Film Review: Taste of Cherry

 "Taste of Cherry"

 *** 1\2 (out of ****)

"The hour  of our  departure has arrived, and we go our separate ways, I  to die, and you to live. Which of these two is better only God knows."
                                                         Socrates

Soil. From it comes life and to it we return in death. You'll see a lot of soil and dirt in "Taste of Cherry" (1998), the Iranian Palme d' Or winner from Abbas Kiarostami. It's a constant reminder that life and death are always around us.

The film has a simple plot, a man, Mr. Badii (Homayoun Ershadi, who sadly passed away last November) drives around Tehran looking for someone to assist in his potential suicide. He will pay a large sum of money to someone if they will arrive at a designated location and either rescue him from a hole in the ground or bury him.

Most critics that have reviewed this film took everything literal. For example, critic Peter Bradshaw reviewed the film in 2012 for The Guardian and spent an inordinate amount of time writing about suicide and its implications in Iran. Despite its subject matter "Taste of Cherry" is not solely about death or suicide. The film is also about life. It is not a sad or depressing film with a character agonizing about the difficulties of being alive. Chicago Sun-Times critic Roger Ebert famously disliked Kiarostami's films - referring to "Taste of Cherry" as "excruciatingly boring" in his review - and would often only describe the surface level actions taking place, ignoring any possible symbolic meaning. "Taste of Cherry" is a film meant to be interpreted and not watched indifferently.

From its description, "Taste of Cherry" is the kind of movie that many will say is one where nothing happens. All we do is see a man in his car, driving around town. That is true, in a sense, but Kiarostami brings an entire world to us inside of that car. We view a clash of different economic statuses, religious beliefs, and age. And each person that Mr. Badii encounters represents a diverse opinion on life and death.

Because cinema abides by the rule of three, the film is comprised of three long conversations / arguments that Mr. Badii has after he asks the individuals to carry out his request. The first man we see is a young Kurdish solider (Safar Ali Moradi) who is looking for a ride back to his barracks. Mr. Badii agrees to give the man a lift and quickly determines he could be a potential candidate. This is primarily based on the fact that the young solider is Kurdish and comes from a working class family. Mr. Badii has assessed it will take a poor person to perform his task. The opening sequence of the film has him driving passed unemployed laborers. 

This touches on another important theme in the film; class distinction. Mr. Badii is incredibly forceful when trying to persuade the young solider to take the job. When the solider asks what exactly the job is, Mr. Badii tells him not to worry about it but to instead concern himself with the money he will make. This is the condescending nature of those with money and how they view those that don't have any. It implies the poor have loose morals and should be willing to do anything for money.  After all, what other choice do they have? It is also a defense mechanism on Mr. Badii's part since he knows he is asking the young man to do something highly questionable.

It is interesting how Kiarostami visualizes this tension between the two men. Kiarostami filmed the men separately, meaning they were never together for their scenes. All of the shots in the car are medium close-ups. This creates a claustrophobic feeling and the illusion of both men being trapped together. We can sense the soldier's uneasiness while also hearing the desperation in Mr. Badii's voice.

In addition to the lure of money, Mr. Badii changes tactics and tries to make an emotional plea to the boy by referencing the hardships he and his family must have endured as Kurds in Iraq, who have now migrated to Iran. It is meant to invoke a time in the early 1990s when millions of Kurds did leave Iraq after the Gulf War and a failed uprising against Saddam Hussein. This becomes something we hear again and again throughout the film - the hardships others have endured and yet those people continued to go on living, contrasting their desire to live against Mr. Badii.

We see a similar situation occur with the second passenger in the vehicle, an Afghani migrant (Mir Hossein Noori) studying at a seminary. As with Iraq, Afghanistan also dealt with war in the 1990s, following the departure of the Soviets. By 1996 the Taliban was on the rise and had seized control of Kabul. It is said millions of Afghanis had headed for Iran during this period. Again, even though they had faced such enormous calimity, they continued to embrace life.

