Gabbeh

Mohsen Makhmalbaf - 1996
Focus on colour, clearly. A mixture of very long shots, in pretty long takes, and some quite close moves, always still, between faces, to create the slightly magical continuity elements. The matches on action, where magic occurs, gives thought to one of the principle elements of this film, the idea of abundance; of image, of colour, of warmth, of people communicating.
Those great strong colours, centered in the frame and in the treatment, are the life against what is often a pretty arid looking background. They are the stuff of something called 'life'.
The plot is clearly a bit of magical realism, time colliding, a look back on a life by throwing past and future together to have a chat with each other. The plot functions very gently in the background, with the idea of the refrain being key, and the idea of narrative more than a logical working out. The film seems largely to want us to focus on colours, life, patience in this, people.

A Separation

Asghar Farhadi - 2011
A fine, fine work, not particularly ambitious but completely succesful as far as it goes.
Formally, it is about as unexciting as you can get away with and still be a film of its overall standing. Using next to no depth, shaky work. It moves with characters, passing from P.O.V. It is a high complement from me if I say it had certain echoes of Assayas (fuzz, from no depth, accentuates this comparison). This technique did help convey the problem of the lack of focus of the individuals, the overall picture of a society that is busy, harried, lacking clear
paths.
I was deeply impressed with the edit. It only cuts when necessary, it finds a reason to, rather than looking for not to, cut. This is actually quite often. We move from face to face often, but they tell us something, by seeing that gaze it adds to the consideration of the particular event.
There is a great economy of the editing, which tends to ellipsis; the later, we find this ellipsis is cause of the so many problems. This is a smart formal aspect; the viewer's lack of attention is drawn in, complicit with the situation.
This is a social problem film really, a narrative with a build up of small problems, difficulties, which in a low-key manner come together to underscore a near impossbility of life. The only moment I could have a problem with is that religion is used as a 'solution' at the one moment when their may be one; but this isn't clear all the same. That religion, sexism, and key to all, class is used, leaves a varied impression. There is much interesting viewer response here; perhaps for personal reasons, I sided more with the man. But the film offers a double view on this, leading one to consider one's siding; this is done by constant juxtapositions, constant revelations, developments, justifications and condemnations of the 'other view'.
When one sees a film wehre all are right, all are wrong, all are open to grace, but flawed, but have their reasons, one gives the name Renoir. This film isn't as existentially ambitious as Renoir; it appeals really to a pretty small, probably deeply bourgeois, and patient audience. Yet it does do these things.
This film does allow a few wondrous moments among the chaos, which is gripping if challenging, of the story. Small moments of calm, a cut to a clam face. This is often in the framing, where a shot will use the whole frame, two centres rather than one, to give a certain aestheticism, a different view. They offer moments for consideration. In the lift, or with half the screen blocked by a door. This use is played on later, where we have a sort of half-use of it in moments that call at once for a calmness but contribute to explaining difficulties in the plot.
This wouldn't not work as a play, though it exploits the cinema to an extent. What it is fine at is telling us the state of the world, of Iranina society at this time, to a certain degree of depth. It is easy to compare to 'Crimson Gold' which is maybe less reportage, but also gives us, basically, the missives on a society. This isn't a film to see if one is impatient; though one will hopefully, through the not cool or trendy, but challenging, world depicted and expressed in the form, learn the use, and perhaps impossibility, of patience.

