Cinema of Poland


In comparison to its documentary and animation counterparts, the slate of nominees for this year’s Academy Award for Best Live Action Short Films cuts a sorry figure. Racism, patriarchy, ableism are formidable villains embraced for their dramatic potential, turned into reliable strawmen and dutifully slain for liberal edification.

The least contentious of the nominees, Martin Strange-Hansen’s On My Mind (2021) contains no villains as such. There is certainly a greedy bar owner (Ole Gorter Boisen) who tries to palm off expensive whisky on our protagonist Henrik (Rasmus Hammerich), but even he redeems himself at the end. The bulk of the film is a single scene at the bar where Henrik tries to convince the owner and his wife (Camilla Bendix) to turn on the karaoke set so he can sing Elvis Presley’s Always on My Mind for his wife — a song that, he says, makes the soul fly. And he only has fifteen minutes to do it. The film’s strong point is this theatrical integrity of time and place, thanks to which it is able to set up fine passages of tension.

The time pressure also creates a mystery around Henrik, who is something of a poet. He is not a great singer, but the song has a great deal of meaning for him. In the film’s opening scene, he is seen breathing heavily at the window, his exhalation creating fog on the pane. He later makes a lyrical observation about it. Henrik’s existential outlook, combined with the information that he is on borrowed time, invites the supposition that he is on death row, but the mystery is resolved differently. Compared to the critical bite that the other nominees have, however, On My Mind is practically harmless.

Towering far above its competitors is Kristen Dávila’s Please Hold (2020), a Kafkaesque parable of a man arrested without charge and faced with a lifetime in prison. The tale is timeless, but the setting is an unspecified future in which automation reigns supreme. On his way to work, Mateo (Erick Lopez) is arrested by a police drone and sent to a detention facility run by a private company called Correcticorp. There are no human personnel at the complex, with everything from catering to legal services carried out through voice-commanded AI systems, all of it charged to the prisoner’s bank account.

The film may present a dystopian fantasy, but its projections are based on questions around technology and industry that are all very current: the removal of the human element from value judgment, the commercialization of personal time, the judicial fallout of machine errors, the romanticization of hand-made objects and the conception of legal process as service. These are philosophical ideas that you might find on The Guardian’s science pages, and the success of the film lies in synthesizing them into an alarming vision of the future.

Please Hold works as well as it does because it pitches this cautionary tale about technology — software, hardware, beware! — as a dark comedy rather than drama. Mateo struggles with the computer in his cell to find a lawyer to help him, but his mounting frustration cannot be taken out on the computer screen, for it is his only chance at freedom. On his prison walls, he scribbles what may be the final words of many of us when trapped in such a future: “read the fine print.”

The Long Goodbye (2020), starring Riz Ahmed, was made as an accompaniment to the actor’s album of the same name. It is understandable then that the film’s thrust is less dramaturgical than musical. Directed by Aneil Karia, it begins with scenes from a middle-class desi household in suburban Britain. An extended family prepares for a wedding: girls gossip as they put on mehndi, a couple is playing a quiz game, Riz is learning some dance moves from a nephew, blocking his father’s view of the TV. Such episodes of curated chaos, marked by accumulating friction between characters, are familiar to us from the films of Gurinder Chadha or Mira Nair.

But The Long Goodbye shifts gears when assorted armed men, clad in black, storm the house. “It’s happening,” Riz shouts, as if this invasion were long coming. It would be no spoiler to say that the family is dragged to the streets and shot as neighbours watch the horror from behind their windows. The film breaks away from its realistic description as Riz, having survived the massacre, begins a monologue in verse. His rap, a number called Where You From, speaks of his complicated identity as a brown Briton. This is slam poetry made film and the lyrics are the kind that make Twitter go into a tizz. Viewer mileage, though, would depend on their appreciation for lines like “Yeah I make my own space in this business of Britishness / Your question’s just limiting, it’s based on appearances.”

Tadeusz Łysiak’s The Dress (2020) and Maria Brendle’s Ala Kachuu – Take and Run (2020) are products of arthouse melodrama at its high academic stage. Both films offer non-normative subjects as points of identification — a working-class woman of short stature in the former, a young woman from rural Kyrgyzstan in the latter — and make us see the problems that they face because of their identity. The style is naturalistic, the filmic expression restrained and the meaning largely presented through symbolism. Cinema, in this scheme of things, becomes what the critic Roger Ebert called “empathy-generating machine.”

Even so, The Dress comes across as a rather cruel work. Protagonist Julia (Anna Dzieduszycka) is a small person who performs room service at a small-town hotel in Poland. A frustrated virgin, she makes up for her inexperience with world-weary chain-smoking. There’s another compensation at work: as someone who has lost the genetic lottery, Julia spends all her free time playing slot machines at the local bar. She faces discrimination and bigotry every day, but chooses to stay in the town and “teach people a lesson.” Her desperation results in a funny scene of flirtation where she dares an interested truck driver to take the next step.

