MovieChat Forums > Krótki film o milosci (1995) Discussion > Love??? Is everybody blind? This is per...

Love??? Is everybody blind? This is perversion.

posted 13 years ago by Mbulamabe
18 replies | jump to latest

I don't get it. The guy is a pervert, watching other people making love through a telescope while jacking off. He's also a liar, sending false money notes to the woman. That's not love, that's obsession. And before you know it, a crime of passion is in the making. Here, the violence is directed against himself, but he might as easily have strangled the woman. Out of "love". The woman is equally perverted. She knows she's being watched, she has curtains, but she never closes them. She's an exhibitionist. That's also labelled a perversion in most dictionaries. If this is a film about love, it's about distorted, perverted love. At leest, Pressburger's Peeping Tom was honest in it's depiction of deteriorated voyeurism.

[–] philip-138-866631 12 years ago

It's a film about sin. I don't see the love either. I do not understand why people are moved by it. It's a good segment of The Dekalog, but it's certainly not romantic or even healthy. More like A Short Film About Voyeurism.

[–] michelle-halloway 12 years ago

On the surface it looks that way and started off that way but then it changed for him and his motives behind what he was doing changed into something else.
Most people doing this are perverts but this moved me to tears because he was not like other men he was
only wanting to bring love to her, and was young and naive and did not know how to approach her. He longed for her but he wanted to be there as a loving companion not just a sex maniac that is why he stopped watching her have sex.
Sometimes the shifts in motivation of a character can be subtle, he began to see the woman beneath the sexual image the heart that needs love and he longed to give her that love. I was relieved she saw that.

[–] pjbrubak 12 years ago

Beautifully put.

Best damn movie podcast ever:
www.albatrossapplesauce.com

[–] Bladerunner 11 years ago

I don't mean the following remarks to seem sexist, but it seems to me only a woman could write that interpretation. Women are unique in their belief that people can change, moreover that they can change a man. This belief (in some women) is so pervasive and so powerful that they are willing to marry a serial killer, either because they get off on the danger or they believe (profoundly) that they can "change" this man. Any serial killer in prison that wants to be married, can be married. Ted Bundy, Tex Watson and others have all met women while in prison (after they'd been convicted of the crimes) and got married. Why? Because (some) women believe that they can change a man. All the women that married these men I've mentioned believed he "changed" through (in part) their love. I believe that - most prominently - this is a narcissistic feature. These women want to believe that their love is so amazing, so transformational, that they can reform even the most heinous of serial killers.

A friend of mine prefers to consider it more positively as an undying belief in (some) women that (deep down inside) there is good in all men... it is just a matter of drawing it out. Call that the premier assumption of good faith (to the detriment of reality, and/or common sense).

This man does not "change". Instead he comes to the realization that he is incapable of experiencing real love and decides to end it all as a result. This man was not "wanting to bring love to her", he was wanting to have her for himself, but when it came time to close the deal he was incapable of doing that. This impotence is actually quite common in voyeurs and stalkers. They are watchers, not participants and when the time comes to participate, they are unable (or unwilling) no matter how much a woman might "believe" in him.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] tawitti 11 years ago

The first time I saw this film, I think the same , there's no romantic or love in it,just obsession, strange,psycho,pervert.

This film is part of The Decalogue series that based on the Ten Commandments, so I think it's not about loving relationship of man and woman, but it's the love from God ,God loves sinners, so I think this is the point , besides this film is about forgiveness, forgiveness may called Love.

[–] Bladerunner 11 years ago

What an unusual and insightful observation. You may be right about the director's intention. We certainly agree on the motivation of the man. He is a strange, obsessed weirdo.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PoppyTransfusion 11 years ago

I don't think you are in a position to comment on a gender group that, given your view of them, you remain locked outside from. Your post speaks volumes about your bleak view of humanity.

This man does not "change". Instead he comes to the realization that he is incapable of experiencing real love and decides to end it all as a result

No. He believes what the woman tells him about love, in that moment, and she is wrong. She realises her error and that he does love her in the closing scene of the film where she witnesses herself crying. Her view of love is a disappointed perspective on the relationships between men and women, which you might share given your view of women. It speaks about her and none about the young man. He 'knows' her in a way she does not and never can, namely, from the distance of the observer. She does not have that perspective on him until a glimpse at the end and so she has no idea of his heart and capacity for love.