Through The Olive Trees

Abbas Kiarostami - 1994
A slightly curious film, perhaps Kiarostami's most 'bitty' I have seen, with stunnign sequences breaking through.
A more metropolitan tone and set-up, with a clear skewer on certain film-making practices, not least his own. Crossed with the location. Use of 'And Life Goes On...''s married man really takes a new view on what cinema is; a cover-up, an opportunity to meet, and of course, this itself is a film... and what beautiful moments, perhaps the most straightforward (albeit one sided) love story in Kiarostami I can remember, of Hussein's wishes.
I think 'gently teasing' would be the best phrase here, an enquiry which has conclusions, which one can really engage in. Again, we have long takes, but not for any stylisitic meta-reasons. The form is of the content; that is all.... and Kiarostami is happy to use close-ups and so on when necessary. More concentration on Kiarostami's sound design would perhaps be fruitful. No image is designed to smasch you to the back of the cinema, but asks for more from you, to really look, to think about it. That is why I would call them beautiful. I have no hesitation in saying that, for me, Kiarostami makes films in a way that no-one else in the post-68 cinema has, and that he is one of the very greatest figures in my cinema.

And Life Goes On...

Abbas Kiarostami - 1991
It's a quantative rather than a qualitative leap, but the reflexivity here is obviosuly dialled up. Even the shots themselves are takes through interior frames of windows and car doors.
The first concerted use I have seen by Kiarostami of fixed camera positions, especially inside cars. And the tracks this entails, sound from offscreen, through the landscape. Often stick in the car as out fellow-journeyeres head out.
Ethical questions posed, but not just to be gaped at. Man is doing a good thing, but is it a selfish one? Slightly more likeable than other car-owners in 'Taste of Cherry' and 'The Wind...'. Likeability not really the point.
Are we really getting to know these people? If cinema can, this is it. Gently giving time, but not superfluosly covering over with smoothness. Slightly harsh questions. A catalogue of the earthquake, it surely must be O.K. to film it...? Certain humour in the self-reflexivity.
Sudden moments in Kiarostami, often of tenderness (the married man...) or brutality (hitchhiker ignored; will the car go back) that seem to open up a world of understanding. Never uncurious; world cup chat is genuinely funny in itself, bizarre for the situation, but true as well; this isn't sentimentlised provincialism. People trying to love, to do more than that, live a good life. We can't agree with what they say, we can judge their homilies as inferiro, or we can realise that what they're saying is kind of true. Deeply intelligent filmaking, not requiring convoltued symbolism.

Where Is The Friend's House?

Abbas Kiarostami - 1987
Wonderful long takes. Patient build up of frustration, and bursts of stupid brutality. But we have that other's P.O.V. It's not right to say Kiarostami is a neo-realist, but if he is, it's in this film. Wonderful use of landscape. Shots of hills with hills as 80% of frame and runner along the top. I criticised this framing as not conveying a great sense of expanse in 'Meek's Cutoff', arguing that 'Earth' showed low a low plain and much sky gave great sense of sense. Here Kiarostami is not trying to show a great space; but a locale that is almost circular, the boy finds that who he is looking for is in fact where he just came from, Koker....
Level of detail with not wordy language. Focus on looker before looked, but we do eventually get the eyline matches. Pictoral beauty, never self-consciousness, of just making the image that little bit more complex. A dark alley behind, a blue door. That is beauty.
Sense of mild absurdity in repetion and zigzagging road (found in 'And Life Goes On...' and 'The Wind...' also. Yet here we are engaged in a conversation and dialogue that is not strongly pedagogic. We are asked to see what is happening, and we learn to understand, the closer shots of the boy and the longer takes of the houses and streets. Film that poses questions. Revelatory ending, though not 'complete'. Again, compromising oneself, finding one's ideals indaequate, in the search? But never self-obsessed; a place. The old men are cruel, but they have half a point. Abstract ideas are expressed, but don't capture this film. What is freedom? Running away from your mother, to find the friend's house, to help to the friend.

