Tag Archives: impressionism
“Sunken Gardens” [2021)
Recommended if you like Mercury Rev and Smashing Pumpkins
Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy [2004)
The world is fucked up.
This is probably the craziest year most of us have ever lived through.
When has the world, in its entirety, faced such chaos in recent memory?
9/11 brought us terror on a horrific, spectacular* level.
Guy Debord predicted this in 1967 with his seminal book La société du spectacle.
No, he did not pull a Nostradamus (who happens to share my birthday).
He did not predict the three towers (including the 47-story WTC7) falling into their own footprints.
But he predicted something much more useful, or at least applicable, to our present times.
The “locus of illusion” that Debord talked about remains (though it be besieged on all sides) television.
For our purposes, we shall call it “video”.
Debord also predicted our current age of social-media dominance.
Though he could not name it then, he described it perfectly as, “a social relationship between people…mediated by images.”
What does the word “Facebook” evoke when you hear it?
Does it sound a bit like a dating site?
What role do memes (manipulated images) play in our social discourse?
“The spectacle”, Debord told us, “…turns reality on its head.”
How much of what you hear “on the news” (whether that be television, radio, Internet, social media) do you trust?
Because you are smart, dear reader, you consider the source.
And so do I.
Debord wanted to say something about fakes.
The epigrammatic beginning to the first chapter of The Society of the Spectacle gets right to this point.
It was the philosopher Feuerbach who said that in, “…the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, the appearance to essence…illusion only is sacred, truth profane.”
Ludwig Feuerbach wrote those words in the 1800s.
But the Irish rock band U2 would come to a similar epiphany in their song “Even Better Than the Real Thing”.
Debord wanted to talk about fake-ness.
But he also wanted to qualify his description of “the spectacle”.
For Debord, “reality erupts within the spectacle, and the spectacle is real”.
To translate (from French to English to philosophy to layman’s terms), there are some aspects of our image-driven information culture that are real (though a good deal of fake news exists). But owing to the lack of a competing narrative to the overwhelming chorus of voices in agreement (corporate news), “the spectacle” (whatever the talking heads tell you) is, de facto, real. Never mind that it might all be rubbish. The sheer repetition of certain truths–day after day, hour after hour (from all the many “options” [ABC, CBS, NBC, New York Times, Washington Post])–renders those “truths” the currency of “factual” discourse. Without an independent, competing narrative from alternative news sources (which currently lack the scale and reach to pose a symmetric threat to “legacy media”), whatever the aforementioned “usual suspects” (ABCBSNBC…) tell you is TRUE becomes “truth” the moment they report it. The national news coverage of American current events is indistinguishable whether one has ABC, CBS, or NBC dialed up on the tele.
But the times, they are a-changin’.
Donald Trump’s 3+ years in office have been “a moment of falsehood”, which is to say, truth.
As Debord wrote, “In a world that really has been turned on its head, truth is a moment of falsehood.”
Debord seemed to be describing the “legacy media” when he wrote of an entity “out of reach and beyond all dispute”.
Of particular concern in this current situation (which already existed in Debord’s day) is the role that vision plays in our mediated understanding of the world.
As Debord wrote, “…it is inevitable that it should elevate the human sense of sight to the special place once occupied by touch…”.
He goes on to describe “sight” as, “…the most abstract of the senses, and the most easily deceived…”.
Think about a painting by Monet.
What are you seeing?
You are seeing the work of someone [Monet] whose eyesight was impaired. Literally. But though it be impaired, he still painted wonderful, huge canvases which EVOKED the atmosphere of a pond with waterlilies.
You are seeing blurry images.
Your brain has to fill in the details.
You are not seeing a high-definition photograph.
Furthermore, you are seeing oil paints which have been applied to a cloth canvas.
You are seeing a depiction.
This takes us all the way back to Plato’s “cave”, but I digress…
What happens when the big three TV networks in the U.S. get something wrong?
