Przypadek (1987) Online

This film should be seen as one of Kieslowski's best. It is structured in three parts, each representing a different outcome of a single chance event (Tom Tykwer flat out stole this idea for his great movie Run, Lola, Run -- I'm not complaining, though). Kieslowski uses this singular situation in which the viewer realizes that where you are in life is largely due to chance to pose philosophical questions about how an individual should deal with his surroundings.

Within the context of the socialist police state of Poland at that time he asks us if we are supposed to fight the system we live in, be part of it and change it from the inside, or whether being happy in life is the one thing we are actually responsible for? In other words, is it worth fighting against everything we don't like? Is accepting it no different from selling out? Should we just try to make the most of it? Kieslowski gives us no answers, which is why this film, as well as all other Kieslowski films I have seen, seems so honest, so true to life. The only honest answer to the hard questions is "I don't know"

The film is also graced with careful, subtle characterizations, beautiful but gritty camera-work, a true comprehension of human emotions as well as of human conflict, and the style and brilliance of a man who truly understands.

I know this: Kieslowski is a master.

The recent romantic comedy 'Sliding Doors' postulated what might happen if a character caught, or did not catch, a particular train. But master Polish film maker Krzysztof Kieslowski had had this idea twenty years earlier, and in his film 'Blind Chance', he used it to much more serious purpose: to explore the interplay of chance and character in the fate of a man. At the same time, he painted a picture of Poland in a state of flux (the film was made during the period of martial law, and duly suppressed for five years); and of the way the same moral choices confront everyone, albeit in different forms. The film lacks the high artistry of his subsequent works, but his ability to distill the essence of life into minimalist drama is already much in evidence. The stark awfulness of the communist regime may have aided him in this, as evidenced by the looser, more mystical nature of his final, French-set work. But his greatest achievements, the openly political 'No End' and the perfect morality plays of the 'Dekalog', can each be seen as natural extensions of the themes of 'Blind Chance'.

In the film's final scene, an aircraft takes off, but to us, it appears as if it is sinking into the earth. The world of cinema is poorer without its director and his bleak, poetic visions.

No way I could read the previous terrible review and not comment.

This film is outstanding and is a must-see for anyone interested in films by Kieslowski and films of this era. It is also a great film for non-film buffs who are interested in the experience of Eastern European Communism.

This movie formats the ethical problems of living under/in Communism better than any professor or history book. You don't have to have an intricate knowledge of communism, ethics, or of post-WWII Polish history to enjoy the film. But you have to follow each scenario closely. You can't doze off or leave the theater. (I would think that the 3-in-1 format alone would be enjoyable for the average viewer--who should be able to clearly delineate the basic dilemmas in each setting.)

Those who did not live in Poland or Central and Eastern Europe can probably not fully relate to the multiple ethical obstacles daily life presented and the existential nature of it all. However, we all have choices to make in our daily lives. Although in a totally different setting, we all must make a choice to join, resist, or withdraw in various stages of our lives.

I would strongly encourage anyone to view this film. I would also encourage the previous reviewer, and any viewer of the film, to watch it more than once.

Having read a few negative comments on "Blind Chance", I felt compelled to express my opinion on what has become one of my absolute favorite films. I'm surprised to find that some Kieslowski fans, especially those who appreciate the colors trilogy, don't understand "Blind Chance." In my opinion, "Blind Chance" encapsulates many of the ideas and themes Kieslowski later explored in more detail.

However, "Blind Chance" is, ultimately, a political film. Although Kieslowski never really considered himself a political film-maker (compared to some of his contemporaries), "Blind Chance" is very much driven by political undercurrents and the outcome of each scenario has a decidedly political aspect. That said, the film transcends the immediate political situation in Poland as well and elevates "politics" to a much broader all-encompassing level. It is really not Polish politics that concern Kieslowski here, but the human being's capacity for taking action. Each scenario presents a possible course of action (or non-action). Kieslowski doesn't seem to endorse one course over the other, but makes a much broader statement about the need to take action, to believe in something, and to fight for something. What one is fighting for, what one believes in, ultimately isn't as important as the fight itself.

A brilliant and highly thought-provoking film. In my opinion, one of Kieslowski's most accomplished and densely-packed works. I hope that anyone who didn't appreciate "Blind Chance" will give it another chance (I've watched it at least ten times). It is not the most accessible film, but the pay-off is worth the effort.

