Discuss DVDs and Blu-rays released by Criterion and the films on them. If it's got a spine number, it's in here. Threads may contain spoilers.
- Posts: 1862
- Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 11:13 pm
Yikes. That makes the Nico Baumbach essay a $30 value (well, plus the DVD I guess). It is rather annoying when they think less than an hour of content = a premium price (especially when you can essentially get the same thing in the UK for around $10)manicsounds wrote:Looks like it has pretty much the same specs and extras on disc as the UK release.
Hopefully Criterion will pull a Certified Copy (which had the same problem as here - initially) and add some early Kiarostami work in order to make this a must-have disc.
- Posts: 238
- Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 2:26 pm
which while I think they may be doing that, I do distinctly remember there not being a "More!" for Certified Copy...the Report was added out of nowhere.swo17 wrote:I wouldn't count on it given that there's no "More!" listed here, though all will of course be forgiven if they are saving up a bunch of early Kiarostami films for the Koker trilogy set.
- Posts: 3888
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 10:58 pm
- Location: Tokyo, Japan
It seems this and Hidden Fortress are 2 titles with a 3.0 soundtrack, but instead of using a dts-HD MA 3.0 track, but for some reason Criterion has these tracks as 5.1 tracks but with 2 silent speakers and a silent .1. What's the point? Just use a 3.0 track. "Yojimbo" and "Sanjuro" did.
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3807
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
- Location: Washington
I'd have to go double check but I beleive the booklet mentions this was to resolve possible compatibility problems with certain receivers. Whether that's a valid reason or not I can't say.
I don't see any issue with 5.1, though, since the unused channels are just silent anyways.
I don't see any issue with 5.1, though, since the unused channels are just silent anyways.
- Posts: 13553
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
- Location: SLC, UT
So what does the film's title mean?
Obviously a call girl's job is to act like someone in love, though we don't really even see much of this side of her profession. The professor acts several parts with her, but never seems particularly infatuated. It's actually two lesser roles that strike me most as evoking the fervor hinted at by the film's title. At one end, we have the neighbor, confined to the small hole of her window (which the film only permits us to view once) seemingly doomed to subsist from her vantage point on brief glimpses of the life that she could have had with the professor. At the other, there is the boyfriend, whose every action in the film is misguidedly driven by his compulsion to save his relationship with the girl. These are two extremes, neither of which achieve their intended purpose. One is trapped behind a window with no glass, inviting but unwanted. The other breaks through glass where he is not welcome. Windows are interesting. They afford an unfettered view on either side but deny any contact. Two people can be standing a foot away from each other with a window between them and act as though it were a wall. Is Kiarostami saying that love and true connection are impossible in this modern world, because of the barriers that we put around ourselves and others? Or is he saying that it only seems this way because we are pursuing and defining "love" incorrectly, only acting parts instead of actively loving? Ambiguity!
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
Not really any spoilers in here, but it would be rude not to follow suit!
I take it as an ironic comment on the film's play with appearance and reality, but on top of that the interpretation is also something of an open question, like "Do the Right Thing". How should "someone in love" behave? Is the boyfriend's obsession a sign of love, a sign of insecurity, or a sign of mental illness? Are the old man's attentions romantic or paternal? How we read that relationship influences what we speculate the actual plot might be. Maybe most importantly, the title itself, right down to its harking back to a romantic standard, is a generic romcom title, and a substantial part of Kiarostami's formal play in the film involves setting up the audience to expect a romantic comedy and then giving them something much more problematic, so there's a certain strategy in the use of that particular title (which would also have been a pretty apt title for his previous feature).
- The Narrator Returns
- Posts: 1448
- Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:35 pm
Something very strange is afoot at Criterion HQ. I look at the Blu-Ray in their release of this, which I got over the holidays, and notice something peculiar when the disc is put under direct light. The light reveals that, underneath the label of the disc, there is a label for a Blu-Ray of Heaven is For Real, the title, disc artwork, and even rating clearly visible. Thankfully, when I put in the disc, it played Like Someone in Love just fine, but this is still a strange occurrence, especially considering Heaven is For Real was still in theaters when Criterion released this (their release predates the Blu-Ray release of Heaven is For Real by two months). Does this mean that if one were to buy Heaven is For Real on Blu-Ray, and scrap off the label, they would find that it's actually the disc for Where is the Friend's Home?
- Posts: 1447
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 8:22 am
- Location: The Room
I had a similar problem with Criterion's Obscure Object of Desire DVD. Under light it shows a label for that godawful Will Smith movie Seven Pounds hidden under the disc art. Thankfully it does not actually play Seven Pounds. I assume it's just a mixup at the manufacturing facility, and that reprinting the correct label over the wrong one is just cheaper than scrapping the disc entirely.