What about the New York Times and Washington Post (to just name the two most widely-distributed offenders)?
Do any of these entities make a concerted, SINCERE effort arising from true integrity to correct their previous, faulty coverage on events?
Debord could answer before the question was asked…because he knew the nature of these organizations (even in his native France).
He wrote, “The spectacle is by definition immune from human activity, inaccessible to any projected review or correction. It is the opposite of dialogue.”
Social media changed this briefly.
But now, Twitter is acting like the generalissimo of a banana republic by banning accounts which “promote” the “conspiracy theory” known as QAnon.
This is just one example–from one social media platform–where the fleeting dialogue which threatened (?) “the spectacle” has been shut down.
Google, working closely with the communist Chinese government, is all too happy to facilitate similar totalitarian censorship in China…all for a buck (or yuan).
So let’s talk about vision/sight for a moment.
Did George Floyd die under the knee of Derek Chauvin?
All of the “usual suspects” (ABCBSNBC) tell me he did.
And there’s video!
Video never lies, does it?
I mean…movies are all true, right?
Is the video that Darnella Frazier ostensibly shot on her cell phone “documentary” footage?
It may be more than one thing.
It is possible to honestly document fake-ness (without knowing you are filming a pageant).
Have you ever seen an actress cry on command?
It is quite an astounding thing.
I have a friend who is a major motion-picture actress.
She once burst out in tears…right next to me.
I started to offer my condolences.
I was generally concerned.
I almost started crying.
Then she abruptly jumped out of character with a smile…to let me know she was just pranking me.
It was VERY convincing.
She had never done that to me before.
It was novel.
I had no experience against which to measure her crying fit.
I thought of her as a friend first and as an actress second.
I forgot, temporarily, that she was unequivocally a professional faker.
But Guy Debord saw more to “the spectacle” than just a stream of fake-ness.
Debord seemed to also sense an approaching hour when human relations would become totally stifled.
To hear Debord tell it, “Separation is the alpha and omega of the spectacle.”
Both its goal and its essence.
While mass media seems to bring us together (shared touchstones, talismans…), in actuality, it separates us more from one another.
We are always obliged to mention what “the news” says about a certain topic.
It is rare (almost impossible) that two people have a conversation where they each give their opinion of a recent event and “the spectacle” (a mass, homogenized media) is not invoked (in deferential terms) at some stage as a reference point.
Debord describes the “weapons of that system” as ranging “from cars to television”: all meant to “reinforce the isolation of ‘the lonely crowd'”.
But Guy Debord was not merely taking aim at television and mass media. He saw further. He seems to have, though writing in 1967, seen the inevitably of the Internet.
As he describes it, “The spectacle is a map of this new world–a map drawn to the scale of the territory itself.”
While this is indeed a reference to a story by Borges (the world=the map), Debord’s insight in applying this to mass communication and information dissemination is extraordinarily prescient.
Guy Debord, it must be said, was not without fault.
Most importantly, he was an avowed Marxist.
So his perspicacity ended where mass media stops and economics begins.
Which brings us to the film Anchorman…
Will Ferrell is awkward here.
And gloriously so!
We get gender division.
As today we continue to get race divisions.
Who is driving this?
The British were quite good at “divide and conquer”.
In the Indian subcontinent, Hindus and Muslims had lived relatively peaceably together…until the British decided to stoke this latent division for cynical ends.
“If the Hindus and Muslims are fighting each other, they can’t pose a unitary threat to us.”
That is what I can imagine British military strategists saying at the time when India was under their occupation.
And it worked.
It was brilliant.
Evil, but brilliant.
Ask yourself a question: who benefits (cui bono) from blacks and whites and Hispanics and Asians and police and civilians in America being divided and at each other’s throats?
What series of events led to the isolation (frustration) needed to create the current powder keg that went up in smoke with the George Floyd event?