In 1981 in the troubled Poland, when the father of the medical student Wietold Dlugosz (Boguslaw Linda) dies, he asks one year leave to the dean of the university to rethink his vocation to medicine. He decides to travel to Warsaw, but while running after the train in the station, three possible events happen. In the first possibility, Witek reaches the train, meets his former sweetheart Czuszka (Boguslawa Pawelec) that belongs to an Anti-Communist underground movement and joins the Party after saving hostages of protesters in a building. In the second possibility, Witek is caught by a guard in the station while running to catch the train and reacts, being sent to the court and sentenced to thirty days of community work. He joins the group of students that are against the system, publishing papers in an underground press. While his comrades are arrested by the government agents, Witek is having a love affair with the sister of a childhood friend and escapes from prison; however, his former companions believe he is a traitor. On the third possibility, Witek does not reach the train and decides to return to the university and conclude the medicine course. He marries his girlfriend Olga (Monika Gozdzik) and they graduate in the medical school. They become successful doctors and Witek accepts to travel to Paris to present the lecture of the dean, who was disgraced with the Party when his son was arrested in a movement against the government. The three serendipities do not bring happiness to Witek.

The original "Przypadek" discloses three possible lives of the lead character Wietold Dlugosz in the turmoil of Poland in the early 80's. The beginning of the movie is a little confused and even boring since there is no previous development of the characters or the political environment of Poland in that moment. However, the plot becomes clearer and engaging when Witek runs to catch the train. The first movie that I recall showing alternative life is certainly Frank Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life" (1946). However, Krzysztof Kieslowski uses a totally different context in his story, but later in 1998, Tom Twyker with "Run Lola Run" and Peter Howitt with "Sliding Doors" made rip-offs of Kieslowski's idea. This theme is very attractive since most of the people have certainly had at least one daydream supposing what if he or she had made a different choice in life in the past. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Acaso" ("Chance")

When seeing this movie I had 3 disadvantages: I am not Polish so I could not completeley identify with the scenario. I do not speak Polish and I lost a lot on the poor english translation that is not even my native language. Lastly, it was very late in the night and I was exhausted.

Yet, this is probably one of my all time favorite movies eventhough I am not a loyal Kieslowski fan. The subject of the movie is what makes the whole difference. A very interesting issue about life that I am sure is bothering a lot of people in the world. Very human plot with a lot of symbolic scenes. Do not expect to fully grasp the idea by watching it only once. And absolutely do no refrain from watching this movie at all, if you are a serious movie watcher. I give it a very enthusiastic 10.

This is no doubt one of my most favorite films of all times. It has a great screenplay filled with powerful and true characters. The cast is just great. And the gloomy atmosphere of our country back in the seventies...

The only flaw that I can think of is the fact that this film is probably very hard to understand for non-Poles as it is so very... Polish. And although the message the movie tries to convey seems to be more universal, you probably cannot get the whole of it if you were not born in a country located between Russia and Germany.

And if you compare this one to last year Peter Howitt's flick "Sliding Doors"... See how films of similar content can differ?

This is a very very good film. Here, Mr. Kislowski managed to show the life of an ordinary man who lives in a very troubled time. The film in fact has three shorter stories, each has the same beginning and then we see the possible outcomes of each. Witek Dlugosz, a medical student, is running after the train to Warsaw, trying to catch it. In the first variant, he catches it, comes to Warsaw and suddenly becomes involved in the political turmoil of the 1981's Polish strikes and anti-Communist movements. Seems like Witek doesn't understand fully what he does, anyway, he shows real courage when saving the hostages from the mental institute. He becomes somewhat of the ruling Party's darling, so when his friends are arrested, he is untouchable and retains his freedom. The 1st story ends with Witek's fit of fury at the airport, just before the flight to Paris. The 2nd variant shows Witek becoming one of those protesters, so he is in the middle of the struggle, but his sudden love affair miraculously saves him from the arrest, but however pays him his status in the eyes of his companions. The 3rs film shows Witek as a prominent doctor, he is well-known and respectable, but when he starts his flight to Paris, the plane explodes. All in all, the film is a great work, it does show every minute of common people's lives, their fears and pain, their small joys and tragedies. Young Boguslaw Linda, who plays Witek, is a superb actor, his delivery is smooth and excellent. Highly recommended for all those who like films not about politics but about common people...

