This is the second film in the “Koker trilogy” (which is what the name of the Criterion box set is, even if Kiarostami was (apparently) luke-warm to grouping these films that way). And I watched the third film a couple months ago, because, er, I was befuddled.

This is like Kiarostami’s favourite shot — a man in a car, driving along some road in Iran. I guess there’s logistical reasons for that, too… I mean, the authorities in Iran are kinda “eehhh?” on Kiarostami’s films, so a car is a nice self-contained unit.

The story behind this is apparently that Kiarostami was worried about what happened to the two boys who starred in Where Is the Friend’s House? after a huge earthquake in the area. So he went looking for them. And this is a fictional account of that?

It’s kinda fantastic so far — so focused.

Whoa.

This is so meta. These three films are the kinds of films that’ll keep film clubs atwittering for centuries!

Yes, that’s the scene from the third movie — they keep rehearsing and rehearsing the scene in that movie, but this is the “original”?

WHERE”S OSHA

I think this is the best movie of the trilogy? But if you haven’t seen the other two movies, then there’s a lot of stuff that wouldn’t… quite have the resonance it has here. So I wonder how seeing the third film after seeing this one would have been? Perhaps it would have been awesome?

Instead this is the awesome movie, because I watched it last.

And the box set is rather clever.

The cover has these die cuts…

And the die cuts continue inside.

So it’s like everything is nested inside.

Trés clevaire.

I’m watching the documentary now… and it explains a lot about how his non-professional actors aren’t… very natural. I mean, I watch a lot of stuff with non-professional actors (Varda, Bresson, etc) and they get amazing performances out of them. With Kiarostami, they’re totally unnatural and kinda smirking at the camera, and he’s saying that when he wants a sad scene out of somebody, he makes them sad the night before. To get the boy crying in Where Is the Friend’s House?, he tore up a polaroid he was fond of in front of his eyes. Etc. He’s… he was kind of a monster? And the result was totally unconvincing performances.

d⁧زندگی و دیگر هی⁩. Abbas Kiarostami. 1992. ⚅

Nooo! This blu ray has been cut down to 16:9! How evil! Boo! Hiss!

What. Ever.

It’s the 90s!

I saw this movie back then, but I haven’t seen it since. I remembered it being pretty good, but it’s been brilliant so far. So snappy, so breezy. The jokes keep on coming at a dizzying pace.

Such a poseur.

Fashion!

Now here’s real literature.

This movie is pitch perfect… for the first two thirds. Then the Dreaded Third Act Syndrome happens, where Drama happens, and people Experience Character Growth, and that’s just kinda boring.

But it’s not as bad as third acts normally are.

Clueless. Amy Heckerling. 1995. ⚄

Now, how did I come to get this movie? Hm… Oh, right, I watched The Beaver Trilogy Part IV, and Crispin Glover was in that movie. And the director of this movie directed The Beaver Trilogy. (Not Part IV.) And I think this film was mentioned? So I had to see it, and now I am!

Mystery solved.

This is where Wes Anderson got his entire style from. This one scene.

Anyway, this is a low budget indie movie, I guess? But it’s really stylish, and it’s not as odd as you might think looking at these pictures. It’s about a strange boy (played by Glover) and a multi level salesman in training meeting up by accident, and I’m guessing hilarity will ensue.

It’s really charming so far, but not actually… “ha ha” funny.

See? Wes Anderson.

It’s really well filmed. The shots feel very thoughtful.

Yowza.

This is just a really enjoyable movie. Films like this have a tendency to start out strong, establishing the milieu of the movie, and then often start flailing around. This one doesn’t put a foot wrong at any point — it’s consistently amusing, and doesn’t overstay its welcome.

And the cinematography is fantastic.

It’s the only movie I’ve seen on Rottentomatoes that just has a single review.

Oh, I’ve gotta see that.

Yeah, he’s totally appearing in the costume for Rubin & Ed — and this is in 1987, doing publicity for River’s Edge. It took four years to get financing?

Wow. This is amazing. Letterman was pissed!

Anyway, really enjoyable quirky little movie.

Rubin & Ed. Trent Harris. 1991. ⚄