Ron Burgundy will read anything that is put in front of him on a Tele-Promp-Ter.
…as evidenced by his most unfortunate sign-off, “Go fuck yourself, San Diego!”
Which brings us to Joe Biden.
FDR managed to keep it a secret that he was stricken with polio.
He was carted around in a wheelchair during his Presidency.
He had the Resolute desk in the Oval Office modified so that a panel on the front obscured the prying eyes of news cameras.
You could not see his legs fastened to his wheelchair.
And the press obliged.
They loved FDR.
Good old liberal, Democrat FDR.
Elected to the Presidency FOUR times (an American record).
In the White House for over 12 (!) years.
Our Constitution was amended to make this impossible from there on out.
Now the limit is eight years (two terms).
All that notwithstanding, FDR never lost his mental faculties to any significant degree.
He had a physical disability which prevented him from ambulating fully.
Joe Biden can walk fairly well.
Sadly, there is no desk panel that can hide his mental deterioration.
It is there. It will be there. And it will get worse.
Which makes Joe Biden a FAR MORE RIDICULOUS candidate than Donald Trump.
And again, “the spectacle” is running defense for Biden.
Tossing softball questions (if any at all).
The best thing that vicious, Marxist Democrats in the United States can come up with is a dud missile named Joe Biden.
He is harmless (to extend the missile metaphor), and in that he is very harmful.
He is, as regards the responsibilities of the Chief of the Executive Branch, useless.
Which gives us just one more example of how fakes are being foisted upon us.
Never has there been such a poor candidate for the American Presidency as Joe Biden.
It is becoming apparent to all that, if elected, he would not run his own government.
What a sham!
Why didn’t the Democrats have the foresight to nominate Cory Booker or Kamala Harris?
It couldn’t be because they are RACIST, could it?
Remember, Donald Trump is such a horrible misogynist.
How was it that the Democrats failed to nominate Elizabeth Warren or Amy Klobuchar?
Democrats REALLY care about Latinos in the U.S.
That’s why they failed to nominate a guy named Castro.
Democrats are so diverse!
That’s why they passed on nominating a guy named Yang.
And what did the Democrats end up with?
A halfwit, old, white man named Joe Biden.
Halfwit is really too kind a descriptor here.
The mobs wanted Ron Burgundy’s head.
Because he told them to “go fuck themselves”.
But it was a false-flag.
Did Ron Burgundy write the line, “Go fuck yourself, San Diego!” on the Tele-Promp-Ter?
Veronica Corningstone did.
Did the truth about who REALLY wrote it come out?
Not even from a news organization.
Burgundy was summarily fired and his life went to shit.
He ended up wandering the streets like a cross between fat Jim Morrison (Val Kilmer-influenced) and Brian Wilson.
Bathrobe and cheeseburgers.
Drinking milk in the…hot sun!
But what goes around comes around.
Ms. Corningstone is pushed into a bear pit at the zoo.
An unenviable position, that.
And it takes a little dog to diffuse the situation.
A mob of bears.
A proud species.
Wronged by this intrusion into their hibernation.
But Baxter, the little dog, has a message.
“These are not the droids you are looking for.”
The bears consider the source.
They will not take Ron Burgundy’s word for it.
They will not take Veronica Corningstone’s word for it.
But they will listen to a fellow creature from the animal kingdom.
“I know your cousin,” Baxter says (and I paraphrase).
Baxter’s message rings true.
The bears reconsider.
They are able to retreat gracefully.
Baxter has just acted as crisis negotiator.
A feel-good movie ends with former enemies expressing respect for one another.
Not total reconciliation.
But a cessation of the mad chaos.
Brick Tamland (played brilliantly by Steve Carell) ends up (we are told) becoming a “top political advisor” to the Bush administration.
Hollywood could not help taking a pot shot at a Republican President (even in a light-hearted comedy [and even though the bastard Bush deserved it]).
