criterionforum.org

Should I tell him about Criterion?

knives wrote:Should I tell him about Criterion?

What's there to tell?

knives wrote:Should I tell him about Criterion?

I must make an aside here and say this kind of comment is why I do not post here much. I highly assume, based on information in this forum and elsewhere, that Criterion will produce this and do their usual bang-up job. If you read my post correctly, you would notice that I allude to this in the last line of my post. I was simply pointing out a deficiency I perceived in the Blu-ray that I have not read of elsewhere in the hopes that individuals on this board would ring in on my thoughts.

I think it was actually a humorous reference to the (rumor?) that Criterion will not be releasing this film because someone at the company felt that it was "minor Kiarostami." This was all based, if I remember right, on the post of one person who claimed to have conversed with someone with Criterion after a screening of some sort, so it might be bad information.

Available on Netflix instant streaming as of today.

Did anyone else find the narrative ambiguity distracting? I enjoyed the morphing narrative, but maybe it was too much shoehorned in with commentary on art and life that seemed much more straightforward. I found myself trying to "solve" the mystery, but feel like that wasn't important in the end. Marienbad or Mulholland Drive had a similar teasing narrative, but seemed less convoluted as they relied much more on mis-en-scene, than dialogue driven social commentary.

I think trying to solve the mystery is more important than actually solving it.

I think the narrative ambiguity is essential for what makes the movie so successful. (Possibly overcautious spoiler tag follows.)

Spoiler

To me, CERTIFIED COPY is about the fluidity of identity in a relationship, and the question: do we change, or do we hold to a fixed version of who we were to that other person? If that were dramatized in a way that made full and total sense, everything in the film would be seen through the context of "oh, she's the wife, and they're playing this game", or "oh, she's a lover", and so on. By denying us that mooring, we're instead forced to cling through this couple that's constantly shifting, and identify these shift as the enduring characterizations of who they are.

Non-spoiler thought: this movie is a fucking masterpiece. Favorite movie of the last two years in a walk.

Thanks for indulging discussion on this old movie, as I am just catching up now. I've seen everything of Kiarostami that's available, but I guess I wasn't prepared for the magical realism aspect of this. It sort of caught me off guard, because it is presented in such a straightforward manner. Maybe that is where the poignancy lies. Blue Valentine (a much lesser film) has a similar "juxtaposed" examination of a relationship, but of course that has distinct jumps in time. It also had some similarity to something like F is for Fake, but that is again very well defined as an essay film, whereas Certified Copy's shifts are subtle. That is effectively where I got frustrated. The dialogue is that of a broad discussion of fakes (sort of writerly and Godardian), while the narrative is far more nuanced. I will need to revisit this at some point, I'm not convinced it is a masterpiece yet, but Kiarostami is certainly a master.

Further to DDillaman's sharp analysis, I think the beauty of the film is the way in which it explores the idea that any relationship is to some extent a performance, and whether or not there is any meaningful difference between a counterfeit gesture and an authentic one, since the fact of the gesture remains.

Hmmm.

Announced!

I'm certainly sticking to the R2 boxset. I'm willing to give up 1080p for that.

Well congratulations Harmonov, how does it feel to yield so much power? Although I kind of wish it had been used towards something without a decent release.

How about someone starts a rumour that Peter Becker told the President of Wellspring that he hates contemporary Filipino cinema - especially Raya Martin and Lav Diaz!?

[-( I can't see why Criterion is bothering with minor Kiarostami.

(Seriously, has nobody made that joke yet?)

jbeall wrote:(Seriously, has nobody made that joke yet?)

Why bother? It was played out and then some in all the Tiny Furniture discussion.

Brian C wrote:

jbeall wrote:(Seriously, has nobody made that joke yet?)

Why bother? It was played out and then some in all the Tiny Furniture discussion.

But that was only minor discussion

Ah yes I see what you did there

I mined 'er for laffs I did

jonah.77 wrote:

no one would want to buy it with that cover.

To be fair, it resembles the cover of the book that the male lead is promoting in the film. (Indeed it resembles the functional book covers that are ubiquitous in Europe.)

Those book covers tend to have a fairly clean and stylish minimalist look to them, as well as following the set style of the imprint. This just looks like a circa 1970s text book. All time bad.

A fairly crummy release all in all. Sure hope the interview is worth the extra year it's taken to get this out and the few extra bucks. I guess those who need a C on anything in order to watch it will be pleased.

zedz wrote:Further to DDillaman's sharp analysis, I think the beauty of the film is the way in which it explores the idea that any relationship is to some extent a performance, and whether or not there is any meaningful difference between a counterfeit gesture and an authentic one, since the fact of the gesture remains.

This entire thread seems like a certified copy of the Tiny Furniture furor.

Which is "doubly" amusing, because now it can be revealed that there was never any question as to whether (a) Criterion had picked up Certified Copy; (b) had "chosen Dunham over Kiarostami"; (c) that the much repeated remarks were in fact* wholly apocryphal. (Holy Apocrypha!)

For what it's worth, I think the cover is just fine / pretty good / better than the original one-sheet. And has nothing to do with Facets-design, sorry.

Agreed too with DDillaman that it's the best film of the last two years — after Film Socialisme. (I might tie CC with The Tree of Life, though I think the Kiarostami is more "perfect," whatever that means.) And I agree with his line on the film, not that any one line is 'the' line, but it's close to my understanding of the film's core. I think similar things are expressed in sections of Finnegans Wake and (more similarly and most completely in terms of parallel) Philip Roth's The Counterlife. (Which I hear Desplechin is adapting — good luck.)

* edit: mistyped as "were not in fact"

evillights wrote:Philip Roth's The Counterlife. (Which I hear Desplechin is adapting — good luck.)

I hope that is true because that is great news to me, one of my favorite living authors and one of my favorite living directors. I gotta catch up on my Zuckerman novels, haven't gotten to that one yet.

Sheesh, couldn't they have at least put one of Kiarostami's shorts on this disc? That Interview and booklet had better be worth the extra $30 this thing costs over the AE

Brian C wrote:

jbeall wrote:(Seriously, has nobody made that joke yet?)

Why bother? It was played out and then some in all the Tiny Furniture discussion.

Yes, but if there's one thing this forum does well, it's beating a dead horse, so I fully expected to see multiple posts referencing the "minor" comment. I didn't know whether to be disappointed or pleasantly surprised. So I took the low road.

Anyway, this is quite a lovely film, one of the rare arthouse films my wife enjoyed as much as I did, so we're definitely picking up a (certified) copy.

Yes, it's not really showing a significant differential over the AE (just the booklet & short i/v)...