25 reviews
This is the transition from Kiarostami's films about children into his more adult, philosophically ponderous phase (and his bridging of the gap between characters searching on foot, as in the first of the trilogy, "Where is the Friend's Home," and within cars). As with all of Kiarostami's films, it's just beautiful to look at, not so much the way he films it (although this film continues his favorite shot of action taking place extremely far away), but what is filmed. For this reason I almost feel like I'm blinded by the director's name on the film, giving his films such high marks, because he doesn't really DO anything that you can point to. There is no startling mise-en-scene (the nature exists anyway, regardless of his camera). But he repeatedly and consistently creates a tranquil, pure, loving feeling in me. It has to do with his soul: he's putting it up there every time. Not autobiographically, but tonally. It has nothing to do with words like "craft" or "quality."
The simple gesture of a child wanting to raise a grasshopper is enough for Kiarostami to be considered a great realist, an observer. And his film is a connector of people. It might sound simple to say, but for a Westerner with no real idea of what life is like in Iran -- or better, not life, but people -- the simple depiction of it that shows, "Hey, they're basically like us," is invaluable. That's the difference between artists who share what is and artists who create what isn't. And more immediately, within the film, he deals with the public tragedy as great connector, whether it's an earthquake or an act of terrorism. And for us Westerners whose first real impression of that came with 9/11, this film will ring true -- and be remarkable if we consider that things like this happen over there all the time. (Which possibly explains why our main character never seems all that shocked by anything he sees; when a woman cries for her family, he nods his head, but doesn't seem terribly affected by her tears.) One character here asks what Iran has done to anger God and cause the earthquake, but there is little religiosity in the film. Unlike certain recent American films, this film does not have a tendency toward hand-wringing and overwrought seriousness reaching toward the skies. That scene itself is understated like the entire film. The characters here are not spiritual ciphers. They're utterly practical.
As with Kiarostami's two greatest films, "Close-Up" and "Taste of Cherry," the film becomes brilliant when it breaks from its placid realism into self-reference: the main character pulls out a picture of a boy who acted in the real film "Where is the Friend's Home?" and asks strangers where this real boy is, who he says played a role in the film. Is this a real earthquake? Is this actor really harmed? Is this a documentary? Is the main actor playing Kiarostami; is Kiarostami filming this from the passenger seat? Are they really out looking for this boy? But as with those two masterpieces, it's this that borders on insufferable, smirking cleverness on Kiarostami's part that makes me question the so-called honesty of his films. (I find his interviews pretentious and evasive.) Is it possible to be a self-referencing deconstructionist and reveal human truths, not just reveal "the nature of cinema," in an attempt to be the Iranian Godard? This is what lessens my enjoyment of his films, because it lowers my trust. Kiarostami asks a lot of us. "Okay, admit the first film was openly a film, but accept this as a closed film, until I tell you it's a documentary..." There are other flaws. It does get "cute" at times, as when the main character repeats his son's question at a later time ("Why is it coming out of a tap?"). And the boy seems preternaturally wise -- part of the film's "message" is not to discount kids' wisdom: the boy questions the validity of the claim that God caused the earthquake, shocking one woman that he and his father come in contact with throughout their travels.
However, there is so much richness elsewhere (and I'm willing to accept that the layering of the self-reference adds to the film, even if it makes it momentarily annoying) that you can move beyond its flaws (which, honestly, I would accept pretty easily in another film; with Kiarostami you have expectations in the clouds). I'm particularly interested in the way children (and the child experience as remembered or experienced by an adult) are presented on screen, and I'm continually ecstatic that we have Kiarostami contributing to this. (That the main character's son describes one boy from "Where is the Friend's Home?" by his eyes is appropriate, as when we see him they are indeed strikingly beautiful.) The film is also an interesting comment on what happens to people after they work -- Falconetti comes to mind. And the ending is already a classic: it's like the swimming pool scene in "Nostalghia" in tone. Does what happen happen because the film has to end that way, or because of the human spirit? (This is one of the few scenes where music plays under it.)
Even though the movie has no end, only a means, it moves forward like a good documentary. Even though time is not indicated (there are few, if any lapses; time is experienced, as in Tarkovsky), it moves along at a nice pace -- not so much in that the story is brisk, more in that we've settled into its own rhythm. There is no "story," only the story of film as experience. Lots of Big statements could be inferred from the film -- it's about an endless journey with no resolution to a place they don't know how to get to (college students, get your pens out) -- but I take it directly. 9/10
The simple gesture of a child wanting to raise a grasshopper is enough for Kiarostami to be considered a great realist, an observer. And his film is a connector of people. It might sound simple to say, but for a Westerner with no real idea of what life is like in Iran -- or better, not life, but people -- the simple depiction of it that shows, "Hey, they're basically like us," is invaluable. That's the difference between artists who share what is and artists who create what isn't. And more immediately, within the film, he deals with the public tragedy as great connector, whether it's an earthquake or an act of terrorism. And for us Westerners whose first real impression of that came with 9/11, this film will ring true -- and be remarkable if we consider that things like this happen over there all the time. (Which possibly explains why our main character never seems all that shocked by anything he sees; when a woman cries for her family, he nods his head, but doesn't seem terribly affected by her tears.) One character here asks what Iran has done to anger God and cause the earthquake, but there is little religiosity in the film. Unlike certain recent American films, this film does not have a tendency toward hand-wringing and overwrought seriousness reaching toward the skies. That scene itself is understated like the entire film. The characters here are not spiritual ciphers. They're utterly practical.
