Have you watched any of them twice?
On the Artificial Eye DVD of Certified Copy, his latest, Kiarostami talks about how much he likes the opening scene of that film because it’s so un-cinematic. For me, these scenes are about many things. They are, firstly, about the tonal qualities of the performers speech. More than what the say, it’s how they say it that matters. Think about the reporter in Close-Up in the cab. What does his tone tell us about him? Is he sincere or pompous. Is the main character in Taste of Cherry determined or is he hoping someone will help him change his mind, or at least try to. Secondly, these un-cinematic dialogue passages often take place in vehicles. There is a contrast between the randomly concentric movements of the character’s minds and the linear movements of their cars. Thirdly, these passages go on for what feels like a long time, they test the viewers patience. They defeat our need for dramatic movement and force us into a claustrophobic perspective that encourages contemplation of faces and voices over environment. When environment intrudes on these scenes, such as when the drive is halted to ask for directions from someone outside the car, or, in Certified Copy when a pedestrian blocks the road, it’s jarring at first. These stopping points combine with the more cinematic passages to keep us off balance and never allow us to settle into easy patterns. I like A Moment of Innocence quite a bit but I think that warmth and cinematic energy, while pleasing, may be a compromise that Kiarostami avoids in his work. I think there is a method to what may seem to be choppiness. Part of that method and message is that life is choppy and often un-cinematic.
poetic qualities, especially the ruminations on life
You got it right there Zach.
One way to help understand him is the watch the other two films that bracket AND LIFE GOES ON. That would be WHERE IS THE FRIENDS HOME and THROUGH THE OLIVE TREES.
You saw the second film in the trilogy.
You won’t really get it unless you see all three. There is an amazing meta-cinema quality to them. And each expands on the previous film.
Where is the Friend’s Home might be tough to find. But I was able to find Through The Olive Trees on Youtube.
@Matt L
I haven’t seen those films in a while but it’s interesting to note that Kiarostami rejects the notion of them forming a trilogy. He says a more apt trilogy would be AND LIFE GOES ON, THROUGH THE OLIVE TREES and TASTE OF CHERRY.
I think part of the problem is the poor conditions that exist of Kiraostami’s films. Aside from Taste of Cherry I’ve only seen his films in second rate or in the case of Close-Up a grungy copy on YouTube, because my father insisted we watch it right at that moment. For me, having the right print of a film is important, and poor quality can be a barrier because it distracts me. Mike, I agree with you about watching his films in sequential order, and that was what I wanted to start doing. It would be great if Criterion could pick up the so called “trilogy,” because a commentary and some essays would really help deepen my appreciation.
I also find it interesting what you said about scenes that break up the film. I really liked the sequence in And Life Goes On where he zooms in on the trees and music plays. It provided a nice breather and elevated the film for me a bit. I think perhaps my question was a bit broad, because now that I think more I realize I did have a general idea of Kiraostami’s style, and I think what was really tripping me up was the dry, messy tone his films sometime take on.
I’m going to hopefully watch Through the Olive Trees this afternoon, so I’ll return with my post-viewing thoughts.
On a slightly unrelated note, who are Kiraostami’s cinematic and artistic influences? Makhmalbaf seems to be much more of an obsessive cinephile, but Kiraostami seems to have immersed himself in a variety of art-forms.
Through the Olive Trees is very subtle, I think that Kiarostami’s style is that of neo-real surrealism, if that makes any sense. The encounters that take place between characters are all very possible and revealing, yet there is something uncanny- almost magical- about how the characters meet and feel about each other.
He sets out to bore the viewers senseless, and i believe that he does a remarkable job of achieving this noble goal. ;-)
.
Especially in Kiarostami’s later work, how the films place themselves in relation cinema as a corpus becomes a particular concern (the coda of Taste of Cherry is in some ways obviously uncinematic in a number of ways—not only does it break from the narrative of the film, it breaks for film to video, etc.)
“misleading the audience and subsequently informing the audience about how it was being misled has been a central concern of Kiarostami’s at least since Close-up (1990) and Taste of Cherry. And more often than not, even when Kiarostami has been making films destined to show in non-theatrical spaces, situating his work in a dialectical relation to the various illusionist seductions of commercial cinema, including Hollywood, have continued to be an important part of his game. (“I don’t believe in a cinema of literary narrative,” he avows in Around Five, “but I don’t believe that cinema can exist without telling a story,” going on to argue that viewers consciously or unconsciously impose narratives even on still photographs.)”