What difference does a fraction of a second make? In baseball, it's the difference between a home run and strike three.

In the Olympics, it's the difference between a gold medal and 10th place.

In the movie Blind Chance, it's the difference of a lifetime.

An example of expert craftsmanship by Krzysztof Kieslowski, Blind Chance affords us the rare opportunity to see how a blip in time, a mere split second, can profoundly affect a person's current situation, and the path their life will take from that moment forward.

While the significance of sliced seconds is shown, we get to enjoy some quality time with the communist party, the anti-communist underground, some lovely ladies sans attire, and a mob of disgruntled drug addicts. We are also treated to one or more Slinkies going down stairs alone or in pairs. Indeed, it's quite a blend of characters, motives, and ideologies. However, it is not the point of the film to take sides, make moral statements, or ponder idealistic philosophies. The point is merely to illustrate its premise.

Let there be no doubt that the premise is more than adequately served. From top to bottom, beginning to end, Blind Chance is a fantastic film, an entertaining drama that encourages thought, while not being overbearing.

Just be sure to pay close attention, because a fraction of a second can also be the difference between understanding this film and missing the point entirely.

Blind Chance (Przypadek, 1981) is the first of Kieslowski's films to trade upon explicitly religious themes and seems to mark the beginning of the great director's turn toward introspection and the spiritual realm that so characterizes his later work (especially Decalogue and the Three Colors trilogy). The Polish title could be literally translated "coincidence," an appropriate if possibly ironic title for a three-part film about a young man whose life course appears to be solely determined by his ability or inability to catch a train. Kieslowski has his doubts about such coincidences, for he described the film as "a description of the powers which meddle with our fate, which push us one way or another" (Kieslowski on Kieslowski, ed. Danusia Stok 113). Incidentally, this film inspired Peter Howitt's film Sliding Doors (1998) and Tom Tykwer's Run Lola Run (1998), but to my mind, Kieslowski's is a superior film. The original tends to be the best, and he is a true original.

I think one has to have some sense of history about both east European communism and film to have an appreciation for this film. This theme, of alternate Universes remains popular and tried today in films like Butterfly Effect and others.

Nasim Taleb wrote a book called Fooled by Randomness that deals with this subject as well. We are, to some large degree, the product of our environments and those environments throw us curves and choices everyday that affect our lives.

Krzysztof Kieslowski (KK) gives us a glimpse into how easy these Universes split in just the details surrounding the catching of a train, which is a common experience for most Europeans.

Consider yourself, in your own life how some little detail made all the difference. Who you sat next to in a class and how they became your spouse or best friend, the close call car wreck that could have ended it all for you. Nassim Taleb calls those events when they happen a 'black swan'.

Black swans can be good or bad wrote Nassim to me once but I prefer to think of black swans as rare and tragic events, gray swans as near misses and white swans of something fortunate.

Witek encountered all of those swans, as do we. He continued to keep true to himself (as he lived out each reality) and in the end the same black swan awaited his fate regardless of what happened in between. The flight to Paris was always in the cards for him.

This is a very interesting movie. Whereas "Blue", "Red" and "White" were rather commercial, "Blind Chance" is much more interesting. This is due to the excellent plot where the same story is told three times. Like in a sort of time-travel we are allowed to see a person's life three times. What would have happened if he didn't make the train? This excellent idea is perfectly expressed in a Milan Kundera and Orwellian "1984" political description of Poland around 1978. The movie examines the human condition and whether it is fate, God, ourselves or chance that creates the world. It asks the ancient philosophical question: "Who is responsible?" A truly awesome and thoughtful work of art which is highly recommended to everyone who loves movies, and to those who would like to learn more about an important historical period in a very interesting place.

Blind Chance is at once a morality tale, an ambitious specimen of philosophy, and a vacuous deterministic dirge. Within the first thirty minutes we're introduced to Polish medical student Witek Dlugosz (Linda) who is attempting to catch a train to the belabored strings of Wojciech Kilar's soundtrack. He passes crowds and obstacles including a elderly woman and a man drinking a beer. The film then prongs into three possible outcomes, each dramatically changing the young students life. In one scenario he catches the train and becomes a member of the Polish communist party. In another, he misses the train, runs into the railway guard, is arrested and joins an anti-communist student group. In the third scenario, Witek misses the train but bumps into his lady friend Olga (Gozdnik), they live a life of apolitical domesticity before tragedy strikes.

