MovieChat Forums > Krótki film o zabijaniu (1995) Discussion > A few questions regarding the final scen...

A few questions regarding the final scene.

posted 18 years ago by Zombie55
15 replies | jump to latest

Just recently viewed this 1988 Polish drama from the acclaimed director Krzysztof Kieslowski once again. I've got a few questions, however, about the "killer's" final fate - the execution.

1). First of all, do you think he really deserved to die? Does ONE murder, regardless how senseless it might be, actually justify the sentence of an execution? In Poland, by the way, are all convicts on death sentence executed by a method of hanging? And do you think that, perhaps, a more competent lawyer could've somehow got the man a less cruel form of punishment?

2). In the final gruesome part showing the nasty detail of the execution, do you think that was gratuitous or necessary? Sorry for a stupid enquiry question, but it WAS a liquid excrement that was dripping out of the murderer after he was hanged, right? Do you know, from a medical point of view, why it was dripping out of him immdeiately after he was hanged? Did you find this scene extremely repellant or was it alright with you?

3). They didn't quite show in the movie how the murderer (played by Miroslaw Baka) was actually caught by police and found guilty of the crime? Did he decide to just give himself up and tell the police about how he murdered the taxi driver and where he buried the body? Do you know?

4). Where and how do you think the executed convict will be buried?

[–] gwailo247 18 years ago

I think that the director's point was to show us the killing and the execution in the most realistic way possible. He showed everything with unflinching reality and let us make our decisions. So:

1. Are you asking from a moral or legal standpoint? From a legal standpoint, one could certainly argee that a person who can just kill another human being for no good reason should be removed from society. Whether this be through life imprisonment or execution is another story. From a moral standpoint, depends on your morality. I think at the time all executions were either hanging or firing squad, I don't think they messed around with lethal injections or electric chairs. The rights of the criminal aren't as much of a concern there as here.

2. It was completely neccessary, just as it was to watch the taxi driver get strangled for 15 minutes. This was death. No romance, no sentimentality. Pure realism. I guess you're referring to the loss of bowel/bladder muscle control after death, which is exactly what happens after a person is hanged, but you almost never see this portrayed.

3. Wasn't really relevant to the plot. This was not a detective movie.

4. In a grave.

[–] sridharisreddy 18 years ago

1. The killer had shown signs of lonliness through the pictures of the girl (Marisya?) and the playfulness he showed with the girls outside of the coffee shop. He seemed to be reaching out for some kind of love, be it from a dead girl or by taking a girl he liked to the mountains.

So, despite his sociopathic nature, he is still a social creature, and his desperation to gain compainionship can even be seen as a driver for his actions. To therefore deprive him of all human interaction and contact, in solitary confinement, would probably be a greater punishment than killing him outright. If in solitary, his life would be over, regardless. This is a brutal punishment, to be dead while still alive.

What's troubling, and what Kieslowski shows, is the complete disregard to understand a man, whether he is good or not, as a human being. Just as the cat is hung for the temporary satisfaction of the children in the opening shot, so is Janeck hung for the temporary placating of the state.

2. It was indeed necessary, so that we understand that capital punishment is as brutal a practise as murder.

3. I suspect his girlfriend turned him in, and the taxi gave a face to the victim. Either way, it doesn't matter.

4. I would like to think his body was turned over to his family, where they chose to handle him appropriately.

[–] AngryAfghan 18 years ago

in response to the question regarding the excution method in Poland, i believe it used to be hanging but this film was made in 1988 and in 1997 Poland abolished the death penalty for ALL crimes and is also party to Protocol 6 and the 2nd optional protocol under EU law since 2000 (ICCPR), so no one will ever be executed in Poland again, not even for treason.

[–] paluccici 17 years ago

thank you for posting this AngryAfghan. i couldn't actually believe this guy thought :
"The rights of the criminal aren't as much of a concern there as here." for it's now exactly the opposite if i consider guantanamo a good argument
thinking that overseas in europe we're all living on trees and applaud to a "firing squad", i'm quite upset how easy i can identify gwailo247 as an stereotypical american...

[–] abc_and_d 17 years ago

The rights of the criminal aren't as much of a concern there as here

What gives you the right to say something like this? We all know what the US government is doing in Guantanamo. Well, in Poland (even 20 years ago) they still gave people the right for a fair trial before they locked them up, unlike what the USA is doing in 2007! And we all know what life is like in prisons where rape, drugs and stabbing are a part of daily life (just recently watched a series of documentaries on the subject). And right now no European country practices capital punishment whereas USA insists on murdering even under-age criminals. So I don't think you have the right to talk about the rights of criminals "here" and "there".

