Clare Harris- Decalogue
In the assignment description, midrash was described as, "to minimize the literal meaning of the text and force the reader to struggle with the meaning, to make the meaning personal." Decalogue succeeded in that regard by taking the basis of each of the ten commandments and flipping them on their head. For example, the first commandment usually refers to those who believe in other gods, idols, mysticism, or other superstitions. In Decalogue, the "other god" in question is technology, only made more ironic by the fact that it is a film and therefore pushing the idea of technology taking over our lives further. Whenever the computer was being used in the film, the screen would take up our entire screen as well, making it all we could see. Though this film was released in 1989, technology has only permeated our lives more. We, the modern audience, find ourselves struggling to figure out if we hold technology in a higher regard than God. The film causes a self-reflection as to how God and technology coexist in our lives.
Perhaps the most poignant exchange in the first film was the transition between Pavel and his aunt's conversation about God and then the subsequent scene of Pavel's father at a chess match. Pavel's aunt tells the young boy that God can be easy to understand through love: because love is simple. At the chess match, Pavel helps his father with his winning move, but not before his father dismisses because of it being "too simple." Pavel's father was always looking for a more complicated way to do things whether it be chess or how to test if the ice was thick enough. He lead his son to believe that the computer's math was infallible and there was no way he would be in danger on the ice.
The film leaves much open-ended. The question that concerns me the most is whether or not Pavel's father came to believe in an afterlife. Personally, I do believe Heaven exists. If his son dies, and that's just it, I think the grief process becomes much more difficult. He destroys the church's altar at the end, signifying he blames something of a higher power. Or maybe he just didn't want to destroy his computer.
The second film deals with "Thou shalt not kill" which seems like a straightforward thing not to do. Except most governments partake in it daily. Decalogue's fifth film's message seems to be two wrongs don't make a right and it shows that in an extremely emotional way. Killing a young, fractured man won't bring another man back from the dead. Yet that seems to be the logic of the government in this film. Once again, midrash comes into play and subverts our preconceived meaning of what is just murder. Both death scenes were chaotic and difficult to watch. There was much confusing movement as each man tried to struggle against the person(s) killing him. The similarities between these two scenes link them together as equally wrong. All killing is senseless killing.
One question I do have about this film was about the lawyer. Up until his conversation with Jacek in the prison, he only seemed personally invested in his own success or failure. He only seemed concerned that he lost his first trial. I changed my opinion by the end of the film, but I can't help but wonder if he was more upset about losing for his sake rather than Jacek's.
Perhaps the most poignant exchange in the first film was the transition between Pavel and his aunt's conversation about God and then the subsequent scene of Pavel's father at a chess match. Pavel's aunt tells the young boy that God can be easy to understand through love: because love is simple. At the chess match, Pavel helps his father with his winning move, but not before his father dismisses because of it being "too simple." Pavel's father was always looking for a more complicated way to do things whether it be chess or how to test if the ice was thick enough. He lead his son to believe that the computer's math was infallible and there was no way he would be in danger on the ice.
The film leaves much open-ended. The question that concerns me the most is whether or not Pavel's father came to believe in an afterlife. Personally, I do believe Heaven exists. If his son dies, and that's just it, I think the grief process becomes much more difficult. He destroys the church's altar at the end, signifying he blames something of a higher power. Or maybe he just didn't want to destroy his computer.
The second film deals with "Thou shalt not kill" which seems like a straightforward thing not to do. Except most governments partake in it daily. Decalogue's fifth film's message seems to be two wrongs don't make a right and it shows that in an extremely emotional way. Killing a young, fractured man won't bring another man back from the dead. Yet that seems to be the logic of the government in this film. Once again, midrash comes into play and subverts our preconceived meaning of what is just murder. Both death scenes were chaotic and difficult to watch. There was much confusing movement as each man tried to struggle against the person(s) killing him. The similarities between these two scenes link them together as equally wrong. All killing is senseless killing.
One question I do have about this film was about the lawyer. Up until his conversation with Jacek in the prison, he only seemed personally invested in his own success or failure. He only seemed concerned that he lost his first trial. I changed my opinion by the end of the film, but I can't help but wonder if he was more upset about losing for his sake rather than Jacek's.
Comments
Post a Comment