Thoughts?

thoughts?

Great. Have watched it more than once.

was solid, but not a bit slow

fucking gay
>dude I planned to kill myself but I changed my mind
wow...deep

>Exquisite!
>A work of art!
>Kiarostami continues to astound!
>Extraordinarily beautiful!

why are critics retarded?

no one wants to point out the emperor has no clothes, thereby making himself an outcast among the "top" critics.

Roger Ebert famously disliked it
What now?

sand niggers seem to make honest films
everything they do is genuine and from the heart
we have much to learn from them t bh

he was untouchable at that point. he could even give "Passion of the Christ" 4 stars and not worry about his career.

They're not advanced enough for irony

yep
it's basically all i was thinking about during this film
whiteness is a gift and a curse but i shall choose to embrace it!

I was being post-ironic btw :0)

...

But he did kill himself

but then it was all just a movie

so boring, bland, and trivial equals honest?

hey! watch where you're pointing that thing!

Was that how the ending was supposed to mean?
I thought he was a filmmaker and he was shooting something at the scene, long after his attempted suicide

It was literally behind the scene footage of the actual filmmakers making Taste of Cherry. Iranian cinema has a thing for mixing reality and fiction in their movies, though I feel this was one of Kiarostami's weaker attempts.

The ending means that suicide is something "fake", a state of spirit that doesn't make sense in reality and should only happen in movies, whereas the existentialism of every single character in the movie is true, even when they finnish their movie, their beliefs and love of life still exist, different from the suicide, that once the "movie" ends you see the real life.

Guess I got the movie all wrong...not sure if that makes it better or worse. Definitely need to rewatch it. I don't mind watching slow foreign movies where not much happens, but I guess I didn't like this one too much.
I really liked two movies by another director
Children of Heaven and the one on the ostrich farm

It took me a while to realize that user, but I'd recommend a second watch with those thoughts in mind, it becomes a much more beautiful movie.

>insert tragic self-serious theme to hook in the middlebrow
>insert meta ending to make the audience feel they're smart
Hook, line, and sinker, all the time
Kiarostami is Flaherty for dumdums

Flaherty is good, but Costa is an exceptional director, he's better than all Novo Cinema even though he's not a part of the movement. No Quarto da Vanda is on the same level as Flaherty in themes of documentary power and investment in the subject. And Horse Money is a oniric documentary and if you complete it with the shorts from Centro Historico it becomes something grand and genious. You make some assumptions and use them as dogmas, therefore you are a child that can't even argue.

Btw, suicide is a serious theme to all, and this film has no hook, you just have to experience, that's why so many people hate it, because it seems boring and the ending doesn't explain anything. The meta ending is the best way to resolve the subject, many people didn't like because as I've said already, it didn't explain shit.

Oops!

>Flaherty is good, but Costa is an exceptional director
t. undergraduate flunkie that has never seen Flaherty because he's labeled a documentary pioneer

>this film has no hook
You only watched it because the theme was suicide, and the meta ending made you feel smart. No, you're not smart, you're a tourist to kiarostami's tour guide. You have no independent thought.

Narration, if utilized at all, should be at an absolute minimum. It's either impure overexplanation or artifice. The best use of nondiegetic sound is in The Flaherty duo's Moana.

>Defenders of the film, and there are many, speak of Kiarostami's willingness to accept silence, passivity, a slow pace, deliberation, inactivity. Viewers who have short attention spans will grow restless, we learn, but if we allow ourselves to accept Kiarostami's time sense, if we open ourselves to the existential dilemma of the main character, then we will sense the film's greatness.
>But will we? I have abundant patience with long, slow films, if they engage me. I fondly recall "Taiga," the eight-hour documentary about the yurt-dwelling nomads of Outer Mongolia. I understand intellectually what Kiarostami is doing. I am not impatiently asking for action or incident. What I do feel, however, is that Kiarostami's style here is an affectation; the subject matter does not make it necessary, and is not benefited by it.
>If we're to feel sympathy for Badhi, wouldn't it help to know more about him? To know, in fact, anything at all about him? What purpose does it serve to suggest at first he may be a homosexual? (Not what purpose for the audience--what purpose for Badhi himself? Surely he must be aware his intentions are being misinterpreted.) And why must we see Kiarostami's camera crew--a tiresome distancing strategy to remind us we are seeing a movie? If there is one thing "Taste of Cherry" does not need, it is such a reminder: The film is such a lifeless drone that we experience it only as a movie.

