|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
The List_of_HIV-positive_people entry refers to Kieslowski as being HIV-positive. If true, this should be included.
- It's not true. The only source for this appears to be the not very credible Hello magazine. It could be a misunderstanding from something Kieslowski said about communism. He said that fighting communism didn't make you immune against its influences. This was like doctors fighting against AIDS. They were not immune either. Denis Diderot 09:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Since the rumor has gotten around pretty widely, I think it would be appropriate for our article to mention it and explain how it got started, if Denis or someone can explain that more specifically. WP is a good place to debunk stuff that gets passed around without attribution on the Internet. Unfortunately, in this case WP has also helped to spread the rumor via the above-mentioned list. ←Hob 04:07, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
Could someone please clarify the pronounciation? Many people are intimated by seven consecutive consonants! I heard a Polish interviewer on The Decalogue refer to him as "Keezhtaff Kizhlovski".--Adoniscik 16:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I speak about ten words of Polish, but as I understand it, for English speakers: rz is roughly equivalent to the sound of the "s" in "treasure" (think "zh"); sz is like "sh", and the accented s in Kieślowski is also like "sh"; and w is like "v". So, more or less, "Kzhishtoff Kyeshlovski". His first name is the equivalent of Christopher. ←Hob 03:31, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
What does the silent man symbolise?
What do you think,what does the sylent man (Dekalogue) symbolise?
- Not sure if you're serious with this question and if so, you probably figured the answer out by now, but regardless the silent man could represent God. Ten Commandments and all. Cheers. Igorrr 11:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
IPA or sound file
A audio file or an IPA spelling would be helpful. however, if I'm not mistaken his name is pronounced (kzh-i-shtof kyesh-lov-skee)
- Soundfile has been taken care of, I don't know anything about IPA. Fwend 21:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I have added some items and made a correction or two from the list given in the Region 2 Artificial Eye releases (specifically on my copy of Camera Buff). Unfortunately, the font used their takes no account of accents, so my additions in Polish are liable to be inconsistent with the rendering of other entries in the list. Philip Cross (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
In the book Kieslowski on Kieslowski, Kieslowski himself refers to The Scar as it being Socialist realism, not Social realism. He also makes a remark about the Socialist realism movement-produced movies depicting realism how the people funding them want the 'realism' to be depicted and not how it really was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I must admit I'm quiet new to editing in Wikipedia, and there might be some Wikipedia policy about birth places in occupied countries that I don't know about yet, but it seems wrong to me to say that Kieslowski was born in Warsaw, Third Reich. I don't think that's what his passport said. It's not like a new country was created or changed its name, no, an existing country was invaded and then, 6 years later, somehow "liberated" (though invaded by another nation, but that's another discussion). I don't think there are many persons born in Warsaw during World War II considering themselves as being born in the "Third Reich". Therefore changing it to Warsaw, Poland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElectricSheep 456 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect source for quote. Does the quote even exist?
I could tell just by reading this quote that it was incorrect from what I've read of Kieslowski:
"I am not a believer. For forty years I have not entered a church."
The source of the quote is supposed to be Danusia Stok (ed.). Kieslowski on Kieslowski. Londom: Faber & Faber. pp. 149,150. I have the source in front of me now and the quote is not on those pages, nor is it anywhere in the book. I searched for the words "forty years" and "believer." I found many instances of "forty years," none of "believer," but not the quote itself. I think whoever attributed the quote to that source knew that it was incorrect but did it anyways since this article needs citations. Obviously the person did not read the source.
Here's the portion of pages 149-150 where Kieslowski talks about God:
- I think that an absolute point of reference does exist. Although I must say that when I think of God, it's more often the God of the Old Testament rather than the New. The God of the Old Testament is a demanding, cruel God; a God who doesn't forgive, who ruthlessly demands obedience to the principles which He has laid down. The God of the New Testament is a merciful, kind-hearted old man with a white beard, who just forgives everything. The God of the Old Testament leaves us a lot of freedom and responsibility, observes how we use it and then rewards or punishes, and there's no appeal or forgiveness. It's something which is lasting, absolute, evident and is not relative. And that's what a point of reference must be, especially for people like me, who are weak, who are looking for something, who don't know.