As with Kiarostami's two greatest films, "Close-Up" and "Taste of Cherry," the film becomes brilliant when it breaks from its placid realism into self-reference: the main character pulls out a picture of a boy who acted in the real film "Where is the Friend's Home?" and asks strangers where this real boy is, who he says played a role in the film. Is this a real earthquake? Is this actor really harmed? Is this a documentary? Is the main actor playing Kiarostami; is Kiarostami filming this from the passenger seat? Are they really out looking for this boy? But as with those two masterpieces, it's this that borders on insufferable, smirking cleverness on Kiarostami's part that makes me question the so-called honesty of his films. (I find his interviews pretentious and evasive.) Is it possible to be a self-referencing deconstructionist and reveal human truths, not just reveal "the nature of cinema," in an attempt to be the Iranian Godard? This is what lessens my enjoyment of his films, because it lowers my trust. Kiarostami asks a lot of us. "Okay, admit the first film was openly a film, but accept this as a closed film, until I tell you it's a documentary..." There are other flaws. It does get "cute" at times, as when the main character repeats his son's question at a later time ("Why is it coming out of a tap?"). And the boy seems preternaturally wise -- part of the film's "message" is not to discount kids' wisdom: the boy questions the validity of the claim that God caused the earthquake, shocking one woman that he and his father come in contact with throughout their travels.
However, there is so much richness elsewhere (and I'm willing to accept that the layering of the self-reference adds to the film, even if it makes it momentarily annoying) that you can move beyond its flaws (which, honestly, I would accept pretty easily in another film; with Kiarostami you have expectations in the clouds). I'm particularly interested in the way children (and the child experience as remembered or experienced by an adult) are presented on screen, and I'm continually ecstatic that we have Kiarostami contributing to this. (That the main character's son describes one boy from "Where is the Friend's Home?" by his eyes is appropriate, as when we see him they are indeed strikingly beautiful.) The film is also an interesting comment on what happens to people after they work -- Falconetti comes to mind. And the ending is already a classic: it's like the swimming pool scene in "Nostalghia" in tone. Does what happen happen because the film has to end that way, or because of the human spirit? (This is one of the few scenes where music plays under it.)
Even though the movie has no end, only a means, it moves forward like a good documentary. Even though time is not indicated (there are few, if any lapses; time is experienced, as in Tarkovsky), it moves along at a nice pace -- not so much in that the story is brisk, more in that we've settled into its own rhythm. There is no "story," only the story of film as experience. Lots of Big statements could be inferred from the film -- it's about an endless journey with no resolution to a place they don't know how to get to (college students, get your pens out) -- but I take it directly. 9/10
- desperateliving
- Nov 10, 2004
- Permalink
There is a long intro before the title. A film director and his son are shown driving in a small beat-up car to northern Iran soon after the 1990 earthquake. When the car enters a long tunnel, the camera keeps rolling and on the darken screen the titles finally appear.
The film director is nominally Kiarostami, but played by an actor. Typical for his films, the documentary genre blurs with the fictional account. The devastation that we see from the moving car is real, though the lamentations we witness are probably staged, which does not diminish the sense of suffering of the affected local communities.
The impetus of this travelogue through a torn landscape is to locate at least one of the kids that was his main character in one of his previous films, "Khaneh-je doost kojast?". That quest is the director's central preoccupation, so much so he does not recognize another boy, who he gives a lift to, that had a secondary role in that film. If you see the aforementioned film, you will clearly remember the face.
The quest is made difficult by roads that have been gutted or blocked by rock and earth slides, and by the steep mountainous terrain of his goal, the small town of Koker. As he gets tantalizing close, we root for him.
The way the film ends may be disappointing to some, but I found that it matched the title of the film, "And Life Goes On". For the survivors of the earthquake there is mourning for the dead, but at the same time the 1990 World Soccer Cup is going on. What team will make it to the final? While houses have to be rebuilt, it is also important that TV antennas be lifted so that all can see the games in the evening. The director will make more films but now he is concerned about the well-being of that child actor. So life goes on, the quest must go on. There is no ending.
The film director is nominally Kiarostami, but played by an actor. Typical for his films, the documentary genre blurs with the fictional account. The devastation that we see from the moving car is real, though the lamentations we witness are probably staged, which does not diminish the sense of suffering of the affected local communities.
The impetus of this travelogue through a torn landscape is to locate at least one of the kids that was his main character in one of his previous films, "Khaneh-je doost kojast?". That quest is the director's central preoccupation, so much so he does not recognize another boy, who he gives a lift to, that had a secondary role in that film. If you see the aforementioned film, you will clearly remember the face.
The quest is made difficult by roads that have been gutted or blocked by rock and earth slides, and by the steep mountainous terrain of his goal, the small town of Koker. As he gets tantalizing close, we root for him.
The way the film ends may be disappointing to some, but I found that it matched the title of the film, "And Life Goes On". For the survivors of the earthquake there is mourning for the dead, but at the same time the 1990 World Soccer Cup is going on. What team will make it to the final? While houses have to be rebuilt, it is also important that TV antennas be lifted so that all can see the games in the evening. The director will make more films but now he is concerned about the well-being of that child actor. So life goes on, the quest must go on. There is no ending.
After the 1990 earthquake in Iran that killed over 30,000 people, Kiarostami went to search for the stars of his previous film "Where Is the Friend's Home?". This film is a semi-fictional work based on these events, shot in a documentary-style. It shows a director (played by Farhad Kheradmand) on this journey through the country in the aftermath of the earthquake.
