"Never since Cain has any punishment Improved or deterred the world from crimes"
That is the lawyer's final answer in his final exam. While he was celebrating his success, the killer, whose counsel he would later become, was on the way. There were many chances for him and his victim to change the fate, but they denied singly. From the beginning when the taxi-driver open the glass door, on which mapped the city's brown imperturbable face, all the things happened afterwards seemed lead to the inevasible end confirmedly. Just like all the things we entitle accident in our lives.
The sky above the city reveals a disconcerting light, the camera perfectly captured the distance that blocked off the young man and the crowd. Sometimes when he was wondering where to go, the screen was eerie half bright and half dark. Of course he could only choose the destined one. The killing itself took a long long time and was really horrible, although narrated in Kieslowski's self-possessed voice. During the long time when Yazec tried, even struggled to achieve the driver's death, he was horrified by any words the dying driver moaned and struggled to be crueler to end it, and I was horrified by the dark side of humanity and tried to escape from the glum face of fate.
The fifth commandment is "You shall not kill". In the real world it becomes "You shall not kill without proper reason". But, who has the right to judge it? The lawyer lost his faith in his job, finally he found out the problem was not "how to be justice", but "to whom justice could be possible". And the last one is about ethic, the reverse of laws.
Yazec's killing was unreasonable, even Kieslowski himself said that he didn't know why Yazec wanted to kill the driver. But is the killing of Yazec reasonable? Kieslowski recorded every detail in the last killing, including the long preparing. The calmer the law officer was, the more doubtful I am. It became more and more obvious that this rite itself is a bigger crime. During this long course, every audience was put into the puzzledom of ethic. Kieslowski gave us a compassionate last shoot, that the lawyer stopped at a rural lawn, perhaps where the seed of Yazec's crime was sowed (where his sister died in an accident), and cried. But the question is still unanswered. When the audiences walk out of the cinema they are more sensitivity to the predicament of ethic of our time. I think that was what this great ideologist and filmmaker aiming for.
That is the lawyer's final answer in his final exam. While he was celebrating his success, the killer, whose counsel he would later become, was on the way. There were many chances for him and his victim to change the fate, but they denied singly. From the beginning when the taxi-driver open the glass door, on which mapped the city's brown imperturbable face, all the things happened afterwards seemed lead to the inevasible end confirmedly. Just like all the things we entitle accident in our lives.
The sky above the city reveals a disconcerting light, the camera perfectly captured the distance that blocked off the young man and the crowd. Sometimes when he was wondering where to go, the screen was eerie half bright and half dark. Of course he could only choose the destined one. The killing itself took a long long time and was really horrible, although narrated in Kieslowski's self-possessed voice. During the long time when Yazec tried, even struggled to achieve the driver's death, he was horrified by any words the dying driver moaned and struggled to be crueler to end it, and I was horrified by the dark side of humanity and tried to escape from the glum face of fate.
The fifth commandment is "You shall not kill". In the real world it becomes "You shall not kill without proper reason". But, who has the right to judge it? The lawyer lost his faith in his job, finally he found out the problem was not "how to be justice", but "to whom justice could be possible". And the last one is about ethic, the reverse of laws.
Yazec's killing was unreasonable, even Kieslowski himself said that he didn't know why Yazec wanted to kill the driver. But is the killing of Yazec reasonable? Kieslowski recorded every detail in the last killing, including the long preparing. The calmer the law officer was, the more doubtful I am. It became more and more obvious that this rite itself is a bigger crime. During this long course, every audience was put into the puzzledom of ethic. Kieslowski gave us a compassionate last shoot, that the lawyer stopped at a rural lawn, perhaps where the seed of Yazec's crime was sowed (where his sister died in an accident), and cried. But the question is still unanswered. When the audiences walk out of the cinema they are more sensitivity to the predicament of ethic of our time. I think that was what this great ideologist and filmmaker aiming for.