Except for one shot of her walking with the trucker, Łysiak films Julia mostly at eye level or in isolated shots such that we don’t see how short she really is. Her periodic conversations with an older colleague (Dorota Pomykala) are a welcome relief from her disappointments. But the film keeps insisting that Julia is an incomplete woman, doomed to look yearningly at perfect feminine bodies or vent that she’d rather be a “normal woman.” It takes her through one insult after another, as though these were the only experiences available to her.

The longest of the nominees, Ala Kachuu furnishes its main character a little more manoeuvring space, but its distortions are equally telling. Sezim (Alina Turdumamatova) is an aspiring young woman from a traditional rural family. She wants to continue her studies in the city, but her parents want to marry her off. She flees the village and takes up with Aksana (Madina Talipbekova), another single young woman whose rejection of tradition has brought disrepute to her family back home. In the city, Sezim is kidnapped by a band of men and forced into marriage. Worse, her parents accept this union and abandon her to fate.

Ala Kachuu demonstrates the perils of bringing an unreflective Western perspective to bear upon non-Western phenomena that it doesn’t have the necessary intellectual wherewithal to grapple with. Picking an extreme case within the practice of bride kidnapping, the film takes the easy out way by dramatizing the struggle of an modern-thinking individual against reactionary upholders of tradition. The film may bring more attention to the bride lifting, but what it does first is to reinforce its prospective audience’s ideas of itself and the world.

 

[First published at News9]

Ashes and Diamonds (1958, Andrzej Wajda)

 

Anguished Land (1967, Glauber Rocha)

 

Evolution of a Filipino Family (2004, Lav Diaz)

 

They all clambered into Mikolka’s cart, laughing and making jokes. Six men got in and there was still room for more. They hauled in a fat, rosy-cheeked woman. She was dressed in red cotton, in a pointed, beaded headdress and thick leather shoes; she was cracking nuts and laughing. The crowd round them was laughing too and indeed, how could they help laughing? That wretched nag was to drag all the cartload of them at a gallop! Two young fellows in the cart were just getting whips ready to help Mikolka. With the cry of “now,” the mare tugged with all her might, but far from galloping, could scarcely move forward; she struggled with her legs, gasping and shrinking from the blows of the three whips which were showered upon her like hail. The laughter in the cart and in the crowd was redoubled, but Mikolka flew into a rage and furiously thrashed the mare, as though he supposed she really could gallop.

 

“Let me get in, too, mates,” shouted a young man in the crowd whose appetite was aroused.

 

“Get in, all get in,” cried Mikolka, “she will draw you all. I’ll beat her to death!” And he thrashed and thrashed at the mare, beside himself with fury.

 

“Father, father,” he cried, “father, what are they doing? Father, they are beating the poor horse!”

 

“Come along, come along!” said his father. “They are drunken and foolish, they are in fun; come away, don’t look!” and he tried to draw him away, but he tore himself away from his hand, and, beside himself with horror, ran to the horse. The poor beast was in a bad way. She was gasping, standing still, then tugging again and almost falling.

 

“Beat her to death,” cried Mikolka, “it’s come to that. I’ll do for her!”

 

“What are you about, are you a Christian, you devil?” shouted an old man in the crowd.

 

“Did anyone ever see the like? A wretched nag like that pulling such a cartload,” said another.

 

“You’ll kill her,” shouted the third.

 

“Don’t meddle! It’s my property, I’ll do what I choose. Get in, more of you! Get in, all of you! I will have her go at a gallop!…”

 

All at once laughter broke into a roar and covered everything: the mare, roused by the shower of blows, began feebly kicking. Even the old man could not help smiling. To think of a wretched little beast like that trying to kick!

 

Two lads in the crowd snatched up whips and ran to the mare to beat her about the ribs. One ran each side.

 

“Hit her in the face, in the eyes, in the eyes,” cried Mikolka.

 

“Give us a song, mates,” shouted someone in the cart and everyone in the cart joined in a riotous song, jingling a tambourine and whistling. The woman went on cracking nuts and laughing.

 

… He ran beside the mare, ran in front of her, saw her being whipped across the eyes, right in the eyes! He was crying, he felt choking, his tears were streaming. One of the men gave him a cut with the whip across the face, he did not feel it. Wringing his hands and screaming, he rushed up to the grey-headed old man with the grey beard, who was shaking his head in disapproval. One woman seized him by the hand and would have taken him away, but he tore himself from her and ran back to the mare. She was almost at the last gasp, but began kicking once more.

