Joseph Hancock Decalogue
How does the visual medium of film work as Midrash? Be specific in answering this question, relating the answer to the Commandment and the way the medium works to throw you into the struggle to find meaning.
As I understand it, Midrash is essentially just updating or re-contextualizing the Ten Commandments to fit within a newer time and place from when they were first introduced. I think this is best show in the first Decalogue. In the modern era, people aren't as likely to worship golden cows for food. However, they often do listen more intently to what they hear from someone famous or on TV. Throughout the film, the computer is presented and framed as the father's God or place of worship. He seeks answers he doesn't know by asking the computer; a trait he passed down to his son. The father in the first Decalogue is a bit more nuanced than those earlier examples though. He does have a lot of faith in the computer's mathematical calculations, but he also later goes out to confirm them himself, as seen he checked the ice's thickness to confirm its safety. So, I'd say his belief is more in the idea of empirical evidence and testing. However, even with all his data confirming it was impossible, his son still fell through the ice. Whether it's the computer or his own findings, his faith is misplaced, and it turns out the father was worshiping a false idol.
Do any of the visuals of the films work as symbols that bridge the gap of understanding? How? Be specific in noting these visuals.
A single character sporadically appears throughout both films. A common interpretation is that this man is God or represents God in some form. But God is also commonly seen as an unknowable figure. Therefore, while paradoxical, if one follows the previously mentioned interpretation, the actions and beliefs of this mysterious character are the actions and beliefs of God. Thus, a bridge in the gap of understanding is built. The audience can in some way interpret the unknowable by seeing this character. "God" cries out on the lake in the first film, most likely because of the death of the child that occurred, showing that he does care and pities those who break his commandments. This sadness is again emphasized when the oil falls on the painting of the Virgin Mary, mimicking the appearance of tears over the death of a child. In the second film, "God" holds a measuring stick in street, staring at the protagonist before he commits murder, an act banned by the Commandments. "God" is "measuring" him and his actions. It shows that he does take notice when these acts occur, and almost seems to get the protagonist to avoid his sinful killing. However, these are interpretations. It's possible that they're not accurate, but they are at least glimpses at aspects of the unknown, which is better than having nothing at all to work with.
How did the film relate feeling to meaning? Note that Kieslowski said, “It very quickly became clear that these would be films about feelings and passions, because we knew that love, or the fear of death, or the pain caused by a needle-prick, are common to all people, irrespective of their political views, the colour of their skin or their standard of living.”
In the first Decalogue, the child asks his aunt what God is. He's trying to find the meaning behind the concept. So, his aunt hugs him. It's a very emotional moment. The feelings presented in the scene radiate out to the audience. We can tell just how much she cares for her nephew through this action. She explains that feeling is God. Through her, the films presents the complex deep feelings of love as God.
Finally, does this film cycle work to contextualize and integrate the code into an individual's life, bridging the flux of the moment to the ultimate meaning of eternity?
In the first half of the second Decalogue, the protagonist plans and commits the murder of a stranger in cold blood. The audience is meant to despise this character and his actions. But a few years later in the film's time, and only a few minutes after the murder in real time, before his execution, the protagonist shows regret to his former lawyer for what he did. The audience sees some humanity in this character for the first time. He goes further back, talking about his unseen and previously unknown past. The protagonist goes into deep detail discussing the death of his sister, how it negatively hurt him, and how things may have been different if she was alive. This revelation paints the protagonist's previous actions in a whole new light. Even if it doesn't justify what he did, it does re-contextualize his life and his choices, showing just how complex people can be.
As I understand it, Midrash is essentially just updating or re-contextualizing the Ten Commandments to fit within a newer time and place from when they were first introduced. I think this is best show in the first Decalogue. In the modern era, people aren't as likely to worship golden cows for food. However, they often do listen more intently to what they hear from someone famous or on TV. Throughout the film, the computer is presented and framed as the father's God or place of worship. He seeks answers he doesn't know by asking the computer; a trait he passed down to his son. The father in the first Decalogue is a bit more nuanced than those earlier examples though. He does have a lot of faith in the computer's mathematical calculations, but he also later goes out to confirm them himself, as seen he checked the ice's thickness to confirm its safety. So, I'd say his belief is more in the idea of empirical evidence and testing. However, even with all his data confirming it was impossible, his son still fell through the ice. Whether it's the computer or his own findings, his faith is misplaced, and it turns out the father was worshiping a false idol.
Do any of the visuals of the films work as symbols that bridge the gap of understanding? How? Be specific in noting these visuals.
A single character sporadically appears throughout both films. A common interpretation is that this man is God or represents God in some form. But God is also commonly seen as an unknowable figure. Therefore, while paradoxical, if one follows the previously mentioned interpretation, the actions and beliefs of this mysterious character are the actions and beliefs of God. Thus, a bridge in the gap of understanding is built. The audience can in some way interpret the unknowable by seeing this character. "God" cries out on the lake in the first film, most likely because of the death of the child that occurred, showing that he does care and pities those who break his commandments. This sadness is again emphasized when the oil falls on the painting of the Virgin Mary, mimicking the appearance of tears over the death of a child. In the second film, "God" holds a measuring stick in street, staring at the protagonist before he commits murder, an act banned by the Commandments. "God" is "measuring" him and his actions. It shows that he does take notice when these acts occur, and almost seems to get the protagonist to avoid his sinful killing. However, these are interpretations. It's possible that they're not accurate, but they are at least glimpses at aspects of the unknown, which is better than having nothing at all to work with.
How did the film relate feeling to meaning? Note that Kieslowski said, “It very quickly became clear that these would be films about feelings and passions, because we knew that love, or the fear of death, or the pain caused by a needle-prick, are common to all people, irrespective of their political views, the colour of their skin or their standard of living.”
In the first Decalogue, the child asks his aunt what God is. He's trying to find the meaning behind the concept. So, his aunt hugs him. It's a very emotional moment. The feelings presented in the scene radiate out to the audience. We can tell just how much she cares for her nephew through this action. She explains that feeling is God. Through her, the films presents the complex deep feelings of love as God.
Finally, does this film cycle work to contextualize and integrate the code into an individual's life, bridging the flux of the moment to the ultimate meaning of eternity?
In the first half of the second Decalogue, the protagonist plans and commits the murder of a stranger in cold blood. The audience is meant to despise this character and his actions. But a few years later in the film's time, and only a few minutes after the murder in real time, before his execution, the protagonist shows regret to his former lawyer for what he did. The audience sees some humanity in this character for the first time. He goes further back, talking about his unseen and previously unknown past. The protagonist goes into deep detail discussing the death of his sister, how it negatively hurt him, and how things may have been different if she was alive. This revelation paints the protagonist's previous actions in a whole new light. Even if it doesn't justify what he did, it does re-contextualize his life and his choices, showing just how complex people can be.
Comments
Post a Comment