Love and Compassion in Three Colors: Red

This is an attempt to give my opinion that cannot be perfect or finite in any way on the film by K. Kieslowsky, the last of the trilogy. For me, this work of art is highly intuitive therefore its interpretation cannot be finite. It is a psychological and philosophical venture of Kieslowski`s into human relations, emotions, feelings, intuition, subtleties of relations intertwined with thoughts, and something left unspoken. More specifically this film deals with the relations between men and women. Or rather one possible relationship forming between a young woman and an older retired judge.

There are two stories running in parallel and we are presented the one with Irene Jacob and Terntignan as the main story. This story seems anxious and impossible. From the beginning of the film, we are kind of misled into thinking that this is a film about a romantic relationship. However, it is not. This film is totally out of any genre. It is like I mentioned earlier psychological and philosophical. I can apophatically say what this film is not.

It is not about the typical romantic relationship between an older man and a woman, some passion that evolves, with a tragic or happy outcome. It is not about misunderstandings or stubbornness of the characters, it is not about people who refuse to change because it is their pride that prevents them. It is not a film that criticizes the lack of genuine interest in people, coldness, or lack of love in relationships. 

The first story that opens the film is about a young literature student and a ballet dancer who is in love with a man that obviously does not love her. Therefore his character is not represented in the film. We can only hear his voice on the phone when they have conversations, usually meaningless conversations.  His obvious lack of love and commitment makes him kind of unfit to be presented in the film as any crucial charater, just a marginal minor one, really, which de facto he is.

The other story is, to me, a possible love story of friendship between the character of Irene Jacob (Valentine) and the young future judge. Maybe it is an anticipation of what might be, and at the end which ends on a hopeful note, we are left to wonder and chose for ourselves, whether they end up together or not. I think this story serves as a mirror image of what could be, while the main story is the real one that drives two characters towards the light. This second story is a hopeful light-bearing possibility. Unless they ruin it.

I do not thing that the hopeful ending has any bearing on the whole story. I think it seems irrelevant how the film ends. What is important is everything in between. What is important is the characters and not the plot. The plot here is a servant to the characters. They need to learn, they need to come out from the darkness into the light and that implies truth. They need to truly see themselves for who they really are and they can only do that not by being isolated from one another but by being led to one another by "fate'. The need to speak out the truth to be able to help one another. It basically means, that if you want to evolve as a human being, towards being able to truly love your neighbor, you need to go through a painful change starting from knowing yourself. Sometimes self-knowledge comes from the other.

So we see the retired judge sitting in half gloom of his lonesome house isolated from the lies he had to face as a judge and from the mistakes he had to make in the process. I guess the meeting with Valentine sets his lying spying world on fire by the kindness of her heart - by simply pitying the miserable state of his soul. There are two questions here. Why does she keep coming around to him and why does he not turns her pity down with resentment.

I think the answer to these two questions lies in the very director of the film. Because he is the omniscient writer of the script who happens to know his characters better than we ever will, so he lets them learn and change. He lets them confront each other in humbleness, and not in pride. That, for me, is the key to understanding the psychological, philosophical and for lack of a better word, religious sides of this film. Religion is not being actually, mentioned or important but nonetheless remaining in the undertow.

Like in the case of Tarkovsky it is the same with Kieslowski truly religious people do no brag or give public displays of what they believe in. They live it to the audience to perceive it within the context or not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJhx4XGz6Jc