I don't feel it's a spoiler to alert the audience that in all three scenarios tragedy strikes. In fact tragedy strikes so often that the fatalism imbued throughout made me wonder what the fellow with the beer was up to. Even the events before the fated train ride has Witek's father passing away. In each scenario Witek comes across three possible lovers and three possible father figures, all of which force Witek to accept a version of truth in bad faith and he always ends up damaged goods.

And who is Witek for that matter? What foundations do we have to truly know a person whose deeply felt political beliefs can be so drastically changed by the catching of a train? We get a quiet moment with Witek and love interest #2 Werka (Trybala) where Witek retells the history of his family; how his great-grandfather took part in an uprising or how his grandfather fought the soviets etc. Yet even in a moment of heart-to-heart we're always calculating where Witek's place is in the larger picture, unable to grasp at what would otherwise be an emotional scene. There's a ring of hollowness to everything he does simply because we're always aware he's chained to his fate. He's not so much a character as he is a vessel for Kieslowski's cold and cobbled thought experiment. Thus when we get to the nexus of Kieslowski's political message, the structure with which it's based on falls apart.

While being a thought experiment, the film does give it's audience a pretty interesting tour of post-martial-law Poland. In the late 70's and early 80's pro-democracy movements sprouted all throughout the countryside. In 1980, the largest group was Solidarity, a self- governing labor union that at one point constituted one third of the total working population of the country. The single party communist state saw Solidarity and various student movements as threats to their power and on December 1981, Poland banned such organizations, instilled a curfew in major cities and sealed national borders. While martial law lasted until 1983, the resilience of opposition activists led to flagrant and open protests in the mid and late 80's. We all know what happened next. If you're looking for a much more comprehensive history lesson, may I suggest Andrzej Wajda's Man of Marble (1976) and Man of Iron (1981). As it stands Blind Chance's clever inserts of contemporary history are just that, clever inserts.

Amid the history and the slow, prosaic plot lies a strong political statement that has been completely undermined by the film's framework. I expected the somber humanism that made the Colors Trilogy (1993- 1994) so engrossing yet what I got was the blunted causal pessimism that similarly plagues A Short Film About Killing (1988) of it's message. Don't fall for the hype on this one.

Generally speaking the work of Krzysztof Kieslowski can be divided into three sections: the first division is genre-based; short and full-length documentaries he made in Poland from 1966 to 1978, the second consists of his Polish fictive features from 1973 to 1989 and the third division is his international production 1991-1994: The Double Life of Veronique and The Three Colours trilogy. Przypadek or Blind Chance obviously locates in the second division: fictive Polish features. The twenty documentaries Kieslowski made played a huge role in his work, most of them were banned but they had their influence on people - mostly through illegal tracks. The documentaries by Kieslowski indicated his incredible talent to choose and delimit all which was expressing and essential in the subject. Even after he became world famous with his fictive features his heart belonged to documentaries (1979-1980).

It is very important to remember that Kieslowski made a lot of documentaries and the tremendous influence they had on the progression of his art. Krzysztof Kieslowski decided to make Blind Chance when he noticed that there was no accurate descriptions of what Poland was in the 1970's: "Not even in literature, even that it was much easier to produce than films because censorship didn't control it." He realized that he had came to a situation where he needed fiction to support 'pure documentary'. "Blind Chance isn't a description of the outside world as it is of the inside world. It is a description of the forces that guide our destiny, forces that push us to one direction or another." - Krzysztof Kieslowski.

Witek's father dies. Witek runs after a train to Warsaw and we are shown three different variations what might happen: First when he gets to the train he by chance becomes a member of the Communist Party, comes across with his first love who is now an underground activist. Witek falls in love but also "accidentally" informs the girl. In the second variation he misses the train by few seconds, runs into an officer and beats him up. He gets sentenced to community service where he meets a man fighting against the Party, who distributes illegal books. Witek meets his childhood friend and joins the underground. In the third variation Witek also misses the train by a few seconds; meets a woman he knows at the station to whom he falls in love with and gets married with. One day Witek accepts to help a friend of his and regardless of his wife's request travels to Warsaw. We see the plain getting off ground and blowing up in the air.