While this is a really beautiful film with a rather simple plot, there is something a bit more than that going on. Of course, it also has something of a "meta" feel because the film references another film, thus being both that film's sequel, but also outside of it in a way.
For Americans, the film also offers a very human look at tragedy. For reasons not entirely clear to me, Iran is seen as America's "enemy". This is foolish, given that the problem is the government and not actually the Iranian people. This film makes that perfectly clear, with some of the most innocent, caring folks you would ever hope to meet. Whatever caricature we are supposed to have in mind about Iran, you will not find it here.
While this is a really beautiful film with a rather simple plot, there is something a bit more than that going on. Of course, it also has something of a "meta" feel because the film references another film, thus being both that film's sequel, but also outside of it in a way.
For Americans, the film also offers a very human look at tragedy. For reasons not entirely clear to me, Iran is seen as America's "enemy". This is foolish, given that the problem is the government and not actually the Iranian people. This film makes that perfectly clear, with some of the most innocent, caring folks you would ever hope to meet. Whatever caricature we are supposed to have in mind about Iran, you will not find it here.
Whilst watching this film i was struck by how natural and simplistic the film was. A film director and his son travel through Iran after an earthquake has struck to try and see if the boy who starred in his last film is still alive. That is what the film is, observing people on the road, whose lives have been destroyed, people whose lives still go on. Kiarostami presents life in such a naturalistic way that we are sitting in the back seat of the car taking the journey as well. That is the perfection of the this film, the real life, the carnage of life, the people striving for life, all add up to one up-lifting experience. Like Rossellini with a uplifting finale, and minus the melodrama. Kiarostami seeks to capture reality on film in a similar way as the Neo-realists, through humanity and observation, but while the Neo-realists films can be seen as natural, Kiarostami reinvents naturalism as if nature had shot the film itself. Yet another piece of perfection from Kiarostami, not to be missed.
- GregSinora
- Feb 2, 2005
- Permalink
This is the second film in a trilogy. The first one (Where Is My Friend's Home") involved a kid searching for his classmate's house to return a notebook (to save him from the wrath of his teacher). A charming little film.
This one is a faux documentary that follows the director's attempt to find the two boys after the devastating 1990 earthquake. It is leisurely paced (though I would never say it is "dull") but the earthquake scenes are powerful and beautiful. The director's quest is absorbing and he and his son are a likable duo. Also there are some surprising philosophical and comedic interludes.
I would recommend this film highly whether or not you have seen the first.
This one is a faux documentary that follows the director's attempt to find the two boys after the devastating 1990 earthquake. It is leisurely paced (though I would never say it is "dull") but the earthquake scenes are powerful and beautiful. The director's quest is absorbing and he and his son are a likable duo. Also there are some surprising philosophical and comedic interludes.
I would recommend this film highly whether or not you have seen the first.
This movie has the realistic feel of a documentary although I wouldn't call it a faux documentary because there is no pretension that it is a mock-up. It has the feel of a documentary and if you didn't know any better, you could quite reasonably conclude that it was. I would say that it is in the tradition of the Bicycle Thief or other classics of the Neo- Realist genre in which life proceeds at a leisurely pace and multiple quotidian events and regular people ground the plot as realistically as possible.
In this film, an Iranian director (Farah Kheradmand), representing Kiarostami, travels with his son (Buba Bayour) to small town Koker in the remote mountains of Iran to find a child actor who had been in his most recent movie and about whom he worried in the wake of a strong earthquake. Clearly there is some overlap with real life events as there was a major earthquake in Iran in 1990 and one of the stars of Kiarostami's previous movies ("Where Is The Friend's Home?") lived in this area. The pace of the movie, the everyday transactions, and the humans' doggedness in the face of tragedy indicate Kiarostami's love for people and thoughtfulness as a director.
Throughout the movie, we see slices of life. We see a young couple getting married even on a day when some of their relatives die, explaining that they thought they should continue, particularly on such a sad day. We see a man lugging heavy belongings to help out his family. We see a young Buba, with the wisdom of an old man, heartbreakingly consoling a woman who has lost one of her daughters. We see a little baby crying and the director quickly consoling the baby. One of these incidents in and of itself would be insignificant, but they are linked together in such numbers that the collective weight of the movie stays with you and cannot be shaken. Together, such a collection of events comprise the guts and the essence of life. The humble dignity of the characters will not be forgotten easily.
In this film, an Iranian director (Farah Kheradmand), representing Kiarostami, travels with his son (Buba Bayour) to small town Koker in the remote mountains of Iran to find a child actor who had been in his most recent movie and about whom he worried in the wake of a strong earthquake. Clearly there is some overlap with real life events as there was a major earthquake in Iran in 1990 and one of the stars of Kiarostami's previous movies ("Where Is The Friend's Home?") lived in this area. The pace of the movie, the everyday transactions, and the humans' doggedness in the face of tragedy indicate Kiarostami's love for people and thoughtfulness as a director.
Throughout the movie, we see slices of life. We see a young couple getting married even on a day when some of their relatives die, explaining that they thought they should continue, particularly on such a sad day. We see a man lugging heavy belongings to help out his family. We see a young Buba, with the wisdom of an old man, heartbreakingly consoling a woman who has lost one of her daughters. We see a little baby crying and the director quickly consoling the baby. One of these incidents in and of itself would be insignificant, but they are linked together in such numbers that the collective weight of the movie stays with you and cannot be shaken. Together, such a collection of events comprise the guts and the essence of life. The humble dignity of the characters will not be forgotten easily.