The Traveler

Abbas Kiarostami - 1974
Wonderful first picture. Combination of those still longer shots. The he moves in, and often shots (longish takes) of just a head, with a non-twitchy editing preocedures enhances the worries. Shot in a black and white of great beauty. Moves to almost complete black. Not simple in a landscape sense, but pictorially does not muck about with laborious symbolisation.
Story becomes crucial to us because of point of view. Telling details, like goalposts.
Genuniely thoughtful cinema. Theme of Kiarostami if people having 'good' goals, we sympathise and are with them, but perhaps going too far, compromising themselves, Selling of goalposts and the remarkable scene with the camera. Kiarostami not afraid of a wry look at characters (we know he shouldn't fall asleep...), but not mocking. They escape our ability to moralise. A couple of interesting, less classical Kiarostami moments; such as the dream.
And some lines that could sound bathetic elsewhere are simply... true. 'You're my friend, won't you help me?'.

Abbas Kiarostami: Selected Early Shorts

3 Short films for Abbas Kiarostami
The Bread and Alley (1970); wonderful ten minutes. Simple close-up. More focus on the looking than the reverse of what is looked at, though this does come. Shot of the street from fixed view, lokking down rather than across. Use of sound design to evoke dog. Wonderful double-view as the dog is seen not just as ferocious. More in this than in most features.
Breaktime (1972); 11 minutes, fisrt view of punishment. Use of telephoto lens to capture far away. No dwelling on the punishment. Again, fine work.
The Chorus (1982); 17 minutes. Again the use of sound design. About ignoring the world. Kiarotami's focus on the kind of ordinary people genuinely ignored. Sweet, but never lapsing to sentimentality. Enigmatic ending of the man's smile.

The House Is Black

Short documentary made in 1962, of a leper colony. By the poet Forough Farrokhzad.
This is a seeringly put together feature. Yes, the images are clearly shocking. The question of God, a dove, a beauty that could yet allow this to happen is clearly raised. This is juxtaposed with the camera's role in the situation. And, crucially, the social role is also raised; these are people, they can be helped.
The constant search the film makes is how to represent this. There are longer takes, the scene to the distance, of repitiotus actions. Indeed, there is much repetion here. As fast montage sometimes comes in, trying to grab the images, they reveal their anxiety. As is occassionally explicit, for all the camera shows, it also hides. We can only see feet; the face is masked. Various techniques, of direct presentation, focus on surface, pans, are used, to take us among, always at a necessary distance, the colony.
The break between sound and image is effected as at once critical distance, at once unknowability. The use of poetry does not interfere with the image, but asks us to distance ourselves. And the poetry, rooted as it is in the earth, casts the sights to the wider context; of course we are locked out.
For all the images of deformity here, this film should not be marked as showing something extreme, or weird. It shows a medical complaint. Why? It must be to help, improve. Their is more of an immanent, material anlysis, than might be immediately apparent on the surface. For that, this film saves itself morally. That is where the beauty of it lies; the most carefully framed images projected are images of protest, not acceptance.

Persepolis

Popular Iranian animated picture, personal and political; Marjane Satrapi's story, with a co-direction credit to Vincent Paronnaud. 2007.
The animation is simple, with expressionist touches. Use of either white surfaces outside, with almost expressionist touches around the corners. Conveys the mood very well; world changes as the action does. Simpler drawings for clear scenes, twisted trees for hardship, use of shadows, etc.
Constantly moving ‘camera’, constant fades from one scene to the next, frequent montage work. Fast changing of images fits with the speedy narrative. Some wonderful touches as one images transforms into the next. The constant movement does mean that nothing is dwelled upon.
This is both a positive and a negative feature; the cuts to sillouhette for some of the toughest scenes, their quick departure, signals this as a work that is ultimately about one person’s experience.
Nearer the start it is a terrific run through of Iranian history (nicely played out as almost a play within the film), before becoming increasingly a personal story, an interior one. Leaves some questions to be asked. It would be grating and cruel to demand more, but their are certainly other films here (note the almost shot to shot short musical montage debt to the great ‘Waltz with Bashir, a deeper journey).
This is very much narrative, without much character study beyond the lead. The images are also used (in an excellent manner), though some undoubtedly stay with you. A good film, even better than that at its start.

