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.
