Customer Reviews

Blind Chance

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

"Blind Chance" is my favorite film directed by Krzysztof Kieslowski. The story is deep and meaningful, yet also has a timeless quality that makes the story very memorable. A young Boguslaw Linda plays the main role in the film with an outstanding and sincere performance. The film shows three alternative situations and how small details can make a man's life take various paths.

In one scenario the man becomes a Communist party member, another an anticommunist, and yet in a third a good husband and doctor. The people from one reality are in the background of another, but because of the main course of action taken is different, they do not play a central role in the other time line. I found it absolutely fascinating to see how his lives play out and how he ends up at the same fate, regardless of which life he leads.

"Blind Chance" is an intellectual and psychological movie and may appeal to many people. I highly recommend it to anyone looking for a little more than just a regular story. It is a work of genius on several levels and not to be missed.

"Blind Chance" (made in 1981) explores three possible outcomes of a young traveler's attempts to catch a fast-moving train. Paranoia runs deep in this, the most political of Krzysztof Kieslowski's early feature films (its release was delayed for years because of censors). Boguslaw Linda is terrific as the resourceful medical student slapped around by fate. This is one of four recent additions to Kino's Kieslowski collection -- along with "No End," "Camera Buff" and "The Scar" -- all of which show that the Polish master's writing and directing skills arrived almost fully formed when he turned to feature films. Each of the films benefits from a powerful central performance. They are products of the 1970s and '80s, a time of vast sociopolitical changes in Poland, but are not timepieces or simplistic attacks on the communists. The color images (full frame, enhanced for widescreen TVs) and sound are adequate. Subtitles are clear.

Banned upon its release in 1982, Kieslowski's engrossing drama is a sly commentary on Poland's uncertain future under Stalinist repression. In separate sequences, Witek alternately joins the Communist Party, becomes a dissident, and settles down to a quiet, apolitical life with a lovely woman, with each turn of events hinging on the accidents of fate. An intelligent ruse that inspired later films like "Facing Windows" and "Run, Lola, Run," Kieslowski's "Blind Chance" is an intriguing, multilayered entertainment with a lot on its mind.

While the protagonist of this film does not escape from Poland to France, it's clear that Kieslowski's move to Paris did benefit his filmmaking. Blind Chance is not, in other words, as fine as film as Red, Blue, or White. Still, it's worth seeing if you like any of htose films, and it's an important film partly because it is the obvious inspiration for Tom Tykwer's Run, Lola, Run (the screenplay for Tykwer's Heaven was written by Kieslowski). Also of note is an opening shot of a close of a man's mouth while he is screaming, an obvious allusion to Roman Polanski's The Tenant. Both films share an interst in political paranoia (Polanski's character is regarded as a foreigner and Pole in The Tenant even though he is a French citizen) and chance (Polanski's character is it by a car). While Paris supplied obvious resorces for Kieslowski and for (the vastly underrated and still largely unknown to U.S. filmgoers) contemporary Polish filmmaker Andrej Zulawski, it has interestingly not done so for Polanski.

Blind Chance has a triangular structure,to give 3 versions of Witek's life.Kieslowski is turning inwards to underwrite his spiritual interpretation of a young man's life,buffeted by blind chance,coincidence and destiny.Film projects the conditional and future vistas,what may have happened or what might yet happen.Witek(Boguslaw Linda) is injected into 3 different scenarios of his life,one where joining the Communist Party,he works within the system to achieve a better life,one where he draws closer to belief in God(via the underground),one where he is a quietist/ apolitical doctor and marries.This covers the 3 main institutions:The Party, the church and lastly marriage.No one life is right or good.Each life is distinct and different,yet Witek remains the same.How much freedom do we have?How much is our life determined?How much does our will have to play existentially?

We see Witek after hearing his dying father's words,"..you don't have to be.." he gets the freedom to choose his own path,not become what his father wanted him to be,a doctor.He takes leave to look up an old girlfriend,seeking to get a Lodz to Warsaw train,he runs to get it and catches it,or in 2 more runs to catch the same train,he misses it and gets into a fight,or he misses it and meets a fellow medical student.This explores moral and political questions,forces us to watch closely and listen attentively through the narrative magnetism of cinema.In each scenario Witek is presented with a flight ticket to France,a symbol of escape from his duties.Duties should be derived from our morality.Each life takes him on a different path,with a different goal, and meets a different set of people,in each he loves a different woman. Kieslowski believed in destiny and even said that a person is somehow predestined to act in a certain way regardless of the circumstances. Witek never managed to reach France whether he caught or missed the train. His character takes three different life roads but essentially remains the same.People don't fundamentally change.

The screaming man at the start of the film and the explosive ending of the film are interconnected.We see at the start 12 fragmentary scenes which may be flashbacks to the past or possibly scenes not experienced but imagined. Witek feels he can remember the moment of his birth,surrounded by the victims of massacre by the Communist militia forces.In each life Witek does something of significant value,whether risking his life to save others,or promoting a political agenda to save Poland or becoming a doctor.His immediate situation is a matter of chance,but his reactions,choices,morality remain his own in response to this.At the end people from each scenario-a hostess,a priest and others,gather at the airport,repeating this idea of the disaster at the end of 3 Colours Red.Whatever life we find ourselves in,things go wrong.Kieslowski's metaphysics subtly permeates the film,also themes of interconnectivity and the shifts into subjectivity which are precurors of his later films.This structurally bold film is great(his best?).Blind Chance traces the inalterable trajectory of human destiny,the malleability of fate

