Who inspires, more than Kiarostami, the idea of cinema as living entity in conversation with us and itself? I think what compels cinephiles, especially here, is the importance placed on things beyond the frame - the factors creating cinema beyond the auteur. The thesis of this trilogy. Wrapping my head around the interplay of reality and film in Koker was like endless nesting dolls. The use of side mirror, my god.
35mm, rewatched. How many layers fit in this movie? How many simultaneities of representation? The world as form and representation, form of representation and vice versa? In the extraordinary final frame, its duration is both its visibility and its perceptual difficulty-how many levels to look at in this image? What filmmaker gives us so much imagery (and sound) breeding now, and so naturally?
A curious work that suggests, in a myriad of little ways, that life cannot conform to art--from the recalcitrant actors who for various reasons cannot say their lines, to the oddly substanceless and asymmetrical off-camera relationship between the on-camera couple, to that last shot that resolutely keeps the viewer (and director) at bay. We are reminded of the limits of representation, and the opacity of others.