Turtles Can Fly

2004 film, the first released from Iraq since the occupation, by Bahman Ghobadi, who gave us the below-standard '...Persian Cats'. This is much better
the dialgoue generally veers above the level of annoying, the plot does not exactly fly along, but has a smooth enough arc to go with its main point, which is obviously a kind of reportage
use of various framings; rather standard singles, but some nicer medium shots, and the much more interesting extra-long shots, which are the closest to giving us a sense of the (largely neglected) landscape, by creating some space
the colour scheme is throughout an interesting one, with good browny/grey washed out work on the rubbish heap, mirrored in the water
this film isn't really about the style though;
this is realism, but it's not quite your standard misery film.
Not just the mystical elements, by the strangely ordered way the action is moved around, almost a flippany seems to enter at times
the same sense of fatalism of 'Persian Cats'
the misery we're shown here may have been better dealt with in a documentary; especially considering the lack of context shown (few newsreel shots just beg the question)
alternatively, could have beena complete fantasia
what we ultimately have is a film that is not your standard realism, too jerky and staged for that, but at once is focussed on a very real happening
in no way a particularly good film, but interesting nonetheless
It would be patronising to congratulate it for simply being made; the greater complement is to analyse how it works

Crimson Gold

Jafar Panahi's 2003 picture, written by Kiarostami
opening scene with the fixed camera, T-shaped, with some offscreen space emphasised more than others
simple direction; reverse and back, long takes, with frequent master shots as well
a few head on framings that again give this film a simple atmosphere
general quite contained in the frame, but not monotomous due to break up in the motorcyle elements, with vertical space
the temporal disjunction challenges the viewer, one of the film's main themes
really all about creating something repellent, and then learning to sympathise
also a film considering class issues, and kinds of pleasures
his eating indicates his last pleasure; all is taken away
fame uses an elliptical style where the main 'reasons' are withdrawn; this is why it's more of a character portrait than a classic narrative
not the most ambitious film ever, but well made (and wonderfully well pitched writing), make it a decent film

At Five In The Afternoon

2003, Samira Makhmalbaf
dissapointing, really
script is the main problem; repition (not translation)
makes it seem rather patronising
a few images of lone figures are promising
and nice juxtapositions of colours, the blue umbrellas etc
repetitions of locations and actions
largely this is just neo-realism without any real thought
yes, crucial to know, but could really have written this dowm
not a terrible level of debate, but nothing too new
not as hyped

Taste Of Cherry

1997 Abbas Kiarostami
Sharp, dark people against yellow. white/ sand,backgrounds
3 or f camera uses; claustrophobia. Move out to longer shots. Frames within frames
usual Kiarostami; long takes, driving, still
Use of language, simple, poetic
Clearer, less opaque than usual. Direct
Normal people, sometimes ugly
the right ending, if difficult. Avoid easy route. Time to think in the last few shots

Frontier Blues

The new movie from Iranian director Babak Jalali. It is a fun and interesting film, a nice digression on formalism and place, on localism.
We have the long long shots of people who remain pretty still. When they do walk, they walk like puppets, often from a wide view. They directly address the camera (the talking photographer) on occassion. The dialogue is stilted and largely consists of non-sequiters.
As a formalist piece we enjoyed this very much. It might not have a huge amount to it in that sense, but it sure gave the images a good run at us. The balance and harmony were all there, quite self consciously so on occassions.
The use of these formalist tropes was nicely deconstrcuted on occassions, as indeed was the whole filmmaking process. We were always aware of the presence of the camera, recording these blank gazes.
It has a real deadpan humour to it, the 'performances' are completely underdone, which stops it getting all too ridiculous. The most interesting questions are well framed, the stasis and ridicuolous wish of ours to capture some 'colourful' or 'exotic' locales.
Obviously long shots with no story to speak of can be argued to get a little tedious, but this wasn't really the case in our viewing experience. The pretty darn horrendous locations, the repition, and the blankness of the whole piece gave it a real hypnotic quality, like tuning in and out. We won't pretend our mind didn't wander on occassion, but in the nicest way, the film sort of washed over us a little.
A few notes; there is an obvious Herzog reference, and the blankness, if not the actual shots, can remind one of him. This film is like 'Fata Morgana' except where they shoot is not spectacular.
There are also a couple of (to be honest, mildly annoying) Kiarostami references, with the photographer and the plant-motorbike. They also had a moment or two of Kiarostami-esque camera work during dialogue, but in general it was a mention rather than a stylistic homage.
A film of rythm and mood, a formalist piece, really, but this may have helped convey the realistic atmosphere better than other techniques. Interesting and worth seeing.

