Customer Reviews

The Wind Will Carry Us

5 star:		(17)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Abbas Kiarostami is surely one of the top talents in cinema anywhere. For those accustomed to Hollywood, Bollywood or European movies, his work will seem deceptively simple and slow. Eschewing professional actors, special effects, top-40 and world music soundtracks, complicated make-up and massive advertising campaigns, Kiarostami makes films that unfold into an extraordinaray philosophical complexity that is firmly and compassionately anchored in day-to-day human experience.

In "The WInd WIll Carry Us," a man from Teheran moves to a small village in order to do a job for his employer. His exact mission is unclear. He has hilarious trouble with his cell phone, flirts with a milkmaid, watches the slow and subtle rhythms of village life, and sometimes does nothing.

It is a testament to Kiarostami's perception and skill that the film-- despite its simple story and slow pacing-- is utterly captivating and complex. The film's title comes from an old Persian love poem that the protagonist quotes during his flirtation:

"In the courtyard, the wind is about to meet the leaves."

The sexual allusion here is also a philosophical one, as the protagonist seems to be waiting for some kind of chemical reaction, something to shake him up and lift him. How this moment of awakening will come is the film's subject, and Kiarostami leads us to it the way life does-- indirectly. We must watch, and look, and SEE, what is happening in the village-- and in the contrast between the protagonist's frantic running after his phone calls and the village's slow and deliberate movement toward the film's climactic ritual emerge its meaning.

Kiarostami's cinematography is simple and effective. He makes superb use of Iran's fall colours-- gold and brown-- and rural dust and emptiness. The simplest scenes-- a man buy cooking oil, women walking-- are fascinating in their wealth of simple detail, and the film's subtle yet powerful climax ends with an unforgettable image of a humerus (thigh bone) drifting in the river.

If life is what happens while we are busy making other plans-- and if art is what happens while we are busy having expectations of film genres-- the Kiarostami's masterwork is living art indeed.

Plot summary: Film crew travels to remote village to document a death ritual. Once in the village, however, they find the deathly ill woman has not perished yet and so they settle in and wait. Each day they enquire about the old womans health and each day the news is different. The focus is on one member of the crew and how he slowly acclimates himself to the villagers, to nature, and to time as he waits for an event that may or may not occur.

This is my second Abbas Kiorastami film. I recently saw Close Up and after seeing this one I want to see all of his films. Kiorastami is a film maker for people who want something unique. Hollywood is all about stating the obvious and Kiorastami is all about subtlety. Most films work by speeding things up and meeting expectations but Kiorastami works by slowing things down and subverting expectations. In CLOSE UP an out-of-work man with a family to support pretends to be a famous director and befriends a wealthy family who believes he truly is the director. As time passes the family begins to suspect that he may not be who he says he is. It is an intimate study of human relationships and how relationships develop to fulfill a mutual need. When the family finds out the man is merely an imposter they are angry at first and they take him to court but then as they listen to his reasons for pretending they forgive him and at films end we see that the friendship will resume. It is an examination of how relationships form and also an examination of society and how society shapes the way we relate to and see each other. THE WIND WILL CARRY US is another version of this story but instead of the poor man befriending the rich it is about a city dweller befriending village folk. The city dweller finds himself treating the villagers like an object for study because that is his training as a film maker but the villagers just quietly go about their business allowing the city dweller to do his thing. The villagers are a community who all rely on each other and the city dweller is facinated by how the villagers take care of each other. He relies on them for all his practical needs like food and lodging but also for his social needs as well. As he tries to communicate with various villagers we can see that he is trying to make a connection with life that has so far been denied him in the city. The city dweller is the kind of man who quotes poetry freely but for him life is abstract whereas for the villagers life is real. Thus his fascination with them. For the first time in his life he finds himself looking at nature, at life, and at people up close.

Its a very long film with lots of quiet stretches but that is Kiorastami's style--instead of hurrying you along from one scene to the next he allows you to occupy each scene and feel life not in film time but in real time. Once you surrender to the style you begin to feel its magisterial effect. CLOSE UP was kind of grainy and low budget (though still a great film) but this film is state of the art. Truly pristine cinematography. I highly recommend both films.

