The Decalogue (1989) Episode 10

The Decalogue 10

Spoilers occur about the ending, this review is intended for those who have already watched the film.

Summary:
Jerzy and Artur are brothers, but don't see each other very often, because Jerzy is a family man, while Artur is a successful rock singer who mingles with people, a family man wouldn't get along with. Now they meet, as their father has passed away. They didn't spend much time with dad, while he was alive, and they are curious why he has so many locks on his door, in spite of apparently not having many valuables in his house. There are quite a few stamps, which maybe will be worth something. It turns out that their dad was a passionate collector, and his accumulation of stamps is worth millions. The two brothers decide to carefully guard the treasure. Jerzy neglects his family duty. Artur his love of rock music. They end up on a trail for a very rare stamp, which Jerzy must sacrifice his kidney to obtain. But someone covets what belongs to them, and is the apartment properly safeguarded? No, and on top of that, the brothers begin to suspect each other. Unfortunately the stamp collection wasn't insured.

Analysis and interpretation:
Perhaps the opening music concert is Kieslowski taking a dig at the music business, and how it’s bordering on ridiculous that a singer singing about murder, stealing and committing violence can be a role model for young people. Or should the concert be interpreted from another angle, in that The Decalogue has thoughtfully looked at sins such as those, and music is simply a different outlet to contemplate these topics. Whether the rebellious lyrics are harmful is questionable, because on the other hand the concert has brought all these people together to enjoy a night out. Rebellion is part of growing up, especially in light of the fall of the iron curtain, and Berlin wall falling in 1989, the energy of this event spreading to neighboring countries. Maybe the concert guests aren’t even listening to the City Death lyrics, and just dancing, drinking, and having a good time.
As Stephen Innes at the site damaris points out, the song by Artur’s band City Death, at the beginning of episode 10 “sets the atmosphere of a self-centred, materialist-driven society. The lyrics implore us to break all the commandments because we are the only ones who can make our lives meaningful. You are entitled! This may seem like a rather dark message, but is it not, in fact, an honest reflection of human behaviour?”

For Kieslowski a stamp has a fictitious value no matter the financial worth, the collector assigns it a personal value. It's a film about incredible selfishness and devoting oneself to one’s passion. The price to be paid is neglecting your family and children. The two lead character’s priorities are a home, on the one hand, and fame on the other. Perhaps both now look at things a little differently by going through the experiences in Episode 10.

Artur expresses anger through his songs lyrics, a rebellion that reeks of hatred towards his parents, siblings, and god knows who else. In some ways, the father is the main character, even though he has died. Likewise the girl needing help is not seen during episode ten. The brother's realize that the father's stamps symbolize his love. He has put all his time, energy and attention into the collection, a love that the son's would have liked had gone in their direction too. Are the two son’s equally to blame for this distance? We don’t know. The two sons are distant to each other, presumably because they are so different. Perhaps not having much in common is also why they are so distant to their father.

The treatment of stamps in this film is such that they almost become a character in themselves. The chairman of the stamp club says it best when asked about their father: "He didn't do it for the money. He did it out of love". After hearing these words, the brothers find it increasingly more difficult to part with the stamps for a financial reward. In becoming interested in stamps, they feel closer to their deceased father.

There is a feeling of hope and reunion between the brothers, even though we presume towards the end, that the stamps will not be recovered, and justice will not prevail.

Kieslowski did not want the silent witness in Episode 10, because it's a comedy. Perhaps the witness in E1-E9 conveys God, but we do not receive insight into his perspective or thoughts.