Close-Up

This 1991 work from Abbas Kiarostami is much revered, and, of course (being Kiarostami), a complete masterpiece.
The idea of twisting between documentary and fiction is neither done as a meta-exercsie, nor brushed over. The questions of who is acting, when they are acting, when they are all acting, come to the fore. The medium is constantly present (in a verite style), we are constantly aware of it, yet we are aware of it as looking at someone, at seeing something. The scenes Kiarostami engineers are at once clearly engineered, in their deliberate atmosphere of almost-fakery, yet in a kind of Brechtian way only this forgery allows us to see truth; the true people bbehind the acting, only available when they are acting.
This isn't Kiarostami's most visually striking film, on first look. The images are more to do with making sure we have a good view of the protagonists faces, though we do get some wonderful Ozu-esque moments during conversation. The conversation is classic naturalist Kiarostami; never pretentious, always profound in an earthy way, never sentimental.
The P.O.V. doesn't follow anyone in particular, making for quite a rough film and a twisted experience to watch. We at once follow everyone and no one; we would hesitate to say that we ever really get anyone's perspective, apart from perhaps the cab driver's at the start.
This is a film that gives up its secrets less easily than a work of the greatness of 'The Wind Will Carry Us', it is a twisted journey, where even the incredible, audacious end is wreathed in dry humour and meta-questions. But do these questions really exist at all? This film is a response that can't be articulated, only on screen, only in Kiarostami. Great.

Certified Copy

The new film from the modern master Abbas Kiarostami, surely not just a great modern director but a great director, full stop.
This is his first film outside Iran, and for this he has dived into the European intellectual scene. We have the long discourses of some Godard, Rohmer (more on that later) and various French and Italian traditions. This is a very European film, but made through the Iranian's viewpoint gives it so much more interest than a homage.
First, the acting. Binoche is terrific, the woman on the edge of the verge. Is she selfish? Her relation to sensuality is also fascinating. Both characters have obvious contradictions and weaknesses, yet we do indeed come to understand them, and even to like Binoche. A fine performance. Shimmell is stagey, which we shall charitably put down as deliberate rather than amateurish acting. The kind of pompous, slightly stilted and fake delivery of lines in fact works rather well. What may be ignored is that this piece is rather funny, and criticisms from a realist about the 'untrue' or 'fake' interactions, 'that people don't really act like that', misses the point. This is an exploration of a kind of reality, not of a classic realist one.
The plot is one of the most interesting discussions of relationships since, well, Eric Rohmer (rather more complex and colder, but not dissimilar, to Linlater's Before Sunrise/Sunset). We have the ideas of little compromises, of if memory matters, and of a huge amount more. It takes some digesting, the threads thrown out and weaved in. Ultimately, we have people not willing to follow there own thoughts to their limits, but wishing for the right thing. What is this?
Visually, it may seem a little dissapointing. Kiarostami, after the first shot, does not go in so much for the simple balance that made, say, 'The Wind Will Carry Us' so incredible. Perhaps he couldn't find this in the complex and neurotic Europe. But it turns out that this film is not so much visually neglected as developed. As always it is simple takes, quite close in this time. Perhaps as it is a character piece. The Ozu influences are still there, obviously in the near direct homage of the staroght to camera conversation and the slight side on takes. The classic Kiarostami tactic (not quite so well developed in this movie, due to its attempt to focus on two characters rather than one) of sticking on a face when being spoken to rather than speaking is fitfully present. We love this, and in this piece the balance struck again reminded us of Eric Rohmer. It is relationships in reactions, surely a much underplayed fulcrum.
Also Kiarostami plays with depth, visually, more than before, some wonderful and powerful reactions gained and suggested through the use of mirrors, and of persepctive from doorways. His failure to use deep focus in these scenes perhaps requires a good think to uncover the reasons.
There are a couple more things to mention visually, the car scene not just being a Kiarostami return but given a kind of transcendental quality with the reflecting lights, as though they have come to enter another world, hyperspace. Also, the final scenes are magnificent, Binoche going Renaissance on us, the lighting being used to give and take emphasis.
This film is certainly odd in its story, the lack of realsim and stilted delivery occsaionally meaning we wonder how seriously to take the piece, but overall we enjoyed it very much. Fascinating on relationships, always interesting visually, Kiarostami has not made the greatest work he has made, but he has made a film that rises about 95% of the rest of cinema.

