Watching this film right now. Has anyone else seen it? Was he really planning to steal from them...

Watching this film right now. Has anyone else seen it? Was he really planning to steal from them, or did he genuinely was only enjoying to pretend he is cinematographer?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=5CODR5TU8RM
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

hmmm maybe you should pay attention to the movie and find out

The latter, also watch the Koker trilogy my man XD

It is based on real story, and actors are not actors but people actually involved in real story. In film he's saying his motivations were never to steal, but was it the same in reality? It looks so much as a lie.

watched it, thought it was complete shit

razor thin plot

Isn't that the point of the movie? The penultimate scene of the motorcycle ride back to the family's home amplifies this. Did the audio really go bad or is Kiarostami just saying IT WAS JUST A PRANK BRO?

This film has no script and no soundtrack whatsoever. No professional actors are involved. Honestly it looks more like a video. Yet it is in the Sight & Sound list of all time best films. Does it mean S&S has no credibility?

>This film has no script
What?

>Watching this film right now.

FINISH THE FUCKING FILM BEFORE YOU START ASKING QUESTIONS!

Have you seen it? Do you know what it's about? Basically it's almost unedited documentary.

The film examines the fine line between fiction and reality, and how the two are irrevocably intertwined. It is, literally, the perfect examination of metafiction. It is an existentialist analysis on perception, truth, lies, and art.

It's the opposite of a documentary. If anything, it's a re-enactment, but thanks to the subject matter, the surface concept pales in comparison to the theme at its core thanks to the synergy between subject and subjectivity and also object and objectivity.

just finished watching this. did i like it?

wat?

Have you seen it? Much of it is reënactment. And there is a soundtrack- try watching it all the way through next time.

This is the story of a liar. An earnest man who lies for the sake of art. A fabricator of reality, in order to control the immediate, the susceptible, the observers. One man who takes a situation he is presented with, twists the facts, and presents them as truth. He manufactures a role, and draws others into the world he is creating; taking normal people and turning them into participants in a thought experiment to see how much they will believe, how far can he take it before it all falls apart. Suspicions arise, but he has a gift for soothing the wary. He creates a back-story, seemingly on a whim, and strengthens his argument for his created truth with every word spoken. He is eventually caught, but the observers realize that he has been speaking in his own defense this whole time. The man has been defending his reality since he first met his gullible audience.

Of course, that liar is not Hossain Sabzian, but Abbas Kiarostami.

It's Michael Cera approved

youtube.com/watch?v=5CODR5TU8RM

this guy gets it

>taking normal people and turning them into patricians
that's how I read it

pomo garbage for the IQ range of 105-115

soundtrack is only in the very ending, right after completely screwed sound

If you're posting, browsing, reading, as you're "watching," Please shut it off. It's not for you.

It's an incredible film, one of the best really, but it doesnt sound like you can appreciate it.

>hurr durr 2deep4u

yeah, no

Sabzian wanted to transform his life by masquerading as a director for a wealthy family and instead ended up transforming his life masquerading as an actor for Kiarostami

Any of you actual fans/bros see that follow up documentary on Sabzian? Heartbreaking. He had a hard life.

>Razor thin plot
That embryo mentality

I wasn't aware that documentary was ever released. Are you a fan of any other Kiarostami? I enjoy his Iranian films but I think the films he's released since he left Iran have been equally as interesting

not him, I've only seen Close-Up and The Taste of Cherry. I still have to watch the Koker trilogy and Mashgh-e Shab I guess. Really a fascinating lad

lol who watches this shit. If I had to guess film, sociology, cultural studies, and other useless trash majors for future baristas.

people smarter than you :^)

if being smart means that I waste my time watching pseudo intellectual trash then I choose to be dumb

what the fuck is the former Iranian president doing in a movie?

What are some examples of sincerely intellectual cinema? Enlighten us

It's a sorry thing that films like that are seen by creatures like OP or the other retards in the threads

>razor thin plot
can you spare a few chromosomes?

Did you come up with this one by yourself? Quality humour, very original, rabbit

people that transcended capeshit
you'll probably never get there

>insincerely asks me to list some examples of sincerity in cinema
pls, I will say that my sense of sincerity starts from the bottom up and is epistemologically grounded in empiricism.

moving from entertainment to pseudo wisdom is a decent unworthy of praise

>a.jpg
>cover of a book that you suppose ratifies your point, and yet would prove an untransposable wall if you tried to actually read it
>"is a decent unworthy of praise"
lmao

>posts completely unrelated book
great job, proud of you

It's actually a clever argument for this thread: he's pretending he a person who knows what he's talking about.

shit just got meta

name 5 movies though
are you ashamed of your taste?

>not knowing who Alan Sokal is
>not being able to identify the epistemological position of a fraud like Kiarostami

Only if by accident. Nobody ever would lose a dime betting on the stupidity of a Sup Forums user

But of course, to double down when you got so violently btfo is an alternative

I am fine with my taste, I don't feel like going through your ridiculous exercise.

>BTFO
Fail to see how I was blown out, I simply stated that cape shit is superior the tedious and childish works of Kiarostami. You literary types sure do get uppity when people treat your vapid 'art' with irreverence.

Embryo detected

Op if you like this film, watch Makmahlbaf, especially Salaam Cinema

Whatever, shitposter. Away

great argument, fag

>'argumenting' with an exposed and possibly not ironic shitposter
Na, I'm good.
Also, I recommend to not bite for anyone else

Could you please explain "the epistemological position of a fraud like Kiarostami"?
This is going to be hilarious

>I wasn't aware that documentary was ever released.

