Conscience: “Something within me that stops me from doing something bad—that I’d regret later.”
Cristi is a police officer who’s been detailed to follow a teenager who has been accused of supplying drugs. What he finds is that the boy and two of his friends meet after school and smoke hashish. Cristi views this as a very minor violation of the law. He is loath to ruin the boy’s life over this. But his superior is adamant—the law is the law. It comes down to an understanding of whether conscience should be followed. When asked, Cristi defines conscience for his Captain, but then they explore the dictionary for the word and others, like “moral,” “law,” and “police.”
Police, Adjective is the newest of the Romanian New Wave films to come to the U.S. One of the hallmarks of the Romanian films is the sense of realism they convey. Director Corneliu Porumbolu notes that under Communism film was always used for propaganda, so the recently emerging filmmakers want film to be as close to life as possible. In this film it provides a new understanding of the police procedural genre. While this takes us step by step through the developing case, it does so literally step by step—we see real time scenes of the detective following the boy through town. It is a reminder that much of police work is not exciting—it can be downright boring. Much of the film is made up of long scenes with little action and no dialogue. It is a look into the long, slow process of police work.
This is also not so much about the crime as it is a character study of Cristi. Indeed, his character is what is at stake in the film. Will he acquiesce to the pressure to arrest the boy, or will he follow his conscience to look the other way? Will he live in accord with his own ideals or will he follow the law that as the police he is called to enforce?
Eventually he butts heads with his Captain and they spend a long scene parsing the words that make up the issue. Words are important. Laws are made of words. What is conscience made of? Can the police ignore the words of the law because of something as insubstantial as a conscience?
These are important understandings that we must all deal with from time to time—the letter versus the spirit of the law, and when to follow the law and when not to. The most obvious parallel in our society is how the federal government should deal with states that allow medicinal use of marijuana. The previous administration took the stance that it was a violation of federal law and they enforced federal law. The current administration takes a more permissive view. Consider another example: In October a Justice of the Peace in Louisiana refused to marry an interracial couple because of his conscience. Should he have been able to do so? When should conscience be allowed to overrule law?
To be honest, I thought Cristi’s conscience was serving him (and his job) well. This is such a minor thing, but he has been on the case for a week. That’s not to say that drug use should be condoned, but to punish such a minor infraction (and this punishment would have been severe) would not serve society well.
But I also understood why the Captain was so adamant. By refusing to arrest the boy, Cristi is making his own law. That is not the job of the police. If Cristi can make his own law, what about everyone else? Can the whole society work on the basis of conscience (especially a conscience is broadly defined as Cristi’s)? What is the point of having law if we’re going to rely on conscience? Whenever we consider the value of conscience, we are also reflecting on the value of law.
Every day we have to deal with our consciences and our relation to the law. Police, Adjective is not the answer to the questions we face, but it is an admirable statement of the problem.