- The concept of sin is tied up with this abstract, ultimate authority which we often call God. But I think that there's also a sense of sin against yourself which is important to me and really means the same thing. Usually, it results from weakness, from the fact that we're too weak to resist temptation; the temptation to have more money, comfort, to possess a certain woman or man, or the temptation to hold more power.
- Then there's the question of whether we should live in fear of sin. That's an entirely different problem which also results from the tradition of the Catholic or Christian faith. It's a little different in Judaism; they have a different concept of sin. That's why I spoke about a God of the Old Testament and a God of the New. I think that an authority like this does exist. As somebody once said, if God didn't exist then somebody would have to invent Him. But I don't think we've got perfect justice here, on earth, and we never will have. It's justice on our own scale and our scale is minute. We're tiny and imperfect.
Even if Kieslowski did say that he wasn't a "believer" in this context the quote would be misleading at best - he obviously believes in some sort of "god."
Coincidentally, when searching for "forty" I found the relevant AIDS quote:
- Communism is like AIDS. That is, you have to die with it. You can't be cured. And that applies to anyone who's had anything to do with Communism regardless of what side they were on. It's irrelevant whether they were Communists or anti-Communists or entirely uncommitted to either political side. It applies to everybody. If they've been exposed to the system as long as they have been in Poland - that is, for forty years - then Communism, its way of thinking, its way of life, its hierarchy of values, remains with them and there's no way of expelling it from their system. They can expel it from their minds, of course, they can say they're no longer sick. They can even say they've been cured. But it's not true. It stays inside. It exists, it remains and there's no way of getting rid of it. It doesn't particularly trouble me. I just know I've got it and know that I'll die with it, that's all. Not die of it, die with it. It only disappears when you disappear. The same as AIDS.
There should definitely be a section on Kieslowski's anti-communism. That is extremely harsh.
I'm removing the attributed quote until someone can find a source.
- I just found this about the quote in question: Cinema, Religion, and the Romantic Legacy By Paul Coates. Here's an exchange between Kieslowski and the interviewer:
- [Sobolewski:] There is one thing one can say: in The Decalogue faith is not linked to any denomination. And yet the question 'are you a believer' lurks in every interview. The La Suisse newspaper posed it too, and you replied: 'I haven't been to church for forty years now'.
- [Kieslowski:] I do not remember the question well. There have been many others like it. I recalled the common definition which describes a person who attends church, who subscribes to a denomination, a believer....For me, belief in God has little in common with the church viewed as an institution. My reply to this question is that I have no need of intermediaries. What is more, I think the majority of us have no need of intermediaries.
- Apparently the original quote was from the La Swuisse newspaper. I'm not sure if Kieslowski actually says he's not a believer, but we have him here clarifying those remarks. The quote is misleading and Kieslowski's clarification should be quoted instead. Perhaps something along the lines of "Kieslowski has said that he does not consider himself a "believer" in the sense of needing an institution, a "church," to affirm his belief. Although this position is similar to that taken by Protestantism, Kieslowski does not describe himself as Protestant." Something like that! Kieslowski is difficult to pin down on this. A quote from the same source, by the author, might suffice:
- If Kieslowski's position may be aligned with an extreme form of the individualism often associated with Protestantism, it nevertheless eludes categorization as 'Protestant,' since 'Protestantism' itself functions institutionally.
- Yeah...just quote that! I am now going to bed. For anyone that wants to add the quote and source: Google Books - Cinema, Religion, and the Romantic Legacy By Paul Coates
- Calends (talk) 06:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- After reading the Coats (Google Books link above) source again I notice that Coats quotes Kieslowski as saying that he's NOT a non-believer, so the mangled quote I removed should stay removed. As far as I can tell, Kieslowski never said he was "not a believer" or a "non-believer." I'm willing to be proven wrong though.
- Calends (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Calends, thank you for removing the unreferenced quote from the article. Regarding the "extreme form of the individualism" quote, I do not see it adding anything to the article, and should probably be left out. The current statement—"retained what he called a "personal and private" relationship with God—accurately captures his relationship with God as he himself described it. Bede735 (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)