 

“I’ll teach you to kick,” Mikolka shouted ferociously. He threw down the whip, bent forward and picked up from the bottom of the cart a long, thick shaft, he took hold of one end with both hands and with an effort brandished it over the mare.

 

“He’ll crush her,” was shouted round him. “He’ll kill her!”

 

“It’s my property,” shouted Mikolka and brought the shaft down with a swinging blow. There was a sound of a heavy thud.

 

“Thrash her, thrash her! Why have you stopped?” shouted voices in the crowd.

 

And Mikolka swung the shaft a second time and it fell a second time on the spine of the luckless mare. She sank back on her haunches, but lurched forward and tugged forward with all her force, tugged first on one side and then on the other, trying to move the cart. But the six whips were attacking her in all directions, and the shaft was raised again and fell upon her a third time, then a fourth, with heavy measured blows. Mikolka was in a fury that he could not kill her at one blow.

 

“She’s a tough one,” was shouted in the crowd.

 

“She’ll fall in a minute, mates, there will soon be an end of her,” said an admiring spectator in the crowd.

 

“Fetch an axe to her! Finish her off,” shouted a third.

 

“I’ll show you! Stand off,” Mikolka screamed frantically; he threw down the shaft, stooped down in the cart and picked up an iron crowbar. “Look out,” he shouted, and with all his might he dealt a stunning blow at the poor mare. The blow fell; the mare staggered, sank back, tried to pull, but the bar fell again with a swinging blow on her back and she fell on the ground like a log.

 

“Finish her off,” shouted Mikolka and he leapt beside himself, out of the cart. Several young men, also flushed with drink, seized anything they could come across—whips, sticks, poles, and ran to the dying mare. Mikolka stood on one side and began dealing random blows with the crowbar. The mare stretched out her head, drew a long breath and died.

 

“You butchered her,” someone shouted in the crowd.

 

“Why wouldn’t she gallop then?”

 

“My property!” shouted Mikolka, with bloodshot eyes, brandishing the bar in his hands. He stood as though regretting that he had nothing more to beat.

 

– Crime and Punishment (1866, Fyodor Dostoyevsky)

Essential Killing (2010)
Jerzy Skolimowski
English/Polish/Arabic

 

Essential KillingJerzy Skolimowski’s Essential Killing (2010) opens with helicopter shots of a nearly otherworldly desert with dizzyingly abstract contours – more of a psychoscape than a landscape – through which Taliban (?) soldier and protagonist Mohammed (Vincent Gallo) maneuvers unsuccessfully. Maneuvering is what Mohammed does throughout the film, as he sneaks out of an American (?) facility and traverses the frozen geography of what seems like Russia (?), while his memories, fantasies, visions and reality coalesce to form an amorphous psychic force that drives him. (For a film that’s so keen on ‘observing without judgment, this sort of alternate psychoanalysis is threatening if not fatal). The irony here is that Mohammed, supposedly a brainwashed killing machine for whom death translates to martyrdom, is exhibiting the highest forms of survival instinct. And an assortment of this kind of contradictions – behaviour as a negation of ideology – is what Essential Killing aims for. While his ‘mission’ might propel unwaveringly him towards death, Mohammed – now that his imminent death is not entirely of his making as he might have liked it to be – is continuously moving towards a rebirth of sorts, as is suggested by behavioral details such as his inability to speak, walk properly and, well, his drinking of milk from a woman’s breast. While his mission dictates that America is his enemy, he tries virtually to make it his home, blending in with his landscape (as he did in his country in the opening segment), apparently moving ever close to a promised land. Skolimowski might have wanted to counterpoint the dominant image of the Taliban terrorist – like Laura Poitras – with a sober opposite which portrays him as a weakling clinging on to life, but his interminable bout of decontexualization, coupled with his tendency to reduce cinema to a denotative art form, removes any sting from his political stance.

Repulsion (1965)

Repulsion (1965)

Cul-de-sac (1966)

Cul-de-sac (1966)

The Fearless Vampire Killers (1967)

The Fearless Vampire Killers (1967)

Rosemary's Baby (1968)

Rosemary's Baby (1968)

The Tragedy of Macbeth (1971)

The Tragedy of Macbeth (1971)

Chinatown (1974)

Chinatown (1974)

The Tenant (1976)

The Tenant (1976)

Tess (1979)

Tess (1979)

Pirates (1986)

Pirates (1986)

Frantic (1988)

Frantic (1988)

Bitter Moon (1992)

Bitter Moon (1992)

Death and the Maiden (1994)

Death and the Maiden (1994)

The Pianist (2002)

The Pianist (2002)

Przypadek (1981) (aka Blind Chance)
Krzysztof Kieślowski
Polish

“If I hadn’t missed a train one month ago, I wouldn’t be here with you”

Blind Chance

Krzysztof Kieslowski’s films often deal with the themes of fate, coincidences and choices. The phenomenal Decalogue (1988) teased us with the possibilities of seemingly disparate lives being connected. Equally staggering Three Colours trilogy (1993-94) completed a full circle and testified Kieslowski’s theory. But almost a decade before the trilogy, Kieslowski had made Przypadek (1981) that had already embraced the possibility of plasticity of fate and existence of truly free will.