Because Bush was a (shitty) Republican (and a war criminal).
But for the eight years of Obama’s Presidency (and the eight years of Bill Clinton’s Presidency), you never saw Hollywood comment (on film) about the merits of these two Democrats.
Because the Democrat Party is inseparable from the mass media in the United States.
So let me ask you one final question:
do you think you are getting the truth about President Trump, coronavirus, George Floyd, or anything else from this tight-knit cabal of fakers?
The Dictator [2012)
Actually, good movie.
But still not Borat.
The Dictator is like self-parody.
Jon Spencer understands.
I don’t want to write more.
What more can I say?
I need to watch the next film.
This is a different sort of urgency.
Not so much the impressionism of the past, but the mania of the present.
Film is to be enjoyed.
Le Fabuleux Destin d’Amélie Poulain [2001)
Today is my 40th birthday.
And it gives me pause to reflect.
On the many wonderful things I have done and seen.
And on the mistakes I have made.
This film, in particular, brings to my heart a specific apology.
And yet, I know not how to find the wonderful young woman who first showed me this film.
I doubt she is reading.
But I pray that my thoughts will bounce off the moon…and find her happy in Paris…or Aix-en-Provence.
But Amélie, as we call it in America…is full of beaming positivity.
And so we shall push on.
As much as we wouldst remain in this quicksand, we push on.
Perhaps it’s loneliness.
And certainly an overactive imagination.
But some of it is the absurdity we found in that Québécois masterpiece Léolo (1992) by director Jean-Claude Lauzon.
We can stay at home.
Far from the maddening crowd.
But we yearn for excitement.
We yearn to feel the blood pulse in our veins.
To “lose the fear” as The Boo Radleys sang.
how many waitresses we have fallen in love with.
Hard-boiled eggs in the highlands.
Don’t close your heart.
Rube Goldberg might dislodge a wall tile. And a world beyond…
Éclairs sur l’au-delà…
Do good things.
As if you were an angel.
A spy for God.
Ellen Andrée…the girl drinking the water…in Renoir’s painting.
Must clarify, not Jean…extolling Bazin.
One hand not knowing what the other is doing.
You have a mission to bring happiness to those around you.
Hippie bumper stickers call it “random acts of kindness”.
And I wholeheartedly approve.
Send the gnome to Nome.
Ponder jurassic orgasms from far afield or near (15+1).
And let out some steam for modesty’s sake.
Stratagems befitting Technical Services in thrall to love…forgery for romance.
Nothing some Twinings tea can’t age.
And the gaslighting which is currently being employed straight from Alinsky’s Rules against pizzagate researchers…turn the beat around.
Knowing John Podesta founded the Center for American Progress…under the aegis of which Mind Wars was written by Jonathan D. Moreno.
We have on good faith that US spec-ops use this very book.
So that Mr. Podesta should not be at all surprised by a little blowback.
Neuroscience neuroscience neuroscience.
And the funding and methodology of trolls suddenly makes sense.
Yes, Amélie is an expert in psychological warfare.
But only as a last resort.
AND, most importantly, she is sticking up for the undefended.
It’s impressionist binoculars vs. covert telescope.
But only she holds the key.
To Ellen Andrée.
And to the ghost.
Who seeks to repair the collective memory.
“Don’t forget my face”, she posits.
But love is the ultimate job.
The ultimate reward.
To find another like yourself.
To be accepted.
To find the lock for your key.
And vice versa.
It is cat and mouse.
And Audrey Tautou is magnificent.
She is a jewel in a world created by director Jean-Pierre Jeunet.
We feel “the time-image” of which Deleuze wrote.
Love is too strong.
Like staring into the sun.
Like a full moon.
But luckily Mathieu Kassovitz knows his proverbs.
And that “made all the difference”.
Early on one frosty morn’.
Simply put, Amélie is an undeniable masterpiece.
That only the hard-hearted could look down upon.