Verdict:
Connected to the tenth imperative of the Ten Commandments: You shall not covet your neighbor’s house, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

The tone of Dekalog part 10 is a little different to the previous episodes, arguably including satirical comedy elements. As Deciphering the Decalogue writes: “A great deal of the comedy arises from the extreme differences between the brothers.”
In terms of story, it’s deceptively straight-forward. Granted, the father’s stamp collection bringing the brothers together in the closing scene is a little contrived, so on the basis of that, you might rank it among the weakest episodes, and it’s likely Kieslowski was worn out at this point. But I beg to differ, and think it’s a strong conclusion, which includes good performances. The way contemporary music, personal belongings, and the death of a parent are examined are interesting discussion points.
The best thing episode ten has going for it is the chat between the two brothers, which works well, and I believed they were brothers. Maybe there could have been a scene of the older brother’s family life, we only witness a brief moment on the phone with his wife. The heart of the story is of two brothers trying subconsciously to hold on to the last vestiges of a father they never really knew. Finally, the message is obvious, a universal truth about friendship and love is more important than greed for new possessions. Another message could be, that it is unwise to deal with things which one is not knowledgeable.

(Apologies for the small print of the subtitles, you may want to zoom in to read the words)


This concludes my look at Kieslowski's The Decalogue. I hope you enjoyed reading the posts! All ten episodes have now been rewatched and reviewed, including an introduction article. You can find the links on the sidebar, if you missed them, or want to reread anything. Readers of this review, any thoughts on Episode 10?


Quotations:
Kieslowski on Kieslowski / Danusia Stok

damaris / Stephen Innes

Deciphering the Decalogue

IMDB reviews

The Decalogue (1989) Episode 9

The Decalogue 9

Spoilers occur about the ending, this review is intended for those who have already watched the film.

Summary:
Following some tests, 40-year-old Roman is diagnosed with impotence, and his world falls apart. He is a doctor who cares very much for his wife, Hanka, and he believes given the circumstances that she must take a lover. Little does he know, she already has a lover, who's name is Mariusz. Roman out of jealousy begins spying on Hanka, listening in to conversations on the phone, has a key made for the apartment of Hanka's mother, the rendezvous of the lovers. One day, Hanka surprises him, when he is lurking in the apartment. She understands that he feels hurt, she cares about him, and was it not her who told him, that love is of the heart and not between the legs? They talk some more about their relationship, and agree on, that maybe they need some time apart. She goes on a skiing holiday, and Roman realizes, that Mariusz is heading for the same destination, but Hanka is not aware of this. When she suspects Roman has put the pieces together, she hurries back to Warszawa, where Roman has attempted suicide.

Interpretation:
Kieslowski sees Roman as a person not present in the now, Roman is somewhere else. His impotence is synonymous with a lack of a future, therefore he looks at the world differently.
Roman is not particularly mature for his age, he hasn't really grown up. Roman and Hanka are not interested in kids, his fulfillment you might think would come from his work as a doctor or his emotional bond with his wife or friends, but we realize how much of his manhood and confidence stems from his sexuality, and when Roman's ability to have sex is snatched away from him, he feels lost. We see things through the eyes of the man that is being cheated on, which allows the viewer to pity Roman.

A book is retrieved from the rubbish. There are also scenes where the glove box would not shut, the meaning of what this was supposed to symbolize is not clear. If anyone knows, let me know!

According to Stephen Innes: “On several occasions in the film, we see Hanka sensing Roman’s state of mind (she gives the camera several ‘iconic’ looks to indicate this). This emphasizes the spiritual nature of the relationship: there is a metaphysical connection between them that she seems privy to. This aspect of the relationship is one which only grows stronger as the film proceeds. Another way this is evident is the more prominent role of the ‘mystery character’ in this film. He was present at Roman’s car accident and, more importantly, came to his aid after his suicide attempt. For all the tragedies in this series which imply God’s absence (I, V, VI, VII), here is an example of God’s presence. This film stands as a story of grace: Roman perhaps should not have lived, but he survives (with help, if you will). And the hope we take away is Roman’s renewed sense of commitment as a result of being given a second chance.”

Verdict:
My least favorite of the ten Decalogue episodes.
Connected to the ninth imperative of the Ten Commandments: You shall not covet your neighbor's wife. The main plot focuses on a husband voyeuristically coveting his own wife. The narrative is about jealousy, confidence and love.
A character requesting his partner to take a lover may have inspired Lars von Trier’s Breaking the Waves. The girl who loves to sing and has a heart condition foreshadows The Double Life of Veronique (1991)




Next time, I'll look at Episode 10. Readers of this review, any thoughts on Episode 9?


