JOIN USWhat should be the relationship of art with society? This is one of the questions posed by one of the world’s most revered director Andrzej Wajda through his last film, Afterimage.
Afterimage is not a biopic in the conventional sense; it focuses on the last few years of Władysław Strzeminski, a leading European avant-garde painter and most famous Polish artist, art theorist in the first half of the last century. The film depicts conflict between Strzeminski (played by Boguslaw Linda) and the Communist regime that destroyed him.
When clashes happen
The film opens with young art students gathered in a picturesque place when their teacher ‘rolls down’ the hill. His one arm and a leg are missing, but he is cheerful and talks with enthusiasm about the art of painting. It appears that the life of Strzeminski is going on well. Next scene shows him in his studio cum apartment. He is about to draw on the canvas when suddenly, red colour engulfs his apartment. A huge banner with Stalin’s picture is covering Strzeminski’s window. To get more light, he tears the banner, which is assumed to be an act against the state. As the police officer knows Strzeminski, he lets him go with a warning.
Then, minister of culture visits Lodz School of Visual Arts, where Strzeminski is a professor, and emphasises on how art must follow the Socialist ideology. Strzeminski questions this, thereby inviting the wrath of the minister. Thanks to his views on art and society, the so-called Socialist government now considers Strzeminski an enemy of the state.
An exhibition of his students is vandalised and an art gallery — founded by Strzeminski and his friends — is closed. The school is forced to release Strzeminski from his post. An artist’s association, co-founded by Strzeminski, cancels his membership, as a result of which he cannot even buy colour to draw. Soon, Strzeminski becomes penniless and is even deprived of food stamps as he has no membership identity card. Lonely and gripped by a deadly disease, Strzeminski meets a tragic end.
The film is stark and poetic at the same time. It is not just about a person’s life, but also about the clash of ideologies. Strzeminski had fought in the First World War, which is how he had lost a leg and an arm, the film suggests. He claims to be a true citizen of free Poland. But when communists start imposing their ‘realism’ on art, he begs to differ. The authoritarian regime decides to crush him for his ‘dangerous’ views. Unfortunately, they succeed.
The film shows the brutality of the regime, which robbed its citizen of his rights and his livelihood too. It portrays how power pushes a liberal-thinking man into poverty and social seclusion in the name of ‘equality’ and ‘socialism’. It is said that Wajda was thinking of this project for almost 20 years as Strzeminski was his favourite artist. Wajda also was a student of the same institute where Strzeminski was a teacher, before shifting to cinema. So the film is more about the ‘mind of an artist’ than just the life of an artist.
The tragedy does not befall upon the protagonist as a part of his destiny; tragedy is thrust upon him by authorities who are not ready to accept a different opinion. Here the film turns political. The sequence where Stalin’s big poster covers Strzeminski’s studio indicates that the artist is being imprisoned, red colour pervading all art forms.
Linear & classic
The film is also a character play. The minister of culture tells Strzeminski bluntly that he should be hit by a tram and shows his ‘culture’. Strzeminski is not to be broken easily. He is ready to fight. But he never betrays his supporters or students. He had a troubled relationship with his wife (Katarzyna Kobro was also one of Poland’s most famous female artists), and we learn more about her through the couple’s daughter.
The film’s narration is linear and in classic style, with excellent screenplay by Andrzej Mularczyk, based on Wajda’s idea. Wajda involves us in the narrative in his masterly style.
The film turns poignant on some occasions. When Strzeminski realises that his end is near, he manages to make it to his studio to get some white flowers and dips them in blue colour. He then takes these blue flowers to his wife’s grave as an ode to her blue eyes. Such scenes bring emotions in the film alive, but this movie is not a tear-jerker.
This is a social, political comment with the universal theme of the oppression of freedom of speech by people in power, so it remains very topical and relevant.