Please note this information regarding wars is not needed to follow the film's plot or to appreciate it. I only provide it for historical context, to properly situate the time period in which the film was made. 

What becomes interesting about the conversation with the seminarist is the same visual techniques used previously now make a different impression. No longer do we feel a sense of friction and claustrophobia because Mr. Badii has changed his approach somewhat and is only occasionally passive aggressive this time. With the solider, Mr. Badii tried to leverage him with money but that won't work this time around. To solicit the help of the seminarist Mr. Badii will make an emotional plea by seemingly having a heart-to-heart discussion. This time around we are having a religious debate that almost feels like a confessional. The switching between the medium shots of the characters serves as a confession partition. But when the seminarist objects, mentioning that the Koran says suicide is a sin, Mr. Badii tries to undermine his authority. He doesn't need a lecture. He could have spoken to someone that has finished their studies for that. 

To counter these two conversations, Kiarostami creates a nice contrast when Mr. Badii gets his vehicle stuck while driving along a dirt road. There are workers nearby who immediately come to Mr. Badii's rescue and help lift his vehicle out of a ditch. In this situation Mr. Badii doesn't need to ask anyone for help, the people instinctively come to assist. When a person feels they are doing something positive, they will help. As opposed to the favor Mr. Badii is asking, where he is being refused. 

A desire to help brings us to the third and final passenger, a Turkish migrant, Mr. Bagheri (Abdolhosein Bagheri). For the first time, Mr. Badii is silent and it is the passenger that does all of the talking. Mr. Bagheri morally disagrees with Mr. Badii's decision to commit suicide. Although Mr. Bagheri says he will agree to help, he does try to talk Mr. Badii out of it. Kiarostami makes the contradiction between Mr. Bagheri and Mr. Badii unmistakable. When Mr. Badii spoke to the seminarist it was a performative empathy, with Mr. Bagheri we see true sincerity. 

There is a brief line of dialogue that for me reflects the film's stance on the matter of life and death. Mr. Bagheri tells Mr. Badii to make a turn, taking him off of his usual path. Mr. Badii says he doesn't know this road but Mr. Bagheri reassures him that he is familiar with it. It will however result in a longer ride but it is a better and more beautiful road. That is what life is. A series a roads or paths we chose to take. Some are more beautiful than others. It all comes down to perspective. The Kurds and the Afghanis, for example, chose a different path. They left their countries. As Mr. Bagheri says, if every person reacted to every tiny problem the way Mr. Badii is, there would be no one left on earth.

I won't deny you the pleasures of hearing Mr. Bagheri's ode to life but will say the tone of the conversation is radically different than the previous two. If the Kurdish solider represented a fear of death and the seminarist was moral / religious responsibility then Mr. Bagheri appeals to our senses. This is not a philosophical debate. The simple joys of life are the thrust of Mr. Bagheri's argument. This is how the film gets its title. And it is from this discussion we notice a possible change in Mr. Badii's behavior. While he is preoccupied with death and driving around, he is ignoring all of the life around him - the trees, the sun, and yes the soil.

You may wonder about all of those shots of dirt roads, barren landscapes and construction sites but Kiarostami finds the beauty of life in them. While you can interpret all of it as a reflection of Mr. Badii's loneliness also notice the contrast between the dirt roads and construction equipment with the images of the city. The city equals life whereas the barren land signifies death but from that land emerges a city where homes and stores will be built. It all represents a circle of life.

Since some critics interpreted the film as a commentary on suicide, and given that the Iranian government forbids this act, they therefore thought this was a political film. Back in 1997, when the film was released in Iran, Mohammad Khatami had become president. He wanted better relations with the West. I personally don't see much of an emphasis in the film on this topic but should point out, it did not go unnoticed by me that the vehicle Mr. Badii drives is a Land Rover and in one scene there is a man wearing a shirt with U.C.L.A  written on it. When Mr. Badii comments on it and asks the man if he knows what the shirt means, he nods in the negative. Finally, the film closes with a piece of jazz music, the song St. James Infirmary. Which is of course a song about death and the remembrance of a loved one.