It's in the Criterion bonus/extras. It's not by Kiarostami, Sabzian died right before they were to catch up on another project. It's about his life after the film, and it's just really rough. He's a bright, lucid dreamer who has terrible tales of woe.

Yes, I really like Where is the Friend's House, Ten and A Taste of Cherry. All excellent films. Didnt love The Wind Will Carry Us.

You're right, Certified Copy is masterful, and Like Someone In Love is very good, I need another viewing to fully gauge it though.

ITT The "My first Persian film was A Separation" starter pack

>exposed and ironic
Was never being ironic and I am not exposed since I was never posturing.

Sometimes there are comfy, insightful Kiarostami threads, where anons share their enthusiasm and recommendations. This is not one of those threads. This is pathetic.

Based Cera

>watching films while browsing Sup Forums or doing anything else apart from breathing
pleb as fuck

>Watching this film right now.
>posting on Sup Forums

ITP The "I say Persian instead of Iranian because I have seen Tcherike-ye Tara and the entire oeuvre of Makhmalbaf and know so much more than you about Iranian Kinè" starter pack

The horrifying trend of tourist plebs coming to the board and blogging about ''''watching''' a film on Sup Forums is growing. Reminder to scorn and bully these animals whenever you find them.
Do this with any other tourists too, and be sure to feel good about yourself.

>Sup Forums plebs trying to insult this kino while praising complete garbage like BVS

Fuck this board.

Close-up tries to undermine a common-sense (Paine style of the word) approach to reality by distorting facts and supplying unreliable threads over the course of is narrative. In the beginning, the fraud, a fact, is depicted through reenactment. Thus, the crime is fictionalized. Although, clapboard may mark non-fictional footage for synchronizing sound with picture, it most usually establishes the footage as fiction where the characters are acting. The filming of Sabzian’s actual trial is initiated with a clapboard that we have not seen used prior to the re-enactments. This reaffirms the fictional role of the film’s cast. Reality is infected by fantasy. Facts become disputable statements by Kiarostami's obvious manipulations. The encounter between Ms. Ahankhah and Sabzian in the bus treats the victim and the impostor on equal levels. Meaning changes with time and place as the film’s subject varies. Pretty much bog standard radical skepticism. Pomo is shit.

Persian and Iranian are two different things

I can't watch this because a girl i fell in love with who broke my heart told me it was her favorite movie. Should i watch it anyways?

ok, we get it, you can copy and paste text
now could you explain "the epistemological position of a fraud like Kiarostami"?

not that user but this is silly and pretentious, it doesnt "try" to do anything, it does it. It's an examination of all of these things infused with genuine sentiment and at its heart a love of cinema. Congrats, you get how the film works, but you make no case for his being a fraud, or anything else.

Also the family was in some ways complicit anyway. Like Sabzian they were intoxicated by the allure of the silver screen.

>Pomo

s m h

Do you say "castillian cinema" when you talk about Almodóvar too?

If you love the medium, absolutely. It's a magnificent film. Starts unassuming enough but by the end it will have engaged your intellect and emotions.

Great job you summarized a "behind the scenes" featurette on how the film was made

I've never talked about him so no

>H-he can't get one over on me!

do specify the ethnicity of the filmmakers you discuss?

...

Did you read what I wrote at all? Kiarostami's radical skepticism is embedded right into Close Up. Once one rejects empiricism and common sense one always falls into mysticism and idealism.

it tried and failed

only a pleb would allow such a thing

ssshhh

>what I wrote
Azadeh?

Welles did it better

Impressive showing today user, really. In this moment you should be euphoric.

he was much more superficial
>this mite b true or it mite not
>hehe tricked u last 15 minutes were not true
ok, man, great job

yes

can you interact with people without using google?

>implies I am euphoric
>leaves snarky and ironic comment implying his superior position

Yes, because cultural background had a tremendous effect on art.

Sure, but it makes the leg work easier. Also it is not like anyone else here is positing original positions, all I see is the regurgitating of previously held critical positions. I at least took the effort to subvert what I cribbed.

I would say more obvious, but with a better execution

>arguments are only acceptable, or hold value and truth, if they are original
At least, no doubt, you put more effort than most baiters

hehe you sure trolled 'em

so is Amodóvar Spanish or Castillian?
is John Ford an example of Irish-American cinema?

>is Amodóvar Spanish or Castillian
He's both
>is John Ford an example of Irish-American cinema?
Possibly, but I'd personally say no.

are Almodovar's films an example of Castillian cinema then?

Like I said, I haven't seen any of his films, so asking me isn't going to get you an answer.

you do realize what I was replying to?

>le ironic snark
not just looking to troll. I want to see if anyone here would challenge my evaluation of Kiarostami's worth on a foundational level, nothing yet but the usual ironic snark and you don't get it arguments.

well, he certainly is castillian, his movies are in castillian and they are usually placed in Castille
is he an example of castillian cinema?

>my evaluation
copying and pasting text is not an "evaluation"

did you read the original text? If you did you would realize that it posits the opposite of my position.

I haven't watched anything from him in last 4 minutes so I still don't know.

you claim that if an Iranian director happens to be Persian he makes Persian cinema
then, taking into account that Almodóvar is a Spanish director that happens to be Castillian, he makes Castillian cinema, right?

>you claim that if an Iranian director happens to be Persian he makes Persian cinema
I never claimed that.

fuck off man