-poetic qualities, especially the ruminations on life-
Yeah . . . he’s actually a very good poet (in the literary sense) and in fact, a number of his films—The Wind Will Carry Us is one—actually use Persian poetry (particular Farrokhzad and Khayyám), so poetry’s an apt metaphor for approaching question of how the films mean.
Mike Spence
The three films feed each other though. So they are naturally a trilogy. The first is about the boy, the second is a documentary / fiction that involves searching for the boy and the third film involves the making of the second film. His films are among the most self-reflexive films in cinema history.
Zachary George Najarian-Najafi
Not sure where you live but Close-Up is available on Criterion. The Wind Will Carry Us can be bought used for under $5.00 on Amazon.
I think as Kiarostami has become more miminal, it’s harder to understand how his films work. Close up there are many different elements you can refer to, and there is a genuine, readily identifiable sense of movement, in terms of both narrative and place, but Taste of Cherry and Ten, despite their more ‘streamlined’ nature, are much more difficult to analyse from a critical perspective
Shirin took this minimalist aesthetic to its logical extreme, and imo, he went a little too far on that one and i’m glad he pulled back with Certified Copy, even if i remain on the fence about it,
.,
-Aside from Taste of Cherry I’ve only seen his films in second rate or in the case of Close-Up a grungy copy on YouTube, because my father insisted we watch it right at that moment. -
-Not sure where you live but Close-Up is available on Criterion. The Wind Will Carry Us can be bought used for under $5.00 on Amazon.-
Ten , Shirin, Five Dedicated to Ozu, ABC Africa (as well as Kiarostami’s segment in Tickets) are also readily available on DVD. Ten, Shirin, and ABC Africa are also streaming via Netflix if that helps.
The Wind Will Carry Us is available from amazon.co.uk as a 2 disc special edition. the transfer is quite good. the Madman R4 isn’t bad either, although it has less features.
I’m pretty sure Five for Ozu is the logical (or illogical) extreme in Kiarostami’s digital {r}evolution, and not Shirin… which is actually pretty easy to watch (if the purity of human face can’t move us what on God’s earth can?).
But I don’t think his works in the past decade are difficult to analyze. They’re really the same exact concerns he’s always had, just without the “meta” filmmaking quality. His films in their most essential are about human agreement and disagreement. From The Traveller to Shirin (haven’t seen Certified Copy, yet) they’re set up with the same exact concerns; how conflict through disagreement drive human relations and interaction.
That’s the set-up of Close-Up, that’s the set-up of A, B, C Africa, that’s the set-up of Through the Olive Trees. In fact Ten is one the purest distillations of this concern because it involves all levels of Iranian society; men, women, children, the divorced, the middle class, the neglected class. Everyone in conflict, literally driving the film forward. It’s one of his greatest works.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Also, The Traveller is on the second disc of Criterion’s release of Close-Up. One really needs to see The Traveller; gorgeous, gorgeous, gorgeous film.
Matt L.
Yes, I’ve seen them and I know what you’re saying.I was just pointing out that the filmmaker disagrees. He sees a thematic unity between the latter Koker films and taste of cherry all being connected by the theme of the preciousness of life. I’m not saying the filmmaker is always right but if they offer a possibly deeper reading of what their films are about than the obvious surface qualities it can’t hurt to look into it.
TAKAMINE: i’m refefrring to the formal qualities, not the themes for his 90’s work onwards for example why am i not bored watching somebody drive around in a car for 90’s mins talking to strangers? What precise camera angles, movements, use of landscape or music etc can i point to in order to understand why i’m engaging with cinema that, at least on the surface, appears somewhat dry and inert?
I also think the ‘meta’ qualities add a whole new level of complexity to his work, particularly in Close Up.
agree with you about The Traveller. wasn’t really expecting it to be quite that good.
The Criterion edition of Close Up is absolutely essential for Kiarostami fans. The extras are great too.
Well, I’m not really certain any camera angle, movement, song, or landscape is near as engaging as the pure, gorgeous humanity on display in Ten. I’d take two people interacting over all the fancy angles and meaningless tricks there are.
For the exact opposite reason the final shot in Through the Olive Trees is so engaging (a breathtaking landscape highlighting the enormity of youth, love, and joy), that is the reason Ten is so engaging (a stuffy, cramped car highlighting the trapped nature of current sexist trends in Iranian (world) society).
And formal complexity is overrated, though I do love all of Kiarostami’s formal experiments including his current ones. Close-Up is not interesting because it’s a meta-film; it’s interesting because it’s one of the deepest explorations of man’s obsession with being noticed. The meta aspect is necessary because it comments on this in a deeper context, but if that base were not there the meta, film-about-film, aspect would be meaningless and annoying… [cough] Tarantino [cough]
^^agree with you entirely about Close Up. The story is interesting enough in itself, the meta aspect just adds another layer, but i love Close Up because there are so many layers to unpack too.
