FILM / Blind Chance and Transnational Cinema / Öykü Cengiz
Image © Zespol Filmowy "Tor"
To create an identity, nations focus on who they are and who they aren’t. This form of identification is directly linked with the concept of the other. This is because nations do not always define themselves according to who they are, but they also focus on who they aren’t. This way, there is an identity forged according to the other. The national identity that is dynamically created means it is not a solid one but a changing one. So, within the concept of national cinema, the concept of the national character is altered with time and breaks its limits through transnational cinema. In his article, Higson defines and redefines the concept of national cinema. From his theories, the transnational cinema can be examined with the movies Blind Chance by Kieslowski and Run Lola Run by Tom Tykwer. In Blind Chance, Kieslowksi alters the national identity of the national cinema, one sided storytelling, and uplifting messages that creates passion to work for one’s country, making the movie an example of transnational cinema.
The national identity is altered with the characters’ diversity among the Polish nation. According to Higson, the national cinema creates identities in this way: “Actively working to construct subjectivity as well as simply expressing pre given identity” (44). Here, Higson is talking about the objective of the national cinema which is to demonstrate a national identity. Witek, the protagonist of the movie Blind Chance, does not fit in this form and becomes a transnational character. His characteristics and the decisions he makes does not demonstrate a solid national identity. On the contrary, Witek is involved in, affected, and shaped by both of the divided parts of the ideologies of Poland: the ones who side with the government and the communist youth. This way, Blind Chance can be considered a transnational movie. Furthermore. Higson argues that “Nationhood is always an image constructed under particular conditions, and indeed nationalism itself” (44). Here, there is a fluid national identity due to time affecting the nations. However, there is still a model Polish identity that is mobile. Kieslowksi demonstrates these moulds that the people are locked inside with this scene from Witek’s punishment after assaulting a government worker in the train station:
Image © Zespol Filmowy “Tor”
Here, the Polish citizens are punished for crossing the border. These borders are laws. Now, they are put back in the structured borders of the areas marked with white. Furthermore, these marked areas symbolize the moulds of Polish national identity. The punished individuals are like children who are born into the world which is symbolized by the garden. However, they get to work, play, or exist within the constructed borders of identity. They are not free to exercise their free wills to have individual characters and destinies, but they are confined within the borders. Thus, Kieslowski’s Blind Chance can be argued to be a transnational movie with the characters who are diverse and make attempts to cross the borders.
Alongside with the diverse characters, the one-sided storytelling of the national cinema is altered by Kieslowski. As Witek makes his choices with what he is given, he shows the stories of the other side: communist youth. According to the populist discourses, national cinema is usually one sided. Movies like Saving Private Ryan are examples of how the audience gets to see and side with only one side of the war. The other side, which is the other that the national identity is defined as who they are not, is either not shown or monsterized. That way, the national cinema creates the populist discourse. Higson defines this discourse as: “A cinema can only be national, and command a national-popular audience if it is a mass-production genre cinema, capable of constructing, reproducing, and re-cycling popular myths on a broad scale” (45). Here, Higson argues that popular movie genres such as war movies that are within the borders of national cinema, exploit the market and demonstrate the national pride of one’s country. This pride can be used as a source material for the motivation and passion to work for one’s country. However, this establishment of national pride with national cinema requires a one-sided view so that the country which made the movie is always on the right side. Thus, it makes one proud to be part of it and eager to accept the national identity. However, Blind Chance carefully demonstrates the two opposite sides. As the government is corrupted and seeks total control over the citizen’s liberty, the communist youth is no less of a fascist ideology. The cage scene in the hospital is an example of how Blind Chance exceeds the borders of one-sided storytelling of national cinema:
Image © Zespol Filmowy “Tor”
Image © Zespol Filmowy “Tor”
Here, the communists of Polish society are putting the doctors and eventually Witek into cages. So, the government puts communists in prison cells and the communists put the government workers into cages. As the audience follows Witek’s decisions and their consequences, we see that the two sides are very similar and faulty. There is no best option for Witek to acquire personal autonomy, protect his individuality, and be free in the sense of social government citizenship. In that sense, Blind Chance is an example of transnational cinema because the one-sided storytelling that brings pride to the national identity is transcended.
When it comes to the choices one can make, Run Lola Run by Tom Tykwer and Blind Chance by Kieslowski are very different even though they use a similar storytelling technique of showing the results of different decisions. Run Lola Run is about the choices Lola can make within twenty minutes. Every coincidence and chance leads up to a consequence. The movie is techno, fast-paced, and has an artificial aesthetic with animation scenes. It takes place in contemporary Germany that is free from communism and united. Lastly, there are good choices and bad choices. If Lola can make good decisions, she achieves her goal and the movie ends with a happy ending. However, Blind Chance is about one incident that leads to Witek having two different lifetimes: to catch the train or not. The movie is slow paced and depressed with the communist-Polish aesthetics. Not every decision Witek makes or every coincidence has important outcomes. Also, there are no good choices that will lead Witek to have the best outcome. The fact that the movie does not end with a happy ending like Run Lola Run demonstrates the lack of choices to determine different fates. There is very little control over one’s destiny because the individual is surrounded with dead ends and there are very little changes that are possible to make. This is the predetermined fate motif of the movie and is linked with embracing religious values as a form of rebellion against communism. Thus, even though they are similar in the story-telling techniques, Run Lola Run and Blind Chance are very different when it comes to the individual autonomy, ability to determine one’s fate, and diversity of choices that have different consequences.
Lastly, the lack of uplifting messages in Blind Chance can be argued within the concept of transnational cinema. Higson explains the relationship between governments and cinema in this way: “Since the mid 1910s, governments began to recognise the potential ideological power of cinema, and cinema itself could seem to be something like a national cultural form, an institution with a nationalizing function” (43). Here, Higson argues that governments may use national cinema for their propaganda. One of the uses of cinema is to give uplifting messages, especially to the young people who are the targets of governments in order to gain them as citizens with national identities. However, in Blind Chance, Kieslowski alters this usage of making the youth believe in to work for a better tomorrow for a nation:
Image © Zespol Filmowy “Tor”
Here, Witek is carrying a globe in his hands. With the scenes following the one that is above, Witek struggles to carry this globe as he makes a run. The audience can feel the overwhelm of Witek and the burden of the globe. In that sense, the globe symbolizes the troubles of the world crushing down the youth. The world is a burden the youth carries wherever they go. It also halts their speed as they try to run away from things. What comes down to the youth metaphorically with the determined fates, very few options, and the situation of the world, is demonstrated with the globe Witek carries in a literal sense. The transnational aspect of Blind Chance is revealed here as Witek is carrying a globe, not a map of Poland.
Overall, Blind Chance by Kieslowski is an example of transnational cinema. Higson’s arguments for the national cinema can be used to explore how Blind Chance exceeds these national borders both metaphorically and in a literal sense of the movie being popular in the world’s market. With its comparison to Run Lola Run, Blind Chance is similar when it comes to decisions and coincidences leading to different outcomes. However, there are major differences of freedom to change and control one’s fate. Lastly, Blind Chance transcends the national identity of the national cinema with characters who do not fit into one category, breaks the one-sided story telling, and removes the uplifting messages with its depressing aesthetic and the demonstrated burden of the youth.
Öykü Cengiz is a Western Languages and Literature student in Boğaziçi University, Istanbul. She is 22 years old. She has been studying Early Modern aesthetics, posthuman literature, and world cinema.
