Przypadek, art-film / drama, Poland, 1981 / 1987, D: Krzysztof Kieślowski, S: Bogusłav Linda, Tadeusz Łomnicki, Zbigniew Zapasiewicz, Marzena Trybała, Bogusława Pawelec
Łódź. Witek is pressured by his father to study medicine, but one day receives his father's phone call: "You don't have to do it". Later, his father dies in the hospital. At the train terminal, Witek runs to catch a train... 1st story: Witek boards the train and meets Werner, a Communist who sends him to Adam, a high ranking official. Witek becomes part of the Communist Youth and is sent to end a standoff at a drug addict clinic, where the drug addicts locked three doctors in a cage. Witek frees the doctors and is promoted. He meets his first love again, Czuszka, but she is arrested by Adam for distributing banned books about Polish independence... 2nd story: Witek misses the train, bumps into a the railway guard, is arrested and sent one month of community service, where he meets anti-Communist Marek who acquaints him with a priest. Witek starts a relationship with Werka and becomes religious. But the Communists raid Marek's printing office, and he blames Witek... 3rd story: Witek misses the train, but meets Olga. They get married and have a child. He becomes a doctor. Witek boards a plane to a medical conference in Libya, but his plane explodes.
It is peculiar that Krzysztof Kieslowski released a film about a protagonist going through three different variations / possible outcomes in life, yet was surpassed by later films which improved said concept: Dormael's "Mr. Nobody", Tykwer's "Run Lola Run" and Howitt's "Sliding Doors". The reason for that is that this triple hypothetical outcome is fascinating as a concept, but Kieslowski directed it here in a too sterile, grey, underwhelming and all-around routine way, with overlong running time and monotone dialogue. "Blind Chance" thus works only on the level of the concept, but not on the level of execution, yet still poses some thought-provoking, philosophical questions—would all of our lives have unraveled completely differently if one defining moment had played out differently? Do people have control of their life, or are they pawns in the grand game of determinism, fatalism and chance? Determinism is the obvious in the outcome of all three different variations—even though the protagonist Witek goes into three vastly different directions (in the 1st story, he becomes a Communist; in the 2nd story he becomes religious; in the 3rd, he is apolitical, non-religious, refusing any ideology), all three end up in a tragedy. Even more unsettlingly, just one random encounter with someone who played an influence on him, determined if Witek would become either this or that or neutral, implying that the whole history of each country could have gone differently, depending on who had more influence on the populace. The three different variations of Witek running through the terminal to try to catch the train are directed each in their own way, with different details (Witek passes a lady who drops a coin, a random man picks it up and orders himself a beer, but Witek then either spills his beer or stops to go around him, depending on each story), but overall, the film simply lacks more imagination and creativity.
Grade:++










