Certified Copy

[Boner M]

I'm not really prepared to discuss the film until a second viewing, but it's my favorite film of the year and likely to remain that way until Tree of Life's release, and it has many fans 'round these parts, AND it's endlessly discussable... so it here's its own thread.

I'll refer you to Michael Sicinski's review (http://mubi.com/notebook/posts/2986), which is set to be the definitive piece of writing on the film (and the best review of any film I've read in a long time).

Also, hubba hubba:

http://tix.stgeorgebiff.com.au/img/sessions/525/CertifiedCopy.jpg

[B-side]

I can't get over how gorgeous Binoche is. One of my favorites of 2010, for sure.

[Boner M]

I reviewed it here (http://sydneyfilmhappenings.blogspot. com/2011/02/drum-media-reviews-certified-copy.html) as well, but as always, my writing's targeted more at the Sydney movie-n00bs who don't know who Kiarostami is.

That said, I think the one key idea that Sicinski expounds upon is that the generic & almost comically hackneyed, middlebrow setup of the film is by design, and the film is richer for using it as a springboard for greater truths about relationship dynamics, the idea of 'performance' in an existential sense, etc - lending credence to the 'value of the copy' thesis.

[eternity]

I still can't get the frickin' subs on this movie to work.

[B-side]

I still can't get the frickin' subs on this movie to work.

Using VLC and the rip from KG?

[eternity]

Using VLC and the rip from KG?
Mhm.

[B-side]

Mhm.

Hm. Worked fine for me. You could always grab the HD rip instead. I'll give you the GB if you're short.

[eternity]

Hm. Worked fine for me. You could always grab the HD rip instead. I'll give you the GB if you're short.I'll just make you hold my hand like a small child and troubleshoot tomorrow when I try to watch it for the fourth time.

[megladon8]

I can't get over how gorgeous Binoche is. One of my favorites of 2010, for sure.


Yeah, it's crazy how beautiful she is.

Divine.

[Raiders]

Opens here on the 25th. I wish it was a week earlier as both I Saw the Devil and a new 35mm print of Kuroneko are showing one week only from the 18th to 24th. That would be a heck of a triple header.

[Pop Trash]

I'm pretty sure I would marry Binoche, no questions asked, even though she is twenty years my senior.

EDIT: 16 years my senior, not that bad ; )

[elixir]

Just saw it. Instantly became my favorite from last year, and it'll be hard for a US release from this year to beat it.

I'll try to come up with more articulate thoughts when it's not 4 in the morning, but the first half is really really good and the second half is simply sublime. It's actually quite exhilarating to find yourself drawn into these two characters' conversations, and they are so wonderfully written and acted that it's impossible not to become immersed in it. This definitely has a lot of meat to it, and I'm still not quite sure what I think. Fantastic.

[elixir]

I'm not really prepared to discuss the film until a second viewing, but it's my favorite film of the year and likely to remain that way until Tree of Life's release, and it has many fans 'round these parts, AND it's endlessly discussable... so it here's its own thread.

I'll refer you to Michael Sicinski's review (http://mubi.com/notebook/posts/2986), which is set to be the definitive piece of writing on the film (and the best review of any film I've read in a long time).



Yikes. I shouldn't even have said anything. This review is pretty great, and makes me even more unsure of what I truly think. I do know on a visceral level that this hit me, but intellectually I am having a bit trouble completely figuring this one out--but that's a good thing, because it's utterly fascinating. Or maybe I'm stupid. Either way, I love it.

[elixir]

Yeah, and I'll echo the sentiments about Bincohe's beauty. Just wow.

[elixir]

This movie is keeping me up; can't fall asleep. Some questions (do NOT read if you haven't seen the movie!!!):


1. I was a bit confused when James was telling the story of the mother and son in Florence, and how Binoche's character (from hereon out, "she") reacted...was that her? Was she the mother? Or is this just another part of the confounding nature of the film? I feel like I missed something, but maybe it's just there for us to interpret. Which is cool.

2. Someone on imdb brought up the idea that perhaps "she" is James's mistress. The son asking about the last name, her wanting to recreate things, her not denying that the two are "married." It's not totally out of the realm of possibility, but subscribing to that belief takes away some of the more fascinating nature of the film and is probably too simplistic. I feel like it's too easy to subscribe to any one theory, right?

