Decalogue 1&5 Kaylyn Rivera

The film works as a visual medium of Midrash due to its poetic, disruptive, and investigable concepts. Midrash is explained as taking a deeper look into the text at hand and interpreting the meaning of it as we see it. Historian Henry Abramson explains Midrash as similar to the modern-day literary technique of deconstructionism. Midrash is not exactly a criticism, nor interpreted as fact, but as an explanation of what the religious text in mind may mean while observing it through a critical, self-imposed lens. In the films shown, we are given bits and pieces of the character's lives. They are ordinary people; a father, a son, a friend, a sister… No meaning is blatantly given to us, rather and perhaps, hinted at or alluded to. The films are disruptive to our sense of what is right and wrong on a deeper level while considering the implications of the commandments. Should we trust in science as an “icon” or is this blasphemous to a “god”? Should we condone the murder of a murderer? It is left up to us as individuals to decide. Once one thinks they have grasped the meaning of these films, the director throws another unexpected twist, making them question everything all over again. To me, this is what Midrash is. Trying to define that which may not be exactly “correctly” definable but can be interpreted by each individual.

The visuals are what lead us to question and understand the concepts and conditions being thrown at us. For example, the filters used in the fifth decalogue skillfully work to help us define what mindset each character is in and what the director wants us to pay attention to as an audience. In Decalogue five, the director purposely darkens the background while focusing on Jacek to visually demonstrate the tunnel vision Jacek has as he is contemplating/premeditating murder. We also see our possible “God” character from the first film in this fifth film. In the first film, he sits by a fire crying and observing what happens to the boy. He does not interact with this story. However, in the fifth film, he looks directly and shakes his head at Jacek. This is when they both know Jacek is going to murder the cab driver. Jacek also throws the character down in the restroom. Why did he not interact with the first story but did with the fifth? Perhaps, Jacek's guilt is what causes the “God” character to directly interact with Jacek. Jacek is thinking twice about the murder, even as he is committing it. Is this scene representative of the choice being made through a metaphorical, visual medium? He knows it is wrong, even “God” tells him this is wrong, and yet, he shrinks into the darkness and continues. Perhaps Jacek is portrayed as a religious man whereas the father is not, and this has affected the way god interacts with the men's stories. I think there could be many explanations as to why this character interacted with Jacek and not the boy or father in the first film. I'm curious to know what other's thoughts are about this… I also question the milk theme going on… I'm not exactly sure how to interpret this either. We see a green filter used in some of the computer scenes in Decalogue One, symbolizing, as Dr. Josh Mathews states, mystery. The computer kept popping up an “I am ready” line of text which left me very confused. Dr. Mathews compares this text to when Moses asks God his name and God responds, “I am who I am”. Dr. Mathew postulates that the computer screen is an “icon” for the father; it could be the son speaking to him, himself speaking to himself, or even God. This message pops up again before the father decides to go to church which adds an interesting layer as to what this message means and where it comes from.

I believe feelings create meanings. Everything we interact with is seen through the filter that is our culture, upbringing, values, and so on. Our lecture notes, on the other hand, state that in context to Midrash and religious text, “The text must have meaning for me in my concrete and current situation; not a meaning that was thrust upon me by someone else, my parent, my teacher, a meaning frozen in some abstract situation that is removed from the life world, but a meaning that I discover now as I bring the text to my situation”. This is why I think Kieslowski focused on more generalizable, innately human feelings at their core (e.g. Love, fear of death…). These are the concepts that are, as stated, common to all people, creating an atmosphere for the audience to relate to. We feel for the ordinary characters in the films on a more personal level. We try to create meaning for them; Why has this happened? What does it mean? The Universal meanings of being a human are a framework for the films to build off of. The abstract feelings these meanings bring with them are for Midrash to explore and define.  

The film sequence does work to contextualize and integrate the code into an individual life connecting the current to the ultimate meaning of eternity. “Religion is concerned with ultimate meaning” state the lecture notes. These films are influenced by religion, therefore making them concerned about the “ultimate meaning”. The lecture notes also state “The meaning of the commandments in my own life must guide my specific and present action now and must cohere with ultimate value at the same time”. Keeping these statements in mind, the film demonstrates people not following the commandments. The main characters do not integrate the code into their current actions to perpetuate the ultimate meaning of eternity. The film demonstrates what happens when you don’t follow the code from a religious perspective and demonstrates the natural and societal consequences. “Dramatizing a story as opposed to setting forth facts opens the way for interaction and a revealing of ultimate meaning as it bears upon the present moment fluxing through time” state the lecture notes. To me, this means fiction leaves room for imaginative interaction, it helps to reveal our ultimate meanings through our present experiences flowing throughout time. I still struggle with exactly defining what is meant by “bridging the flux of the moment to the ultimate meaning of eternity”… I would also be interested to see what others think of this.

Supplemental Links :) :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWJwo1jUA7Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5zPhKICAfA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGFYx84sVs8