http://www.youtube.com/wat
Anything that is worth reviewing is worth being reviewed poorly.
With this in mind I give you my review of the movie "Taste of Cherry".
Taste of Cherry manages to personify everything I dislike about foreign films within a single movie. It’s a lengthy and boring piece with a message that manages to fall flat in spite of all the time spent on developing the concept. Supposedly this film lasts only ninety three minutes. It felt like twice that long. The director, Abbas Kiarostami is an elitist douche bag who will never get distribution for his films in the West and he doesn’t seem to care. This is mainly because his own tongue is still licking out his own asshole down in the editing lab if the French aren’t doing it for him. It’s all fine by us though because we don’t want him.
The film opens with Mr. Badii, our moody protagonist, driving around a hilly section of Iran looking for a kind stranger who will assist in his burial after he kills himself. He already has a grave dug underneath a tree which he will lie in once he has swallowed his sleeping pills. Mr. Badii doesn’t tell the first two people he picks up what he wants from them initially but as he drives them around his intentions soon become clear. Both of them refuse. The first one runs away. The second one says it goes against his religion. Finally Mr. Badii finds Mr. Bagheri, who agrees to help, but makes a great fuss about it, imploring him to reconsider. He cites the various simple joys of life such as the taste of cherry, as a reason to keep on living. Mr. Badii says almost nothing in response to this before dropping the man off at his work.
It is at this point in the story where the film takes a nosedive for me, by that I mean diving into some “making of” footage followed by the credits. Mr. Badii takes a cab to his grave and lies down in it. We can hear the sound of rain and thunder as the screen goes black. Then, out of nowhere, we cut to some footage of the camera crew and the actor alive and well, hanging out on the set. Do we ever find out what happens to Mr. Badii? Does Mr. Bagheri keep his promise to help? We’ll never know. Maybe Kiarostami is too refined for my crude Western mind but I was always taught of the virtues of setup and payoff. That’s where you set up a situation and then reward the audience with an outcome. The ending to this movie defies that convention, but is this really such a good thing? I watched the interview with director and I did some research on the film, wishing to learn more on the story behind his choices. Here’s what happened. He simply lost the last reel of footage. For some reason it was damaged and could not be used. So, rather than go back and re-shoot the ending, he stuck some making of footage onto the end and left the ending ambiguous, then called it art. The making of footage is supposed to remind the audience that we’re watching a piece of fiction. My crude Western answer to that? Fuck-a-doodle-doo. We knew that you pretentious preening prick.
The fact that the film dwells on the pros and cons of killing oneself as its central theme leaves me unimpressed as well. Contrary to the closed off and isolated Iranian culture, I became jaded at an early age within the super-saturated American pop culture. Suicide is nothing new to me. Even though it’s supposed to be some heavy shit, all I could think the whole time was “Please just kill yourself already!” We never find out why Mr. Badii wants to die, but we can only assume he’s being a whiny little bitch about something or other. I don’t think he has enough fruit in his diet, hahaha. Kiarostami says he doesn’t like to say anything with his films. He makes a virtue out of saying nothing at all. He just wants to be “great” or whatever. Well good for him, but that does not qualify as art in my mind. I believe that art should be about communication. If you won’t share your thoughts with others then all you’re doing is being an attention whore. Just because the meaning of a piece is difficult to determine doesn’t make it a great work of art. They say artists use lies to tell the truth. In Taste of Cherry’s case though, no truth is revealed and we’re reminded of the lies anyway. Of course the Cannes judges saw fit to hand out a Golden Palm to this pretentious piece of crap “Muah! Magnifique!”
He also said something to the effect of “I like films that put people to sleep in the theater, but keep you awake at night.” At night we are tired and will sleep anyway. The reason I couldn’t sleep after watching Taste of Cherry was because I couldn’t understand how it won the Golden Palm. The Cannes judges gave the Golden Palm to Fahrenheit 9/11 one year. We could stand to learn a lot from the French, but not about art, save that it is the word they substitute for “bullshit“.
The last comment I’ll make is this. Pacing and entertainment value has always been important to me as an American audience member. I want to be entertained as well as engaged by the films I see. Learning something and inspiring new thoughts within others is great. I’m glad when it occasionally happens within mainstream film. The trouble is, a film could have the most powerful message ever written, but if it’s boring and slow then nobody will want to see it. I wouldn’t want to see it. Nobody likes to be talked down to by the film they paid twelve bucks to see. Thus my theory goes that you can have both entertainment and refinement in the same sitting. I am going to define my career by this philosophy. Until Kiarostami realizes this, he can fuck off to Iran where he belongs. Nobody except for upper-crusty cinephiles and film instructors will remember he was ever born.
No comments:
Post a Comment