Taste of Cherry Review and Analysis

Original review:
Taste of Cherry(dir. Abbas Kiarostami)
I'm borderline whether this film is actually good or bad. It was interesting and different. It was not as good as The Wind Will Carry Us which had conversations that felt natural and pointless yet meaningful. The whole film really doesn't engage the viewer but there is something bold about it that I have to respect.
*** out of ****
Rewatch Review:
I've never done this. I have never done a rewatch review on here, but I feel I need to. In all honesty, my first time watching the film was one of extreme boredom. I did not like it that much. The ending was interesting, but that was it. I thought the whole stages of life dealing with the passengers just seemed dull and pretentious. It was too self-conscious, but now I think about it, it goes well with the ending which is basically a giant self reflection of movie making. The film is much more intellectual stimulating on this viewing. Kiarostami constantly gives hints throughout the film that I never picked up on on my first viewing. The characters constantly refer to the earth and dirt. One conversation between an Afghani security guard and Mr. Badii reveals that Mr. Badii loves the earth. His form of suicide deals with earth. He has dug a hole to lay down after taking all his sleeping pills and he must have someone bury him if he dies. Why does he try to kill himself? I don't know for sure, but I'll get into that right now.
Analysis(SPOILERS):
All of this is purely opinion, but I feel it could make some sense. Earth is constantly referenced. Mr. Badii loves the earth. We constantly see the earth being shaped and manipulated which leads me to believe that Mr. Badii hates what human beings are doing to it. He constantly drives with his Range Rover on roads that were made by the manipulation of earth. I now see this as a metaphor for Kiarostami's style of film-making. He does not want to manipulate audiences or hijack them emotional. This film is emotional, but not to the extent a Hollywood film would be. It is much more intellectual. This is how Kiarostami makes his films. You could view Mr. Badii killing himself as a form of sacrifice for the earth. Kiarostami's films could be seen as "suicides" where he sacrifices his artistic control for his audience. He cares about them too much just like Mr. Badii cares for the earth. He wants the audience to defer from the film and be intellectually stimulated. He wants them to breath life into the film, not him breath life into the film for the audience. The ending however is a tricky bastard. It is self-reflexive as hell and does not correlate with the rest of the film. I realize now maybe I figured out something. The last time we see of Mr. Badii is sitting in that hole waiting to see if he dies or not. Obviously, Kiarostami wanting to have his audience intellectually stimulated and moved by thought would not give us an indication of whether he dies or not. We never find out, but after that scene we see Kiarostami directing a group of soldiers. Mr. Badii talks about his days serving in the army. He states that it was the best time of his life. The whole ending reminds us of earlier scenes in the film. There is a tree with probably mulberries on it since the Turkish passenger did not kill himself because of mulberries. The whole ending is however kind of reminscent of the scene that came right before it. Sure, Kiarostami is not lying down in a hole wondering if he will wake up tomorrow, but him film-making is the equivalent of that. He has no idea whether this film will be liked or disliked. Just like Mr. Badii's death is, its up to fate and the viewer. Kiarostami has sacrificed himself in this film for all cinema fans to enjoy. I love it and I feel I am now Sherlock Holmes and have solved some sort of mystery. This is a modern masterpiece and I take back every bad thing I said about this film.

**** out of ****