Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/337146624
CITATIONS READS
0 1,756
3 authors, including:
Vahid Rajabi
Art University of Isfahan
4 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
ﺷﺎﻫﻨﺎﻣﻪ و ﻓﺎﻟﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﻃﻬﻤﺎﺳﺒﯽ، ﻓﯿﻠﻢﻫﺎی ﺷﺐ روی زﻣﯿﻦ و ﮐﺪ زﻣﺎن: )ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪی ﺗﻄﺒﯿﻘﯽ ﺷﯿﻮهی رواﯾﺖ در ﻓﯿﻠﻢﻫﺎی ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎر زﻣﺎﻧﯽ ﻧﻮ و ﻧﮕﺎرﮔﺮی اﯾﺮاﻧﯽ )ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪﻫﺎی ﻣﻮردیView
project
All content following this page was uploaded by Vahid Rajabi on 09 November 2019.
28
Capítulo II – Cinema – Cinema
invisibility does not mean the absolute elimination such as complete command of the rules of both
of the director from film, and it is argued that in this genres, and beautiful, intelligent use of non-actors
mode of filmmaking, the director’s hand is, although and poetry. Therefore, Kiarostami’s films are devoid
not in the conventional sense, but doubly at work of complex narrative structures, and most often the
within the more obscure layers of the viewer’s mind. story can be covered within a scene or two. One
2. The characters as well as well the audience may go as far as to say his films enter the realm
achieve intuition through nature. This is because of anti-narrative cinema (Ghukassian 1996, 72-4).
in the cinema of Kiarostami, man and nature are
not separable and are often alongside one another. Experiential Period
In this regard, Kiarostami is a follower of Shahid-
Saless. “On Shahid-Saless’ film, A Simple Incident Kiarostami’s career as a filmmaker began in earnest
(1974) Kiarostami says: ‘I liked this film a lot. I with Bread and Alley in 1970. He says of this film: “I
expected Shahid-Saless to make a film like this one. wasn’t sure if I’d made a good film or a bad one; if
It’s very much like him’” (Iranian Cinema Vol.1, 662). it qualified as cinema or not. After all, before the
Nature in Kiarostami’s cinema comes in two forms: premiere in the festival, when I screened it in private
first, as an organic whole where man is shown to be for my friends, they all said it was bad. But it was finally
a part of nature. A good example of this is Life, and screened and, amazingly, people received it very well.
Nothing More… (A.K.A. And Life Goes on, 1992) I didn’t know back then that it was possible for the
where Kiarostami depicts man as dependent on audience to like a film when the critics dismiss it” (Iranian
nature and, at times, human characters serve no Cinema Vol.1 1028). Following The Experience (1973),
more than a prop-like function. In the second form, Kiarostami directed The Traveler in 1974, “which tells
nature is parsed into its parts and man, nature, the story of a ten-year-old boy who dreams of watching
and everything thatsurrounds them are depicted a soccer game of the Iranian national team from up
as separated and detached from one another.Ten close. Here, for the first time, Kiarostami successfully
(2002) exemplifies this view of nature, in which the tried dramatic narrative structure” (Ghukassian 1996,
automobile, as an object, is of equal significance 152-4). Between 1975 and 1977, Kiarostami directed
and function as the human characters. So Can I, Two Solutions for One Problem, Colors,
3. Maze-like, endless roads are virtually ever-present and The Wedding Dress, the latter was an original yet
in Kiarostami’s cinema, to such a degree that, in ordinary story in the form of a documentary. Next came
addition to automobiles, they have turned into clear The Report, which tells the story of a tax collector who
motifs in his films. is accused of accepting bribes. The Report is notable
4. Another characteristic of Kiarostami’s cinema is for being the first film about suicide in cinema. Here,
uncertainty. His characters are as quiet as those Kiarostami portrays the difficulties of an average urban
in Theo Angelopoulos’ films, and when they do life using a cinematography style that resembles a
speak, they give little information to the viewer. In news report; the film thus remains quite interesting for
addition to their limited dialogs, they also behave in its distinctive visual look (Iranian Cinema Vol.1,741).
a way that the viewer could never be sure whether Kiarostami’s last film during this period is First Case,
an event has indeed taken place. For instance, in Second Case (1979) which marks his first cinematic
The Wind Will Carry Us (1999), it is highly unlikely effort in post-revolution Iran. In this first period, in
anyone could have predicted the philosophical addition to gaining hands-on filmmaking experience,
despair of the protagonist. Kiarostami expresses his thoughts on such notions as
5. Kiarostami’s compositions often contain one life, death, fear, etc. in the form of short, mid-length,
isolated trees, as well. In The Wind Will Carry Us, and feature-length quasi-documentary fiction films (in
this lone tree doubles as a signpost and guide for which the boundaries between fiction and non-fiction is
the film crew; again emphasizing Kiarostami’s idea blurred) through his signature minimalist style.
about equality of man and nature.
