the sole purpose of this thread is to warn all of you not to watch the trailer for certified copy that was recently put up on apple's site. it's awful. here's a french teaser instead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM-jqyL3eHQ
go see this when it comes out.
Thank you (truly) for the warning. I won't watch either trailer and I will see the film when it comes out.
this came out yesterday (in la and nyc). go see it. i think uncle boonmee's out too. go see that.
the sole purpose of this post is to warn all of you not to watch certified copy.
it's awful.
It's tedious, unrewarding rubbish. It's so bad that I will never ever trust sambong's opinion on art house cinema again. How could anyone possibly stay awake during this? It's about two self indulgent and delusional PRETENTIOUS fucks.
It could have been charming but instead it is dreary. Any imagination that went into the concept of trying to make this fantasy pretend bullshit "relationship" tie into the initial thesis of the "value of copies" or anything else the film may have had going for it is hampered by mind numbing pacing, insipid performance (the dude.. at least binoche seemed to find an emotional core to her pathetic excuse for a character) and just a completely tone deaf style in general that makes the whole exercise as boring as a fucking lecture.
It's a colossal misfire from an acclaimed director akin to what My Blueberry Nights was for wrong kar wai. BUT WORSE.
World renown overrated troll jean luc godard once said "cinema begins with dw griffith and ends with abbas kiarostami".. he wasn't kidding, a part of cinema died with this film.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi368.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Foo130%2FDj-essen%2Fpopcorn.gif&hash=fdc04119b3a977e6e318da9b697fc49395e0c2f8)
I'm just happy that P's seeing movies again. :yabbse-smiley:
well, at least your reaction is violent.
all i can really say is that all the facets you've responded negatively to (just about everything), i loved. as if that wasn't clear enough. but this is a case of "to each his own." it coud've been dreary but i found it charming. your mind numbing pacing is languid and euphoric for me. william shimell's inexperience does show at times, namely in the trattoria scene, but his look and the timbre of his voice suit the character impeccably and make up for what i felt were already overlookable misgivings. aside from being purposefully unique and playful, the relationship (the nature of which is a spoiler, no?) expounds beautifully on the idea of copies by extending it to a consideration of the way art is essentially a copy of life, a concept especially applicable to cinema. it's as much an essay on cinema while being, in some ways, the ultimate expression of its maker as, say, inland empire.
and so on. i guess the difference here is that i'm a delusional pretentious fuck and you're... australian.
you're definitely wrong about one thing, though. i don't care how much you hated this movie, it isn't worse than my blueberry nights. nothing is worse than my blueberry nights.
so... anyone else see this?
its v. good, imo.
I pretty much never post anything here, but I just saw this and thought I'd second this recommendation. This movie is amazing. It has a near hypnotic quality, and is engagingly shot, which helps the (exquisitely written) exposition become more entertaining and fulfilling. The first half feels very similar to early Linklater, like Before Sunrise, almost, except more tense... The second half becomes more mysterious and elusive and emotional. Very taught and philosophical, insightful but also emotionally fulfilling. Really good piece of work. Not just a pretentious, overwrought exercise.
Saw this last night and hated it at first. I too found it pretentious and mostly completely boring. It wasn't until the friend I saw it with brought something up that I started to rethink what I thought about it.
Spoilers.
So while watching it I just found it completely pretentious. Here's a guy who's job is to critique fake art, and now he's going to pretend to be in a fake marriage. I kept rolling my eyes at these two adults pretending to be married and giving fake emotions. Gawd, it pissed me off. But then afterwards my friend brought up how maybe they were really married and all those fake emotions they were exhibiting were actually real and if that was the case, it really makes the movie a lot better and not as silly and pretentious. There are things that suggest they were married and things that suggest they weren't. The one thing that makes me think they are is when she starts crying when he's recalling a story and she says, "sounds familiar" but then how come her son was giving her shit for flirting with a stranger? Was he in on it too? Doubt it. And why would he need to sign those books there in the car? Couldn't he have done it any other time? I'm sure it's meant to be ambiguous.
What conclusion did everyone else draw?
SPOILERS
So is this kind of like The Shape of Things?
Technically, asking that question would not be a spoiler. Answering it might, potentially.
Love that movie, BTW.