Saw the film again after three years, and it`s lyrical beauty was even more obvious than the first time. The title is taken from a poem, and when it is recited, in the darkness of a cave, one can feel all the beauty that surrounds us, even if we don`t always see it.
The Film is about a man who has an inner struggle, but doesn`t want to see it. Only at the end of the film he aknowledges it, though he can`t solve it. The small village he came to, 700 miles away from Teheran, awakens his senses, his lust for life, even though he came looking for death. When in the end the old woman dies, it is totally unexpected, and it doesn`t really matter anymore. Maybe he will stay, maybe he will go, but he is changed.
Life needs living says this film, almost shouts it in your face, but with such warmth of breath, that you go with it. Along with the estranged character the viewer starts to rediscover the world, if he pays attention, and out of the endless flow of time, compassion starts to arise, compassion for the flowers, the trees, the earth, and the people, with all their beauty and shortcomings.
The worst disease is death says a character in the film, when we`ll have to leave this earth. One day, the wind will carry us away.

I'm glad this was the first Iranian film I saw. I might have been put off if I had seen Kiarostami's "Taste of Cherry" or Samira Makhmalbaf's "Apple," but thanks to this film I began to acquire a taste for what is surely some of the most interesting filmmaking going on in recent years. One of the finest moments in the film is a subtly erotic moment when the protagonist recites the poem by Forugh Farrokhzad from which the film takes its name to a girl milking an animal (a goat? a cow?). (Farrokhzad - an Iranian feminist poetess who died at age 32 - is very interesting in her own right, and the introduction to her work is another thing I'm grateful to Kiarostami for.)
The pace and style are very similar to those of Gus Van Sant's recent films (e.g., "Gerry"). I personally find this very refreshing.
A minor point: many reviewers refer to "Arabs." In a time when so much is going on in the Middle East, this kind of ignorance is very irritating. Since when is Iran an Arab country? The people depicted are mostly Kurds.

This film is called BAD MA RA KHAHAD BORD in Iran. Abbas Kiarostami is the director, writer, producer, and editor of the film. He functions as both innovator and diplomat in those capacities. He has directed 37 films, and has been "discovered" by the West since 1990. In 1997, his film, TASTE OF CHERRY, won the Palm d'Or at Cannes. Presently he is a professor, and he lives in Paris.

As director he is creative and rogue. He breaks away from conventional narrative, and usually works without a script. He improvises, composes, matches dialogue to the landscape, and then later edits all of it. This gives many of his films, including this one, a documentary feel. He utilizes mostly non-actors and a small crew. He does not seem concerned about the girdle of genre or the cleats of convention. He creates something else in cinema, something "new".

He cast the landscape as a character. Working with his excellent cinematographer, Mahmoud Kalari, they set up golden and ochre panoramas of village and countryside. This conformed to the respected Asian directors who have used the landscape as a living thing, and not merely a backdrop. Kiarostami would hold a shot double long, and just let things happen within the frame. This really gave a sense of immediacy to the viewer. For some, however, it was slow and boring.

Was there a plot in this film? Well, there was, kind of. Behzad Dourani, called the Engineer, masquerading as an anthropologist, or a treasure hunter, who is probably a filmmaker, and alter-ego for Kiarostami, drove 450 miles north of Tehran to a small Kurdish village. Through a contact in the village, he was aware of a special ceremony that was going to occur when a village elder, an old lady, dies. He was there to film and to capture that ceremony. The old woman, however, did not comply. People were so kind to her, she decided to take nourishment, and she returned to the land of the living.

There were several, almost hidden, themes in the movie. For one thing, the director worked hard at creating a more humane face on the Arab world. Post 9/11, that is quite a task. Nothing political was ever discussed in the film. Another theme was the importance of education. An intense of love of learning, of math, engineering, poetry, and literature worked themselves into the fabric of the non-plot. Something else explored was the reality of death, the close proximity we all share with it, and the need to enjoy our lives every moment that we breathe. Lastly the primary theme was Nature vs. Technology, and the postulate that things natural were preferred.

I liked this film, even though I had to have patience with it. Artistically and cinematically, it required some learning on my part. I did so gladly. It is a wonderful movie cloaked in non-convention.

I loved "The Wind Will Carry Us" for many reasons. First, there are two story lines, one is what is happening on the physical plane and the other is a representation of two ideas and ways of living.

