With all those (accidentally) minimized gadgets and plans, this movie is quite unusual. It is also not a very common practice (albeit not very unusual) that the director seems really willing to refrain himself from speaking through his movie. He wants the movie speaks for itself. And here, it does.
Nevertheless, its not that easy to grasp what this movie is really trying to say.
Let's try to take a good look at one piece of the puzzle.
The adopting parents bring the little girl to a traditional market (that's what the story goes) so that she will not be removed from her root. Then we see the market.
Now that is Beautiful (capitalization intended). This invaluable (local) 'collective awareness' about one's own identity is one too many times proved to be some 'intangible' (that is, somehow out of reach) idea to its own stakeholders (the very people who need it most). And here we see a couple (some outsiders) who care.
But hey, where is the little girl? We see the market alright, but not the girl. Yes, we see her in the protective comfort (and luxury, if we consider the environment) of a starred hotel's restaurant (?), in the car, or even on aeroplane. But not in that so called market they're talking about.
This 'eyebrow-raising beauty' is, in a way, somewhat loosening the movie's grip on truthfulness--assuming that it does really matter here (please, I'm NOT implying that anybody is being cheaty, I'm only saying what this fragment MIGHT look like--presented this way). We see that somewhere--sometimes, the movie relies too much on hearsay or telltale. So, even if the motifs might be remarkable, the execution (that is, the filming) is ARGUABLY not.
Interestingly, this could come from the fact that Kiarostami doesn't want to film a made-up thing (not even for the movie's own good). He wants to be sincere, and he's sticking to it. As we know, he's not really directing anything here (if at all, although we can see and assume that he did ask questions sometimes). He's more like snapshotting. He's not wandering around telling people what to do and then shoot'em (while they're still carrying out what he ask them to). No, he just shoot'em. He goes somewhere and shoot what he encounters--people or not (well, mostly people, mind you).
Look again. Kiarostami shot the couple mentioning about the market, then he went to the aforementioned(?) market and shot--in his own time frame. KEYPOINT: he didn't ask the couple to reenact the situation, for that would've taint the truthfulness of this movie (see the paradox?).
So that's the language of the camera here. It just shoots people, not performers. It avoids setups, everything is real-time (act or say).
And it wants to stay that way, no matter what. Even if it could (or would) cost the movie's own integrity (like the 'eyebrow-raising beauty' mentioned above).
And if that is really the case, then this 'odd couple of honesty' (the story of the adopting parents on one scene and the market without the girl on another--where both parts are so consistent with but not supportive to each other up to the degree that the outcome seems lack of integrity) is, indeed, intriguing.
But then again, what is this part of the movie really trying to say here?--Pity? Sympathy? Help sure is handy? (Again, no offense intended, please) Yes, there are other (good) shots as well (you bet) like, a little girl's struggling for life while a (way bigger) boy make fun of her (with his friends cheering thinking they're having a good time), or that daring 'shooting the darkness' (this time we can take it literary).
Still, where (or what) do all these tours de force take (or bring) us? How do all those pieces fit in the big picture? Come to think of it, what is the big picture, anyway? War? AIDS? Uganda? Africa? How a mismanaged (or lack of) national policy keep wreaking havoc upon its own people? Parentless children's life? The struggle of some people to help their youths? Life is good? Everybody should glimpse some hope of a better tomorrow? (Everybody? Who? People who see this movie from a safe distance and do not have THAT problem?) Chance is, there is none. Chance is, the director hasn't made up his mind yet (on what he was about going to say). He MIGHT even haven't had a pretty good idea what the big picture really is, yet (maybe that's why the title). He's just snapshotting--collecting pieces (and they don't have to fit all together to a single idea because it just so happens that he hasn't sorted them out yet).
So if the whole idea of ABC is collecting some information for the UN, then the latter seems (at the very least) having a fair trade. Or if it's supposed to make some pretentiously-shallow-CGI-addict Hollywood movie makers blush, this flick might just do the kick. But if ABC is supposed to be a wake-up call to the Ugandans (or most Africans) that they really need to help THEMSELVES because nothing else really counts (not in the long run anyway), then this movie doesn't look very promising.
