LOVE this trilogy and Kiarostami's films, and can I say how absolutely ecstatic I was that you brought up Tarkovsky and Bergman, my other two favorite directors! This video has made me very happy and surely I will return to watch it again many times! Thank you so much for your upload and your insight
Well done for how you yourself have framed this trilogy. With great sensitivity. I will be including this compilation for a course in Italy I shall be teaching from September on Neo-realism and world cinema. Kiarostami was specifically aware of Zavattini's teachings, as he reveals in Ten on Ten and some interviews. I think Zavattini would have loved to see these films. The transmission and what it adds.
@@reelcinemavideoessays In the days of Postmodernism and its excesses, Close Up was greatly valued, for all the meta-cinema issues it raised, performing their critique; doing so cinematically. Even there, Kiarostami had the last word (the embrace of the fraudster and Makmalbhaf), labelled as "humanism" and thus belittled, effectively. I think what brought Kiarosrami to heed Zavattini's call was the same passion for the camera's documentary edge, tempered with poetry. (You see it also, for example, in Nicholas Philibert's documentaries, such as Être et Avoir). But we had to wait for Pier Paolo Pasolini to theorize the "cinema of poetry", though it was already integral to first-wave Neo-realism. That Kiarostami of course knew all this and reminded us of it shines on the big screen over and over again and speaks to us from his recorded teaching, for example, in New York (collected and published). Neo-realism in its nachleben (Aby Warburg) stubbornly resists genre labelling and remains a thorn in the side for Anglo-American historiography. Despite David Thomson's categorizing of world cinema and anything that does not fit into the Hollywood playbook as "art cinema". Kiarostami, Nuri Bilge Ceylan, or Tomás Guttiérez Alea, Panahi, or many others, show in their films how ideas travel and develop, regardless of our labels and fads. That's what I think.
@@magicknight13 many thanks I am now in Italy for Visting Professorship working with undergrads and postgrads. Then back to Ireland and my other students. Take a look at the new affordable paperback version of my Intellectual Biography on Zavattini. More stuff to ponder and the roots of an alternative cinema discussed.
Absolutely love this video! I have only seen “where is the friends house” and I’ve ordered the criterion for the trilogy. The idea of this whole trilogy sounds quite a lot like Symbiopsychotaxiplasm!
The way I always thought of the ending, he noticed the 2 boys walking to the place where everybody's watching the football game but before going back he went to drive that man to place he was heading to. Meaning that after the ending he went back to the football watching place and met the boys that he noticed walking at the end.
Thank God I got the opportunity to watch even without knowing this is a masterpiece . Where is the friend's house .
The first two films are transcendent masterpieces. 'Through the Olive Trees' is great, as well. Truly one of the best trilogies of all time.
Agree!
LOVE this trilogy and Kiarostami's films, and can I say how absolutely ecstatic I was that you brought up Tarkovsky and Bergman, my other two favorite directors! This video has made me very happy and surely I will return to watch it again many times! Thank you so much for your upload and your insight
Happy you enjoyed it!
Director Abbas Kiarostami is one of the most beautiful realistic films
Well done for how you yourself have framed this trilogy. With great sensitivity. I will be including this compilation for a course in Italy I shall be teaching from September on Neo-realism and world cinema. Kiarostami was specifically aware of Zavattini's teachings, as he reveals in Ten on Ten and some interviews.
I think Zavattini would have loved to see these films. The transmission and what it adds.
Thank you so much! Always great to learn about Kiarostami.
@@reelcinemavideoessays In the days of Postmodernism and its excesses, Close Up was greatly valued, for all the meta-cinema issues it raised, performing their critique; doing so cinematically.
Even there, Kiarostami had the last word (the embrace of the fraudster and Makmalbhaf), labelled as "humanism" and thus belittled, effectively.
I think what brought Kiarosrami to heed Zavattini's call was the same passion for the camera's documentary edge, tempered with poetry. (You see it also, for example, in Nicholas Philibert's documentaries, such as Être et Avoir).
But we had to wait for Pier Paolo Pasolini to theorize the "cinema of poetry", though it was already integral to first-wave Neo-realism.
That Kiarostami of course knew all this and reminded us of it shines on the big screen over and over again and speaks to us from his recorded teaching, for example, in New York (collected and published).
Neo-realism in its nachleben (Aby Warburg) stubbornly resists genre labelling and remains a thorn in the side for Anglo-American historiography. Despite David Thomson's categorizing of world cinema and anything that does not fit into the Hollywood playbook as "art cinema".
Kiarostami, Nuri Bilge Ceylan, or Tomás Guttiérez Alea, Panahi, or many others, show in their films how ideas travel and develop, regardless of our labels and fads. That's what I think.
The students that take your class are very lucky! :)
@@magicknight13 many thanks I am now in Italy for Visting Professorship working with undergrads and postgrads. Then back to Ireland and my other students.
Take a look at the new affordable paperback version of my Intellectual Biography on Zavattini. More stuff to ponder and the roots of an alternative cinema discussed.
Wonderful!
Absolutely love this video! I have only seen “where is the friends house” and I’ve ordered the criterion for the trilogy. The idea of this whole trilogy sounds quite a lot like Symbiopsychotaxiplasm!
Thanks! Let me know if you like the other two films in the trilogy! I have not seen Symbiopsychotaxiplasm so I will def check it out now.
Very good observations. :-) Thanks
The way I always thought of the ending, he noticed the 2 boys walking to the place where everybody's watching the football game but before going back he went to drive that man to place he was heading to. Meaning that after the ending he went back to the football watching place and met the boys that he noticed walking at the end.
could someone please give me a link or a way to watch it. or the creator could upload it. i’m wayy to broke for criterion