How can a critic be so fucking plebby?

>You only watched it because the theme was suicide
Wrong

There is nothing inherently wrong with artifice as the act of creation is the deception of nature at its core.

Flaherty's genius is that he documents things that don't exist, a nonexistence that you wouldn't know unless you were attentive and had preexisting knowledge. Flaherty distills essence through careful construction of a layered reality, and in doing so, asks bigger questions through more intelligent means than ever doing otherwise.

In short, he's a pleb filter.

>how can a critic be so fucking plebby?
I don't know ask the Flaherty dissenters

>Right
ftfy

How does one create art in a representational medium?

>and and and and
Your stutter is so bad, you type with one.
>suicide is srs business guys
Not really. Go ahead and try it, then tell us all about it.

MEGAAUTIST FUCKING KILL YOURSELF

NO ONE FUCKING LIKES YOU

I watched because it aired on my Arts channel (THE SAME WHO AIRED MAN OF ARAN), after I watched I came up with a conclusion of the movie.

Stop trying to figure out my habits, and focus on movies.

People hate what they fear.

>art channel
If I labeled a cereal box art, you'd think it was.

Poetic documentary=/=Oniric documentary and you didn't see enough Costa to even counter-argument me, still behaving like a comic-vine child with your epic screencaps that you use as feats to prove David Wark as the best

The name of the channel is arte1, and is literally a channel about arts

>Stop trying to figure out my habits
>figure out
There's nothing to figure out when you're as transparent as toilet water.

>arte1
Good name for a cereal box

Haram

the plebitude on display in this thread is amazing

keep it up champs

There's no such thing as a dream, when film is inherently catatonic.

Can't dismiss my argument so you attack my text construction, good one boyo, one day you may learn how to make an argument.

>Not really. Go ahead and try it, then tell us all about it.

>On the morning of July 23, 1948, Griffith was discovered unconscious in the lobby at the Knickerbocker Hotel in Los Angeles, California, where he had been living alone. He died of a cerebral hemorrhage at 3:42 PM on the way to a Hollywood hospital

Your idol did it and yet you dismiss the seriousness of the subject, you must re-watch Taste of Cherry try to understand it (if can't grasp the movie, as I'd expect, use my brief analysis ) and afterwards you can't stop your childish attitudes and start behaving like a man.

Flaherty isn't called the biggest pleb filter for nothing

>COSTA'S FILMS ARE STILL, I CAN'T GRASP HIS MOVIEEEEEEEES

Read about the Carnation Revolution, listen to the Tubarões and then you MIGHT understand it a bit and realize what Costa is brilliantly showing you.

A man thinks, a monkey watches.

You can't even grasp Flaherty, how am I even supposed to take you seriously?

Film, the medium, is catatonic, brainlet. It's embalming.

Why do cinephiles dismiss Flaherty?

Because he's boring. Same as Griffith

Tragic that these people consider themselves intellectuals. No wonder no one takes film seriously as art.

This faggot is the Letterboxd equivalent of Manny from Goodreads. Suck my nigger cock, PTAbro.

reminder that no one who is serious about understanding/enjoying film is actually impressed by DUDE IT WAS JUST A MOVIE LMAO endings like taste of cherry and holy mountain

>letterpleb
Kill yourself, megaautist

>Using the opinions of people that you despise
I despise you even more

You've built a sentence full of poisonous ambiguity, it's not my problem you can't even write appropriately.

