MovieChat Forums > Tabiate bijan (1978) Discussion > Question about continuity

Question about continuity


When the son visits his parents' house only his mother is home, he tells her the button on his coat has come off and she begins to repair it for him, the son goes to sleep on the bed. Next shot the mother is outside with a stove or cooking pot and the father is in the house getting ready to go to work. Later the father brings home two men who are to buy one of his wife's rugs, as they enter the house the son is no longer present and the men sit on the bed. In the following scene the father returns home, the mother is repairing the coat and the son is sleeping on the bed. The father asks "when did he arrive?" and the mother says, "Just now".

Can anyone explain this strange continuity? Is the episode with the rug a flashback or something?

reply


Sorry about being 4 years late!

I think that was the point. When time does not move, chronology does not matter! It might have been Sardari's subjectivity, but clearly that is the least relevant of all things to him.

http://theseventhart.info

reply

That's an interesting point, and a nice way of looking at it. I will have to re-watch this film - it's been a while and I can only vaguely remember the scene I was referring to! But thanks for the reply. ;)

reply

I noticed the same thing and then noticed further along a filmshot of the front of their house. There are 2 distinct parts of the house, a smaller middle section and then a left and right wings. They must have been in 2 different parts of the house.

reply

No, the scene with the son resting on the bed and the scene with the two men inspecting the rug occur in the same room (with the mother over in the corner with her loom). There's a sort of temporal overlap, where the son must have arrived while his father was out with the two men after their meeting. Who knows how they missed each other -- they lived out in the middle of nowhere!

reply

Add me:))

reply

I noticed the same thing when I watch the movie. I think it was an editing mistake. The film is so simple, I doubt there was a deeper meaning to this continuity issue.

reply