6. Proposing philosophical questions and leaving them Epistemological Period
unanswered are an inseparable theme across the
work of the filmmaker. Kiarostami never attempts Following the Islamic Revolution in Iran, between
to answer questions as an all-knowing sage; all 1980 and 1984, Kiarostami directed a number
he cares about is asking the questions (Sanjabi of educational films. First Graders (1984) was
2013 15-22). “For this reason, his [Kiarostami’s] Kiarostami’s first attempt at managing a group of child
cinema reminds one of Michael Haneke’s. Haneke, non-actors (Karimi 1986, 71-85). In 1987, Kiarostami
in turn, has cited Kiarostami his favorite filmmaker” made his breakthrough film, Where is the Friend’s
(DonyayeTasvir, 2012). Home?which brought the filmmaker global fame.
7. Using the spaces outside the frame is another The film narrates the story of a little boy, Ahmad,
technique in Kiarostami’s work, which is arguably who realizes he has mistakenly takenhis friend’s
inspired by Robert Bresson’s minimalist cinema notebook home, andhis efforts to take the notebook
(Eslami 2007, 234) back to his friend, who lives in a close-by village;the
8. Artistic blending of documentary and fictional dramashapes up due to the unfortunate fact that
cinema is an essential trait of Kiarostami’s work, Ahmad does not know his friend’s address. The title
which is owed to a number of major requirements of the film is taken from a poem by Sohrab Sepehri.
29
AVANCA | CINEMA 2018
Certain critics consider Friend’s Home to be the first The film was praised by several renowned
part of Kiarostami’s would be ‘Earthquake Trilogy,’ the filmmakers such as Italy’s Nanni Moretti, who was
next two installments being Life, and Nothing More… affected by the film to such an extent that in 1996, he
and Through the Olive Trees. Across the three films, made a short film calledThe Day of the Premiere of
Kiarostami deals with life, death, transformation, ‘Close-Up’(Il GiornoDéllaPrima di ‘Close-Up’, 1996)
and how the life of the protagonist of Friend’s Home (Elena 2005, 92).
continues after the destructive 1990 earthquake in In 1992, Kiarostami released Life, and Nothing
Rudbar, Gilan Province. In 1989, Kiarostami penned More..., the middle installmentof the Earthquake
the script of Ibrahim Foruzesh’sKey, and directed Trilogy, which won him the Roberto Rossellini award
Homework which deals with the problems a group of at Cannes Film Festival, Kiarostami’s first in a long
school friends face in dealing with their homework, and line of international awards. The trilogy’s concluding
the way the students’ parents and teachers reward and piece, Through the Olive Trees, came a year later,
punish them (Iranian Cinema Vol. 2, 1099-105). The and employs the film-within-film style reminiscent
film is considered an example of ‘truth-seeking’ cinema of the cinema of such figures as Jean-Luc Godard
or Cinéma Vérité. Kiarostami’s frank language and and François Truffaut. The latter film represents
direct involvement in the development of the narrative, Kiarostami’s most difficult experience in working with
best manifested by his presence in the frame as he non-actors, about which he once famously said, “It
asks questions and seeks answers, is reminiscent of still gives me nightmares from time to time!” The film
the style of such filmmakers as Chris Marker and Jean uses an open ending and is considered to belong in a
Rouch in the 1960s. category of films that defamiliarize the audience with
the classical narrative structure:
Auteurism Period
In Chapter 10 of their book Film Art, David Bordwell
and Kristin Thompson, elaborate at length on such
In 1990, Kiarostami made Close-Up, the true story of films that oppose the conventions of classical cinema
a man who impersonates the acclaimed Iranian director, in a variety of ways. They argue, quite clearly and
Mohsen Makhmalbaf. The film, which is conceived in convincingly, that the inner logic of films like Dreyer’s
‘Reconstructed Documentary’ style, sees Kiarostami Day of Wrath (1943), Resnais’ Last Year at Marienbad
using the very people involved in real-life situations (1961) and Ozu’sTokyo Story (1953)depart from the
caused by thehoaxer, Hossein Sabzian. In this regard, logic of classical cinema, mentioning the ways these
it is an unprecedented filmmaking innovation in the filmmakers overlook the established presumptions
history of cinema. The scene where Sabzian,the and principles of classical cinema. Their argument
protagonist, is confronted with Makhmalbaf, the figure is quite enlightening in assessment of Through the
he impersonates, ranks as one of the most memorable Olive Trees as, in this film, like Day of Wrath, doubt
overtakes uncertainty and the ending of the film does
moments ever recorded on film.
not bring the storyline threads to a definitive close
(Eslami2007, 224).