Zendegi va digar hich (1992) is an Iranian movie shown in the U.S. with the translated title "And Life Goes On." The film was written and directed by Abbas Kiarostami.
The movie is part of a series of films entitled "The Koker Trilogy." Koker is a small village northwest of Tehran. No one outside Iran would know anything about Koker, except for Kiarostami's films. He used Koker as the setting for the first film in the trilogy--Where is the Friend's House? (1987) (I loved this movie. It has an amazing IMDb rating of 8.1.)
After that movie, people may have vaguely remembered Koker. However, the trilogy has made it famous among Iranians and among cinephiles.
Koker is famous because of a horrible tragedy that took place on June 21, 1990. A devastating earthquake destroyed Koker and many surrounding villages. The loss of life was immense. Almost all the buildings were destroyed.
In real life, director Kiarostami and his son traveled to Koker five days after the earthquake occurred. They wanted to find out if the two brothers who starred in the earlier film had survived the earthquake.
Kiarostami turned his trip into this movie. He found that despite the immense grief felt by the local people, life did, indeed, go on.
Farhad Kheradmand starred as the film director (Kiarostami), and Buba Bayour stared as his son Puya. Neither is a professional actor, but you could never tell that from their performances, which are superb. (Bayour never acted again. Kheradmand appeared again in the third movie of the trilogy--Through the Olive Trees.)
Basically, this movie is a quest movie. The father and his young son are determined to find the young boys, and the immensity of the tragedy continually puts obstacles in their way.
Kiarostami is famous for using panoramic long shots, and this is what we see at the end of the film. The closing long shot is one of the most powerful film endings I've ever seen.
This is an amazing film. It has a very high IMDb rating of 7.9. I rated it 10. It worked well enough on the small screen, but of course it would be better in a theater. We saw it on a Criterion DVD, sold with the other two movies in the the trilogy. The films may be available separately, which would be OK. However, the Criterion edition has many video extras, along with a written essay by noted film critic Godfrey Cheshire.
This a wonderful movie--I would say it's a must-see if you love great cinema. Find it and watch it.
IMPORTANT: The trilogy should be seen in order of production: Where is the Friend's House?, then And Life Goes On, then Through the Olive Trees. The movies won't work as well if seen out of their order.
The movie is part of a series of films entitled "The Koker Trilogy." Koker is a small village northwest of Tehran. No one outside Iran would know anything about Koker, except for Kiarostami's films. He used Koker as the setting for the first film in the trilogy--Where is the Friend's House? (1987) (I loved this movie. It has an amazing IMDb rating of 8.1.)
After that movie, people may have vaguely remembered Koker. However, the trilogy has made it famous among Iranians and among cinephiles.
Koker is famous because of a horrible tragedy that took place on June 21, 1990. A devastating earthquake destroyed Koker and many surrounding villages. The loss of life was immense. Almost all the buildings were destroyed.
In real life, director Kiarostami and his son traveled to Koker five days after the earthquake occurred. They wanted to find out if the two brothers who starred in the earlier film had survived the earthquake.
Kiarostami turned his trip into this movie. He found that despite the immense grief felt by the local people, life did, indeed, go on.
Farhad Kheradmand starred as the film director (Kiarostami), and Buba Bayour stared as his son Puya. Neither is a professional actor, but you could never tell that from their performances, which are superb. (Bayour never acted again. Kheradmand appeared again in the third movie of the trilogy--Through the Olive Trees.)
Basically, this movie is a quest movie. The father and his young son are determined to find the young boys, and the immensity of the tragedy continually puts obstacles in their way.
Kiarostami is famous for using panoramic long shots, and this is what we see at the end of the film. The closing long shot is one of the most powerful film endings I've ever seen.
This is an amazing film. It has a very high IMDb rating of 7.9. I rated it 10. It worked well enough on the small screen, but of course it would be better in a theater. We saw it on a Criterion DVD, sold with the other two movies in the the trilogy. The films may be available separately, which would be OK. However, the Criterion edition has many video extras, along with a written essay by noted film critic Godfrey Cheshire.
This a wonderful movie--I would say it's a must-see if you love great cinema. Find it and watch it.
IMPORTANT: The trilogy should be seen in order of production: Where is the Friend's House?, then And Life Goes On, then Through the Olive Trees. The movies won't work as well if seen out of their order.
If I hadn't read a review or two this movie before watching, i would have been convinced this was a documentary. But it's not. It's a piece of fiction which comes across as a documentary. I am thinking of Orson Welles "War of the worlds" "After the 1990 earthquake in Iran that killed over 30,000 people, Kiarostami went to search for the stars of his previous film Where Is the Friend's Home?. This film is a semi-fictional work based on these events, shot in a documentary-style. It shows a director (played by Farhad Kheradmand) on this journey through the country in the aftermath of the earthquake." The movie puzzled me. Is the main actor a professional among amateurs? The acting (and I guess it is acting) doesn't come across as acting. My favourite moment comes in a sequence during which the lead speaks to two young girls doing their laundry in the open. That's because both of their houses have been destroyed due to the disaster. One of the girls seems more timid than the other. For a few moments there is a shy smile on her face. Is that acting? Looking forward to seeing more of this directors work.