Quotations:
Kieslowski on Kieslowski / Danusia Stok

damaris

Deciphering The Decalogue

The Decalogue (1989) Episode 8

The Decalogue 8

Spoilers occur about the ending, this review is intended for those who have already watched the film.

Summary:
A Holocaust survivor named Elisabeth (Teresa Marczewska) confronts ethics professor Zofia (Maria Koscialkowska). Zofia once refused to save Elisabeth from the Nazi's by declining to falsify her baptism papers, on the basis of this commandment: You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Zofia, a woman in her 60s, teaches ethics at the university. One day, Elisabeth from the United States arrives, who has translated her books into English, and asks permission to follow her lesson, Zofia accepts.
A young student tells a story about a doctor's dilemma, a pregnant woman, who wants to know if her cancer-inflicted husband will live, in other words an account of what happened in Dekalog 2.
Zofia makes it clear, that nothing is more important than saving a child's life. However, it turns out she failed to help a little Jewish girl during World War Two. It's established that the girl in fact survived, and it was Elizabeth. For many years Zofia has had a guilty conscience. What actually happened back then is delved into, and what Zofia's motives were.
A tailor and his wife, who were to be Elisabeth's foster parents, have with time become closed off and reluctant to discuss what happened. When Elizabeth arrives, he is uncomfortable in her presence. Zofia has spoken to the tailor and his wife once since WW2 and said only the words "I'm sorry". According to Zofia, the underground movement she was involved in almost assassinated the couple, because they were thought to be cooperating with the Gestapo. From Elisabeth's perspective, the tailor risked his life to save her. Yet this is not necessarily the whole truth, as Zofia could be rewriting the past.

Analysis and interpretation:
Kieslowski was quoted as saying that it’s a film about justice and injustice. Zofia's life is indelibly stamped by a guilty conscience. On the outside, everything looks in order, but even the moments that mattered along the road have been overshadowed by her past. There is an air of respect surrounding Zofia among her students, perhaps also a professional distance that doesn't allow deeper emotions to reveal themselves in her teaching.
40 years on from the war, Elisabeth arrives, now a grown woman, and Zofia senses a chance of closure. However this matter of conscience was not something she could have predicted would happen as a young woman, logically sacrificing one person to save many makes more sense. There are no easy answers.
Since then she has tried to pay off of her debt by teaching others to live so they avoid such burdens. In a way, Zofia's and Elisabeth’s roles are reversed; the older woman needs redemption, the younger Elisabeth can either give closure to the matter, or refuse to help her. Though you also suspect that redemption works both ways, Elisabeth is in need of closure as well.
The film also alludes to that the reality of war cannot be boxed into simple categories, there is a lot of post rationalization, but also the fact that nothing is more important than the life of a child. It is probable that Kieslowski is saying that it is okay, justifiable, and even necessary to lie sometimes to save precious, human lives.

The picture frame being put back in place several times at Zofia’s apartment is a metaphor I had trouble understanding. Perhaps represents Zofia wanting to maintain order on the surface?

Zofia jogging in the woods we witness twice, for no apparent reason, and could also be a sign of outward order, strength and health, yet subtlety revealing in her eyes, that her mind is not at peace.
Or maybe you could regard it differently, as Deciphering the Decalogue does: “Out of the 5 parts I watched, this is the first time I have seen bright lighting and the use of happier, more peaceful music. I believe this change represents the fact that there is still a possibility for good after sin.”

As Stephen Innes writes at the site damaris:"Early in the film, the touching hands represent innocence and trust, but after this innocence is broken there are images of hands pulling away and a resistance to touch. Towards the end of the film, as the opportunity to reconcile is made available, the image of hands coming together carries a powerful emotional impact. (...) Zofia and Elisabeth have discovered that the only way to bring about good is to love, which fills the void left by trying to always do the ‘right’ thing. Perhaps one can detect a small glimmer in the tailor’s eye as he witnesses this."

