In a casual film viewing experience, we see lots of murders on screen and we are so habituated about on-screen mimicry of supreme violence that hardly any of those brutalities bother us anymore. Of course, it’s partly due to the manner these killings are portrayed. A hero is mowing through a bunch of villains that are supposedly done some heinous crime and he’s making quick work of them—in such a scenario the kill scene would seem not only quite acceptable but also expected in such a film. We might even praise the choreography of the killing scene and how well-executed it is. John wick can be a good example.

However, great films do mirror the real life, unlike what Hollywood force us down our throat every single day. And the act of murder can weigh on the perpetrator heavily. It is a point of no return. A junction of let loose and abstinence. Polish auteur filmmaker Krzysztof Kieślowski (better known for his film trilogy Three Colors) depicted the inner doings of a young killer, born of his own guilt and mad at the world. Coupled with him, the young lawyer, who happens to have the case as his first criminal court case—naïve and unsure what his emotional responses should be, despite knowing his duties while defending the young killer. And then there’s the judicial system of the country, brutally methodical in their judicial process and execution, and it looms over the young killer and his defender, as an inevitable undoing.

It should be noted that while the film is named as “A short film about killing”, it is a feature film running about 1.5 hours and it expanded the fifth episode from an acclaimed tv show, Dekalog (which I am a fervent enthusiast of and I believe it is the greatest Tv show ever made), also directed by the filmmaker himself.

These attached scenes are screenshots from the film.

The film is shot in a particular style, the frames are murky, tainted green-ish, often focuses on the characters on screen and follows their actions, and actively avoid the surroundings. This pulls the audience’s focus in turn to the expressions of the characters, resulting in a very personal sort of film. We can sympathize with the characters as if we are there with them. The lawyer who is thrown into a losing battle where his fresh ideals are bruised, the indecent taxi driver who we can despise yet in the final hour of his life, we don’t want him to go that way. Even with the protagonist of the film (or antagonist I should say), the killer, a trauma-injected anxious young man who seemingly derives pleasure from others' misfortunes and in the end ends up killing the taxi cab driver. We go through him throughout the entire process, the restless wandering through the street, the strangles and finally bashing the head of the dying man, who faintly could appeal to the killer's merci. The scene is slow, it is not rushed—the filmmaker wanted us to weigh the gravity of the deed itself, how monstrous it is. And we see the killer trying to free himself in his final bashing of the head, not as much as to exalt the joy of killing, rather trying to be done with his own misery, to escape his predicament and be done with it. Perhaps he was aware by then, that he’s gone too far.

If you are wondering about spoilers, well, if you are really worried about spoilers, films like this aren’t for you. Having said that, I didn’t exactly reveal the whole film. What I discussed should be enough for any interested individual who might love a crime drama art film.

The film puts forward a bunch of questions about the murder of an individual as we, the audience get a few glimpses of a realistic murder, while being presented with the killer, his motives, his remorse, his fears the angle of the judicial system. What we ought to think, where we stand morally and what would we do if we were on a jury team in the trial—are up to us.
Happy watching.

---