Women Without Men

Visually ambitious Iranian film, tackling themes of politics and femininity. We did enjoy it, thematically found it compelling and well told, visually were impressed by imagines and certain aspects. In certain sections we were, though, dissapointed with the direction and photography.
The good points first; the plot is wonderfully well though out (based on a novel) with a nice peripatetic structure. The magical realism of the piece wonderfully evokes the half0dead/half-alive life of the women of Iran. The plot was not intended to grind down the women, but it was suitably pessimistic on occassion. Quite simply, the incidents feel connected (decent intercutting) and are simply interesting, with potent symbolism. What we have in this film is a lot of hardcore identification in the shot choices and narrative following, which could be potentially tedious but feels justified in a film about oppression as this.
Visually, we appreciate the longer takes and the bleached out colour palate for its ambition. However, there are problems.
Firstly, the mis-en-shot doesn't really work. The director can't quite put her actors in the correct place, and are forced to have a rather clumsy trope of circling around them. This leads to the whole piece becoming quite literally two-dimensional; horizontal not depth perception. Another more surprising problem (considering the director is a photographer) is simply that many of the images lack balance. They just don't seem that well put together, or taken from the right angle to achieve any effect. Odd.
We have said the colour does something, though it looks washed out it is in fact of a very high contrast, and the set dressing as much as anything prevents bright colours interfering. This high contrast has though disadvantages, however interesting it may be on occasion; the picture can lack texture and, once again, lack depth. Not a lot of tacticility on show when the burkha is a black clump.
Overall, this is a good film. It does not though appear to be overly well directed, on a imagistic level.

The Wind Will Carry Us

On first watch we liked this film very much, it stayed with us. On second watch, we recognise it as one of Kiarostami's masterpieces.
It has a wonderful pace, a terrific languid momentum, it is, of course, very beautiful. On re-watching, we were able from the start to study the themes the film only really draws together at the end. Political, meta-film, personal oddessey, all of the above.
A few extra notes; firstly, the central scene remains an enigmatic, dark thing thing of wonder. Also repeated over again. Secondly, the discussions of good and evil seem more obvious than last time, as do the leads moments of reflection.
The failure of the lead makes this an unnerving film to watch; the camera and the narrative are driven by him, we have all the tools for identification, and we do (as an audience). Yet he is clearly unpleasant. This is a curious, and rare situation. Usually, if the centre of the film is unpleasant, the traditional idenificatory tropes are neglected.
So, a marvellous marvellous film. Kiarostami is one of the greats. Answers on a postcard as to the last scene.