If you have ever held a pupa in your grip, you know that, if held up to a light, at a certain angle, the fully formed insect can be seen, even though it has yet to emerge. This was the sensation that I had while watching Polish director Krzystof Kieslowski's 1981 film Blind Chance (Przypadek) after having seen his glorious Three Colors trilogy. It is a film that could have been great, had it been made a decade later in Kielsowski's career, but made when it was it merely has tantalizing glimpses of his later greatness. However, it is, by no means, a bad film, and certainly quite a bit superior to two later films that owe it quite a bit of debt- Germany's Run, Lola, Run, directed by TomTykwer, and Britain's Sliding Doors- a Gwyneth Paltrow vehicle, directed by Peter Howitt, both from 1998.
The problems with the film have to do with some direct comparisons with the Three Colors trilogy. From an artistic viewpoint, the film is rather drab looking, even though filmed in color, and while one might ascribe this to the fact that the film, divided into four sections- a prologue and three alternate versions of a small, minor event, takes place in a relentlessly grim cosmos, this does have a subliminal effect of negating the optimistic premises that arise within the plot. This leads, however, into the second major flaw in the film- the fact that Kieslowski is relentlessly politically preachy in this film, with several of his characters going off on long political sermons and tirades well before we, the audience, have any idea who this character is or why he or she is so angry about something. Yes, this tale took place in a Communist dictatorship, but that's not enough to excuse banal and propagandistic art- try enduring the pap art most Latin Americans proffer.
By the time Kieslowki made the Three Colors trilogy he learned that a film cannot exist merely for political critique. The critique has to be an organic part of the film, and while all three films in the trilogy have political messages, none are as blatantly propagandistic as this film's heavy-handed message is. The third major flaw with the film is its pacing and construction. The film starts off with its enigmatic lead character screaming, and the camera following down his craw, then switches to a jumble of scenes from his boyhood which, only later, gel, and then not totally. Among them are scenes of his father drilling him in math, a parting with a childhood Jewish friend named Daniel, an encounter with a family friend, and he and his brunet teen girlfriend Czuszka being ridiculed by passersby in a bus as they walk down a roadside. Then, as a medical student, a blond female student named Olga, who has a crush on him, winces when she sees her former teacher, whom she hated, being used as a laboratory corpse, and cut open. Then, his father dies, and his enigmatic final message is that his son is `under no obligations.' The film is a bit too frenetic and confused early on, even though this start does pay off in narrative twists later on in the film....Critics who cite this film as an example of the butterfly effect are wrong, however, and simply do not understand the philosophical concept. The butterfly effect is about how a specific action can affect future events, not how a series of non-actions- which are what most of the main plot turns on and ultimately what this film is about, affect things. Blind Chance is the inversion of the butterfly effect, not its exemplar, for this film is not about a specific future, but a trio of possible futures. Blind Chance is not a great film, but it is a good one, and superior to its imitators, as well a herald for the future greatness Kieslowski had in him.
For example, the great image in Red, where Valentine and Joseph's untenable love is symbolized by palms meeting across a car's windowpane, is foreshadowed on several occasions in this film, at train stations. There is also abundant symbolism and unique metaphor within, such as a shot, in the first life, of a slinky going down a staircase, then dying, much like Communism was; or in the third life, where two jugglers toss balls back and forth between them, which shows how Witek, who tries and fails to juggle three apples- as well as lives, must ultimately choose just one, and be stuck with it. Such terrific metaphors are the coming butterflies of the Three Colors trilogy, and through their wings the colors light allows would permit Kieslowski his filmic legacy, one which Blind Chance's failures lent inspiration to.

Kieslowski's 1981 film Blind Chance is a groundbreaking work of cinema that has been significantly influential. Basis for two later films--Sliding Doors (British) and Run Lola Run (German)--it depicts three different possible outcomes in the life of the protagonist, Witek, a medical student whose pivotal event determining his life is whether or not he catches a train in Poland, the setting for this film.

While it is more than obvious that this is a truly innovative approach to filmmaking for its time, the filmmaker is far more interested in displaying this unconventional structure than he is in giving Witek--or basically any other character--any emotional depth. Witek makes his choices primarily based on what happens to him rather than making a decision; this is even true of what woman he decides to connect to. Three women are presented in the film, each representing one of the three paths Witek follows.

There is plenty of nude coupling in the film but all this sensuality does nothing to counterbalance the obvious dryness of the film because in no instance do we ever FEEL that Witek is involved in ANYTHING, even intimacy with these women--two of whom are married. In essence, Witek exists to carry out the premise of the film--that our lives are determined primarily by circumstances and not by the decisions we make. It is for this reason that Witek, in fact, IS so passive. He HAS to be that way to insure that the filmmaker's purpose is fulfilled.

It is intriguing to compare this to Tom Tykwer's Run Lola Run which, in my opinion, is a far more involving film. The reason for that is because Tykwer's characters are directly involved in what amounts to a life-or-death situation and the three different outcomes are all gripping because we want to find out if the characters will survive or not. Because of this, Tykwer's characters do everything they can, GIVEN the different circumstances in which they find themselves, to resolve their situation. In Blind Chance, Witek does next to nothing; he acts as a conduit for Kieslowski--both the filmmaker's rigid structuralism as well as his political leanings.

I give this three stars for its truly innovative structure. But this is not a film that grips the viewer. At least not this viewer.