But furthermore--how important is that even? Isn't that one of the true questions, meaning: does it matter? Does it matter if it's a game, if they are married, if she's a mistress? I suppose it matters to some degree because it can help us understand motivations, but I wonder if it changes the emotions elicited from the circumstances shown on screen.

3. Do you think he stays with her at the end?

4. Are they actually moving through different points in time or is it in real time? Or somehow, neither of those two..the review linked to above suggests that it's more seamless transitions that doesn't have obvious physical cues but can be picked up in subtleties, which I can certainly see in some cases, but I can't say I am ENTIRELY convinced of that.

I know it's perhaps a bit "obvious," but I do love the visual parallel with "her" looking in the mirror and James looking the mirror at the end.

Perhaps I should wait to see it a second time to discuss it, but I find it to fascinating to wait.

[number8]

Contender for my favorite of the year for sure. I've seen it twice now.

Review (http://www.justpressplay.net/movies/theatrical-reviews/7510-certified-copy.html).

[ledfloyd]

But furthermore--how important is that even? Isn't that one of the true questions, meaning: does it matter? Does it matter if it's a game, if they are married, if she's a mistress? I suppose it matters to some degree because it can help us understand motivations, but I wonder if it changes the emotions elicited from the circumstances shown on screen.
i think this is the point of the film. whether or not it's real or a copy the effect is the same.

[NickGlass]

I saw this back in October, and nearly collided with Juliette Binoche in the stairwell because I was running a bit late.

I've already convinced roughly a dozen friends to go see it, so I'm trying to coordinate some social outing, which is sure to be disastrous. Nonetheless, I'll have seen it a second time by the end of the week, and then I'll ramble on regarding how much I adore it, and how it essentially read my mind while simultaneously surprising and delighting me. Oh, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, it's my #1 so far and I can only hope to discover a 2011 film as endearing as this.

[DavidSeven]

Definitely interesting. Feels more like a layered short story or one-act-play than a complete narrative, but it still manages to be completely fulfilling on its own terms. You could write hundreds of pages interpreting this, but I don't think that in itself makes it a great film. The beauty is in how careful Kiarostami's writing is. It's never so obtuse as to lose the viewer, but he never really shows you his hand either. From start to finish, it's a film that demands analytical attention, but it doesn't fail to be emotionally engaging either. I admired Kiarostami for never stepping too far into pretension while also never fully pandering to the audience's emotions and expectations. It's an utterly confounding piece, but in the best sense of that word. Truly a unique experience, but perhaps not for those whose sensibilities would favor a more conventional and comprehensible drama. I found it memorable and satisfyingly perplexing.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Larry Sanders Show - ***

I haven't seen this movie, but dude! LSS is the BSOAT.

I do want to see this though.

[eternity]

I haven't seen this movie, but dude! LSS is the BSOAT.

I do want to see this though.
I'm talking about the show. I marathon'd all six seasons over a week and a half without watching anything else in between.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Of course you were talking about the show. I didn't assume otherwise. In any case, your rating is way too low. It really is my favorite series ever, but I digress...

[StanleyK]

Great film. I was a bit concerned at first with the direction, a bit too reliant in shot/reverse shot, but there's so many stylistic variants in the conversations later that I trust Kiarostami wasn't doing it out of laziness. My fears of him having sold out and gone mainstream (well, relatively speaking; as mainstream as you can get in the arthouse circuit) assuaged, I became effortlessly invested in its charming characters and philosophical discussions. It's basically a more surreal Before Sunset; among its plenty interesting ideas, the one I most enjoyed is that our appreciation of art and life, like the way we carry out our relationships, changes and grows over the years, with both processes complementing each other in a constant evolution.

[origami_mustache]

I found it to be interesting structurally and it's engaging enough, but very dull visually.

[DavidSeven]

I love that long shot of them in the car with the city reflected in the front windshield as they drive by it.

[origami_mustache]

I liked that same shot in the other 20+ films I've seen it in. :P

[lovejuice]

A beautiful film, more Rohmerian than his usual work. That kinda disappoints me. Yet I love Rohmer, so the disappointment is compensated.