10 on Ten

This is a film where Abbas Kiarostami talks about his film 'Ten', while filming himself driving a car through some hills near Tehran. It expands into more general lessons on cinema.
This is of course of more intellectual interest than artistic, but it is reasonable to say that it is well paced and engaging all the same. The ideas give a certain beauty to the static shots when they come at the end.
As for what Mr Kiarostami said, the content is excellent. Without wanting to repeat, the analysis of his hyper-realism, his almost obsession with removing the artifices of cinema, is an interesting viewpoint. It is not entirely clear how he squares this with the necessary artifice he later talks about, and his quotes of Bresson on minimalism (subtract to add), though the two aspects are fascinating. He is an intelligent and very articulate teacher.
Also interesting is his discussions on music, and the acting technique. Occasioanlly it is a little obvious, but as the film moves on he reaches his most interesting points, ending with a wonderful analysis.
His adherence to cheap productions, unobtrusive, and techniques to engage and question the viewer rather than absorb (a slight diversion of Brechtean alienation) is a fascinating technical study. As is his wish for no part of the film, the cinematography, editing, or plot, to stand out from the whole. It explains his insistence on not letting one scene or image stand out, a fascinating and new (to us) thesis. He explains how his realism is a realism of the actor, who holds the pieces together. How each person, not film but person, is the real subject.
He ends with an analysis of the way Hollywood, not only through plot but through the production of 'beautiful images' (and music), 'kills' or 'wipes out' the viewer. This is a difficult note to strike, the opposite pole being the danger of hyper-calaculation, non involvement. What Kiarostami needs to explain (and, in his films, what he actually does) is the middle way, where we do not forget but neither do we coldly analyse. Instead we think, we prject backwards and forwards, not 'recknoning up' logic but with minds.
These are all big and difficult questions, which Kiarostami raises well. His attack on American theory is clear for the viewer to see, and a fascinating viewpoint. A good thoughtful documentary on the art of cinema, and how it can be an art.

Ten

This Abbas Kiarostami film, often considered one of the most important films in recent cinema, is a fascinationg, intense, uncomfortable, difficult (even agonising at times) to watch, and at times very moving film.
It is ten scenes, 'shot' from a fixed camera inside a car. They relate to the driver, who in each case is a woman in her mid thirties with a difficult, though not super-dramatic in the classic cinematic way, family life.
The opening scene is clausrophobic and absolutely horrendous. Next to no horror films can build up and twist this sense of nastiness, difficulty, power, and on the viewer's part wish to completely not be there.
As the scenes move on we get wonderful character sketches, without too much ever being given away. The woman who plays with her face, though again uncomfortable to look at, certainly has a quality. Kiarostami does not make it easy, we don't get simple conclusions from watching the way the people act (or indeed hearing). But we do get a sense of real people, who we try to understand.
The scene with the prostitute as it once unsettling, interesting, and occasioanlly moving. The laugh of the woman, her subverting what seems the intial terms of the excahnge; all fascinating, innovative.
There are moments of light in this film. We have a tenderness to some of the later mother-son events that, though on a knife edge and never to be concluded, are fascinating. It is little moments of comradeship that give this film its light.
That said, it is cluastrophobia and tenseness that form the heart of this film. Don't expect hyper-beauty, we have some nice uses of light, but this is much more about the actors than the background settings. This requires the viewer's engagement, a high level of concentration, to understand the people, rather than to wallow in anything. A film that makes demands on the viewer.
As far as ideas, we are never given didacticism, but only super-real portraits of what actual people think. This is a feminist film not in how the ideas are given, but in how we are seen the women's point of view (note how the camera's staying still takes the power from the male director and gives it to the female actors) and enter a world we are often excluded from in the cinema world.
A brave, powerful, creatively innovative film, that refuses to hand anything on a plate and makes the viewer engage and work for the pleasures and intense moments of comradeship that are there. An important film, one that will last long in the mind, and one that took us to places that cinema all too often ignores. Terrific work.