- bottled spider
- Posts: 379
- Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 2:59 am
I've searched this thread for 'Halloween', 'costume', 'witch', 'pumpkin', & 'jack-o'-lantern' and find no mention of the glimpse of a child wearing a jack-o'-lantern cape and another dressed as witch as the professor backs out of his drive way to fetch something from the pharmacy for Akiko. Might this hold the key to the inner meaning of the film? Or was I hallucinating?
- Posts: 355
- Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 5:11 pm
- Location: Florida
That's enlightening--I didn't take in that detail, just simply the note that he's aging, and especially in a rush to go pick up Akiko, is drastically unaware of the world and happenings around him.bottled spider wrote:I've searched this thread for 'Halloween', 'costume', 'witch', 'pumpkin', & 'jack-o'-lantern' and find no mention of the glimpse of a child wearing a jack-o'-lantern cape and another dressed as witch as the professor backs out of his drive way to fetch something from the pharmacy for Akiko. Might this hold the key to the inner meaning of the film? Or was I hallucinating?
I'm still unpacking the film, especially that very "enigmatic ending". Poetically, I wonder if the former idea is somehow grafted onto what happens in the end:
It is a very challenging ending, and I feel it would be foolish to just cast the film aside as minor Kiarostami, or such--this will stick with me.
I find it most interesting that the brick does not actually hit Takashi, but surprises him, causing him to fall. Perhaps in that moment, he has a heart attack or his feebleness causes something more life-threatening upon hitting the ground (his loose-hold on existence is noted when he falls asleep in traffic.) This vague idea that the world happened to him--that the brick did not actually hit him, and it was not Noriaki's fault. As if his ignorance, be it by age or passion, was being paid back by the universe. I feel like this is a stretch, thus my flagrant use of the word "poetically".
I really found this film profound on second viewing, and like many of my favorite films, perhaps it came at an opportune time in life.
A side note: The making of featurette included is fantastic, and if I taught a class, specifically in writing or directing, I would show it as an introduction.
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Posts: 28724
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Finally saw this and thought the above was a terrific and concise reading of the film's strengths. This thread's discussion is fascinating-- and frustrating, due to warren oates' dog with a bone resistance to letting go of his script gripes in the wake of others finding worth within.zedz wrote:Spoilers follow, for those who haven't seen it.
I like the film, and it's clearly a companion piece to Certified Copy, playing with several of the same narrative tropes, but here he's experimenting with tone rather than meaning. All of the plot components - the mistaken identities, the jealous boyfriend, the did-they-have-sex ambiguity / misunderstanding, the 'running gags' (e.g. the waiting grandmother) - are the fodder of romantic comedy, and Kiarostami delivers it all with a lightness of tone (and certain deliberate elisions) in order to encourage the audience to read the film as a romantic comedy. But the gist of the film is that this isn't a romantic comedy at all: it's much, much darker. All those tropes we're conditioned to consider cute are actually pretty horrible, if you just step back out of the genre cocoon and think about them in realistic terms. The jealous boyfriend, we're told in the very first scene, is more than just mildly besotted, he's dangerously obsessive - so the final event of the film should really come as no surprise to us (and yet we still have so many critics dismissing it as a gimmicky twist or meaninglessly arbitrary). The chaste evening spent with the professor only comes off as chaste because we're not shown explicitly that it isn't (but logically, why would it be?) The ruse played on the boyfriend is depicted as if it's a good-natured masquerade with farcical complications, but there's nothing particularly good-natured about it (and that dramatic irony you note doesn't really do anything but curdle). The non-meeting with the grandmother is paced and staged like a running gag, but it's actually a pretty horrible way to treat a vulnerable old woman. This last one is, until the climax, probably the most explicit showing of Kiarostami's hand. I see the film as being one about the seductiveness of fiction and genre (as was Certified Copy), though the inflection here is more about how it blinds us to human understanding. Exactly the same story could have been told as a harrowing drama, in which we're fearing for the heroine every second, but with a simple flick of the wrist, it plays as a different genre entirely. Judging by many of the reactions to the film, Kiarostami's sleight-of-hand works exactly as intended. I was discussing the film with another forum member recently and pointed out how beautifully the AV Club review had missed the point, even to the extent of posing the rhetorical question, "Is Kase a good enough boyfriend to justify his jealous rages?" Take a step back and look at what you've written there, buddy, and you might figure out what's going on! And once you've woken up to that possibility, you can start to see the veiled horror stories in so many other romantic comedies.
I think it's fitting that this film made in Japan by an Iranian director is still a French production, as I saw two obvious points of inspiration within: Chabrol's Les bonnes femmes and the works of Jacques Rozier. The former for its extended misdirection, in which the viewer is conditioned to expect an entirely different film than the darker product they receive in the final moments, casting a pall on all that came before, and more broadly in how the latter filmmaker extends copious amounts of film capturing moments other directors would elide. I don't think this rises to the heights of either of those touchstones, but I do think this is quite successful at teasing out its deceptively simple narrative by imbuing commonplace interactions with a lack of surety that doubles as dread in retrospect.