For the sequence where the protagonist (Sabzian)
and Makhmalbaf roam the streets together on a Kiarostami next directed Taste of Cherry in 1997,
motorbike, the director decided to omit some of and the film went on to win, this time, the Palme d’Or
the dialog exchanged between the characters by
at Cannes. The film deals with such themes as journey,
creating the illusion that on-location sound-recording
was done inadequately, rendering bits of their voices
the hereafter, death and the filmmaker’s recurring
indistinct. The sequence itself and the trick with the motifs such as nature. Automobile is again the means
recorded sound is proof of a subtle, poetic humor [on of choice to travel and long takes help realize the film’s
Kiarostami’s part] and serves as an effective method minimalist approach. The ending could be regarded
in Iranian Cinéma Vérité (Ghukassian 1996, 88). as a Brechtian ellipsis which reminds the viewer of
the artificiality – the filmness, as it were – ofthe film.
Although many critics and scholars consider “Using off-frame spaces and deliberate elimination of
Close-Up to be a completely realistic work, Mohsen parts of the narrative, in addition to using non-actors,
Makhmalbaf calls it “completely personal.” He goes on a significant element of Kiarostami’s work, have been
to suggest: given more emphasis in this film, and arguably establish
the Auteurism of his cinema” (Eslami 2007, 234).
‘SocialistRealism’ in the Eastern Bloc, ‘Neorealism’ Kiarostami returned in 1999 with The Wind Will Carry
in Italy, and ‘Magic Realism’ in Latin America Us, which won the Silver Lion at Biennale in Venice.
demonstrate that realism is not a monolithic The wheat fields in the film have been interpreted as
phenomenon with a unanimously-accepted definition;
the director’s tribute to that giant of world cinema,
therefore, it loses the main meaning that the artistic
Akira Kurosawa, by practically recreating the “Crows”
or philosophical subjectivity or solipsistic objectivity of
the philosopher or artist originally conceived; because vignette in the Japanese director’s film, Dreams (1990).
realism that is described by other qualities ceases to In The Wind, we hear the voices of characters whom
be original and universal. Now, it is better that we we never see throughout the film (off-camera voices).
accept that realism in art is a lie, and the personal The third period of Kiarostami’s career saw him
touch is a more eloquent device in conveying become the prominent, world-renowned auteur whose
meaning (Majalleh Film Vol. 105,May 1991). style and vision inspired many a young filmmaker to
create internationally successful films of their own.
30
Capítulo II – Cinema – Cinema
31
AVANCA | CINEMA 2018
Bazin in the mid to late 1940s, when American films “A director makes only one movie in his life. Then he
found their way back in France. It is telling that Bazin breaks it up and makes it again.” Citing this quotation
proposed his ideas against the commonplace belief as true, Kiarostami affirms that “I am also busy
at the time which dictated that a good film is a noble repeating myself” (Ghukassian 1996, 52). Kiarostami’s
drama with significant human subjects in which great confession may indeed be true, especially as regards
actors perform. His critical system was followed up the films he made during his auteurism period (1990s),
with diligence and unshakable passion by then-young however he proved that innovation and experiment still
critics Jean-Luc Godard, François Truffaut, Claude matter a great deal in his work.