- martin-fennell
- Aug 3, 2014
- Permalink
Abbas speaks his own language, he's just on another level. He is interested in human relations and deeper messages about his culture, similar to Ozu and that's why I love him. He died too soon, RIP.
- alansabljakovic-39044
- Mar 5, 2020
- Permalink
In Abbas Kiraostami's acclaimed pseudo documentary, an unnamed director (Ferhad Khermanend, playing an alter ego of Kiarostami) and his young son to return to Koker, the setting of his great film "Where is the Friends Home", in the wake of the devastating 1990 earthquake that hit northern Iran. The movie is ostensibly about the search for the two boys who starred in the earlier film but it turns into a kind of fictional documentary about the strength of the human spirit in the face of disaster. the camera simply watching out the car window for much of the film, taking in the landscape, the ruins of mud houses, and the streams of homeless people hauling food and equipment to makeshift shelters. The villagers are fatalistic, believing that the earthquake was God's will, but the rebirth of the human spirit is symbolized by the fact that most people seem interested in watching the Italia 90 World Cup matches, despite their terrible tragedy they have gone through (many have lost their homes and family members). In a director with less sensibility, a movie like this would seem the shameless exploitation of a tragedy. The movie is not quite entertaining but it is compelling. The filming of this movie would itself be fictionalized by Kiarostami in Through the Olive Trees.
Naturally, before obtaining this film I checked with IMDb regarding its entertainment value. But I mis-read the plot. I thought the director (and his son) played themselves in the film. Now upon re-reading the user comments here, I discover they were played by actors. Very good actors. Also I discover only seven reviews of this work. So I feel obligated to increase that number by one.
If you are a citizen of the U.S. who is registered to vote, you should also see this movie. All the people in this movie live in Iran. Iran is one of those oil-rich countries which is weaker than the U.S., making it an attractive target for American invasion. Iran is a sovereign nation, and should not be invaded.
If you are a citizen of the U.S. who is registered to vote, you should also see this movie. All the people in this movie live in Iran. Iran is one of those oil-rich countries which is weaker than the U.S., making it an attractive target for American invasion. Iran is a sovereign nation, and should not be invaded.
It was kind of a mixed bag for me. It's got this really authentic feel, like you're peeping into real people's lives after this huge earthquake shakes up everything. The way it shows their struggles and how they try to keep going is pretty deep. You can tell the director wanted to make it feel super real, and on that front, they nailed it. But, to be honest, it kind of dragged on without much happening, and I found myself checking how much time was left more than once.
I'm giving it a 6/10 because I respect what it was trying to do, showing life's tough moments and the strength people have to find to move forward. And yeah, there were parts that made me think and feel something about the characters and their situations. But as a movie, I just wished it had more stuff going on to keep me glued to the screen. It's cool if you're into films that are all about real life and don't mind a slower pace, but if you're looking for excitement or a clear story, this might not be your thing.
I'm giving it a 6/10 because I respect what it was trying to do, showing life's tough moments and the strength people have to find to move forward. And yeah, there were parts that made me think and feel something about the characters and their situations. But as a movie, I just wished it had more stuff going on to keep me glued to the screen. It's cool if you're into films that are all about real life and don't mind a slower pace, but if you're looking for excitement or a clear story, this might not be your thing.
- aidaneccleston
- Feb 25, 2024
- Permalink
It's alright. A road movie with some social commentary on people. Too bad it ends on a cliffhanger, I started to like where the story was going to.
- Kdosda_Hegen
- May 6, 2021
- Permalink
Life and Nothing More (1992, dir. Abbas Kiarostami) What is so unusual about Kiarostami's films? They seem to to inhabit a world that is so ordinary, mundane even, and yet they are lent a sense of wonder as well. The simplicity of action and story is undermined by circumstances that reveal the courage that it takes just in order to live. Here a man and his son are driving to Koker, a town which has been devastated by the Iranian earthquake. Along the way they come across people who are carrying their belongings, food supplies, heaters, etc. after having lost everything. They stop to ask for directions. One woman can't help them, breaks out in tears, "I've lost 16 people" The man can only say, "May god grant you forbearance." There is no easy sentimentalism. Here life goes on for those that survive in spite of it all. There is still the need to fill ones life with love and joy and momentary pleasure. One man talks of his plan to get married in his hometown, despite the disaster. The son talks to his friend about watching a soccer game. He becomes terrifically excited by the building of an antenna at one of the nearby villages which will allow him to watch the game. You see none of the horrific footage of mangled bodies and uncontrollably hysterical victims that we usually associate with natural disasters. You only see people who have experienced tragedy, but continue to live and endure.
It's not often a masterpiece rolls out in front of your eyes, it's not often the football world cup plays, and it's not often 50,000 people die and another 535,000 (or so) are spared... only to live through something worse. There is life, and nothing more.
'Life, and Nothing More...' serves as an objective examination of the 1990 Manjil-Rudbar earthquake, it involves people who experienced the tragedy first hand and suffered the consequences. The story is surrounded by suffering, it is recognised that it's something to be acknowledged, but not something to dwell on. There is life, and nothing more.
They're (the film and life) about the journey rather than the destination; a journey over stunning vistas crumbling away at your feet. And they're about the questions, rather than the answers, just asking is enough to distract from the disruption. There is life, and nothing more.
The way this film adds to the previous - 'Where Is The Friends House' - is nothing short of astonishing. In my eyes this is the perfect sequel. Ideas from 'Friends House' are expanded on and the events of that film are given new context. We see the unprepared children from that film in the same vulnerable position as the adults that raised them to be so unready. That's just one example of many.