Blind Chance starts with a large number of minor shots that would define the key events in the film. After this, we are taken into the life of Witek, a medical student who has just received the news of his father’s death and decides to leave for Warsaw. He enters the railway station as the train gets ready to leave the platform. Right here, the film separates into three distinct threads. In the first one, Witek boards the train successfully and goes on to become a member of the Polish Communist Party and meets his first love on the way. In the next scenario, Witek misses the train and picks up a fight with the station guard. He is sentenced to public service and eventually goes on to join the Polish Resistance movement against the Communist Party. In the final one, he misses the train but avoids the fight with the guard. Also, he resumes his studies and becomes a “good citizen”.

Each situation drives Witek’s life in completely different yet connectable paths. In all the scenarios, it is interesting to see that Witek’s morals remain the same. His view of right and wrong, good and bad and love and hatred does not depend on whether he is political, anti-political or apolitical. It is essentially his choices that define his life. In each of the scenarios, Witek never manages to get what he wants completely. Perhaps, Kieslowski is suggesting that freedom never comes free and requires sacrifice of interest, ideology or free will itself. Naturally, for the heavy political content in the film, it went under the scissors of the censor board of Poland. This soured the relations between Kieslowski and the censor board that would prompt him to go abroad to make films.

Though seldom listed in the list of great foreign films, Blind Chance deserves to be called one of the most powerful films, if not influential, in terms of screenwriting. It not only employs non-linear narrative that would go on to become the trend in the subsequent decade, but also traverses over the same time line multiple times. What Rashomon (1950) dealt with on the basis of subjectivity over one single reality, Blind Chance deals with using multiple objective realities. Quite a few films adopted similar screenplays in the future most notably two films from 1998 – Peter Howitt’s Sliding Doors (which ironically won the BAFTA for best original screenplay (!) which only shows how much Blind Chance’s fame was low key) and Tom Tykwer’s Run Lola Run (2002) (with whom Kieslowski himself collaborated for Heaven (2002))

Although one can understand the film better with a good knowledge of the political scenario of the country during its time, the universal themes of fate and predestination will appeal to all and one will easily be able to empathize with Witek. Considering the deluge of films that try to play with time, reality and subjectivity and in the process gain success easily, one can feel how massive Blind Chance was in its vision and scope and one just feels pity that the film hasn’t got its due recognition so far.

Krótki Film O Milosci (1988​) (aka A Short Film About Love)
Polish
Krzysztof Kieślowski

“I watch you through the window”
 

A Short Film About LoveWhat is love? Is it the inevitable sensual desire that arouses? Is it only bodily game played by the hormones? Can science explain all loves? Or is it something that transcends reasoning? These are issues explored in Kieślowski’s Krótki Film O Milosci (1988). Released as an extended version of an episode from Kieślowskis phenomenal TV series Dekalog, Krótki Film O Milosci was shamelessly ripped off (including the title) for the Indian version Ek Choti Si Love Story.

Tomek, a nineteen year old boy whose parents have left him, lives in the house of a friend with the latter’s mother and works at a post-office. Tomek passes his time by watching his neighbour Magda through a telescope everyday. Magda (aka Marie Magdalena, get the point?) is a middle-ager who has a number of men visiting her regularly. Hobby turns into obsession as Tomek starts pinching Magda’s letters, delivers false notices and hides milk bottles so that he can see her now and then. When the truth is revealed to Magda, she asks Tomek the reasons for his spying. Tomek says that he has no intentions of sleeping with her and he truly loves her. Magda is of the opinion that there is nothing called love and wants to teach this to Tomek. After a unsuccessful sexual encounter, Tomek is humiliated and slits his wrists. Roles reverse as Magda starts worrying about Tomek and keeps watch on his room using binoculars. The final scene (which was made to differ from Dekalog VI) has her acknowledging the fact that there is something called love and it needs no reason.

The film cleverly uses point of vies to develop its characters at various points in the movie. Like all Kieślowski films, chance and fate play important roles in the development of the events. Never over the top or judgmental on its characters, Krótki Film O Milosci is marked by top-notch performances by the leads Grazyna Szapolowska and Olaf Lubaszenko. For its effort, the film won The Golden lion at the Poland Film Festival.