The character of Witek is quite interesting he is a very honest upstanding young man. He behaves forthright in every situation he comes across with, even when he joins the Party. At one moment when he realizes he should act like an arsehole he rebels and behaves forthright. Coincidence is the core of fiction - the heart of it which is very hard to achieve and most of the films that are too 'set-up' don't even get near it, and this is where the important part of documentaries comes in. Blind Chance gets into everything without forgetting the social circumstances of the time. Blind Chance is direct discussion about the structures that are falling apart, how can man believe in a thing which has been so destructive for him; but it also offers us an inside look at the Party.

Blind Chance is about the choices we meet each day that can end our days or change the direction of our lives completely; but yet we are totally unaware of these possibilities. "We never know where our destiny is hidden. We don't know what coincidence has got for us." This is how Kieslowski talks about his thoughts when making Blind Chance in his interview book Kieslowski on Kieslowski. The paradox of love and freedom was a leading theme throughout the work of Kieslowski but it culminates in The Three Colours trilogy (especially in Blue). With regards to this, Blind Chance can also be seen as a study of freedom, at one level: in the world of emotions we are quite free, we are able to make our own choices much more easily compared to social world where we are guided by coincidence. There are things that we just have to do, or things that we have to be. These two very different worlds, which collide each day are the two worlds Kieslowski studies in Blind Chance.

Pessimism was always the main color in Kieslowski's films and it is important to notice that Witek never gets a happy ending. When he is political and joins the Party, he loses his love and when he works for the underground, against the Party he also ruins everything up. Kieslowski has said that he is very unpolitical, it is obvious that humanism is the only true ideology for him. "The third variation, where the plane blows up means the most to me, because in one way or another it is the destiny of us all. No matter whether it happens in a plane or in our bed." - Krzysztof Kieslowski. To my mind the film shows that there is no destiny which leads us, there are certain things that delimit our freedom - which is an illusion to Kieslowski, but coincidence is the force that guides us. Just as in Fritz Lang's Destiny (1921) in Blind Chance the only inevitable destiny of us all is death.

The triple alternative plot-line sounded so enticing -- but its execution is a disappointment.

First of all, as the Chinese fellow reviewer said, the idea of a triple plot-line is far from novel, so trying to accuse, say, Tom Tykwer of "pilfering" it from Kieslowski, is absurd. I do not believe that _It's a Wonderful Life_ belongs in this group; it only has a *double* plot-line, and it is only *imagined*, in retrospect, as well.

But O. Henry's exquisite, classic short story, "Roads of Destiny"? Why, of course! There you have it, almost a century before Kieslowski's _Blind Chance_. O. Henry's story was turned into a play and then, in 1921, into a Hollowyood silent movie (lost today) -- and funnily enough, the male hero was transformed into a female hero, giving Pauline Frederick the opportunity to shine in a female leading role. Also, O. Henry's original locale and plot elements were completely changed.

So, as we can see, this is pretty standard in art: you take something created by a former artist, and you shape it into something new, allowing you to express yourself. That is *not* theft -- it's being *inspired* by those that went before you.

I confess I enjoyed both O. Henry's short story, and Tom Tykwer's superb _Run Lola Run_, far more than Kieslowski's ponderous treatment of the triple plot-line in _Blind Chance_. _Run Lola Run_ could be seen as the *antithesis* of _Blind Chance_: where _Blind Chance_ is slow-moving and dreary, _Run Lola Run_, corresponding to its very title, is fast-moving and furious, moving at a break-neck speed throughout; _Run Lola Run_ is the embodiment of energy, vivacity, and colourfulness -- while Kieslowski's _Blind Chance_ is the epitome of the drab era of the floundering Communist regime it depicts. Yes, _Blind Chance_ was shot in colour, but it creates such a drab impression it may as well have been shot in black-and-white. Which, perhaps, might have lent some originality to it: "Communist film noir, anyone?" The drabness is intensified by an almost total absence of humour of any kind in _Blind Chance_.

I find fault with Kieslowski's treatment of the topic, especially the main hero. I do not find his psychology convincing. Kieslowski suggests that the same man, depending on whether he catches a train or not, might well have developed into polar opposites of one's own personality. A career Communist, an oppositional activist, and an alibistic middle-class person indifferent to politics -- all these 3 personalities are very well possible within the development of a single person, Kieslowski suggests, simply as a result of an accidental occurrence in that person's life.