Oh by the way, you either didn't watch the film or completely missed the 4th question. The original poster meant if he would be buried by his father and sister like he wished and asked his lawyer or if the burial place would still go to his mother as originally planned.

If you men only knew

[–] gwailo247 17 years ago

Maybe your experiences in living in Poland at that time were different from mine, but I stand by what I wrote. You remember martial law? I sure remember a lot of people detained for their political affiliations in the late 80s, and they sure as hell didn't get a trial.

But I do allow for the fact that maybe I didn't watch as many documentaries as you, so my knowledge of these things might be flawed. I guess I should watch more TV before I go around telling other people what they do or do not know.

===

The quick bronw fox jumps over the lazy dog

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] caponesque 16 years ago

1. Yes I'm for capital punishment as I believe all serial killers, rapists and paedophiles really do deserve to die. And yes he only killed one person but it was done so horrifically and for absolutely no reason that he did deserve to forfeit his life. And remember the victim's family and friends lives are wrecked too. A murder doesn't just affect the murdered remember.

2. Necessary to show it. Had to shock the audience and as Kieslowski's whole raison d'etre for this film was to be AGAINST cap-pun then it had to be shown to initiate potential political change in Poland.

3. I was annoyed too that we weren't shown the police investigation and how he was caught. We weren't even shown the trial either which to me was a cop-out (much like the ending of No Country for old men too!) and it would have helped the film along. But I suppose it would have been over 2 hours then and have to be re-titled 'A Long Film About Killing'! lol

4. Don't really care but if he's made a will and told his lawyer he wanted to be buried with his dad and little sister, then that's his final wishes and so hopefully his ma would have let him.

[–] mac_alain 16 years ago

Yes I'm for capital punishment as I believe all serial killers, rapists and paedophiles really do deserve to die. And yes he only killed one person but it was done so horrifically and for absolutely no reason that he did deserve to forfeit his life. And remember the victim's family and friends lives are wrecked too. A murder doesn't just affect the murdered remember.

Depressing to see the impact, or rather lack thereof, this film had on you.

Luckily, the vast majority of countries, the US being one of the notable exceptions, have moved away from your stance on the subject. So there is hope then, thank God.

[–] caponesque 16 years ago

Oh sod-off you do-gooder.

So if the taxi driver had been say, your father or brother you wouldn't want to see the murderer dead like your family member instead of out of prison to live his life again in a few decades?

Clearly YOU missed other aspects of the film too so don't patronise me you moron!

[–] mac_alain 16 years ago

So if the taxi driver had been say, your father or brother you wouldn't want to see the murderer dead like your family member instead of out of prison to live his life again in a few decades?

You got it in one, I wouldn't. But I would like to see the murderer in prison for life.

Oh sod-off... ...you moron!

I rest my case

[–] Anscules 15 years ago

jeepers, folks. who cares about the police investigation. this movie has other fish to fry. besides, it's very clear in the film, and i can't believe it hasn't been mentioned here, that the murderer takes the taxi to show it off to the girl the taxi driver had been oggling earlier. she even looks at the car for a second and you can practically see her thinking, "hey, this isn't right... what is douchebag B doing in douchebag C's car?" showing an investigation after that would have been completely pointless.

"Rampart: Squad 51."

[–] flaming_yeti85 15 years ago

Agreed. Having an investigation would have been pointless, we already know who killed who, so watching other people figuring it out would be unnecessary and would have completely derailed the film from what makes it so amazing and poignant.

[–] WarpedRecord 14 years ago

1) No one cares about my viewpoint on this topic, and I prefer to avoid these hot-button issues anyway.

2) I didn't find it gratuitous, and while it wasn't necessary, it was a fitting detail. I suspected that was the reason for the pans we saw earlier, and this confirmed it. I've heard that this is pretty common when someone dies and they lose control of their bowels.

3) That of course is left to the viewer to decide, but I suspect the woman turned him in after he showed her the car. If she hadn't, I think he would have because clearly he had a conscience. It was rather jarring to go from him showing off the car to him being sentenced.

4) I'm sure the lawyer would ask his mother if he could be buried next to his father, but this seemed like an odd topic for the final discussion because presumably these details would have been arranged ahead of time. It does raise the issue, though: Where will his mother be buried, because now all the family plots are apparently taken?

[–] boywithmachine 12 years ago

What dripped out of the murderer at the end wasn't excrement. It is frequent for hanging to produce involuntary erection and ejaculation. From the wikipedia entry:

'Death by hanging, whether an execution or a suicide, has been observed to affect the genitals of both men and women. In women, the labia and clitoris will become engorged and there may be a discharge of blood from the vagina. In men, "a more or less complete state of erection of the penis, with discharge of urine, mucus or prostatic fluid is a frequent occurrence ... present in one case in three." ' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_erection)