The main plot is fairly basic. A man goes to a small village (Siah Dareh) built up against a barren mountainside. This alone is fascinating as you observe a culture and how the people live their daily lives. One of the main things that keeps happening throughout the movie is a cell phone ringing.

Each time the phone rings, the engineer from Tehran (Behzad Dourani) has to get into his car and drive up to higher ground. This is interesting because each time he does this something new happens. It almost becomes a little comical, but the funniest part for me was the relationship between the husband and wife in the teashop. I was amused at how similar relationships are in all cultures and how men and women form a deep bond all while withstanding the daily conflicts seeking to drive us apart.

The movie felt very realistic and didn't seem to follow a script. I loved that aspect and also the conversations between the characters had real heart. Instead of "how are you," "I'm fine," they would say things about wishing each other a long life or luck or the most beautiful comment was about "being in your service." The conversations where very interesting and felt very natural, comforting and at times were profoundly beautiful.

There was a strong community aspect where everyone joined together to make life more pleasant. The care and concern of the villagers was profound and moving and made you wish to just go live in this village where people seemed to have made peace with a way of life they truly enjoyed.

I spent most of the time wondering why the engineer was there because I figured an engineer would be building something (although I did seem to understand that a tower was to be built - although the villagers were just digging a hole in the ground), but after reading the reviews, I can see why many think he may have been there to photograph a funeral (he was always carrying around a camera and talking to someone on the phone about a woman who was ill in the village), which makes much more sense. At first I thought he was bringing some sort of technology to the village, but in the end, this is more about how people choose to live.

If you would like to lose yourself in a movie about a faraway village and see how people live their daily lives, this has a lot to offer. I have a love/hate relationship with cell phones, so this movie was especially interesting to me.

~The Rebecca Review

Another Kiarostami masterpiece. His films begin in the middle of a conversation and slowly grow and develop and evolve. You just never really know where it's going, and the pace is usually along the lines of "meandering". His films don't race and scream around, they just gradually flow. This can be infuriating to some folks. To me, it's wonderful. I love to study the scenery and the interpersonal relations, and you are given ample opportunity to absorb and digest.
By watching my inlaws I can see that the pace set here among the people in the villages that he enjoys filming is true. "Right away" means in a month or so, or whenever. So when the film-maker goes to document the traditional grieving and burial rituals(which is taboo) among these villagers because this elderly woman is going to die "right away", I knew immediately that it could be days or years. It's enjoyable to me to see the frustration of the fast-paced city people among the rural folk, I found myself giggling often.
However...
to me this film took a potentially dark turn towards the end. It doesn't detract from the film, it plays into it quite well. And maybe it's just me. But I had a question about some possible actions on the part of the film-maker in the movie. I keep trying to get other folks to watch it also so we can compare impressions. I can't say more or it would give too much away and ruin the film, and I'm just not going to do that.
Nobody else here has mentioned it, so perhaps I'm wrong. But I've seen each of the Kiarostami films that are released here and I think I've got a pretty good feel for his particular director's language. So if you hit a spot when you find yourself thinking, "i wonder...", let's compare notes!!!

In 2001-A space odyssey, the thigh bone from a downed animal is used by a primate tool to kill one of the opposition gang and run the rest away. The first use of a tool, the first use of tool as weapon, a joyous cry for start of "civilization".

The primate twirls his discovery, the bone, skyward in rejoice. The tumbling bone morphs into a "pan am" space shuttle, and you probably know the rest.

The antagonist in the Wind finds a similar bone at the bottom of a well that a menial worker is digging. The well is for, what we learn, would be the foundation of a new cellular phone tower, or communication.

Our antagonist hero carries the bone around on the dashboard of his jeep, which he uses to rush to the top of the same hill day after day to better reception. He needs to talk to his boss about his journalistic mission of documenting a ritual common in kurdish communities upon a loved one's death. The suggestion is that primitive is something that modern society want to gawk at, at any
cost. We are left to our own devices to guess why this is so, but cheap shows on every television screen across the globe attests to this. From travel "documentaries" to game shows, zero in on primitive instincts.