Sorry, but I'm not buying it. The 3 Witeks in _Blind Chance_ are like 3 different persons. In contrast, in _Run Lola Run_, Lola remains Lola the entire time. She is constantly herself, only reacting to whatever circumstances "blind destiny" may confront her with. I find *that* believable. Ditto for O. Henry's "Roads of Destiny": the main hero remains true to himself in each of the 3 plot-lines; although he is led to the same invariable outcome in each of the three stories, he does so by remaining true to himself -- not by being the opposite of oneself, as concocted by Kieslowski.

I also disliked the direction in _Blind Chance_; to me, the actors' performances in this movie represent "fake naturalism". It's as if you were constantly observing people ostentatiously trying to behave in a "non-ostantatious" manner, if you know what I mean. I love Ingmar Bergman's movies, because the actors in them typically behave in such an unaffected manner, as opposed to the typical Hollywood movie. Kieslowski seems to be somewhere in between: the actors here strive to create the impression of being "unaffected", yet that very effort makes them seem *affected*. For an illustrating moment, see the scene where Witek is looking out a window, then steps away quickly from the curtain, so as not to be seen from outside. Oh, my... he may as well have attached a surprised mien, of the Hollywood variety, to that theatrical posture.

As to the film's subject matter, it offered no redeeming quality to me. I lived through those years under the Communist regime (although in a neighbouring country); I do not need to remind myself of them. Yes, _Blind Chance_ captures the despairing atmosphere of all-pervasive dullness precisely (awful fashion, too), almost in a documentary film-maker's manner. But I expect something *more* out of art, instead of simply *replicating* a bygone era, long past now, thankfully.

Some of the aspects of _Blind Chance_ struck me as pointedly "fake". Okay, so the second Witek personality develops into a believer, and a Catholic activist... and an adulterer at the same time? Erm, it's certainly possible, but... Another false note was the copious arbitrary female nudity in _Blind Chance_. Witek has 3 lovers in the 3 plot-lines, and the ladies practically totally expose themselves (from the front, and from the rear) in the stories. Fine, I take it that this was shot in 1981, when full female nudity may still have been perceived as somewhat of a novelty on film (perhaps particularly so behind the Iron Curtain) -- yet the effect this creates today is decidedly sexist. The last thing I desire is to see Bogusław Linda naked, but camera-work that only exposes females and never the male in sex scenes, while perhaps a courageous and commendable effort back in 1981, is so old-fashioned and awkward when seen today. Either give us all-out, honest nudity (although it doesn't need to go to the extremes of Paul Morrissey's _Trash_), or just forget about nudity; decades of great film-making could afford to forgo nudity. As it is, it appears as if the cameraman of _Blind Chance_ wished to be titillating while remaining reasonably "chaste" at the same time; again, creating a faux effect.

The brilliance of this film is that its structure leaves these things up for interpretation.

In the days of late 70's communist Poland, a man studying to be a doctor finds his life's studies brought into question by the death of his father, a cold man who always wished for his son to become a doctor but in his final words claims that he wants his son to decide for himself. Our protagonist decides to take leave from his schooling and is headed for a train to Warsaw.

This begins our story as we watch three different possibilities play out. One where he makes it to the train and two where he does not. What ensues is a philosophical journey into our own minds and capacity for choice as we watch Witek navigate his way through each reality.

There are parallels in each narrative, each has a different love interest as well as a different father figure. In the first reality, he meets a father figure in a communist man on the train who convinces Witek to join the Party in Warsaw. He eventually runs into his first teenage love and the two begin an affair but its revealed that this love is involved in the resistence. In the second reality, his missing the train leads him into a scuffle with a police officer which lands him in community service where he ends up joining the resistance as well as finding Christ as he finds a father figure in a literal Father of a small cathedral. In hosting a gathering for the resistence, he runs into two childhood friends who are siblings and begins an affair with the sister who has a husband back in Denmark. In the final reality, he misses the train again but this time runs into a love interest he had in medical school. The two reiginte their affair which convinces Witek to continue his pursuit of an education. This time he finds a father figure in the dean of the school who he becomes a sort of mentor to. He is tempted to join both the party and the resistance but declines, prefering the tranquility of domestic life having now married and had a child.

In all three realities, Witek is left with sadness but the final reality sees him pay the ultimate price, his life.

Kieslowski never considered himself as standing on either side of the political spectrum in the late 70's of Poland and thus Blind Chance ends up being a fairly portrayed rumination on communism, resistence, and political indifference. He shows is the folly in all three ideals but seems to suggest that indifference is the only stance of the three that is unforgivable.

