[2016's last film]Really Farhadi?Manipulating Me into feeling Sorry for a RAPIST's death?"But he was a respected family man."[Do I C A R E ?!]Why would Rana even CRY?Wasn't she Brutally Objectified+Paid, Assaulted&RAPED?Has she 0 dignity, self-worth &self-respect, that she relates more/feels closer to the rapist "pain"/"shame"(and of his 'poor' family), than herself's?GROSS+SNUFF/G'ahead: shower it with awards(GTFO!)
Incredibly well designed from a formal storytelling perspective with strong performances throughout Farhadi manages to comment on gender, family, politics community and shame. It's strength is also it's weakness as there are times when that design rigueur feels to be forcing the characters choices instead of the other way around. Great stuff though. 4 stars
Farhadi's ability to reveal Iranian society and its gender inequalities even within the most hackneyed of stories is quite impressive. A woman's honour and a man's pride are the surface drivers of the story but the undercurrents run deep. Performances are quite exceptional though the lauding of the script (Cannes winner) seems excessive with its awkward subplot of Arthur Miller's play and asked empathy for a rapist.
“The Salesman” might not be as striking as “The Separation”, since it’s a slightly more manipulative, but is a powerful piece of cinema that authenticates Farhadi as the most predominant contemporary Iranian filmmaker.
A thoughtful literary drama, infused with the palpable tension of a thriller. Slices into Miller's Salesman to dissect the marriage relationship: The husband's tragically single-minded pursuit of some ego-objective to fulfill his imagined role in the relationship, at the expense of the relationship. Taut & resonant. With nuance around aggression/sexual violence that I hope triggers conversation over condemnation. 3.5
It's not on the level of A Separation, but these days, what is? I remain dazzled by how Farhadi can make a movie about so many things at once—class relations, the treatment of women in Iran, the tie between art and life, representation under a regime of censorship—while not losing focus on his characters. The plot doesn't quite add up, but it holds you. Pity the director got banned by a certain shithead president.
Digital. What continues to interest is the way the camera persistently chases the characters drift and their obstinacy. What fails is the combination with the theater sector and the representation of Arthur Miller's play, and, in that continuity, a kind of submission to an idea of 'art', of a too French 'quality'. The actors' naturalistic performance transposed to theater reveals to be disjointed and out of place.