Zéro de conduite [1933)
I have hypnotized myself.
Just for fun.
A one-sentence plot.
Forget the world.
On the rooftops.
Toulouse-Lautrec as principal.
Young Chopin at school.
With his fine hair.
And Henri goes into midget Häxan mode like the birth of Cartman.
Upright piano bed.
Bix Beiderbecke sleeping in the newspaper stuffed sounding board housing compartment.
It’s my impression.
That Ken Griffin. And Ger Griffin. And Rollerskate Skinny. Knew this haunting happiness.
That Mercury Rev. Took also from this backmasking. Maurice Jaubert.
But we have not even mentioned the genius director auteur.
Beanpole will dance for R. Crumb.
The sleepwalker might drop dead.
A necessary risk. Petard hoist.
T. Rex would say Children of the revolution.
Les Yeux sans visage [1960)
Loneliness is hell.
An endless cycle of introspection.
As we each make our way through this life.
We are judged by our faces.
A face and a mask.
Masked and anonymous.
There is no real point in recounting this tale to you.
If you wish to know it, you will seek it out.
We can whisper the hallowed name of Franju and almost be done with it.
Because I speak to everyone.
I don’t know who will find this post.
From my island I set this bouteille adrift.
Deriving the meaning through impressionist film criticism.
I am not critiquing the film, I’m critiquing myself.
I think, therefore I think I am.
Detour before the bridge.
But I also speak to the cineastes.
And for you I mention Alida Valli.
Because The Paradine Case is one of Hitchcock’s most underrated films.
But the spectacle calls for psychodrama.
Christmas at the zoo.
Christmas on Mars.
A Christmas gift for you.
From Phil Spector.
Before there was The Silence of the Lambs.
And even a few months before Psycho.
There was Les Yeux sans visage.
For 1960, this was horror.
But there’s more here.
Like Angela Bettis in May (2002).
Who let the dogs out?
Who set the birds free in Hyde Park after Brian Jones died?
Though two roads diverged in a wood.
My face is finished. My body’s gone.
Ask not what you can do for your country…
You’re not waiting for me to cite Houellebecq.
Because it’s understood.
I want to see the film in the morning light.
At morning sun (harmony in blue).
Setting sun (symphony in grey and pink).
Road to Rouen.
Messiaen pulling out all the stops.
Eventually these corrupt regimes collapse.
The rich have the faces.
And there are always hounds of hell.
Echoing in the basements of ultimate fear.
As above, so below.
Caduceus vs. rod of Asclepius.
It is only when one runs screaming from the complex (Snowden) that healing begins.
SecDef Forrestal seems to have almost made it.
Before leaping from the 16th floor of the NNMC in Bethesda.
And yet someone felt compelled to drag Sophocles into the mix.
“Comfortless, nameless, hopeless save
In the dark prospect of the yawning grave….
Woe to the mother in her close of day,
Woe to her desolate heart and temples gray,
When she shall hear
Her loved one’s story whispered in her ear!
‘Woe, woe!’ will be the cry–
No quiet murmur like the tremulous wail
Of the lone bird, the querulous nightingale.”
Who set the nightingale free?
La Règle du jeu [1939)
I relate to Jean Renoir’s character. Octave. Fat, optimistic, and full of regrets.
Jean Renoir was, of course, the director of this film.
Likewise, he plays a very important dramatic role in the production.
I would argue that his role is the most essential of all.
In this film of rich, pithy characters, Octave sticks out like a polished stone.
Not a precious stone.
Simply a smooth, common rock. A paperweight. Our anchor.
And this is apparent on first viewing, yet La Règle du jeu necessitates multiple viewings to truly appreciate.
My language is not French. Yes, perhaps it is my favorite language, but I am indebted to the subtitles.
And La Règle du jeu is replete with overlapping, symbolic dialogue.
But you don’t want to hear such boring play-by-play.
If you are reading, you want something special.
