What did /tv/ make of Certified Copy?
I thought the ambiguity was quite cheap. For the first half of the film you have no reason to assume that they really are married, and you only have reason to believe it in the second half because the characters arbitrarily change their demeanors. It was all very contrived. Like Someone in Love was a much better film, with more consistent characterisation and much better visual design.
Also interesting that a film that so markedly blurs fact and fiction would be made by a muslim like Abbas Kiarostami. Does the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya have anything to do with his mysterious aesthetics?
can you wait for the board split before having actual discussion about films?
thank u
CUZ LIKE THE PAINTING THEY WERE DISCUSSING WHICH ONE IS REAL HA HA IT'S ALL MAD MAN DOES IT MATTER WHICH IS REAL HAHAHA DOES IT DEVALUE THE EXPERIENCE IF ONE IS NOT REAL IF WE BELIEVE IT IS HA H H
>>63146742
>>63146742
I think the inventary of themes that composes most of Kiarostami's auvre can find parallels to the Iranian modern art movement that started in the 40s, being an aesthetic continuation of a movement that seeks in the pop avant-guarde solutions for a country wounded by societal oppression.
>>63146742
>For the first half of the film you have no reason to assume that they really are married, and you only have reason to believe it in the second half because the characters arbitrarily change their demeanors. It was all very contrived.
That's his point. The artist can do whatever he wants with the film, we're just perceiving it as his vision
>>63146971
That's a great question Kiarostami raised, stop shitposting
>>63147404
>That's his point. The artist can do whatever he wants with the film, we're just perceiving it as his vision
Really? That is so trivial that I fail to see what is worthwhile in this exercise.
>>63147566
That's my just my understanding. I like Ebert's review
>What it comes down to is: We assume there's more going on here than meets the eye, but maybe what meets the eye is all that's going on, and there is no complete, objective reality. Does that also apply to a copy of a masterpiece of art? Is a skillful copy of the "Mona Lisa" less valuable than the original painting? What if the original had been lost? Would we treasure the copy?
Such questions are raised by "Certified Copy" and not answered. Is raising them the point? Does Kiarostami know the answer? Does he care? At least we are engaged, and he does it well. Is that enough? I can explain "Blow Up" and "L'Avventura" to my own satisfaction. This is the best I can do with "Certified Copy." Perhaps it was wrong of me even to try.
Critics have different opinions about it, but that's the way i see it. Kinda like an abstract painting, where you don't fully understand it, but still can appreciate it and find your meaning.
>>63147649
This shit actually wows film critics? It's next to worthless for anybody with any knowledge of modern aesthetic theory. Just empty posturing.
Bergman did it better with Persona.
>>63146742
>Also interesting that a film that so markedly blurs fact and fiction would be made by a muslim like Abbas Kiarostami. Does the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya have anything to do with his mysterious aesthetics?
I think that's just non-whites.
>>63148595
Can you explain?
>>63146840
Can this really happen? Pls let us have /film/
>>63148692
There is nothing original or profound in his thinking. It will emerge to anybody who reads even the barest of writings on postmodernism. This sounds like an empty exercise which does nothing more than illustrate a decades old philosophical view.
>>63149839
Kiarostami is far from post-modernism, which does not hold the copyright on the theme of authenticity, something that has been debated since the ancient Greeks (see Ship of Theseus). Besides, criticizing a filmmaker for lack of thematic originality is extremely simple to do. I don't think there's any filmmaker whose thinking can be described as truly "original or profound" or who expound upon something philosophically novel in their movies.
>>63149925
Somebody like Malick is such a deep confluence of philosophical influences that his work genuinely does express a novel worldview. I also think Borzage and Ford have unambiguously original and vital views on the world, even if you can find influences in eg freemasonry.
If the merit in Certified Copy is the freshness of its insights, it is a total failure. I haven't heard it defended in any other terms either,
>>63150293
Not that dude you're arguing with but what are your thoughts on Close-up, Taste of Cherry, Like someone in love and Where is the friends home?
>>63150293
>Somebody like Malick is such a deep confluence of philosophical influences that his work genuinely does express a novel worldview.
No, it's pretty much Heidegger's Being-in-the-World and his entire oeuvre consists of topics that touch on hermeneutics and ontology.
>If the merit in Certified Copy is the freshness of its insights, it is a total failure.
Can you share any other film that tackles the same theme? F for Fake and this >>63148642 come to mind, though none are as obtuse in their treatment as Kiarostami who shifts the focus from art to a constructed relationship (Welles deals with it more directly, while Greaves prefers a meta-cinematic approach, something that Welles also incorporates).
>>63146742
>>63147146
>>63147404
>>63147649
>>63149925
>>63150293
>>63150880
Who are you and why are you trying to reason with the denizens of /tv/? Magnificent effort you're making but I wonder what is the point since your thread will likely go nowhere, even if it gets big it'll only turn into a shit fest. , you must know you're only going to draw out the pseudo intellectual trolls by deploying all those tactical complete sentences.
>>63150585
I haven't seen most of them in a while. Like Someone in Love is a profoundly mysterious masterpiece though. It has vastly superior dramatic construction and its reflections on urban life are quite moving.
>>63150880
>No, it's pretty much Heidegger's Being-in-the-World and his entire oeuvre consists of topics that touch on hermeneutics and ontology.
Totally wrong. You either haven't studied Malick's films closely or, like many in the critical establishment, you revel in total ignorance of the profound and varied theological traditions he swims gracefully through.
>Can you share any other film that tackles the same theme?
Not off the top of my head. The idea seems so trite and boring that I would hope very few filmmakers would have the nerve to waste our time giving it cinematic exposition.
>>63146742
She didn't even have hairy pits, shit movie.
>>63151490
What were your thoughts on the ending of Like someone in love? What was the point? How were we supposed to feel about it? I struggled to like/understand it for a while and eventually just gave up. Everything else is great though
>The idea seems so trite and boring that I would hope very few filmmakers would have the nerve to waste our time giving it cinematic exposition
I completely disagree and wish more filmmakers would take chances and do something new with film as a medium, most of them are just telling stories in a audiovisual way, great artists go beyond the current paradigms.
>>63151490
>Totally wrong.
Explain.
>you revel in total ignorance of the profound and varied theological traditions he swims gracefully through.
Nice little word salad there, but you basically said nothing. Malick is a Heideggerian at heart, so much so that he was disillusioned when he returned to the analytic current that still is rampant in American academia and then took up filmmaking.
>The idea seems so trite and boring
Really? Like both you and I agreed, it's an age-old philosophical question going back to the Ancient Greeks (and has little to do with post-modernism). Do you also find films that tackle with, say, the problem of evil to be trite and boring? What films do you find philosophically original?