[Stay Puft]

Bouncing off of the last few posts, I'll say I liked the visuals in this. It took a bit for me to warm up to it but the style is very deliberate, my favorite motif being the interplay between foreground and background in what at the immediate surface seem to be basic close angles in dialogue exchanges, e.g. Binoche and her son talking in the cafe, repeated close ups and then Binoche gets up and leaves, and we cut back to the son, who continues to play on his game console while Binoche appears in the background bumming a smoke off of a waiter or whatever; repeat with Binoche in the rural cafe, Shimell in the background talking on the phone outside the window, and similar variations such as Shimell in the restaurant near the end with the young couple outside the window, and so on. Lots of windows. Plenty of other good stuff like the tracking shot in Binoche's antique shop, and of course the close up of Binoche putting on makeup in the mirror (window in the background) and the fantastic final shot that echoes it, with the final credits rolling, (no) surprise, outside the window.

Anyways this is an intelligent and rigorous film, wonderfully constructed I'd say, and one of the best surprises of the year for me (no previous Kiarostami films under my belt).

[Grouchy]

I hate being the sole contrarian. It's not really like I'm trying to call attention to myself, I just didn't enjoy this all that much. Part of it is that I was completely bored by the rigidness and staleness of the images. Part of it is that I felt the film was an awkward combination of stuff that worked better in Before Sunset and In the Mood for Love, among others.

I do agree that Binoche is just an incredible beauty and one of the most expressive faces in film. The fact that this doesn't completely lose the audience despite Kiarostami's lack of directing ability is all due to her on screen presence.

[Boner M]

Kiarostami's lack of directing ability

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Watashi]

So I saw this. I agree a lot with D7 that this film is to be deliberately analyzed by critics debating what's reality and what's fantasy. I was never drawn in to decipher the clues, but I was engaged by the central romance (?) of the story. This is probably the first time I've seen Binoche be a bitch in a film, and it was almost kind of unsettling. For a movie about art and culture and its counterfeits, we saw very little of it (Abbas never even gave a clear view of the sculpture that the couple were arguing about, but maybe that's the point?). It's an interesting film for sure, but I didn't fall for it like many other people.

It's definitely a match-cutty movie.

[Ezee E]

Binoche is totally getting the Matchie. Blegh.

[Bosco B Thug]

This is probably the first time I've seen Binoche be a bitch in a film, and it was almost kind of unsettling. She is really good. She intimidated me greatly in this film. I was totally into it.

Loved it, definitely my favorite Kiarostami (out of the usual three), but I feel like I'm going to alienate again a la my L'Atalante thoughts when I say I prefer the wry intellectual lampooning of the first half to the romantic progressions that occur in the second half. Not that there is a great cleaving in the middle between the two, so really, the film as a whole is superb. But I did think to myself that the film (like the characters) was getting a bit schizophrenic towards the end, and not to my liking.

[Watashi]

This movie has a really unappealing DVD cover. It actually make Juliette Binoche look like a vampire.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/31/Copie-conforme-poster.png

Why is she so pale?

[Henry Gale]

Finally watched it last night. Pretty much adored it, and will definitely be up for reading / participating in discussions about it once I'm happy with my own sorted thoughts on it.

Coincidentally, both in terms of my recent viewing and the Wats' above post in the thread, Criterion just announced it for a May release. With this cover, no less:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_images/3907/612_DVD_box.jpg?1329430483

[Boner M]

That's the worst Criterion cover I've seen in a while. Vastly prefer the Vampire Binoche one.

[B-side]

That's the worst Criterion cover I've seen in a while. Vastly prefer the Vampire Binoche one.

Same, big time. What a hideous cover.

[dreamdead]

Rewatched this last night and it was even more magical the second time through. I thought it was fascinating that both the son and the patron of the cafe characters offer some variation of the "they don't need to know" phrase, intimating levels of knowledge suspended from the spectator. I like how it continues what critic Godfrey Cheshire holds to be Kiarostami’s characteristic interest in the “half-made film, whose completion requires the viewer’s imaginative (or more accurately: interpretive) participation.”

The verbal spats at the restaurant similarly became all the more haunting as James and She charge one another with their various faults, trying to find peace and reconciliation but still hesitant to move forward. Yet the various moves that She makes, the removal of the bra, the reclining on the bed, etc., all point toward the desire to renew a relationship. Especially since Binoche holds that she contends that “the woman is actually [Kiarostami]. He raised his children on his own, because in Iran when a couple gets divorced, the man has the children, not the woman.”

