This story by Kislovsky is a "Story About Murder".
It is rare to see Kislovsky use this multi-line narrative method to plan the layout of the story. This technique of playing multiple clues has become popular after the popularity of "Crash" and "Babel" in the past two years. A must-have recipe for filmmakers traveling at home.
Although it is said to be multi-line, it is only three lines, but this is very rare for Keown in 1988, for Keown who has always been narrated in a simple way. It is estimated that this kind of trick to transform a simple story into rich, full, three-dimensional and multi-faceted makes this film the best work of European cinema of that year.
In addition, Keown's movies are still so grayish-yellow, and always like to cover half of the lens, either on the top of the screen or on the right, always covered with a large black. I don't understand Keown's intentions...
In terms of technology, what I admire most is Keown's camera angles and composition. His shots are easily substituted into the film, immersive, and the composition of the picture is quite clever and beautiful - nonetheless, Keown is a very simple director, so simple that you think that the film has returned to its basics. The rest of the storytelling function, such as photography, art, lens, editing, these staff can all cool off.
Then there is only thought left.
The film features murderers, victims, defense attorneys, judges, prosecutors, priests, and executioners.
These roles form two chains, one is the moral chain and the other is the legal chain.
In the moral chain, the victim-murderer-priest forms its own system, and the rule in this system is one of the ten commandments of the Bible: Do not kill.
In the legal chain, the victim-murderer-lawyer-prosecutor-judge-executioner forms another system, and the rules of this system are the laws of the country.
No matter which chain they are in, each person has no body, emotion and soul, but an anonymous identity embedded in the moral and legal lineage. These chains are cold, and everyone is forced to play a role: no one pays attention to the real motive and emotional predicament of the murderer, prosecutors, judges and executioners drown out their sympathy under the guise of state tools, priests follow the example Coming to pray without bringing the goodness of God...
except for an overly sentimental criminal defense attorney. In his initial interview for the qualification of a lawyer, he described his ideals as follows: to correct the mistakes that may be made by the judiciary and to strongly oppose the punishment system that uses violence for violence.
This is an excellent lawyer, but he has to deal with the hatred of crime in a socialist country. This hatred is abstract, rational, and cold. It fights crime, and it is justice; it treats all people equally, and it is justice.
So when he stood before the judge, frustrated after his failed murder defense, the judge said, you are too sensitive to be a lawyer.
Therefore, he could call out the prisoner's flesh-and-blood name instead of cold titles such as "suspect", "defendant", and "client", but he could only helplessly look at another after the prisoner digs his heart out. Lives were forcibly taken.
What does hatred in a country mean?
It means that even if God says not to kill, it can always find justification for itself to trample on God's rules and human life.
Means indiscriminate revenge against the perpetrator - at this point the state is no different from that murderer. That murderer killed indiscriminately, precisely because of his indiscriminate hatred to avenge his innocent sister who was accidentally run over.
Since one person does not have the right to deprive another person of life, why can a country?
The logical conflict that arises here makes the lawyer who is both emotional and rational deeply tormented.
This is probably Keown's reflection on the morality and laws of socialist countries, right?
View more about Dekalog reviews