So do I. One of Neil LaBute's brief respites from being terrible.
haven't seen the shape of things so can't comment on that.
spoilers
as much as i disagree with it, i can see where accusations of pretentious come from, but boring? it's an elusive film which one would hope makes it inherently engaging, either to the joy or displeasure of the viewer.
there isn't enough evidence in the film for there to be a definitive reading, which works in its favor and suggests that there's more at work than the face value of what's on screen. in fact i find it pretty preposterous that anyone can see this movie and be convinced that the characters are simply role playing, and if that is the notion that you choose to run with then yes, the characters come off as COMPLETELY INSANE and the film as unrewarding tedium, not to mention silly. beyond reason. maybe i'm giving the benefit of the doubt generously here but i'd like to think that kiarostami would never think it worthwhile to make a movie based on a legitimately stupid concept.
the vagueness in the nature of the relationship could then either be taken as poor storytelling or that something else is at work, and i opt for the latter. to me the relationship is allegorical of the dueling sensibilities in any intimate relationship between two people, and that it morphs throughout the film to convey different truths/emotions while paralleling the way relationships change over time. it's a symphony with movements and a microcosm of a marriage. obviously there's a shift in the relationship at the cafe, a shift that i have a hard time believing anyone can take as a literal moment where these two characters telepathically agree to engage in full-on, multilingual role play. it also marks a shift in the film as it takes on a meta-ness in its treatment of marriage and memory that begs comparison to last year at marienbad. if there's a moment that kiarostami seems to be tipping his hand, it's during the scene at the fountain where bunuel collaborator jean claude carriere makes his cameo, not only in his very presence but also the way in which he's introduced.
as for the connection of the value of copies in the art world to the relationship that unfolds, based on the fact that kiarostami can't seem to make a film without it being a meta-film on some level, my feeling is that the film itself becomes a copy of love, life and relationships, and an example itself of cinema as a medium lends itself to that. the beginning of the film may focus on that quite a bit but i believe it more to be the cinematic equivalent of sleight of hand than a thesis for a fully intellectual discourse. they do continue to discuss it throughout the film but by the end it's uprooted by the emotions tied to the relationship.
and even if you don't buy into any of this there are still pleasures to be had. i really loved the performances, even the endearingly amateurish turn by william schimmel. it's gorgeously photographed and moves languidly to be sure but never dull, at least not for me. kiarostami said in an interview that he loved how uncinematic the opening scene (for the reason that it misled audiences) but i don't really agree. it's imbued quite delightfully with a tiny, completely relate-able drama of looks and those willing are allowed to be charmed by schimmel's character, specifically his voice. seriously he's got the most pleasurable voice i've heard in movies in, well, a long time.
i'm disheartened that it isn't being met with the enthusiasm or adoration i have for it but i still love the film. hopefully more people will at least see it.
spoilers
Does the parallel between the woman's restroom break in the restaurant and the man's restroom break in the final hotel scene seem auspicious to anyone else? Specifically, I read into it that upon his reentry to the room there might be a shift in the mood, as there was when she dolled herself up and returned to find his attitude abruptly shifted (owing to wine, if I remember correctly). He takes off his jacket and seems quite comfortable in the hotel room, and she is so sad and beautiful on the bed (I would want to hold her if I were him). I thought this suggested a hope for them, although a friend of mine literally didn't speak to me for a day after I expressed this view, so sure was he that they hated each other and the movie was about the man hating the woman. Even if it's not that extreme (I don't think it is), is the movie obviously and only about a break up and my optimistic interpretation is hopelessly far fetched? What do you think, someone?
i don't think your interpretation of the end is far-fetched at all. an entirely legitimate reading. it really comes down to the tiresome, frustrating, but very true adage about art: it's entirely up to your interpretation. there's no doubt that kiarostami had intentions in what he was doing -- he isn't a lazy filmmaker -- but there's a lot of room for audiences to engage with it and make of it what they will. it speaks volumes for the film, in my opinion, that you and your friend could have such diametrically opposing views on the significance of the ending and the meaning of the film as a whole.
spoilers
there are obviously many ways people behave within relationships but the two we see here are, as a gross oversimplification, indicative of the ways of the heart versus that of the mind. she is, for better or worse emotionally naked, fiery, passionate while he remains cool, calm and collected, and rather distanced. emotionally unavailable until his outburst, and the relationship as portrayed in the film seems to be analogous of the constant struggle between the two sensibilities. a significant moment is when they stop at the steps of the hotel they spent their honeymoon in, and as she sits there, rubbing her feet and clearly exhausted, he lets his guard down, apologizing for his behavior and just letting himself simply be there with her, even if only for a moment. if there's anything that kiarostami holds as an ideal, it's those moments in which two people who share love can find it within themselves to simply coexist, but i don't think there's a clear side he's taking, nor is that the point of the film. what the point is is entirely up to the viewer, even if it's that he/she hates movies like this and will remain disdainful of the person who recommended they see it.
that last scene is a fucking doozy. her stuttering his name with tears in her eyes is such a breathtaking moment. makes me swoon.