Beyond Binoche's divine presence, I just see more depth and layers to reflect upon. It's what a quality film should be, challenging and rewarding on re-viewings.

[number8]

I've seen it three times and it definitely got better each time.

[number8]

That's the worst Criterion cover I've seen in a while. Vastly prefer the Vampire Binoche one.

It's supposed to look like the cover of James' book in the film. Criterion tends to do gimmicks like that. I don't mind it.

[Irish]

I watched this because I remember hearing Raiders say good things about it (maybe in the big thread?).

Going in without much foreknowledge outside a box blurb, this confounded me. In that confusion, I found myself trying to classify it, organize it in some way I can understand.

Thought process: "Oh, it's a Before Sunrise kind of thing. I get it. But why is the camera so static and the visuals so bland? What the ..? Binoche's character seems a bit crazy. Maybe they both are. Maybe the guy who made this is doing some Bunel thing and introducing surrealist elements, and you're not supposed to understand them, just go with it? But just what is that supposed to be a comment on? My god, Juliette Binoche's breasts are amazing. How old is she? I should look her up on Wikipedia .. Wait .. They're switching back to French again. Didn't he say he only spoke English before? I should pay more attention."

Frankly, I felt pretty stupid about it, but then I kept getting drawn in again, continually with each scene, by the conversation and the rawness of some of the emotion. There's some obvious visual metaphors -- reflections, mirrored images, couples in various stages of life, characters boxed in and "trapped" within the frame.

But what really astounded me was the fluidity of the whole thing. Even though the emotional tone of the characters changed wildly from some scenes to others, there were no seams showing. Once I thought I had a handle on what might be real, or true, once I thought I understood, the movie effortlessly shifted gears to another kind of place. That was impressive, even if it left me in a confused kind of awe.

Afterwards, I went online and read some reviews and didn't feel as lost. It seems nobody else understood it either, and maybe figuring it out, trying to sort through it like it's primarily a puzzle, is to miss the point.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Yeah, I saw this a couple of days ago myself and loved it. My thought process throughout the film mirrored yours. Unfortunately I didn't have subtitles and could only piece about half of the dialogue in italian. I hope I didn't miss too much in that conversationg Binoche has with the coffee shop woman/owner.

And yeah, she is even more gorgeous now than 20 years ago. Unreal. This is a real babe. Not Zhang Ziyi (heh)

[number8]

Quick PSA while I'm working on my now third review of this film: the Criterion Bluray has one of the best special features ever. It includes the entirety of Kiarostami's second film, The Report. It's a pretty beat-up print that Criterion tried their best to salvage, since the original negatives were destroyed in the 1979 Iranian revolution, so this is, to my knowledge, the only way you'd be able to see this film. The fact that this is an extra and not a separate release is kind of mindblowing.

[Irish]

Unfortunately I didn't have subtitles and could only piece about half of the dialogue in italian. I hope I didn't miss too much in that conversationg Binoche has with the coffee shop woman/owner.

:eek:

If you liked it enough, I'd encourage you to go for a rewatch with proper subs. The dialogue with the old woman in the cafe was some of the more memorable in the entire movie.

[Dukefrukem]

:eek:

If you liked it enough, I'd encourage you to go for a rewatch with proper subs. The dialogue with the old woman in the cafe was some of the more memorable in the entire movie.

And important! Without it, the subtext of the entire movie is lost.

[Spaceman Spiff]

:eek:

If you liked it enough, I'd encourage you to go for a rewatch with proper subs. The dialogue with the old woman in the cafe was some of the more memorable in the entire movie.

Oh noes! Well, I'll have to check it out then. It was really only that scene that gave me any trouble.

[Kirby Avondale]

I take no exception to shot-reverse-shot editing or inconspicuous cinematography so long as what's depicted bears itself out, and here, I'd say it does so gracefully. I throw my chips in with those that say the more conventional, content-driven appearance renders the little transitions and ambiguities all the more resonant and uncanny, as the obscure pokes thro the seemingly obvious.

