thou shall not steal... what?

Reader, you have been warned; take care - 
There are spoilers you must beware.


Dekalog, siedem (1990)
       Dir: Krzysztof Kieslowski

Dekalog 7 is Kieslowski's exploration of the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shall not steal". Majka, the plain, overlooked daughter of an exacting and imperious mother, attempts to kidnap her sister and run away to Canada with her. It's a believable story and a touching one, because Ewa is a controlling and insensitive mother, and Majka feels thoroughly left out while Ania, the little one, gets all the attention and the love. That it pulls the hearstrings isn't excuse enough, though, for kidnapping to be right or justifiable. You cannot steal, and that is that.

But what is stealing, really? Taking away something that does not belong to one with the intention of never returning it? How would we decide what is ours? If, for instance, Ania were Majka's child instead of her sister and she attempted to run away with her, would that be stealing? Can Ewa steal Majka's right to motherhood? Can you steal something that is yours?

That last question is the one that the film primarily deals with. The ending seems to suggest that you can, and that you will be punished for it. For Majka is discovered and runs away on her own, and Ania is returned to Ewa and her husband Stefan. The act of stealing, the film seems to suggest, is contingent not on the stolen object, but on the mind that steals. If one feels one is stealing, despite excuses and justifications to the contrary, then perhaps it is stealing. The intention is the telltale factor; not legally, but morally.

The brilliance of the film is not in the conclusion it draws (for it draws none that is concrete; what is above is mine), but in the exploration of the factors that surround that one tiny act of stealing. What must you keep in mind while 'stealing', and specifically, while stealing a child? Is Majka's torment at her lost opportunity for motherhood (for Ania refuses to call her Mummy) sufficient justification? Does Ewa's being an unyielding and unforgiving mother mitigate the wrong? Is it wrong at all for Majka to take her child away from a setting where she, as the rightful mother, is not allowed to make the decisions for and about her child?

The torment that they face is written beautifully in the actors' faces: Majka, as the cheated girl-mother, the worried and possessive Ewa, the kindly but ineffectual Stefan, the confused Wojteck (Ania's biological father) and the innocent Ania, who does not understand the undercurrents but feels them. Action and retribution don't interest Kieslowski; the reasons for action and degrees of right or wrong do. For him, it seemed to me, the context had to be clear.

Stealing had to be evaluated based on the context it took place in. There are instances when Majka is reprimanded for kidnapping Ania, not because it is wrong, but because it will do no good for the child - that the child's needs must be placed before Majka's while evaluating that act. I think, here, Kieslowski questions the nature of love as well. If Majka loved Ania as much as she claims she does, should she have stolen her? Must love place the needs of the beloved before that of the lover, or is it all right for the emotion to be selfish, controlled by one's own need and desire?

The film ends, I think, on a non-judgmental note. Right or wrong it may be to steal, even if what is taken by you is your own. Right or wrong it may be to refuse to yield, believing in what is good for others. Right or wrong it may be to demand from life what you think should have been yours. What is unchanging in everything is human nature; its existence and functioning from and through supreme selfishness and need (in this case, for Majka's lost motherhood), even in love. Man is limited and controlled by the selfishness and the needs he entertains, for it dictates all action, and brings all kinds of happiness and suffering to him.