MovieChat Forums > Ta'm e guilass (1997) Discussion > What the wonderful ending meant to me (S...

What the wonderful ending meant to me (Spoilers)

posted 17 years ago by madmaxmedia
15 replies | jump to latest

First of all, I don't think it's productive to frame this discussion in terms of what the story means, what the director meant, etc. I think for those who came away intrigued by the movie and its ending, the more important thing is ask - What did it mean to you? What did you take away from it? How do you feel about it?

Okay...we watch Mr. Badii as he interacts with 3 men of different backgrounds. They can also be roughly said to represent 3 different institutions as well. The state, the clergy, and the final man discussing nature and the simple joys of life (or perhaps he can be said to represent wisdom and experience in general.) None change Mr. Badii's mind, although we sense the last man has some influence. In fact, not even Mr. Badii seems to know the answer, as he seems to be at least somewhat conflicted at the end even as he continues with his original plan.

When suddenly the film crew and the director appear, I was struck by the sense that they were an additional party trying to make sense of life, trying to find meaning or solution for Mr. Badii. As if Mr.Kiarostami himself was on this journey the whole time as well, trying to work things out or understand.

Thus Kiarostami represents the artist, in the same way the other men represented other approaches to life. And it seems at the end no one has a clear-cut answer, as we don't even know if Mr. Badii lives or dies, or if Kiarostami himself can wrest some meaning in a final outcome to his story. The end sequence was quite a shock when I first saw it (what is happening?!?), but somehow felt very relevant at the same time, I think this is why.

[–] jhaus 16 years ago

Finally interjected sensual beauty for me. Despite the arcing longshots and the jarring structure between the still car interiors and the passing scenery outside, the hills carved out of machines, I was unable to become thoroughly engrossed in the way the film was shot. In the end, the grainy video, the unrehearsed footage, and Louis Armstrong's powerful trumpet was perhaps the most moving sequence of the film for me.

Similarly, Mr. Badii's disassociation from humanity and the world was clear from those aforementioned long shots. But the sadness failed to resonate until the time Mr. Badii stepped out of his car and watched his shadow play against the construction site. He could have killed himself then, thrown himself under the falling rocks, but instead he still desperately sought out a connection to another person. When the film became personal like that, the despair bore deeper under what was until that point surface statements.

T_

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] trymyproduct11 13 years ago

I hate to be so terse, but I think that's absolute nonsense. There's no way to rationalize that ending, as an ending. No amount of personal projection can make it work. The truth is -- and I've posted this elsewhere -- the film already ended in the previous scene, and ended perfectly. What you, and everyone else is calling the "ending" is, by my estimation, more of an addendum or epilogue than an actual ending, despite what Kiarostami intended. Like "Thanks for watching, and here's a little behind-the-scenes look." It is a separate entity that serves only to break the spell of what just transpired, and is no more a part of the actual film than, say, Orson Welles' voiceover introduction prior to the start of The Trial.

[–] sumeersudhakar 13 years ago

Just finished seeing this movie and I agree with trymyproduct11. The ending was actually the penultimate scene. It was captured perfectly and the last scene actually broke that 'negative' ending perfectly so that you dont leave feeling low.

[–] deadcow_s 13 years ago

it's not like that for two reasons: The movie bursts in color in the last sequence (just like the ending of Andrey Rublyov) and a music starts to play. And this is excatly what Kiarostami intended - to show the break on through of the main character - he is part of something more beautiful now and the cinema is part of it too.

[–] trymyproduct11 13 years ago

I know what he intended, but his intentions are irrelevant. And if cutting to a camcorder shot of the cast and crew is your idea of "bursting into color", then you and I have very different cinematic ideas. As an actual ending, it doesn't work -- at all. It doesn't show the "break on through" of the main character because by that point, he's no longer the main character, he's just the actor who played him. The story ended with him lying in the hole, so that, as far as I'm concerned, is the true ending of the film.

[–] bogwart-1 13 years ago

I love these people who insist that the director of a film doesn't have the ability to present an idea for his film; his intentions are subordinate to the interpretation of critics.

What arrogance! What a wonder you must be in real life, judging everything through your own lens and your own view of things that happen around you.

You can think whatever you like of the film. You can even judge when - for you - the film starts and finishes. But you cannot take the work of another and decide over his intentions what the film means.

[–] Mhcyclone83 13 years ago

You can’t judge when the film “actually” ends, as this movie, for better or worse, does include the coda of the filmmakers. I honestly have no idea if it works or not, yet its inclusion within the film means that it is part of the film and must be taken as such. If it ruins the spell that the film has cast, than that’s how it is.

However, it is the essential point of art for a spectator to decide what a film means. It is the lifeblood of criticism, it is the point of watching any film made by anyone at anytime. No one film will mean the same thing to two people, and that’s what makes watching movies exciting. Many directors also agree that their films are subject to interpretation, as well they should be.