As another reviewer points out at IMDB: “the funny thing is that in this one, the drama has already past, which is necessary for connecting to it the idea of the law”.
However, this could also be looked at as a weakness of the episode, that we don’t get to see the vital moments, yet it also adds a mystery to what happened during the war, that is gradually revealed.

Verdict:
Connected to the eighth imperative of the Ten Commandments: You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour. As with Decalogue 6, again we are dealing with childhood trauma.
Zofia losing sight of Elisabeth in the apartment area was an intriguing plot development, in that perhaps Zofia would receive some of her own medicine of feeling abandoned, as Elisabeth did as a child. Also the classroom scene was quite powerful.
There is a sense of community in this installment, we hear about the moral dilemma from Decalogue 2, and meet a stamp collector who is important in Decalogue 10.
The WW2 angle is an interesting one, that transcends the singular case, and encompasses an infinite number of other situations regarding lying, both past and present.
The episode showcases that lying and honesty are more complex terms than you'd think, that crucial decisions can haunt you for the rest of your life, and that closure is key to leading a happy life.



Next time, I'll look at Episode 9. Any ideas, readers, what the picture frame and jogging symbolize? Other thoughts on episode 8?


Quotations:
Kieslowski on Kieslowski / Danusia Stok

Deciphering The Decalogue

damaris

The Decalogue (1989) Episode 7

The Decalogue 7

Spoilers occur about the ending, this review is intended for those who have already watched the film.

Summary:
Majka is 22-years-old, and a student. All her life she has had to deal with Ewa, her dominant mother. Her father Stefan is good-natured, but weak. 6-year-old Ania is having nightmares and she screams at night. Majka, Ania's so-called big sister, attempts in vain to comfort her. Ania only lets her mother, Ewa, soothe her, which frustrates Majka. Why? The explanation is revealed, when Majka kidnaps Ania. Ewa doesn't have two daughters, Majka is Ania's mother.
One of the teachers named Wojtek at the school Majka attended, where Ewa was the headmistress, made Majka pregnant. Wojtek and Majka's child is Ania. Wojtek has been let go due to his forbidden affair with Majka, and now lives as a recluse in the woods, and makes a living making teddy bears. Majka was only 16, and to avoid a scandal, the family allowed the newborn baby to be registered as Ewa's daughter. Majka feels that her mother stole her baby, and now she wants a change. Majka plans to travel to Canada together with Ania. In the meantime, Majka seeks refuge with Wojtek in the woods. He is skeptical, not least when he notices how desperate and scatterbrained Majka is in the role of a mother, and how difficult it is for Ania to accept that her elder sister all of a sudden is her mother. Ewa who adores the little girl, finds it impossible to let go of Ania. Majka tries to escape together with Ania. Both Majka's parents and Wojtek chase them.

Analysis and interpretation:
Kieslowski has said you can steal a wallet, a car or a painting, but the worst theft is that of emotions. All the characters have in some way stolen from each other, and again this could be true for the audience watching. What have we neglected or refrained from speaking out loud, which could have changed the lives of others? Why have we hidden the most important details? Why didn't we listen? The only innocent character in the story is the 6-year-old girl Ania, and she is the unhappiest person in the story. She is powerless. What will happen to her when she grows up? These events will decide her future.
Both the mother and daughter believe they are doing what's best for the child, and even so, they argue, and may harm the girl's feelings beyond repair.

Ania experiences nightmares and cries a lot. Perhaps due to a problematic relationship with her mother. In spite of the attention, Ania seems insecure, having two mothers is not something that is easy to figure out at such a young age.

It is wrong of Majka to kidnap her own child and not tell her grandmother, but it is also wrong of the grandmother, even if she did so lovingly, to act like the child’s real mother.