Another thing that did not go unnoticed by me was the absence of women in the film. Kiarostami doesn't treat this as one of the themes of the film nor has this topic been brought up in the majority of film criticism written on the film. While there is no commentary in the film on role women play in Iran, their absence is within itself a commentary on how they are treated in Iranian culture. This then becomes more of a political / social issue rather than a thematic component of "Taste of Cherry", which explains why other critics avoided mentioning the issue at all. The only woman who appears in this film is at the end. She asks Mr. Badii to take her photo with someone who is possibly her husband. Kiarostami would make a more explicit commentary on this subject in his later film, "Ten" (2002). 

Many critics expressed dissatisfaction with not knowing why Mr. Badii wants to commit suicide. It doesn't actually matter. It is all a pretext to engage in the grander discussion on life and death. Mr. Badii's quest for assistance is plot mechanics and not the emphasis of the story. To worry about his ailment is to distract yourself from the charms of the film and its philosophy.

The other major criticism thrown at the film had to do with its epilogue, which I will not go into much detail over. It is meant to serve as a reminder on the relationship between life and art. Roger Ebert called it a "distancing strategy" that was not needed. Another critic, Jonathan Rosenbaum of the Chicago Reader, called it a "joyful finale" in his review, commenting on how this ending liberates us from "the oppressive solitude and darkness of Badii" with familiar images we have seen throughout the film. I am in the Rosenbaum camp - unusual for me - on this issue.

If I had to pick out one thing about the film I disliked, it has to do with the editing. When Mr. Badii and Mr. Bagheri are having their conversation, based on the dialogue it appears as if it is a continuation of a previous discussion. Mr. Badii is asking for assurances from Mr. Bagheri but we never see them meet. It's hard to believe Kiarostami edited down their meeting. It is the only flaw with the film that I have.

The minimalist, documentary style Kiarostami used in this film became something he was identified with and criticized for. It blurred the lines between fact and fiction but allowed him to explore the humanity that can be found after tragedy. Great examples of this can be found in "And Life Goes On", (1992) and "The Wind Will Carry Us" (2000). "Taste of Cherry" is a natural extension of it.

"Taste of Cherry" was not typical of modern Iranian cinema from other filmmakers - Majid Majidi and Jafar Panahi among them. It was made in a style of filmmaking closer to Italian Neorealism - using non professional actors (with the exception of Homayoun Ershadi), real locations and natural lighting - and is why the Chicago Tribune movie critic Michael Wilmington once referred to Kiarostami as the "natural heir" of the movement.

Although the cinema of  Abbas Kiarostami had divided critics and audiences alike, "Taste of Cherry" did receive much acclaim. In addition to the Palme d'Or prize it shared at Cannes - it tied with Shohei Imamura's wonderful "The Eel" (1998) - it was also considered one of the best films of the year by critics like Jonathan Rosenbaum, Godfrey Cheshire (New York Press) and Michael  Wilmington. Stephen Holden praised it in his New York Times review, writing, "Kiarostami, like no other filmmaker, has a vision of human scale that is simultaneously epic and precisely minuscule." Dave Kehr, in his New York Daily News review called it  "stunning" and "powerfully affirmative", awarding it four stars.

For my own part I will never forget the first time I saw "Taste of Cherry" and "The Wind Will Carry Us". Decades later my mind goes back to them and I recall the mood they put me in and although some my consider the visuals dull, certain images have always stayed in my mind. Mr. Badii's face has never left me as well as those winding roads and I even hear Mr. Bagheri's voice now and then. A few years ago I had a year long theme on the blog called Was I Right?, where I looked at past top ten choices to decide if I was right to chose them. I didn't select "Taste of Cherry" on my top ten list in 1998, that was a mistake which I will rectify.

"Taste of Cherry" is one of Kiarostami's masterpieces. A philosophical film that celebrates life. It is a reminder that sadness and joy and life and death are always around us. Our lives are comprised of which roads we choose to travel on. Sometimes that road may be longer than expected but it will be more beautiful and from there we can stop to taste the cherries.