Kieślowski: The Dialectic Duality | Film Essay

Please Note:
This is my review of the film and not an upload of the film in its entirety. The clips used are heavily edited and most of them narrated over top of, showing only amounts that are necessary for me to be able to make my points about the film. My review is for purposes of commentary and criticism and is considered Fair Use by both KZbin and Federal Copyright Law. My usage of the clips does not legally require the copyright holder's permission and I have every legal right to upload the heavily edited content. For further proof and information on Fair Use, please refer to: www.copyright.g.... and additionally • CIS Fair Use Legal Exp... Thank you for taking the time to verify the clips to see that my usage does not violate copyright.
Hit me up on Twitter!:
/ blfilmreviews
Check out the Bucket List Reviews fb page:
/ bucketlistfilmreviews
For my personal film work, visit:
jibran-khan.de

[@georgerichardson7728]

His films stay with you, long after viewing them, that to me is the mark of a great Director, he makes you think like very few ever do nowadays.

[@akhilraj7885]

which movies are fav of his

[@mrpeech1]

Far from being overly complex, very nice video and thank you for uploading. If people are complaining of 'heavy' they should read some of the critical literature on Kieslowski. It will take a lot longer than fifteen minutes.

[@jacekbroniszewski8399]

Excellent overview and analysis of Kieślowski, it was a joy to watch! ❤️

[@Neuroneos]

Very high quality video. Subscribed.

[@cheeseandonions9558]

Ordinary life can have so many traumatic events

[@kamal2005kant]

Superb thanks for introducing a new director in my life

[@Reza.Pezeshki]

Goo job, very analytical review, thank you

[@felooosailing957]

Very interesting video. I believe that the point of Blind Chance is precisely not the truth of the middle ground but its falsity: through both alternate opposite paths (communist and fanatically religious), Witek asumes either one of the sides of Polish duality, and is therefore only so in such a position as to be able to approximate something real: the middle ground is precisely the one where nothing happens, he resumes his life as he should have and does really nothing worth commenting It is a case of precisely what Hegel would call a false Aufhebung

[@sarsedacn]

Very well made video. I really enjoyed the analytical arguments you made. I have to be pedantic to your approach towards "Hegel's dielectric" which is commonly attributed to him but as a matter of fact was there before him. Hegel almost never used those terms. The closest idea you can get to Hegel is what he calls "Aufhebung" and it certainly is not a duality! All together I didn't understand the emphasis on Hegel in the video. I'd have loved it without any quotes and parallels.

[@bucketlistreviews6593]

Hi. I think I mentioned in the video that the concept of "Dialectic Duality" is purely Kieslowski's construction. His pre "The Double Life of Veronique' films highly borrow core ideas of Hegel's Dialectics (Opposing stances, Historical progress etc). But with the "The Double Life of Veronique', Kieslowski branched into his own ideology which I credit it as 'The Dialectic Duality'. You're right that Hegel doesn't associate himself with Duality and I'm sure I didnt made that mistake in the video. "Dialectic Duality" is perhaps Kieslowski branching into his own school of thought.

[@bellafallaaa9524]

this was great! thank you!

[@AutomanicJack]

everyone who is much interested in movies should watch Kieslowsky movies once in their life.

[@thewandering525]

Pretty good. You don't need the memes.

[@RMT192]

Kieslowski, Welles, Renoir = level 10 > level 9 Kubrick, Copolla > level 8 Scorsese, Hitchcock, Tarantino, Tarkovsky etc > Everyone else.

[@Neuroneos]

Forgot Bergman and Fellini in your 10 zone, Kurosawa, Resnais and Bunuel in your 9 zone, and Cassavetes, Murnau, Herzog, Godard and Antonioni in your 8 zone. Also, I would add a level 7 zone with Haneke, Polanski, Varda, Fassbinder, Dreyer and Ozu. Also, Tarkovsky deserves to be in the level 10 zone, if not level 11.

[@lnvenum]

Let me add kiarostami, wenders, rohmer, eisenstein, vertov, ray, marker, visconti, pasolini and bresson to the above mentioned. Also, tarantino shouldn't be on that list at all. Why even make levels like these though? Most of them made great films and they all did it their own way.

[@shakuntalalivneh8742]

And what about Angelopoulos and Satyajit Ray? A level of their own. Actually , there are no levels. There are only great film makers and great films all on a level with each other.

[@neburarieiv]

Tarkosky at the same level as Tarantino? They’re completely different directors.

[@zarkoostojic9063]

Well put!!!!!! I would also add Polanski, definitely master of craft.

[@jgerardo231208]

too long, and heavy, i couldnt finish it... i dont think that u need to do a synopsis of every film, name of actors etc...also u can condense a lot of stuff, like that photo of the "universe"... and use a more simple vocabulary... the cuts and images are cool though... thats my humble opinion

[@tigerji]

no.

[@justynapaulinac.8889]

Kieskowski movies are rather heavy. It’s hard to make a simple analysis of such structured movies

[@morbiddiathesis4428]

You should probably stick to Michael bay movies.