Yet, film can mimic dream as Horse Money obviously does it. You make sparse assumptions locking yourself in a chamber of your own pathetic thoughts, therefore you must use the intellect of others to even try to argument i.e. using pics of texts. You are a failure.

You've never watched a movie then? You only regurgitate thoughts about movies you haven't even seen??? Dear lord, Griffith-user is a bigger fraud than I had imagined.

Thank you. Finally a fucking intellectual.
And I'm saying this without an ounce of irony.

We know we're consuming media, you don't have to remind us.

Pear Tree is better

Samefagging this hard? All of them have an approximate difference of a minute.

Can't even argument so you need to create VIRTUAL FRIENDS TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS.

I'm feeling sad for you :(((

Irony is completely lost on you. You have to be older than 18 to visit this site.

Reminder to boycott all Iranian made things. We cannot support this terrorist nation in any possible way. A country that threatens another country to annihilation does not deserve any recognition what so ever and honestly needs to be wiped out themselves.

plus it was already done, and better.

Shut up and post more of your sister Ben

>I can't possibly be retarded
Yes. Yes you are

>watch
Vulgar. I peruse.

>You're smarter than me!
You'll get nowhere with platitudes.

>Retard fell for the ironic bait
Also you can't argument, so you need to use your ad-hominem's.

It's true, that's why you're mad. You also don't need to use you phone to prevent people noticing your samefagging.

Dubs of truth

>Also you can't argument
English would be preferable, Pedro.

Seems that you couldn't grasp to even respond it. You need to have an opinion or you'll always will be the cattle. That also means you should try to write and formulate decent argument instead of posting pics, because that proves you can't have your own opinion and needs someone to help you in a discussion.

Reminds of twitter faggots who can't have a proper discussion and start tagging people. You're the same species of failure.

>Seems that you couldn't grasp to even respond it
This is embarrassing, even for you. Maybe if you learned English, Pedro, you wouldn't miss them.

How to argue like megautist 101 or How I Prove My Superiority On The Internet While Shitposting On Sup Forums:

>1: Pick a director who's obscure enough but make sure enough people have heard of him or nobody will take the bait.
>2: Address his 'genius'. Repeat the word 'genius' a lot.
>3: Screenshot of something unrelated, it must be related enough though for people to fall for you bait. E.g. If the topic is documentary, make sure to pick a documentary for your screenshot of choice.
>4: Make sure to not address any of the points the OP made.
>5: Argue from authority: make sure your argument comes from someone else's head and not your own. Anybody on the internet will do as long as you can quote it.
>6: Use words like diagetic and catatonic, remember to reference the canon and auteur theory.
>7: Ad-hominem: attack the poster you're arguing with personally, never address their arguments.
>8: A little bit of Sup Forums can never hurt. Never aknwoledge your favorite director made the most racist film of all time.
>9: If people gang up agains you with valid arguments and sensible opinions, fret you not! Make sure to have a copypasta saved of some subjective reason on why your director of choice is the best director of all time. This is something you can quote from a Letterboxd review, but make sure that his genius is addressed at least a couple of times.
>10: Never, ever, aknowledge subjectivity. Your opinion is Objective truth, always. You could pick any director as long as you live in a world where subjectivity doesn't exist.

And finally, remember to alienate every person of color from discussing films on Sup Forums. Make your director so white-centric and impenetrable for any non-whites to understand. Godspeed and SHADILAY my brothers!

There's no arguments, you just post pics and as I said:

>you can't have your own opinion and needs someone to help you in a discussion.

He's the Spring Breakers user, he got assblasted so much that he had to move from Griffith to another director, the same time Griffith-fag appeared Korine-fag disappeared.

>cinephiles
Not once, not ever. If having the attention span of a 5 year old doesn't give you the qualifications to discuss art, having 4 syllables in your name certainly doesn't.