Double Life of Veronique - Kieslowski

Kieslowski’s 1991 “The Double Life of Veronique” is the kind of movie that leaves behind a trail of colorful images in your head long after the credits have rolled, as well as a feeling similar to after you heard your first really good ghost story.
From the title and initial few scenes, the “double life” seems be lived by the character of Veronika. We assume this because her “twin” does not enter the movie until much later in the movie. Because of this, it’s tempting to pick apart what we see of Veronika, in order to try and find dualities. One of these might be her extreme sensitivity when she sings. While existing physically here on earth, singing with her high school choir, the look in her eyes suggests rapture – that she is here and somewhere else at the same time.
Later we see her kissing a man in an underpass while it is raining. I believe this is the first time the ethereal green backlighting shows up. With the rain closing off the other end of the underpass, creating a cave-like atmosphere, and this surreal lighting, the scene is incredibly intimate. However, the secret smile that Veronika gives to picture of herself on the wall seems even more intimate, and more telling. It shows that, again, she is physically in one place, while in her head she is someplace else.
The movie is split into two sections, the first introducing us to Veronika, and the second introducing us to her twin. Besides their other worldly connection to music, Keislowski links the two women and thus the two parts of the movie by using metaphors as well as a special filter which is used throughout the movie. One metaphor Keislowski mentions in “I don’t like the word success,” chapter for of Keislowski on Keislowski, is Veronikas shoe lace, which is used as a metaphor for a heart monitor, in connection to her twins fragile heart.
Keislowski’s writing on this movie is equally interesting as the movie itself. It was interesting to learn about his thinking in trying to make this movie have uniformity, rather than feeling like two separate movies.
His opinion that there are fewer limitations in a low budget movie was also interesting, and I related it to his saying that his goal was stand above the “mediocrity”. A big budget movie would have to at least earn back the money spent in its production. He feels that it is in some way unethical to make these big budget movies, especially without knowing if you’ll make the money back. If you don’t, you might be taking money from someone else’s project. But I think his point about low budget movies was accurate – he was able to make the movie he wanted to make. His movie was criticized for being “too beautiful”, a strange criticism. He says that he feels the movie is accessible and could appeal to people of any background, any “sensitive people”. He also talked in this chapter about a scene he used, of the children watching the puppet show, which was not necessary in terms of the plot but provided “magical ambiance.” I think that his freedom to make the movie as beautiful as it is and to choose to keep shots, which provided the ambiance he wanted, are what he means when he says a low budget movie has less limits.