Keep silent unless what you are going to say is more important than silence.

[–] Stijak91 8 years ago

I know I'm late to the party, but I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in.

The thing is, Tomek wasn't impotent. It was quite opposite, he was overwhelmed, he was premature ejaculator. The rest was explained well by PoppyTransfusion.

As far as the film itself, was it love, obsession or perversion? Keep in my mind that things we find acceptable are just social norms which change over time. Tomek is, after all, an outsider, he's not the one to conform to social norms. Judging from the film, he certainly wasn't portrayed as some kind of maniac, but as a confused young man. I think that he certainly was in love, even though it was an unconventional form of love. But hey, who are we to judge him?

Truth is, you're Donny and I'm Walter.
But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be The Dude.

[–] Christopher_Smilax 8 years ago

I don't mean the following remarks to seem sexist, but it seems to me only a woman could write that interpretation

Well I'm male, straight as an arrow if orientation is a factor here , and I sorta had the same thought. I don't exclude any of the main character's perversions but I don't think he should be evaluated solely on that surface.

The main character is rather complex. The fetishistic tendencies are without a doubt noted, but his disconnection from people, rough upbringing, and fondness for her in the latter half of the film speak volumes about his fixation. Perhaps it was love (Given his eventual emotional attachment and his drastic action after she tells him her version of what love is), albeit heavily skewed and uniformed. But that would open a can of worms as to what "love" is to other people, and that could be stretching it a bit.

Or, maybe it's, as described, a "forbidden love" story where obsession and love mix as well as oil and water. I mean it does play into the original theme of sin, no? Perhaps it's not so much love for him as it is desperation and confused obsession, and not so much love for her as it is immense guilt.

It's not easy narrowing what kind of relationship they had, but hey, that makes it all the more interesting.

Howard Hughes was Italian?

[–] Mallet-2 8 years ago

it isn't about romantic love.

[–] gonemoab 10 years ago

Such language. There's a handful of some mighty sanctimonious judgements being handed down by some apparently fine pious folk above...would love to get a look into those shadowy closeted pasts (great films, probably).

People evolved. Didja miss that?

Beer--now there's a temporary solution ~ Homer Simpson

[–] SamoanJoes 9 years ago

I don't think it's about love any more than it is about obsession.

[–] xagezos 9 years ago

I had the same thoughts. But you know, it may be just an approach, who claims the ultimate definition of love? The problem, in that sense, is the film's title.

[–] kawada_shougo 9 years ago

Yeah, you clearly don't get it. Too much Hollywood probably. That's the result.

[–] Smart_Monkey 8 years ago

One of the reasons I love the film so much is that I think that lets you decide whether it was love or not, touching or creepy/wrong. Also, as someone else here stated perfectly, it's no more about love than it is about obsession.

That Really Rustled My Jimmies

[–] Kalvinlying 8 years ago

Tomek thinks he feels love, the woman doesn't instantly believe it. By the end, she seems to have love-ish feelings for him also. Kieslowski's characters are often quite peculiar, far from socially or emotionally normal (or healthy). From characters point of view the story might be about love, no matter how twisted their idea of love seems for the crowd.

I might add that I'm not a huge fan of Kieslowski generally, because his characters are too much of creeps to give me anything to relate to. This was definitely one of his better efforts though.

[–] TheHungryAndAngryShow 7 years ago

I do not how people always equate perversion with only negative things, as if a pervert can't be nice, kind, giving or loving. Many perverts are actually nice kind people, I know, as I am one of them, and I know many very nice perverts. I do not see anything wrong with being a pervert, if you know the difference between being a pervert and ONLY being a pervert. As well as being a pervert I am also someone's boyfriend, a dad to two very wonderful dogs, a friend to many people, both perverted and not perverted, and generally speaking, a pretty nice guy. I do not see why this idea is hard for most people to fathom.