Yet the intentions of the director are not subordinate to critics. They are subordinate to the film that the director produces. When two people disagree on what a film means, they are disagreeing over the movie and not the director’s wishes of what the movie could be, as if we were only judging intentions than the world would have nothing but masterpieces. Jean-Luc Godard intended to make Scarface, and realized after his film was finished that it wasn’t Scarface at all and was actually Breathless. At that point the film enters the public sphere and the director’s intentions become as valid as anyone else’s, a fact that might seem coldly anti-artistic but of which the foundation of art depends upon. You can intend for your kids to be honest and noble and do your very best to instill those values within them, but at some point they have to enter the world and then it is up to them to actually be those things. So it is for art as well.

[–] bogwart-1 13 years ago

Your last two sentences illustrate a failing in the logic with which you try to persuade. Your children have an increasing amount of free will as they age, and although your expectations have been high for them as evinced by the education you have given them they will not always persist.

People are perfectly entitled to make what they will of a work of art, but I do not believe, and you will never persuade me to believe, that their views are more valid than those of the person who created the piece of art.

Those ideas may be flawed; they may well not survive the experience of being created in the way that the creator intended, but they are nonetheless his. Many works of art, from film to literature and sculpture and painting, do not survive the process of ideation and their transference to their, as it were, finished state but that is true of most artistic endeavours as distinct from a scientific approach. Science must by definition be precise and not capable of ambiguity.

So at the end, although the example of a child is largely a function of that child's evolution as a free-willed adult, the work of art is fixed at the point where it is presented to the world - and critical response very often is subject to the whims of fashion and the vagaries of time.

One example could be the Victorian authors. Long screeds of impenetrable writing which were hailed at the time of their publication, but have not well survived the passage of time.

[–] KingCobra686 9 years ago

Dont forget that the final movie is the product of many people, not just the director. Certainly they have the most control, but the actors can easily influence the final tone of the movie in the way they act. There are plenty of movies out there with deviations from the director's vision that they dont notice or are unwilling to admit.

The director's intentions are the most valid, but they certainly dont override everything else.

[–] trymyproduct11 12 years ago

I love these people who insist that the director of a film doesn't have the ability to present an idea for his film; his intentions are subordinate to the interpretation of critics.

Don't let your ignorance run away with you. I only said his (the director's) intentions are irrelevant. His interpretation is just as valid as anyone else's. My point was, it isn't any MORE valid just because he made the film. At the end of the day, all there is is what's on the screen, and the director can no more lay claim to it than you or I. A basic Art 101 class could've cleared that up for you.

What arrogance! What a wonder you must be in real life, judging everything through your own lens and your own view of things that happen around you.

Yeah, what a wonder I must be, thinking for myself. How arrogant to have independent thoughts! Did you even read that before you posted it? You might wanna try that in the future.

As it's been almost a year, and I'm only now seeing all this, allow me to clarify my position to everyone else who's commented: I'm not saying the film LITERALLY ends when I say it ends. I'm saying the camcorder footage is an add-on. It has no bearing on the events that took place in the film. It is only part of the film insofar as it exists within the established running time. In other words, you could shut it off before that part even starts and you wouldn't have missed anything relevant, because as far as I'm concerned, the film, essentially, already ended.

[–] bogwart-1 12 years ago

I don't see the point of you coming back after a year just to be hostile and to repeat what you have continually said to myself and others. In fact I don't see the point of you at all.

We all know by now that you are the world's most outstanding critic and that if anyone knows what was in Mr Kiarostami's mind it was you. I'm surprised he has made no mention of your great acuity.

People like you turn artists into hacks.

[–] trymyproduct11 12 years ago

If it isn't too much work, a quick scan of this thread will show that you were the first to resort to personal attacks. You come off like one of those people who absolutely have to be the smartest person in the room -- the kind of person who gets frustrated, petty and sarcastic when they're wrong about something. I had an opinion, so I shared it. That's why we're here. If you can't handle that without turning into an insulting little b&tch, then this isn't the place for you.

[–] Zariya 12 years ago

Trymyproduct11: Your entire opinion is based on traditional cinematic form and forgoes any possibility of interrupting the art piece as a whole. Taste of Cherry is a film to be taken as a sum of all its parts, however, by making the claim that the film ends at our main character's death because it's unrelated to the story arc is a misguided assertion to say the least. The end of this film is as much apart of the film as the beginning credit montage in Scorsese's Casino or the film burn sequence at the end of The Last Temptation of Christ. They serve a purpose to evoke emotions and reactions in the audience as well as to aesthetically and thematically affect the rest of the film.

[–] emncaity 13 years ago

Wow. That is actually quite brilliant and well-thought-out, and I'll bet it's at least as plausible as (and probably more plausible than) any other explanation I'm going to see.