Maybe I just don't get it, but it seems as though I should. I usually like slow, sensitive, moody films with a deep human message. I'm usually the guy who sticks with a movie and finds it interesting when my more action minded friends have impatiently abandoned it. I love Eric Rohmer, and Ozu, for example. The setting of this film is exotic, the values and customs of the people are interesting. I thought this film would be something I'd love.
It wasn't.
Partly, I think it was the acting. The lead was good, but the acting of everyone else was - well, I don't like to criticize amateurs. It looks like the director used local non-actors for most of the roles, and while this did give the film a certain reality and authenticity, the non-professionals "acted" as if they were reading from a card. Scared and wooden, they seemed to be hoping they wouldn't goof up on the words. The only exception was that the child would occasionally seem natural, but in situations where he was still and before the camera, he usually acted as wooden as anyone else. This sort of thing tends to break the suspension of disbelief that is necessary for an audience to get involved in a film. Many people are too busy reading subtitles to notice this, but then many people do notice it even though they are reading subtitles. I am one of the latter.
Then there was the script. For a while it was difficult to figure out what exactly was going on and why the engineer was there. I don't think that was the director's intention and it may be the fault of the subtitle translation. However, the effect is to confuse the viewer for far too long. In fact if I hadn't picked up the case and read the liner notes during the film I may not have figured it out at all.
The pace is slow. Many great films have a slow pace, but slowness doesn't necessarily make a great film by itself. Great directors can build interest in a slow film with mood, a slow but steady accumulation of details and other interesting things. But without considerable skill at film-making, slowness is just - slow. There are scenes that just seem to be endless for no real reason. A long sequence of a dung beetle pushing a ball of dung, for example. There may be a symbolic meaning here but after a bit you either get it or you don't and there is no point in letting the scene continue to run.
Too many films today are superficial, and any director who tries to make a film with a deep human message, deserves some credit. However, just because a director has this as his theme, does not mean the movie will be a great one. Unfortunalatly, in comparison with films by great and highly skilled directors such as Rohmer or Ozu, this film does not measure up. I believe the director had a good idea but he overreached beyond his skills.
I hope that Abbas Kiarostami will continue to make films. Perhaps he will develop into a great director. Hopefully he will continue to tackle difficult themes, but more successfully. There are seeds here that could develop. Perhaps one day this film will be viewed as an imperfect early effort by a now great director. Perhaps.
It wasn't.
Partly, I think it was the acting. The lead was good, but the acting of everyone else was - well, I don't like to criticize amateurs. It looks like the director used local non-actors for most of the roles, and while this did give the film a certain reality and authenticity, the non-professionals "acted" as if they were reading from a card. Scared and wooden, they seemed to be hoping they wouldn't goof up on the words. The only exception was that the child would occasionally seem natural, but in situations where he was still and before the camera, he usually acted as wooden as anyone else. This sort of thing tends to break the suspension of disbelief that is necessary for an audience to get involved in a film. Many people are too busy reading subtitles to notice this, but then many people do notice it even though they are reading subtitles. I am one of the latter.
Then there was the script. For a while it was difficult to figure out what exactly was going on and why the engineer was there. I don't think that was the director's intention and it may be the fault of the subtitle translation. However, the effect is to confuse the viewer for far too long. In fact if I hadn't picked up the case and read the liner notes during the film I may not have figured it out at all.
The pace is slow. Many great films have a slow pace, but slowness doesn't necessarily make a great film by itself. Great directors can build interest in a slow film with mood, a slow but steady accumulation of details and other interesting things. But without considerable skill at film-making, slowness is just - slow. There are scenes that just seem to be endless for no real reason. A long sequence of a dung beetle pushing a ball of dung, for example. There may be a symbolic meaning here but after a bit you either get it or you don't and there is no point in letting the scene continue to run.
Too many films today are superficial, and any director who tries to make a film with a deep human message, deserves some credit. However, just because a director has this as his theme, does not mean the movie will be a great one. Unfortunalatly, in comparison with films by great and highly skilled directors such as Rohmer or Ozu, this film does not measure up. I believe the director had a good idea but he overreached beyond his skills.
I hope that Abbas Kiarostami will continue to make films. Perhaps he will develop into a great director. Hopefully he will continue to tackle difficult themes, but more successfully. There are seeds here that could develop. Perhaps one day this film will be viewed as an imperfect early effort by a now great director. Perhaps.