When launched so suddenly into a situation so tragic and unforeseeable, like these earthquakes, what can you do but live?. ....
'Life, and Nothing More...' serves as an objective examination of the 1990 Manjil-Rudbar earthquake, it involves people who experienced the tragedy first hand and suffered the consequences. The story is surrounded by suffering, it is recognised that it's something to be acknowledged, but not something to dwell on. There is life, and nothing more.
They're (the film and life) about the journey rather than the destination; a journey over stunning vistas crumbling away at your feet. And they're about the questions, rather than the answers, just asking is enough to distract from the disruption. There is life, and nothing more.
The way this film adds to the previous - 'Where Is The Friends House' - is nothing short of astonishing. In my eyes this is the perfect sequel. Ideas from 'Friends House' are expanded on and the events of that film are given new context. We see the unprepared children from that film in the same vulnerable position as the adults that raised them to be so unready. That's just one example of many.
When launched so suddenly into a situation so tragic and unforeseeable, like these earthquakes, what can you do but live?. ....
- noahgibbobaker
- May 26, 2021
- Permalink
And Life Goes On (Zendegi va digar hich; also called Life, and Nothing More...) is a 1992 Iranian film directed by Abbas Kiarostami. It was screened in the Un Certain Regard section at the 1992 Cannes Film Festival. It is considered the second film in Kiarostami's "Koker" trilogy.
It was the year 1990 when the Manjil-Rudbar earthquake hit and Killed 50,000 people in Iran. Director Abbas Kiarostami, director Abbas Kiarostami made the decision to return to the Iranian village of Koker to find the little boys (Babak Ahmedpour) who were part of the cast of his earlier masterpiece, "Where is the Friend's Home? It is during that trip that Kiarostami was struck by inspiration, going back to retrace his steps and film his own journey as his second entry into the eventual Koker trilogy.
It is a pseudo-documentary film and Kiarastomi was played by "Farhad Kheradmand". Basically, It is a quest film, a surprisingly heartwarming quest of life, hope, and love. It is a story of great resilience shown by the Iranian Citizen who was hit by the tragedy on June 21, 1990, of Earthquake, which destroyed many villages, taken lives, and left people homeless devasted under the shelter of the sky. People accepted it as the "Will of God" and decided to continue their life as "Life goes on and on and on".
Kiarostami is a master, and In this film, he breaks the 4th wall, and through this blasphemy of film making (to most audiences) he let his viewers join him on his quest of "Babak Ahmedpor". During 1 hour and 35 minutes of duration, I was in the car with him reflecting on the beauty of beautiful landscapes, curvy and thrilling roads, broken villages, traumatized human faces cooping with the devastation of the earthquake, even I've moist in the eyes when an Old Lady showed us(sorry, to Kiarastomi) the way to Koker and then she told us how she lost her home and beloved family members. It was like, nature was filming us from the 3rd eye. And I think, that is the real form of art, you create something which is Neo realistic, It has nothing to with reality yet it is reality, It is presented as reel life but In fact, it is real life and this kind of technique is never implemented by greats like Nolan because they present fiction onscreen in a mysterious manner and life itself is the biggest mystery and director like Abbas Kiarastomi always tried to unreveal life to present his subtleties, in slow and induced kind of manner, which is boring for some cinegoers but it is perfectly alright with some aesthetics.
Among a selected section of the audience, Kiarastomi is famous for his panoramic long shots and "And the life goes on" has many of them, full of life, hope and joy especially his conversation with the two young girls and one of them delivered her dialogues with an epitome of shyness which was splendid.
In his two scenes, one with the man who was recently married and one who was setting the antenna to watch the FIFA world cup 1990 contest, Kirastomi magnificently executed that "Why Life must go on" and it is the real code to live it.
Last World: It is a slice of life and I want you to have it. Before watching this, kindly watch the first installment of the eventual "Koker" trilogy "Where is the friend Home" which is also a very unique film to understand this story. Otherwise, It won't work.
Rating: 10/10
It was the year 1990 when the Manjil-Rudbar earthquake hit and Killed 50,000 people in Iran. Director Abbas Kiarostami, director Abbas Kiarostami made the decision to return to the Iranian village of Koker to find the little boys (Babak Ahmedpour) who were part of the cast of his earlier masterpiece, "Where is the Friend's Home? It is during that trip that Kiarostami was struck by inspiration, going back to retrace his steps and film his own journey as his second entry into the eventual Koker trilogy.
It is a pseudo-documentary film and Kiarastomi was played by "Farhad Kheradmand". Basically, It is a quest film, a surprisingly heartwarming quest of life, hope, and love. It is a story of great resilience shown by the Iranian Citizen who was hit by the tragedy on June 21, 1990, of Earthquake, which destroyed many villages, taken lives, and left people homeless devasted under the shelter of the sky. People accepted it as the "Will of God" and decided to continue their life as "Life goes on and on and on".