And I want something special when I watch a film.
Jean Renoir (son of the more well-known Impressionist painter Pierre-Auguste Renoir) delivers a masterpiece here.
There is a Great Gatsby effect which may put off modern audiences of modest means (like myself).
To wit, who wants to hear about rich people problems?
All I can do is urge patience when watching this film.
It may not immediately come off as riveting, but it is well worth it if you stick it out till the end.
What should be pointed out is that Renoir was apparently making a statement about the upper classes which paints them in a not altogether flattering light.
More directly, this film takes aim at the elite and lets ’em have it (but in a very sneaky way).
And yet, it is not all about class warfare.
Far from it.
It embraces and repudiates.
Actions can be deplorable. But those who commit deplorable actions are still humans.
We all have the capacity within us for unspeakable error.
Few among us truly stand out as regards vice.
But we are all touched by the world.
I estimate it quite unlikely than a truly monastic monk or nun is reading this post.
And if they are, I hope they are brewing up a nice batch of beer in Belgium.
The rules of the game.
Hired lackeys who whack the trunks of trees to drive the animal life out of the forest.
Moving like a line of riot police.
All for the rich to have their fun.
But Renoir is the true artist.
He makes it clear.
The rich aren’t all bad.
The poor aren’t all saints.
Both classes lean to the middle.
There are admirable actions from both sides.
Perhaps the class structure itself is suspect.
Perhaps it is a vestige whose time has come.
But reality is that rich and poor will wake up on the globe tomorrow.
Staggered in times. Zones.
Rich at their leisure (we imagine).
Poor at the more brutal hours (no doubt).
The poor run around like rabbits chased out of the forest.
The rich sit in their hunting blinds and preach gun control.
The true hunt now is the techno hunt. The bio hunt.
But a girl and a gun can still carry a movie.
And so, I have rambled enough about La Règle du jeu. It is truly an indispensable film.
Something about it is almost impenetrable for an English speaker (monoglot) in the 21st century.
And so we hope the French haven’t forgotten their fondateurs like Jean Renoir.
It’s up to all of us to preserve these slices of history.
Yes, it is fiction. Yet, real life was employed (implored) in the making of this fiction (which seeks to be lifelike).
An endless reflection.
In the hall of mirrors at Versailles.
I didn’t know movies could be this good.
Where have they been keeping this all of our lives?
When I was young I stumbled into The Gold Rush. 25/52.
And I lived at the end of a flower in City Lights.
So I knew.
But I forgot.
That Charlie Chaplin was the most vivid outcast—the great romantic on rollerskates.
And the miracle?
Claire Bloom lives.
No Sylvia Plath ending.
And Charles Chaplin lives.
As much as Baudelaire’s vieux saltimbanque.
It was her first film. Bloom.
And now she is 84 years young.
No one told me films could be miracles.
It’s kinda like Thora Birch.
People thought she stopped working.
But it wasn’t true.
No greater love have I seen for an art.
Like Pierre-Auguste kissing the canvas…and then painting.
You can’t simply say Renoir in film and let it linger…
Tell Tchaikovsky the news.
The first chord. In Moscow perhaps. And all 122 pages fall onto the keyboard.
A thunderous vibration like Chaliapin.
Фёдор Ива́нович Шаля́пин
A drinking problem.
Torn and frayed.
At the edges.
In the wings.
Ah yes…I haven’t heard that name in a long time.
The piano was unprepared.
A cage of equal temperament.
And so we removed the great nest
of cosmic dissonance.
Don’t get me wrong.
I love a good cluster chord.
An honest, flawed note.
Take your dissonance like a man…someone said…maybe Henry Cowell.
On second thought, ’twas Ives.
I’ve spent my life in a drum.
Like Keith Moon.
A human projectile.
88 ways to look at a blackbird.
I’ve never seen one person leave it all on the stage quite like that.
A lifetime’s work. Painted.