I found it more boring than pretentious. It didn't seem to me to be all that elusive, characters were speaking as in a scripted interview, explaining the themes of the film over and over. the first scene was actually pretty cinematic to me, very disciplined, every shot perfectly prepared and put in it's right place, the sound, everything. After that is all downhill. I HATED Juliette Binoche's performance. It was way over the top. The scene at the beginning with her kid was almost unbearable for me.
I don't believe Kiarostami would make a film based on a stupid concept, but I kept waiting for something that felt true happened, not something that felt acted, staged. It was more like a lecture, which may be why the first scene was working for me, because it was an actual lecture going on at that point.
sigh
sambong basically got everyone to see a movie they probably wouldn't have seen simply by praising it to the high heavens.
impressive feat!
My wait for Shion Sono's 2008 Love Exposure has been frustrating. I thought maybe a dvd release was imminent, but inexplicably it played in a Los Angeles theater for a week just recently. Here's this great movie, or at least a movie I've heard so many great things about, and it can't get distribution theatrically, it isn't even on dvd. That bums me out. It may be because of the 237 min running time, but it shouldn't be. Mesrine came through my city, but I wish it fucking hadn't. There's a big two part piece of shit. The only thing worse was the Girl with Dragoon Tattoos trilogy. Those movies played for weeks and weeks, especially the final one, and it's the Twilight of international cinema, in terms of overexposure and schlock.
What can you do? The theater owners program the things that'll make the most money. They're business owners. They're cinema lovers too, I hope, but they also have their overhead. Unless we're talking Regal or AMC or something. Then, who knows, backroom handshakes, big money deals, etc, whatever they do.
But for example the LA theater that played Love Exposure, and other great independent theaters I hear about in Austin, NYC, and other places. Those theaters are amazing for cinephiles, but they're not everywhere.
Definitely agree that it should be available to us someway somehow. I guess I was trying to make the point that cinema culture is pretty starved overall. There's this odd twin problem wherein people complain about the lack of creative, adventurous, and original programming and yet still mainly pay to see what's most comfortable and derivative. That's why Mesrine can ride in on a wave of mid-20th century revolutionary films. It's all about easy sells.
Quote from: Stefen on May 25, 2011, 07:14:01 PM
sambong basically got everyone to see a movie they probably wouldn't have seen simply by praising it to the high heavens.
impressive feat!
well, it wasn't only him. I know a bunch of people who have said this is great, and one friend who firmly believes this is an absolute masterpiece. I just couldn't fly with this at all. It's hard to watch a film when you really want to punch the actress in the face all the while.
This is on Netflix Instant now.
that will be one of the very few ways to see this film for a while. no announcement for a region 1 dvd or blu-ray yet. i kept expecting criterion to put it out but the president of the company, peter becker, supposedly called it "minor kiarostami." i'm glad i caught the film while it was in theaters. it's really excellent and i will probably just buy the all region blu-ray soon.
spoilers
I liked the weird conceptual shift that happens when they get coffee, but that's pretty much all I liked.
As for interpreting the shift, I'm not convinced that we're meant to believe they're playing out a pretend relationship, but I think that would have actually justified the movie's existence. (The idea that they're able to play out a fake marriage in public, fight passionately in a restaurant, make up afterward and it's just as engaging as the real thing, etc.) Is there any evidence that that was the intention? I didn't interpret it that way, and for whatever reason it didn't occur to me until I read this thread.
I thought the first part was a figurative representation of the beginning of their relationship. The shift kind of blew my mind, but unfortunately there was no payoff. Absent the "fake relationship" thing, I'm struggling to gather any meaning from the film. I kept thinking "this would be much more meaningful to someone who's been married 15 years."
In light of that, any connection to the "certified copy" theme is dubious. I suppose it doesn't help that I disagreed with the "certified copy" idea and about 95% of the pseudo-intellectual garbage that came out of the guy's mouth.