^^agree with you entirely about Close Up. The story is interesting enough in itself, the meta aspect just adds another layer, but i love Close Up because there are so many layers to unpack too.
DP
Oh, don’t give up with Kiarostami. It’s really a rewarding director. You have to watch Where is My Friend’s Home which is pure charm and the smallest film in the matryoshka structure of the so called trilogy. I agree that, even if the three films inform each other and give place to the metacinema concerns of Kiarostami, each film stands on its own. For instance I love the rebellious nature of the main character in My Friend’s Home, the light hearted yet not naive tone of And Life Goes On and the enigmatic quality of Through The Olive trees
Now I hear you when you say that the films you saw strike you as very dry, dull and unemotional even though I think those are not the appropriate words. Well, you have to be aware that Kiarostami is not interested in a strong emotional involvement of the audience. Not to say his films are design to be boring (I find them very engaging) but quite and peacefull and sort of of haunting in the long term without mentioning the sparks of poetry you acknowledge yourself.
My favorites of him (among what I have watched of course) are Where Is My Friend’s Home, Shirin and The Wind Will Carry On. I suggest you to watch them and rewatch later the ones you have seen already. It’s worth the time.
Mike Spence
Well I am not disagreeing that the other films he mentions make a trilogy. Rather that the three I mentioned do for obvious reasons. I would be curious to read an interview with him ‘rejecting’ that they are a trilogy because it frankly doesn’t make sense. Maybe he sees them as one film because clearly they are related. And more importantly each film informs the other one in interesting ways. If you watch THROUGH THE OLIVE TREES in the context of the other two films it is far more rewarding because there is another narrative layer to consider. If you watch it as a stand alone film you won’t get that.
So if anything we are perhaps down to how one defines a trilogy. I think it is more than just via a film’s theme.
@ Matt
Mike’s correct, AK has in fact does resist the so-called “Koker trilogy” designation. It’s referenced in Godfrey Chesire’s essay for the Criterion Taste of Cherry, as well as Mehrnaz Saeed-Vafa and Jonathan Rosenbaum’s book about Kiarostami.
Excellent thread. Please, carry on. Wish I could add something but I know very little of Kiarostami’s cinema.
Thanks for the link. Of course ‘resists’ is a bit different than ‘rejects’. I think I have an interview of his in one of my old Film Comment magazines as well. I’ll dig that up.
BOBBY: you really ought to do something about that buddy :-)
Kiarostami can get in line with a ton of other filmmakers I need to catch up on!
discovering this filmmaker was something exciting for me. i think the manner in which his films blur reality and fiction is fascinating and how in a number of his film, there are many layers to deal with. his ability to capture the lifestyle and the basic reality of iranian life is something to cherished too.
omg, pls watch through the olive trees, since you’ve already watched And life goes on. And life goes on is my favourite so far, followed by close up. but that’s because i’ve already watched where’s my friend’s home and through the olive trees. i love the koker trilogy although i myself dont see them as a trilogy per se. they’re very much related but not without a quality that can definitely stand alone by their own right.
i like how AK always brings attention to the characters’ best and poorest qualities. it helped examined each individual in every society you exist in. i love to see the arrogance and weaknesses in the characters. they’re very well presented and never over the top. i get this sudden urge to lecture the boy in “through the olive trees” to his senses but at the same time, i felt bad for him. that’s what i love about his film. i mean, i dun knw how or why others love him but for me, it’s mainly the examination of characters and how real and relatable they are. the film “Ten” is also something worth the watch for character examination if you like. i do hope you like em all.. :)
Zachary George Najarian-Najafi
So far I’ve seen Close-Up, And Life Goes On, and Taste of Cherry. So far I don’t feel I’ve really gotten what his films are all about. I definitely appreciate the poetic qualities, especially the ruminations on life in And Life Goes On, but I feel like his films get bogged down in too many stagy dialogue sequences. His films feel very un-cinematic at times. Yet his films do contain distinctly cinematic passages, there’s a subtle visual quality, but it really isn’t present most of the time. The other thing is his films strike me as very dry, dull and unemotional. When I watched A Moment of Innocence which strongly resembles a Kiraostami films at times, I felt a much more warm and cinematic energy. I have no problem with minimalism, I love Bresson who in an odd way Kiraostami resembles, but the appeal of Kiraostami escapes me. I plan on watching Through the Olive Trees soon. Is there something I’m missing, or is his work just not for me?