[Sxottlan]

Rented this a few weeks ago. I was completely surprised by how much I loved it. I usually don't revamp a top ten so long after the fact, but I would count among my top ten for last year. I was surprised because the talk of originals and copies reminded me of all things, the first season of Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex and the talk about the Laughing Man incident.

I loved how when the two start talking like they're in a relationship, I was willing to go along with Kiarostami and see where he went as this couple is suddenly fighting, or are they? It was just a joy to watch the relationship develop and try to decide if it was some unspoken joke the two took to extremes or if they were genuine. In the final shot we're thinking maybe things just got real.

Loved the Tuscan setting. I was just in northeastern Spain a few months ago and visited small towns that were similar in look and feel. So I appreciated that.

And yeah, I hated the Criterion cover until I saw that it was a riff on the book cover in the film. Definitely going to pick this up when B&N does its 50% off sale.

[transmogrifier]

Can't give this a proper rating, because about halfway through the subtitles became unsynched, with each line reading off by one, so that the central couple essentially swapped dialogue, making it a pain in the arse to recode as a lot of important information was shared.

Of course, by that stage, I was somewhat hooked by the barbed observations being shared between the two, so I soldiered on, but I don't think I was able to experience the true emotional and intellectual weight the film was hoping to accumulate.

The reason I post this anyway: it's obvious they are husband and wife.

[number8]

No.

[Dukefrukem]

That's trans's best post ever.

[transmogrifier]

No.

Yes.

[transmogrifier]

That's trans's best post ever.

The worst thing was the subs became unsynched halfway through the conversation with the woman in the cafe. So for a while, I thought Binoche was talking about the cafe woman's husband, or something. To say I felt a bit lost was an understatement - the subtitles had been fine up until then, so I didn't immediately notice. It wasn't until the man and woman started their conversation again that I realized what had happened.

Annoying.

[Dukefrukem]

The worst thing was the subs became unsynched halfway through the conversation with the woman in the cafe. So for a while, I thought Binoche was talking about the cafe woman's husband, or something. To say I felt a bit lost was an understatement - the subtitles had been fine up until then, so I didn't immediately notice. It wasn't until the man and woman started their conversation again that I realized what had happened.

Annoying.

Yes I can see that be annoying. But that cafe conversation is kind of important to the mystery behind your spoilered text. If you were confused during that portion of the film, it's possible that is the reason why you are so certain about your statement. For, it is never actually validated anywhere.

[transmogrifier]

Of course it's never validated anywhere - the director is far too smart to actually give us a definitive answer. There is much to discussion to be generated by being purposefully vague as to the details.

The reason I am so definitive with my answer is that, personally, the other major option:
That they are strangers and play acting the roles of husband and wife is so bone-deep stupid that I wouldn't be able to take the film seriously in any way, except possibly as a study of a deeply disturbed woman and the guy who irresponsibly goads her. The film only works for me if my original claim is the true one, especially with regards the whole copy/original theme of the film.

It is much more emotionally potent to consider whether a marriage has become a mere copy of itself, with the people involved dutifully reproducing behaviour in the hope of maintaining the original meaning and intent of the relationship they entered into. That has a thematic resonance. Two random people acting like melodramatic idiots does not. Anyway, on a meta-level, the film itself already has two strangers acting off each other (Binoche and Shimell) so I don't really think the film benefits from doubling down on that conceit.

That is not to say the film plays the story straight - there is obviously some purposeful misdirection at the start to help make the second half more of a mind bender. But I think it is obvious, for the film to be a satisfying, cohesive, potent whole, they have to be married.

Anyway, as I said, I'm not going to rate it or rank it or vote on it or recommend it or dismiss it, simply because my first viewing was compromised somewhat.

[Yxklyx]

Can't give this a proper rating, because about halfway through the subtitles became unsynched, with each line reading off by one, so that the central couple essentially swapped dialogue, making it a pain in the arse to recode as a lot of important information was shared....[/SPOILER]

Was this a blu-ray with an HDMI connection? There are known issues with HDMI and voice sync. I think the solution is to power everything off, power back on and try again.

[transmogrifier]

Was this a blu-ray with an HDMI connection? There are known issues with HDMI and voice sync. I think the solution is to power everything off, power back on and try again.

No, it was a digital copy with hardcoded subs.