Kiarostami is a master, and In this film, he breaks the 4th wall, and through this blasphemy of film making (to most audiences) he let his viewers join him on his quest of "Babak Ahmedpor". During 1 hour and 35 minutes of duration, I was in the car with him reflecting on the beauty of beautiful landscapes, curvy and thrilling roads, broken villages, traumatized human faces cooping with the devastation of the earthquake, even I've moist in the eyes when an Old Lady showed us(sorry, to Kiarastomi) the way to Koker and then she told us how she lost her home and beloved family members. It was like, nature was filming us from the 3rd eye. And I think, that is the real form of art, you create something which is Neo realistic, It has nothing to with reality yet it is reality, It is presented as reel life but In fact, it is real life and this kind of technique is never implemented by greats like Nolan because they present fiction onscreen in a mysterious manner and life itself is the biggest mystery and director like Abbas Kiarastomi always tried to unreveal life to present his subtleties, in slow and induced kind of manner, which is boring for some cinegoers but it is perfectly alright with some aesthetics.
Among a selected section of the audience, Kiarastomi is famous for his panoramic long shots and "And the life goes on" has many of them, full of life, hope and joy especially his conversation with the two young girls and one of them delivered her dialogues with an epitome of shyness which was splendid.
In his two scenes, one with the man who was recently married and one who was setting the antenna to watch the FIFA world cup 1990 contest, Kirastomi magnificently executed that "Why Life must go on" and it is the real code to live it.
Last World: It is a slice of life and I want you to have it. Before watching this, kindly watch the first installment of the eventual "Koker" trilogy "Where is the friend Home" which is also a very unique film to understand this story. Otherwise, It won't work.
Rating: 10/10
- sulemanashiq2
- Jun 15, 2020
- Permalink
Beautiful is the humble word that can be used to describe Iranian films, especially masters like Abbas Kiarostami. Based on real incidents from the Director's life, this film goes directly deep into your hearts, especially if you have seen all those films. A must watch.
Survivors of the earthquake mourning the dead. Same time curious about World Soccer Cup. Houses have to be rebuilt and TV antennas be lifted. Simple people, simple lives.. but what poverty in this day and age.
The second in the Koker trilogy. While there is not an absolute demand to watch the first, "Where is the Friend's House," it certainly helps. And perhaps less so for any plot points, but to help feel for the village that gets crushed during an actual earthquake.
On and also to see the zigzag path on the hillside. As a side note it was pretty interesting to hear Kiarostami mention that path was a fabrication by him alone, that it served no real purpose. However it was a path that led him to many people and places.
The movie does feature two Kiarastomi staples. First the importance of roads in his film (I think there is a documentary about that, right?). And the second is how "real" life cannot help but bleed into his "reel" life. Especially the presence of movies within movies - while "Shirin" is not for everyone I think about that movie often.
Anyways, here the odyssey is a simple and honest one, and as I get older the idea of being able to embrace the good with the bad simultaneously is clearly more and more important, but no less simple to do so.
The young married couple were a highlight, and also Pouya sort of exploring the ruins of the village. I do think children have an ability to exist and retain their playful wonder despite the most dire surroundings. Not from this film of course, but I vaguely recall a photo of a Palestinian little girl playing in a courtyard as tanks loom just outside the walls.
Kiarostami may offer sport as spectacle for children of all ages to help with that sort of life-saving distraction. I'm honestly not too sure if that's too simple a take. I don't speak Farsi, and I am a pretty committed agnostic, but I did wonder if really the faith of those filmed was a bigger factor than futbol.
I look forward to completing my visit to Kiaratomi's Koker soon.
On and also to see the zigzag path on the hillside. As a side note it was pretty interesting to hear Kiarostami mention that path was a fabrication by him alone, that it served no real purpose. However it was a path that led him to many people and places.
The movie does feature two Kiarastomi staples. First the importance of roads in his film (I think there is a documentary about that, right?). And the second is how "real" life cannot help but bleed into his "reel" life. Especially the presence of movies within movies - while "Shirin" is not for everyone I think about that movie often.
Anyways, here the odyssey is a simple and honest one, and as I get older the idea of being able to embrace the good with the bad simultaneously is clearly more and more important, but no less simple to do so.
The young married couple were a highlight, and also Pouya sort of exploring the ruins of the village. I do think children have an ability to exist and retain their playful wonder despite the most dire surroundings. Not from this film of course, but I vaguely recall a photo of a Palestinian little girl playing in a courtyard as tanks loom just outside the walls.
Kiarostami may offer sport as spectacle for children of all ages to help with that sort of life-saving distraction. I'm honestly not too sure if that's too simple a take. I don't speak Farsi, and I am a pretty committed agnostic, but I did wonder if really the faith of those filmed was a bigger factor than futbol.
I look forward to completing my visit to Kiaratomi's Koker soon.
- ThurstonHunger
- Feb 25, 2023
- Permalink
- willeasyer
- Aug 3, 2020
- Permalink
Pretty down to earth movie, too many emotions, aftermath of an earthquake. The life goes on, we have to move forwards nonetheless. Every story in there breaks your heart again and again. Worth the time.
- moviesknight
- Feb 5, 2022
- Permalink
It would be hard to find a more appropriately named film than Abbas Kiarostami's And Life Goes On. Taking place in the days following a massive earthquake, the film shows the people from the decimated area moving on and going about their lives despite the horrific tragedy they experienced and the harrowing challenges it brought about in their lives. Life goes on because it has to. Countless small moments of normalcy can be seen throughout the film. Whether it's two kids flipping a conversation from the destruction of the earthquake to who will win the World Cup, a son asking his father if he can stay some place longer to play with his new friends, or people getting together to watch a soccer game, each instance of regular, day-to-day behaviors are treated with a great sense of appreciation by Kiarostami.