It is an education of the senses that takes shape in this movie. From innate principals of human values, educated or not, taught by a young student to everyone in the film, to the pleasures of life for life's sake. The taste of cherries if you are lucky to be able to taste them any longer. Although,
here the cherries have also morphed into strawberries being harvested by young and beautiful people who don't gawk at nature as a primitive show, but as the temporary setting of their lives.

At the end, it is clear that to save a life is to save yourself. Our hero goes through the intense trauma of getting help for his unseen well digger friend buried under rubble, and mirrored in the life of a free spirited doctor who has given up a city practice to be carried by the wind to those who can help him save himself.

In The Wind Will Carry Us, the hero twirls his discovery, the bone, onto a clear, fresh, gurgling stream, that is, there is no such a thing as primitive. Life is life, and he manages to capture a couple of instances of it on a couple of frames on his Nikon, after the old woman he was on a death watch of passes away. But his frames show the humanity, not primitiveness of the procession.

Kiarostami captures thousands of distinct instances frames of life being carried away on the frames of this amazing visual poem in traditional of great persian poets.

Once again Abbas Kiarostami shows the world how simple it is to make a great film if you are a great filmmaker. This film is a typical Kiarostami film, slow paced but at the same time deeply rich and complex through well exectuted symbolism. It is a film that explores the relationship between contemporary and traditional societies in Iran realized through the placement of a small film crew from Tehran into a small countryside village. They wait for the death of a village elder to begin their work on the film. As the film progresses it becomes less clear whether this elder will pass on and they begin to question their own place. It is possibly the most beautiful film I have ever experienced and I recommend it highly.

First, this film does not give an insight into the Arab world. while there are a multiplicity of possible interpretations, this simply is not one of them because the above interpretation results on a complete misunderstanding. This movie is set in iran. it is about rural iranians interactions with an outside more westernized iranian. iranians, it is true, live in the same general part of the world as arabs. however, they are not arabs. I repeat again to ward off this rather highly insulting practice of lumping together all brown people in one region into the generic and false term 'arab'. an arab is someone that lives in say, saudie arabia, iraq, pakistan (excluding afghanis that may live there). iranians, and also their close cousins the afghanis, are of a seperate background than the rest of the muslim world. this is mere fact. it is indisputable. iranians are not arabs. saying they are is like calling all white folk in the west germans, or americans, or north americans. or like calling someone chinese because they live in say, japan or some other 'eastern' (i.e., far eastern) country. Second, it is not true that all iranians are muslims. just because a film takes place in predominantly muslim country does not make it any more or less a film about muslims than does the fact that trainspotting was made in the west suggest it is a film of and by and about catholics and protestants. it is not. it is racist to suggest otherwise. Kiarostamis characters generally are not all that religious. they may indulge in poetry and certain mystical traditions, but for the most part the main characters in his film are not muslim, indeed, they often reject the main values of the society around them. assuming then that this movie is an insight into those arab muslims is a double insult.

Now that i've dispensed with all the claptrap, let us move on to the actual movie. here is my take on it.
Kiarostami underdetermines his films because he believes the audience will thus be drawn nearer to interpreting it themselves in many possible ways. the idea is that a movie is borne out of an interaction between audience and movie, and that the meaning does not just reside in the movie. however, he is no formalist. he does this not because it is postmodern or in fashion or whatnot, rather, he does it simply because he wants to create open-ended movies that draw the audience near. This does not work for a large portion of the audience because they expect other things for a movie. that is fair, i recommend such people do not watch kiarostami movies as it would just be boring for them. However, there is a target audience that appreciates this kind of film because the movie decidedly does not manipulate you or draw high handed moral messages. it makes a movie, presents you with an underdetermined situation with underdetermined meaning, tries to do so in a faithful nondramatic nonexaggeraated way, and in so doing allows the viewer to see for themselves what the ordinary drama is in life, and how it connects with deeper philosophical, lyrical, and poetic meanings. However, it is up to the audience to do this. Audiences that do not want to do this should not watch these movies. And, they should not see the movie as a failure because it did not conform to their biased narrow expectations of what a film is supposed to be. Let us just say some films appeal to certain audiences and some to others. A movie should be judged more internally on its own terms rather than on whether or not it is in accord with the levelled and levelling pop cultural understanding of what a film is suppossed to be and what an audience is supposed to be.