Chabrol,Eric Rohmer, et al. With the new framework and
the support provided by this group of critics, filmmakers Successful Films Inspired by Kiarostami
whose works had in the past not been taken seriously
due to being ‘entertaining,’ such as Alfred Hitchcock, Romanian director Cristian Mungiu’s film 4 Months,
Nicholas Ray, Vincent Minelli, and Samuel Fuller, were 3 Weeks and 2 Days, winner of the 2007 Palme d’Or,
suddenly recognized as elite artists and thinkers whose is one of the films considered as beingly directly
bodies of work were worthy of profound reflection and inspired by Kiarostami’s cinema. The filmmaker also
meticulous analysis. refused to score the film and, by using tight mise-
Film Magazine in Britain and Andrew Sarris in en-scene arrangements, long takes, and non-actors,
the United States played significant roles in further creates a claustrophobic, haunting atmosphere which
developing and promoting this theory. As Geoff King is a reflection of the character’s inner emotional
explicates, there are two dimensions in a filmmaker’s state. Mungiu states the following about his film and
work that may render them an auteur: the way the Iranian auteur’s cinema influenced him:
“Kiarostami has always been a filmmaking example
[First,] distinctive thematic concerns have to be
for me. His specific method in employing non-actors as
identified across a director’s body of work…In many
of the films of Stanley Kubrick, for example, we find
well as long takes, elimination of the complex stages
a central theme of the alienation of humanity within of production, and his tendency toward a minimalist
a range of overpowering institutional frameworks, style of filmmaking, especially as evidenced in Taste
those of a technologically advanced future in 2001: of Cherry, The Wind Will Carry Us and Where Is the
A Space Odyssey (1968) or of the military in Paths Friend’s House? and Ten attracted my attention. Of
of Glory (1957) and Full Metal Jacket (1987). course, my film is more about introverted urbanity,
[Second,] a distinctive film style is also required. while Kiarostami is fascinated by landscapes in nature
A true auteur uses the medium in a manner that is and traveling by automobile” (Film Magazine 2008).
identifiable from one work to another as his or her Another acclaimed recent film whose director does
personal style. This serves, as Sarris puts it, as the not hide his fondness of Kiarostami is Tsotsi(2005)
director’s ‘signature’…in the case of Kubrick, a cool
by the South African Gavin Hood. The film, which
and detached style, in which the camera remains
distanced from the protagonists, often underpins a
won the 2006 Academy Award for Best Foreign
theme of waning humanity (King 2002, 87). Language Film, narrates the story of the eponymous
character, a teenage hoodlum living in a poverty-
Film theorist and scholar, Peter Wollen, adds that: stricken Johannesburg neighborhood. In an interview
with Screen magazine, Hood declares his admiration
In time, owing to the diffuseness of the originaltheory, for Kiarostami, saying, “I first conceived the idea
two mainschools of auteur critics grew up: those who for my film in 2000.Watching Where Is the Friend’s
insisted on revealing a core ofmeanings, of thematic House?and Through the Olive Trees was particularly
motifs, and those who stressed style and mise en
important as they made me think of working with child
scène.There is an important distinction here, which
non-actors and it became a major concern for me. I
I shall return to later. The workof the auteur has a
semantic dimension, it is not purely formal; the work of have to say Kiarostami is the greatest screenwriter
the metteur en scène, on the other hand, does not go of our time, and it’s such a shame that the ideas and
beyond the realm ofperformance, of transposing into innovative techniques of this filmmaker have not been
the special complex of cinematic codes andchannels appreciated the way they should” (Ibid 2006)
a pre-existing text: a scenario, a book or a play. As Laurent Cantet’sThe Class, winner of the 2008
we shall see, themeaning of the films of an auteur is Palme d’Or is one of the most influential films of world
constructed aposteriori; the meaning –semantic, rather cinema inspired by Kiarostami. The film deals with
than stylistic or expressive – of the films of a metteur en violence in a modern landscape and its roots in the
scèneexists a priori. In concrete cases, of course, this early stages of individuals’ first experience of social
distinction is not always clear-cut.There is controversy education in schools.Cantet does not hesitate to cite his
over whether some directors should be seen asauteurs
inspirations, stating, “Filmmakers such as Kiarostami
or metteurs en scène (Wollen2013, 62).
and Haneke were effectively my the examples I
It is arguably clear that Kiarostami, in much the followed—my guides. The themes of my movies come
same way as the original directors considered as from Haneke’s cinema and Kiarostami’s Where Is the
auteurs, had complete control over all aspects of Friend’s House?and Homework. Of course, Kiarostami
his films, while the said recurring motifs and visual employs elements of documentary genre in the latter,
distinction shine through his work. Perhaps it was Jean while my film is a documentary-like narrative film which,
Renoir who best described the concept, simply saying, in terms of analyzing the existing relationships across
32
Capítulo II – Cinema – Cinema
the micro-society in the film, that is, the big world of this
small classroom, the aim was to achieve, and depict, a
new vision of realism in cinema” (Ibid 2009).
Conclusion
End Notes
1
Ph.D. Cand. Arts Studies
2
B.A. Filmmaking
3
Ph.D. Cand. Arts Studies
Bibliography
33
View publication stats