What I loved most about this film is how it's beginning sequence only makes sense once you've reached the end. We see Witek scream as the camera zooms down his throat and the title card appears. No doubt, an incendiary way to open a film. What follows are short bursts of what we later find to be memories. His birth in a war-torn hospital that sees the death of his mother and twin brother, his childhood friends leaving Denmark due to their Jewish heritage, his teenage love affair, and his romantic evenings with a fellow med student. This opening can be read as a highly stylized way of putting us in the perspective of our character, especially because this is the only part of the film where characters look directly into the camera. But it can also be read as the final moments in Witek's mind as his plane from the third reality explodes in midair.

So if the opening really is Witek's life flashing before his eyes, then what follows can be read as a spiritual odyssey through alternate realities, giving him a look at what could have been before the end.

Perhaps his soul is mourning the ways he could have cheated death, but the first two realities show us that no matter the circumstances, fate has a plan for us. Sure, Witek doesn't die in a plane accident in the first two realities but we see that he still falls in love, still finds a father figure, and will still die.

Through Witek's naivety, we see how easily he is swayed one way or another in the first two realities. Both of these realities end in betrayal which seems to suggest that if we do not stand up for ourselves as individuals, we are left to be dragged along by the winds of life. This is why all the endings are so pessimistic, i think.

We know that this was the film that tore Kieslowski from his more political works, to his works about fate and chance and i believe that makes it a highly interesting and utterly essential film for anyone of any walk of life. If you open your mind to the philosophical musings of this film, you will come out the other end reflecting upon your own life and finding the film as a cautionary tale of what happens when we let life drag us along instead of taking it for ourselves

Kieslowski could perhaps be properly compared to Kierkegaard. Both thinkers celebrate faith (rather than religion or dogma). Indeed, both are deeply suspicious, even fearful, of organized social movements, spiritual or otherwise.

Kieslowski was a Christian, anti-communist in socialist Poland when and where he made this film. I hate the artist's ideology, but cannot help but be drawn to his philosophy: chance determines identity, which is to say that chance determines the way in which this world will scar you, shape you into the damaged creature you are. Here we see chance determine three parallel lives for one man, but all end in some ruin or another: be it ethical, romantic, or mortal.

We must all take the leap into the abyss, but chance determines the precipice to which we must sacrifice ourselves.

Tom Twyker's "Run Lola Run", Peter Howitt's "Sliding Doors", Lord Dunsany's play "If", Frank Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life" and O Henry's short story "Roads of Destiny" are in the family members of this Polish flick. The structure is a beloved one of keen story-tellers as they can twist and turn of their story in uncountable ways with the same beginning or backdrop or development or ending. Viewers also love this genre because it satisfies, at least some parts of our imagination or extension. What matters the most for this structure is the content and the plot of the story. I just wonder why such a juicy flick has not been shown in the movie-house (well, perhaps I missed that before... anyway). A kiss to the VCD distributor.

It takes much courage to release "Przypadek" under the ex-communist regime of Poland. What can one do in a totalitarian state? Though you may still have choice, politics-wise, the philosophy of "If you can't beat them, join them." doesn't seem to be effective for the first two scenarios. Whether to join or to beat, suffering is expecting you. Thinking that one can escape from the extreme duality to abstain? Sorry, sorry, one may circumvent the political troubles but not the uncertainty of life: the plane explodes in the air! The seemingly peaceful life of the doctor in the third scenario was diverted by a small ignition of fire.

No matter what life path you prefer, there is consequence. So, take it easy, just live on according to, well, your liking or conscience or preference or whatever you believe. Life goes on.

but I had no idea how, for example, this guy went from medical school to central command committee member, for example. I totally didn't know what was going on most of the time in fact. I wasn't at all aware that there were "conclusions" to the stories that each had a period before the guy went to catch the train again...the whole thing was very opaque with matters of which I have absolutely no knowledge and so I watched it with eyes glazed over and finally at "FF1" so I could read the titles but the thing would move along a mite faster. I had absolutely no clue, for example, as to why his taking an official trip to Libya to deliver lectures on behalf of his mentor would preclude his ever leaving the country again, what the crux of that dilemma was, although the way in which things turned out to be the case could not have been clearer!