The film is also sometimes known by another title, Life, and Nothing More..., which is just as fitting as the first title. It's a film about life and only life that Showcases and champions the resiliency of the human spirit. An elderly woman figures a way to dig a rug out of the ruins of her home by herself because she thinks everyone else is too busy with their own problems to help; a young couple married the day after the earthquake; a wide range of different people carry all sorts of different items (most of them heavy) that they found in the rubble far distances because their families need these things-there are so many examples of people just moving on and living their lives that highlight the extraordinary resolve that humans are capable of possessing. Much like how beauty is abundant in the film's cinematography despite the devastation of the landscape, life will always find a way to make it and flourish no matter how bad things may be.
And Life Goes On is the second entry into Kiarostami's Koker Trilogy, and it is an excellent companion to Where Is the Friend's House?. They are wildly different in terms of structure and narrative, but they both take place in the same area, and both contain themes surrounding childhood and explore the dynamic between kids and adults, though they do so very differently. And Life Goes On examines innocence and childlike curiosity by acknowledging the fact that young people aren't able to fully grasp the true weight of a tragedy. Primarily through the relationship between the filmmaker and his son, it also takes a deeper dive into the dynamic between the younger and older generations. While there was more understanding shown between the two than in the previous film, it still emphasized the disconnect that's present between them. At the very beginning, the director and his son, Puya, were riding together in a car for what seemed like a far distance. They talked, which mostly involved Puya bombarding his father with questions that were always answered patiently. During the ride, the film director rode was driving and Puya sat in the back seat-physically illustrating the slight disconnect and lack of total understanding between them. Later in the film, Puya is talking to one of the earthquake victims, and he repeats, nearly word for word, something his dad had said during their car ride. It's a rather small moment in the grand scheme of the film, but it is a great one because shows how much kids look up to their parents and how they so often absorb whatever is said. Kiarostami once again crafted a film with great care and attention to detail, making sure each moment is purposeful.
The biggest difference between And Life Goes On and Where Is the Friend's House? Is that this film is not entirely fiction. It is based off of a trip that Kiarostami and his son actually took to find the actors from Where Is the Friend's House? After they heard about the earthquake. While And Life Goes On is still a narrative feature, it is uncertain how much of it was real and how much was scripted. It feels completely real-almost as if it was a documentary. There is no telling how much of himself Kiarostami put into the film director's character, but it is interesting to think that he may have done a bit of a character study on himself. Regardless of how much is true or not, he was able to blend fact and fiction so seamlessly that it all felt entirely real. And Life Goes On is a powerful film about people finding ways to move on and live their lives in the wake of a devastating tragedy. It's a masterful piece of work by the great Abbas Kiarostami, but more importantly, it is a touching tribute to the victims of the horrific earthquake of Guilan.
The film is also sometimes known by another title, Life, and Nothing More..., which is just as fitting as the first title. It's a film about life and only life that Showcases and champions the resiliency of the human spirit. An elderly woman figures a way to dig a rug out of the ruins of her home by herself because she thinks everyone else is too busy with their own problems to help; a young couple married the day after the earthquake; a wide range of different people carry all sorts of different items (most of them heavy) that they found in the rubble far distances because their families need these things-there are so many examples of people just moving on and living their lives that highlight the extraordinary resolve that humans are capable of possessing. Much like how beauty is abundant in the film's cinematography despite the devastation of the landscape, life will always find a way to make it and flourish no matter how bad things may be.
And Life Goes On is the second entry into Kiarostami's Koker Trilogy, and it is an excellent companion to Where Is the Friend's House?. They are wildly different in terms of structure and narrative, but they both take place in the same area, and both contain themes surrounding childhood and explore the dynamic between kids and adults, though they do so very differently. And Life Goes On examines innocence and childlike curiosity by acknowledging the fact that young people aren't able to fully grasp the true weight of a tragedy. Primarily through the relationship between the filmmaker and his son, it also takes a deeper dive into the dynamic between the younger and older generations. While there was more understanding shown between the two than in the previous film, it still emphasized the disconnect that's present between them. At the very beginning, the director and his son, Puya, were riding together in a car for what seemed like a far distance. They talked, which mostly involved Puya bombarding his father with questions that were always answered patiently. During the ride, the film director rode was driving and Puya sat in the back seat-physically illustrating the slight disconnect and lack of total understanding between them. Later in the film, Puya is talking to one of the earthquake victims, and he repeats, nearly word for word, something his dad had said during their car ride. It's a rather small moment in the grand scheme of the film, but it is a great one because shows how much kids look up to their parents and how they so often absorb whatever is said. Kiarostami once again crafted a film with great care and attention to detail, making sure each moment is purposeful.
The biggest difference between And Life Goes On and Where Is the Friend's House? Is that this film is not entirely fiction. It is based off of a trip that Kiarostami and his son actually took to find the actors from Where Is the Friend's House? After they heard about the earthquake. While And Life Goes On is still a narrative feature, it is uncertain how much of it was real and how much was scripted. It feels completely real-almost as if it was a documentary. There is no telling how much of himself Kiarostami put into the film director's character, but it is interesting to think that he may have done a bit of a character study on himself. Regardless of how much is true or not, he was able to blend fact and fiction so seamlessly that it all felt entirely real. And Life Goes On is a powerful film about people finding ways to move on and live their lives in the wake of a devastating tragedy. It's a masterful piece of work by the great Abbas Kiarostami, but more importantly, it is a touching tribute to the victims of the horrific earthquake of Guilan.
- lewisjonesdurant
- May 5, 2024
- Permalink