2. The Wind Will Carry Us / Bad ma ra khahad bord (1999)
4. Close-Up / Nema-ye Nazdik (1990)
5. Taste of Cherry / Ta'm e guilass (1997)
8. Certified Copy / Copie conforme (2010)
9. Shirin (2008)
10. Orderly or Disorderly / Be Tartib ya Bedoun-e Tartib (1981)
Runners-up: The Traveler / Mossafer (1974), Two Solutions for One Problem / Dow Rahehal Baraye yek Massaleh (1975).
5 comments:
Was wondering when this was coming!
Oh man, what an oeuvre. Until I rewatch a few of them, I'd find it very difficult to rank, but you've done a swell job. Taste of Cherry would possibly top mine. How did you see Orderly and Disorderly?!
The Museum of Modern Art held a major retrospective a few years ago, and I managed to see a few that I hadn't before (including what was for me at the time the much anticipated "Orderly or Disorderly"; to me, it is quite clearly the best of his pedagogical films).
And yes, it is quite the oeuvre - "Taste of Cherry" is at once a major masterpiece, no doubt, and halfway down the list! For whatever it's worth, I found these the easiest to rank of the three careers I've attempted. (Eastwood is the hardest, by far.)
Very lucky. I've not seen any of his pedagogical pictures other than Two Solutions, though I have one or two. I'm curious as to whether you've not seen A Suit for Wedding (1976) or Experience (1973) or if they just don't quite cut it.
Well yes, Eastwood's and Rohmer's bodies of work are rather colossal compared to (what's available of) Kiarostami's, heh. Imagine doing Ford...which I hope you will at some point.
Also, seeing earlier in the year that Copie Conforme wasn't the mere frivolous entertainment described by word out of Cannes was a relief. Superb film, and I agree with you an interesting progression for him.
Well, tripzone, my dirty little secret is that (unlike Rohmer and Eastwood) I have not seen every Kiarostami. I won't go into detail, but there are a handful - though not *too* many. However, there are enough that did not make either list or my choices for runners-up to justify the project, in my view; it's sort of the same criteria for when I started the yearly lists: it wasn't until I had to exclude very good films for each year that I would compose the lists.
Now, Ford, there's far too much that I haven't seen to justify that endeavor. I am a Hawks completist, but also an official Hawks scholar, so I won't go there. That leaves maybe Hitchcock for my next set?
Fair enough, it just means you have more to look forward to.
Hitchcock, indeed.
Post a Comment