The Decalogue (1989)
I. The Decalogue starts of in brilliant style with this deeply touching personal story and hints at the promise of the context. The connection to the first commandment, having no other gods, is subtle, but present in the form of the main characters’ interest in science. If all chapters were as powerful as this, The Decalogue would certainly find a place in my top ten of all time. I’m not sure it condemns science so much as shows the world as being so large in its connection of variables as to be beyond human capacity.
II. This is a solid segment that takes the useful position that the relevance to the commandment to not take the lord’s name in vain is not simply using it as a curse word but actually swearing to God as a way of supporting one’s word. The connection isn't really touched upon until the end, but it provides just enough to make the story pay off.
III. In Roger Ebert’s introduction, he commends Kieslowski for not being committed to making each segment a direct reference to its corresponding commandment. Personally, I feel this is a mistake to a certain degree. I don’t need much of a tie (see I and II) but it should still be the thematic heart. Of course, it is hard to decide what interesting story could revolve around not keeping the Sabbath day holy. I’m not exactly sure how this story ties into that, but I didn’t really find it that interesting.
IV. I think this is probably a better segment, dealing with honoring your parents, than I’m willing to give it credit for, because it is just really creepy. I won’t say more other than Anka is really beautiful.
V. As one of the big two sections expanded into longer films, this one was kind of underwhelming. Sure, the death penalty is bad, but I’m not sure there is much in this case to make it a specifically effective argument against it. Ok, so the kid is troubled and ok, so those he acts against seem to be potentially flawed individuals. But it isn’t really emotionally griping to me. Maybe the longer version would be more effective in establishing this but it seems a lost opportunity on one of the commandments that would seem easiest to develop a film around.
VI. If I were a famous Polish director, I totally would have taken a different turn with this. I mean, you’ve got a great set-up. You’ve got a woman and her stalker. He signs up to be milkman in order to get close to her. He rings the door bell, she opens, he says “I’m the milkman” she says “come in” *cue porno music* bam, adultery, thou shall not commit. The incorporation of porn themes into high-concept film would be genius. But that isn’t the direction that this goes, which is sad. Wait, that is totally the direction this goes…this section is freaking awesome.
All joking aside, I don’t think this works thematically as well as the first part but it is certainly one of the most interesting and tense. Also, based on the description of the ending in the extended version, I can see why they tweaked it…fine either way.
VII. This was a really rich, emotional family drama. It has its relevance to the concept of stealing but is a little unusual in how it applies it such that it is up for debate whether stealing is involved and who is responsible. Just really excellent.
VIII. In an interesting turn, this section directly references a prior section and then mirrors it with another story that is relevant to lying and really digs into what is a lie or whether there are relevant distinctions in types or contexts for lies that change their moral value. The premise is perhaps a little stronger than how it plays out, but still appreciated.
IX. So the section dealing with adultery didn’t really involve adultery as we would now consider it but the section on coveting of thy neighbor’s wife involves adultery, not mere coveting. I guess it engages jealousy, which is a form of the envy that is implied by coveting but it just seems an obscure approach to the topic.
X. I’m pretty sure the best way to understand coveting your neighbor’s house is to turn on the Home and Garden channel.. That stuff is disgusting in its promotion of the most shallow and insane materialism. It is a show where you see people dissatisfied because their appliances are white rather than stainless steel. I suppose in film terms, The Joneses would be the relevant tale. But let’s see what we have on offer here to compare.
Like the previous section, there seems to be a little mix-up of the definition of covet. Sure, we see how greed can cause problems, but probably more directly relevant here is theft and again, we already had that section. This is another place where you can debate the merits of being slavish to the format. Does the section need to clearly speak to one and only one commandment and make sure not to touch the others?
This one works well as a closer, I suppose, in that it starts with one of the two brothers featured in the section, a member of a metal band, singing a song with lyrics that basically hit you over the head with the theme of the series. As a story about brothers, this is ultimately pretty good.
Anyway, having been through all ten episodes in the past few days, I did come away impressed. It is a bit uneven with its quality, but there are enough really engaging sections to support the high-concept set-up and make it very much worth watching. I like that the episodes all exist within one space and time, even with some more overt ties. I also appreciate "the cameo"...the quiet blue eyes, seemingly of a God or Christ figure looking on with a pitying gaze. This will make my list of tv shows/films of distinction attached to my Top Films update that is forthcoming.
My ranking goes 1, 7, 6, 2, 8, 10, 4, 5, 9, 3.