With ABC, many (more) people will respect the directing snapshooter and put him on their mandatory list. But not as many will--quite understandably, give the movie similar credit.
Nevertheless, its not that easy to grasp what this movie is really trying to say.
Let's try to take a good look at one piece of the puzzle.
The adopting parents bring the little girl to a traditional market (that's what the story goes) so that she will not be removed from her root. Then we see the market.
Now that is Beautiful (capitalization intended). This invaluable (local) 'collective awareness' about one's own identity is one too many times proved to be some 'intangible' (that is, somehow out of reach) idea to its own stakeholders (the very people who need it most). And here we see a couple (some outsiders) who care.
But hey, where is the little girl? We see the market alright, but not the girl. Yes, we see her in the protective comfort (and luxury, if we consider the environment) of a starred hotel's restaurant (?), in the car, or even on aeroplane. But not in that so called market they're talking about.
This 'eyebrow-raising beauty' is, in a way, somewhat loosening the movie's grip on truthfulness--assuming that it does really matter here (please, I'm NOT implying that anybody is being cheaty, I'm only saying what this fragment MIGHT look like--presented this way). We see that somewhere--sometimes, the movie relies too much on hearsay or telltale. So, even if the motifs might be remarkable, the execution (that is, the filming) is ARGUABLY not.
Interestingly, this could come from the fact that Kiarostami doesn't want to film a made-up thing (not even for the movie's own good). He wants to be sincere, and he's sticking to it. As we know, he's not really directing anything here (if at all, although we can see and assume that he did ask questions sometimes). He's more like snapshotting. He's not wandering around telling people what to do and then shoot'em (while they're still carrying out what he ask them to). No, he just shoot'em. He goes somewhere and shoot what he encounters--people or not (well, mostly people, mind you).
Look again. Kiarostami shot the couple mentioning about the market, then he went to the aforementioned(?) market and shot--in his own time frame. KEYPOINT: he didn't ask the couple to reenact the situation, for that would've taint the truthfulness of this movie (see the paradox?).
So that's the language of the camera here. It just shoots people, not performers. It avoids setups, everything is real-time (act or say).
And it wants to stay that way, no matter what. Even if it could (or would) cost the movie's own integrity (like the 'eyebrow-raising beauty' mentioned above).
And if that is really the case, then this 'odd couple of honesty' (the story of the adopting parents on one scene and the market without the girl on another--where both parts are so consistent with but not supportive to each other up to the degree that the outcome seems lack of integrity) is, indeed, intriguing.
But then again, what is this part of the movie really trying to say here?--Pity? Sympathy? Help sure is handy? (Again, no offense intended, please) Yes, there are other (good) shots as well (you bet) like, a little girl's struggling for life while a (way bigger) boy make fun of her (with his friends cheering thinking they're having a good time), or that daring 'shooting the darkness' (this time we can take it literary).
Still, where (or what) do all these tours de force take (or bring) us? How do all those pieces fit in the big picture? Come to think of it, what is the big picture, anyway? War? AIDS? Uganda? Africa? How a mismanaged (or lack of) national policy keep wreaking havoc upon its own people? Parentless children's life? The struggle of some people to help their youths? Life is good? Everybody should glimpse some hope of a better tomorrow? (Everybody? Who? People who see this movie from a safe distance and do not have THAT problem?) Chance is, there is none. Chance is, the director hasn't made up his mind yet (on what he was about going to say). He MIGHT even haven't had a pretty good idea what the big picture really is, yet (maybe that's why the title). He's just snapshotting--collecting pieces (and they don't have to fit all together to a single idea because it just so happens that he hasn't sorted them out yet).
So if the whole idea of ABC is collecting some information for the UN, then the latter seems (at the very least) having a fair trade. Or if it's supposed to make some pretentiously-shallow-CGI-addict Hollywood movie makers blush, this flick might just do the kick. But if ABC is supposed to be a wake-up call to the Ugandans (or most Africans) that they really need to help THEMSELVES because nothing else really counts (not in the long run anyway), then this movie doesn't look very promising.
With ABC, many (more) people will respect the directing snapshooter and put him on their mandatory list. But not as many will--quite understandably, give the movie similar credit.