glamorized and masochistic. Innes continues by adding that there is no emotional build-up or dramatic catharsis to help the viewer prepare or deal with the killings. Killing is not thrilling; it is chilling.
Nice analysis. I would just like to add the stark contrast portrayed between the two killings.
ReplyDeleteThe first one - a murder by the young man, is almost an extempore act. The events leading up to the horrific murder are rather vaguely planned, and involves improvisations through the course of time.
The second one - capital punishment on the other hand is meticulously planned. The apparatus for the hanging of the young man are checked prior to the act. However, the second killing seems equally (if not more) dreadful by its cold-blooded and per-planned nature.
This contrast in the way of carrying out the same activity, appeals the audience to compare both the acts. It compels us to ask the question weather killing carried out in the name of punishment, is justified, when the act is equally gruesome.