The film was in black and white?
I didn’t happen to notice.
Because behind my eyes the colours were bursting.
And so like those little speckles in the concrete which the moon caught.
As I dreamt of being a composer.
And I too dove headfirst into the void like Yves Klein.
And for us it was no sleight of hand.
There was no airbrushed net.
And I landed hard.
Gandhi is smiling and that’s all that matters.
between yell and Yale
bell strut feet dill old pod loot. Look!
88 ways to be a composer and an itch ain’t one (bite me!)
Film is completely unimportant when writing about film.
Take Hubert’s Flea Circus on 42nd St.
I would never have known were it not for Nick Tosches.
And my favorite book:
Where Dead Voices Gather.
Yeah, but it’s like Picasso’s musicians.
You think I’ve really cracked up. Craquelure.
“Any fish bite if you got good bait.”
They tell us in economics there’s only one Mona Lisa.
Because the painter is dead.
Because he’s not alive to paint another.
Another Mona Lisa.
Unlimited supply. EMI.
You’re driving at something.
I just know it.
Because the film was too long. And too good.
Not possible, Likert.
Many aw-kward moments of perfection.
Where Chaplin hit too close to home.
Was it Dave Davies?
“Death of a Clown”
It can’t be described conventionally.
You can’t just go to the Grand Canyon and say, “Vast.”
Was ist das?
That is what I’m trying to say.
طعم گيلاس [1997)
[TASTE OF CHERRY (1997)]
Don’t kill yourself, my friend.
I try to preserve the original language.
From France to Romania and now Iran.
It says Taste of Cherry. And it is a film beyond perfection. Directed by Abbas Kiarostami.
[if you are on a laptop or desktop it may appear to have no title…not very Farsi-friendly this WordPress]
Long ago I saw this quiet juggernaut.
If you’ve never seen an art film, you’ll know the genre when you see it.
Perhaps this was my first.
At an Alamo Drafthouse in Austin, Texas.
How did I end up there?
More importantly, how did I end up here?
This (the latter) seems to be the vexing question which actor Homayoun Ershadi is asking himself while embodying the suicidal character Mr. Badii.
Never have I seen an actor say so much with such economy of means.
Driving around. Driving around.
We are suffocated by the expressionless Mr. Badii.
It reaches a head (of sorts) in the quarry. He’s had enough.
Our protagonist cannot even secure the most essential human contact. He cannot find even a marginal friend.
We do not know his story. It would be impossible for anyone to have complete empathy.
He is right. Your pain is yours alone.
But maybe a miracle is waiting…
Enter Abdolrahman Bagheri.
I have never felt such emotion in a film.
It is real. As Mr. Bagheri (his name in the film and real life) recounts his own suicide attempt we are brought into a rarefied talent for dialogue which I have only seen in Louis-Ferdinand Céline’s novel Voyage au bout de la nuit. Hope in the midst of nihilism. The deepest, darkest desperation pierced by humor…or humanity.
It places Kiarostami (at least in this film) as a forerunner of the Romanian New Wave. The trappings are similar.
We see the most depressing back alleys of urban sprawl. Gravel paths not yet claimed entirely from the grasp of the earth.
This film is all about earth. Dirt. The dust of impressionism. Concrete.
Rocks being broken up.
A man (Mr. Badii) whose only longing is, seemingly, to be dead.
Earthmovers, earthmovers everywhere…and not a load to spare.
I have never seen a film like this.
Yes, it fits into the art film genre, and yet…it forges ahead…a new path…take the fork to the right, please.
This film is a testament of hope for the Afghan people.
A testament of hope for the Kurds.
A testament of hope for the Azeris.
And, most of all, this eternal masterpiece is a testament to the genius of Iran.
May the future be as beautiful as the colors of the setting sun.
Even if that sun must piece the sadness of cranes and smog in Tehran.
I will look for the sun if you will…my dear friends.