Ewa has robbed Majka of the love of a mother, respect, acceptance, and support, which Majka needed during her adolescence, so Majka could have confidence in her own worth. As a result Majka is alienated from herself, what she thinks, and feels. Majka expresses in a piece of dialogue "You have stolen my child, my happiness as a mother, my love. You stole me, everything"

Majka experiences that Ewa gives Ania the love that Ewa never gave Majka. A quote from the film: “I didn't know Ewa could show affection, I had never noticed it before"
The only acceptance Majka has experienced is when she followed Ewa's demands. Ewa's husband admits to his wife: "You demanded too much from her". Ewa's love towards Majka was "quid pro quo", this for that.

By seeing Ewa's devotion towards Ania, Majka realizes what has been missing in her own childhood. Ewa perceives herself as a savior, who has helped her daughter Majka out of a tricky situation by taking over the role of motherhood of Ania.

Initially, Majka believes revenge towards her mother will work. To Wojtek she exclaims: "Today I have taken my first adult decision. I have stood up to her. Now I know I can do it". However her rebellion comes across as quite childish, she appeals to her dad as if she was a little girl, and she doesn't try and make the relationship with Wojtek work for the sake of the child. Wojtek is not the ideal father either, saying he will give her the house, but not offering to stay. He has not changed his approach since she was sixteen, he cannot support Majka emotionally.

Majka displays her immaturity as a mother by asking Ania to prove her love for her in the middle of the chaotic situation, Ania is obviously very confused. For example, by shaking her daughter and forcing her to say mummy. Majka feels worthless without the acceptance of her daughter telling her she's good enough.

It is characteristic of Majka's narcissism that she only thinks about herself, she doesn't try to put herself in the child's position for one second, and doesn't know how to please her daughter's needs.

“You shall not steal” refers to Majka stealing what is already hers. However the real theft happened much earlier when Ewa stole Ania from Majka. As Deciphering the Decalogue writes, this makes the kidnapping seem justified.

It is tragic that Majka has confidence issues, and doesn’t have the tools to deal with Ania. Majka feels her childhood was somewhat stolen from her by Ewa’s lack of maternal affections, and there is an underlying sense that Majka has been scarred for life by how her mother treated her as a kid.

For the viewer, it is very difficult to decide who should look after Ania, because Majka doesn’t know how, and Ewa is not Ania’s rightful mother. Ewa truly loves Ania and wants the best for her, so we are torn between who deserves her. In the end, Majka commits the greatest theft of all, robbing her daughter of her true mother.

Favorite quote: “can you steal something that’s yours?”


Verdict:
Connected to the seventh imperative of the Ten Commandments: "You shall not steal", Dekalog 7 may be about the lack of love towards children, which continues from one generation to the next. Ewa to Majka, Majka to Ania.
Watching this for the second time, there are minor inconsistencies. For example that Ewa couldn’t guess and didn’t ask Majka if she had Ania, before Ewa rang the police. Plus it was a bit of a long shot that Wojtek would notice the teddy bear by the river when he drove over the bridge (unless of course it was a secret spot he and Majka frequented.)
Although episode 7 lacks the cinematic atmosphere of parts 5 and 6, you could argue those were a tough act to follow. Technically not so original, but I actually think from a storytelling aspect episode 7 is a decent and well-thought-out installment, even though it is not as rewatchable as 5 and 6.
Where parts 5 and 6 often let the images tell us how the characters were feeling inside, episode 7 relies more on dialogue to tell us how each are dealing with the situation. To me, episode 7 feels a little more like a theatre play for this reason.
Many of the characters have selfish motivations and don't spread their love: Majka needs her daughter more than her mother; Ewa needs Ania more than Majka; Wojtek needs his independence more than taking responsibility for Majka or Ania.
If you don’t give a family member love, Kieslowski appears to be saying that you are stealing love from that relationship. Kieslowski also forces us to recall our own relationships with our parents, or how you act as a parent yourself.



Next time, I'll look at Episode 8. Readers of this review, any thoughts on Episode 7?


Sources:
Kieslowski on Kieslowski / Danusia Stok

Deciphering The Decalog

damaris