My first question is... did Abbas Kiarostami cast Keshavaraz because he looks like the spitting image of Francis Ford Coppola in the 1990s at the time? Maybe coincidence, but I can't not see it now.
This is an interesting film that I wish I could connect to more; on the blu ray there's an interview between an Iranian film professor (actually he taught at my old school WPU but that's neither here nor there) and Godfrey Cheshire where they tall about all three films and with this one they mention Olive Trees got criticized for how Kiarostami is showing this one scene - really it's a few different shots and parts of the same scene (one that is supposed to be a part of And Life Goes On even though it's technically not in that film at all, part of the "Lies to get at the Truth" method the director had) - but that's not where I'd be so critical.
I find the multiple takes aspect involving on a pure experimental level as far as how a director who I suspect Kiarostami wrote and cast with Keshavaraz to be very unlike him - the Economist from "Life" seems more to what I imagine Kiarostami was like as far as someone who would let a scene go on and improvise - as he is very taciturn and very much into this being how the scene should be shot and performed. There's also the layers Kiarostami is playing with as far as a scene being shot for a film, that scene being one for a film that's within another film, and then a story developing between two characters, two people who were (as in the other Koker movies) non professional actors and people who survived the Earthquake as Hossein is talking at Tahereh the woman in the scene. It's this third part that I am more critical of than anything.
I get that this comes out of the dialog Hossein has with the Not-Coppola about how rich and rich shouldn't marry nor illiterate and illiterate and instead those who can read and those who can't should get together. But for me, and clearly I'm in the minority on this as the film is now much beloved, I don't see something all that compelling or just satisfying about this "I want you you must be with me marry me etc" tract the Hossein character is on. He's smitten, but it's clear she's (as the saying goes) just not that into the dude.
Tahereh, who we dont get to know anywhere near as much as Hossein by the way, never engages him in conversation and doesn't even look at him in those downtime moments between takes and then as she walks home post filming later on. I'd stop short of calling it creepy, but it certainly isn't "romantic" either. And, perhaps Kiarostami knows this, Hossein isn't that uh affable or charming, so it's all just a long line of talk at her more than with her.
This may all be fine for most audiences, or those who can meet this part of the film more than halfway, but I struggled with it. And this is apart from if it's not as powerful or impactful as the other Koker films - though, frankly, this isn't the best of them, and I may just prefer the relative simplicity of Friend's House more. But as a sort of poetic expression, not least of which displayed with a profound sense of cinematic feeling with that final shot of the two figures going through the trees and up the hill (the little slice of hope for our stalwart survivor), I think I wanted to get more wrapped up in Hossein's wants and needs and I just couldn't, whether it be because he's (naturally) somewhat limited as a performer and that... I'm watching this thinking "man, she's not playing hard to get, she just wants to be left alone, like get the net."
So, this has plenty of good ideas, even on the meta-textual level(s) the filmmaker is playing with. But was I moved? Not really, and I don't think that's a fault with me using my poetic super energy to fly into the celluloid, rather that there's a remove personally from the relationship at the center. For me.
This is an interesting film that I wish I could connect to more; on the blu ray there's an interview between an Iranian film professor (actually he taught at my old school WPU but that's neither here nor there) and Godfrey Cheshire where they tall about all three films and with this one they mention Olive Trees got criticized for how Kiarostami is showing this one scene - really it's a few different shots and parts of the same scene (one that is supposed to be a part of And Life Goes On even though it's technically not in that film at all, part of the "Lies to get at the Truth" method the director had) - but that's not where I'd be so critical.
I find the multiple takes aspect involving on a pure experimental level as far as how a director who I suspect Kiarostami wrote and cast with Keshavaraz to be very unlike him - the Economist from "Life" seems more to what I imagine Kiarostami was like as far as someone who would let a scene go on and improvise - as he is very taciturn and very much into this being how the scene should be shot and performed. There's also the layers Kiarostami is playing with as far as a scene being shot for a film, that scene being one for a film that's within another film, and then a story developing between two characters, two people who were (as in the other Koker movies) non professional actors and people who survived the Earthquake as Hossein is talking at Tahereh the woman in the scene. It's this third part that I am more critical of than anything.
I get that this comes out of the dialog Hossein has with the Not-Coppola about how rich and rich shouldn't marry nor illiterate and illiterate and instead those who can read and those who can't should get together. But for me, and clearly I'm in the minority on this as the film is now much beloved, I don't see something all that compelling or just satisfying about this "I want you you must be with me marry me etc" tract the Hossein character is on. He's smitten, but it's clear she's (as the saying goes) just not that into the dude.
Tahereh, who we dont get to know anywhere near as much as Hossein by the way, never engages him in conversation and doesn't even look at him in those downtime moments between takes and then as she walks home post filming later on. I'd stop short of calling it creepy, but it certainly isn't "romantic" either. And, perhaps Kiarostami knows this, Hossein isn't that uh affable or charming, so it's all just a long line of talk at her more than with her.
This may all be fine for most audiences, or those who can meet this part of the film more than halfway, but I struggled with it. And this is apart from if it's not as powerful or impactful as the other Koker films - though, frankly, this isn't the best of them, and I may just prefer the relative simplicity of Friend's House more. But as a sort of poetic expression, not least of which displayed with a profound sense of cinematic feeling with that final shot of the two figures going through the trees and up the hill (the little slice of hope for our stalwart survivor), I think I wanted to get more wrapped up in Hossein's wants and needs and I just couldn't, whether it be because he's (naturally) somewhat limited as a performer and that... I'm watching this thinking "man, she's not playing hard to get, she just wants to be left alone, like get the net."
So, this has plenty of good ideas, even on the meta-textual level(s) the filmmaker is playing with. But was I moved? Not really, and I don't think that's a fault with me using my poetic super energy to fly into the celluloid, rather that there's a remove personally from the relationship at the center. For me.