The "ending" must be taken with consideration of the political context in Iran. Censorship of cinema is rather harsh and there are themes that are not allowed to be shown...and, of course, suicide. Part of what Kiarostami was doing with his "ending" was getting around the censors. Immediately we have a scene of "Mr. Badii" chatting with Kiarostami. Kiarostami can say to the censors, "See! He didn't commit suicide. He's right there, alive and well!"
I think you're the only person in this whole miserable thread who has hit the nail on the head with respect to the ending in Taste of Cherry. That phony ending allowed Kiarostami to feign that the main character did not commit suicide afterall. Of course, Kiarostami, with the pride of a true artist, is not going to admit that he must tailor his movies according to the wishes of Islamic fundamentalists.
I cannot believe people in this thread give any credence to the lie that Kiarostami told about a film processing lab ruining the last reel of film and that he wanted to reshoot his intended ending but the weather was bad and so he couldn't. Ha-ha-ha-ha!!!! You guys just have no conception of the real world.
If he wanted to reshoot the ending the way he originally did why not just wait until the weather changed for the better. You know, Iran isn't as technically advanced as most countries in the West but I'm pretty sure they still have things like, you know, weather forecasts and stuff. And so you just reschedule the shoot when the weather is forecast to be good. Kiarostami is just leading you around by the nose with this story of the ruined last reel/bad weather farce, because he doesn't want to embarrass the authorities in Iran in front of the foreign press, presumably because he still wishes to continue living and working in Iran.
And then there's that one respondent in this thread who claims the bogus ending is "Brilliant" because it forces us to realize that those were just actors up there on the screen in a movie. Wow!!! That really is brilliant!!! For just a second there I thought I was watching a documentary. Thank God for that ugly low-resolution tacked-on film ending which forced me to confront my assumptions about the film's reality.
And gosh, it really made me question "about my reality... Am I also playing a part in a movie, according to what I have understood reality is?" How narcissistic would one have to be in order to sincerely ask oneself if I'm playing a part in a movie just because I'm taking part in the normal psychological prerequisites for movie watching, i.e. suspension of reality in order to fully immerse oneself in the events of a movie?
reply
share
imrama2002
17 years ago
i think the ending is suppose to convey the views of the third man he encounters.
you could also intepert the ending as a endorsement of conservative values- be they occidental or iranian- and state institutions like the army. perhaps this is why the film passed the censors ? it seems to me this badai character was too intellectual for his own good. he was dismissive of the people he encountered and the joy they derived from life. he saw himself as superior and smarter than everyone encountered, yet those people were wiser than him and had a more fulfilled life than he had.
the main point i got from this movie is: change your thought and the world around you changes.
reply
share
madmaxmedia
17 years ago
The "ending" must be taken with consideration of the political context in Iran. Censorship of cinema is rather harsh and there are themes that are not allowed to be shown...and, of course, suicide. Part of what Kiarostami was doing with his "ending" was getting around the censors. Immediately we have a scene of "Mr. Badii" chatting with Kiarostami. Kiarostami can say to the censors, "See! He didn't commit suicide. He's right there, alive and well!"
Are the censors so stupid that they would think, "Oh yeah, there's the guy and he's not dead, it's obviously a part of the story, even though we see the film director and crew standing around." Would they not go, "No, that's extra footage of you and the cast on the set, totally outside the actual story?"
Alternatively, if he had ended the movie with the last shot of Mr. Badii lying alive in the ditch, such that the outcome was ambiguous, would the censors have then rejected it?
I personally have no idea how the censors work in Iran, whether the rules regarding showing suicide are literal or more encompassing, and it's an interesting explanation that I don't totally discount. But I'm skeptical as to whether the ending was done strictly to placate censors. If the prohibition against suicide is literal, then as long as it's not depicted that Mr. Badii is actually dead, should have been enough, and the extra footage of the crew is extraneous in terms of placating the censors.
reply
share
unreconstructed
17 years ago
I don't think we'll ever know how the Iranian censors reacted to this film. Here's a possibility, although obviously not the only one: Kiarostami may have ended the film with Mr. Badii lying in the ditch, neither definitely alive nor dead. That cut of the movie may have been shown to censors and rejected. Kiarostami may have even argued along your lines: Hey, the main character is not shown to be definitely dead, so you can't say he is depicted as having committed suicide. The censors may have rejected that argument. Kiarostami, now pissed off as hell, simply tacks on to the movie's ending some extraneous footage having nothing to do with the movie except that it shows the actor who plays Mr. Badii is indeed alive.
"There you go, small-minded Iranian censors, Mr. Badii is unambiguously alive. Now, allow this film to be viewed in Iran."
But, I believe, Kiarostami wants us (film-goers) to understand that this is just a ruse to get around the censors so what does he do? He uses footage of that tacked on ending that is very grainy and has poor resolution (unlike the rest of the movie) to telegraph to us in a visual manner that this is NOT what he intended.
It would be wonderful in this age of "Director's Cut" DVDs if we could get Kiarostami's original vision, assuming of course that it is different from the movie as we now have it. If this assumption is correct, I wonder if the footage of the original ending still exists????
reply
share
madmaxmedia
17 years ago
That scenario seems like a very reasonable possibility.
You're right, we will likely never know.
Although now that you mention it, I'll try to dig around and find any information on general censorship of Iranian films, and post anything I find...
reply
share
unreconstructed
17 years ago
I don't know if you remember this incident at this year's Cannes Film Festival:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3194692
It doesn't have to do with censorship per se, but does offer a glimpse into the mindset of the current regime in Iran concerning how it wishes the rest of the world to view it.
If I recall correctly, Kiarostami was interviewed as an extra feature of Criterion's DVD version of A Taste of Cherry. I don't recall exactly what he said about Iranian film censorship although I recall him being rather guarded in his comments and overall I think he said it was something he could live with as an Iranian filmmaker.
reply
share
johnhartstudio1
14 years ago
John Patrick Hart
(A member of SAG):
Author, THE ART OF THE STORYBOARD.(Focal Press)
My goodness. All these excellent analyzes.
I,for one, employing my old fashioned suspension of disbelief, went along with Badii's wrenching dilemma from beginning to end. The pace was real,
the acting was real the situations/encounters were real.
Almost non-acting -- the best kind -- very non-Hollywood for sure.
As for the much cussed and dis-cussed ending, after all that sympathizing
and relating to the potential suicide, I was simply relieved that
hey, it was just a film -- albeit a brilliant one that was visually and
emotionally riveting.
Four stars, Mr. Kiarostami, whatever your reasons for the chosen denoument!
JPH
reply
share