I could not resist but add to the comments for this film since it has stuck in my memory since catching it quite unexpectedly on late night tv and thinking this was something really extraordinary. And having seen others of Kieslowski since I don't think anything for me, has surpassed this. And possibly that Sliding doors and run lola run may take from this...i But I would like to hear from Poles living in Poland. (sulac?)

What did one reviewer mean by saying that we could not understand fully? i know that is probabaly true and would like to know

Who on earth chose the one negative (and plainly entirely ignorant) review to appear on the main "Przypadek" page? Don't believe a word of it. This is a complex, serious and rewarding work that will only appeal to people who have managed to realise that art and entertainment are not necessarily the same thing. I think that this is actually superior to Kieslowski popular later films which can often descend into sentimentality and indulgence - I'm thinking especially of "The Double Life of Veronique" and "Blue" which their ludicrous music-related plots centred around Zbigniew Preisner's vacuous and amateurish scores (this will make me enemies for sure - but, believe me, I come at this for a highly informed perspective).

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.

I have no way of knowing for certain but I would suspect that there are quite a few movie buffs like myself who have seen and enjoyed both the Double Life of Veronica and the Three Colors trilogy and maybe (though not in my case) part or all of the Dekalogue but are only now, thanks to their appearance on DVD, discovering the earlier works of Kieslowski. Having thoroughly enjoyed No End recently I was disappointed slightly by this roughly contemporaneous effort though it's easy to see where 'Sliding Doors' emanated and also - according to those who have seen it - Run, Lola, Run. Although I accept that it was almost impossible to make a film in Poland 30 years ago without a heavy political content it is that content that tends to throw the philosophical element out of balance. Okay, it's a metaphor for the choices and/or lack of choices we face and/or evade/reject every day but two out of three of the lives that Witek winds up with are overloaded with politics - in one he joins the Party as an active member, in two he suffers at the hands of the Party - and as if to stress the irony in three, where he rejects politics completely in favour of love he enjoys but a brief mayfly moment of contentment before winding up on a slab with a tag on his toe. In sum: a nice idea soured by laboring the points. 6/10

Haven't seen every Kieslowski film yet, but of what has been seen all ranges between very good (the 8th episode of 'Dekalog') to masterpiece ('Three Colors: Red' and 'Blue' and the whole 'Dekalog' series). To me, he was an immensely gifted director, who died far too early.

While perhaps my least favourite feature film of his, that is in no way denouncing 'Blind Chance' because, while it is easy to see why viewers may be challenged by it, it is still a great film. Its weak spot is the first 20 minutes, it is slow and with too many random scenes with too many characters equally random which did confuse me. However, as someone who does not believe in bailing out on a film and who never judges a film without seeing the whole thing, being an admirer of Kieslowski I stuck with 'Blind Chance' and it was completely the right decision.

Despite its alienating start, 'Blind Spot' is typical Kieslowski and is both fascinating and rewarding.

Kieslowski's films are all visually striking and exceptionally well made. 'Blind Chance' is in no way exempted from that. As well as being beautifully shot with atmospheric use of colour to match the mood, it is gritty yet beautiful with many thoughtful and emotionally powerful images lingering long into the memory. Kieslowski's direction is quietly unobtrusive, intelligently paced and never too heavy, and the music is suitably intricate.

'Blind Chance' makes the most of its ingeniously structured story (not exactly a new concept, but one of the best uses of it, not a surprise as Kieslowski was a master of narrative construction), with typically rich themes and complex characters with compellingly real situations and relationships. It's a very thought-provoking film and is as thoroughly engaging as it is challenging, just don't be thrown off by the beginning. How it ends, which is essentially the point of the film, is very powerful. The acting is as always from Kieslowski marvellously nuanced and natural.

Overall, a great film, initially perplexing but fascinating when stuck with. Might give it another watch sometime and maybe the beginning will fare better on re-watch. 9/10 Bethany Cox

A brilliant film about what happens when a polish director's idea is appropriated by the movie Sliding Doors and nobody is the wiser until they buy a Kieslowski box set and start working their way through.

Well, this is another deep moral tale written and directed by Kieslowski. Rates a little lower than Camera Buff for me because the main actor wasn't as likable. Seems like a grower, though, that you would discover resonances between the three stories the more you watched it. Also, you have to wonder if something funny is happening in your life when it starts giving you multiple versions of your day...

8/10 on first viewing.