It’s obvious that Hassan’s cow is important to not only him,
but to the entire town as well, being that it’s the only one they have. It’s
like the cow is a type of economic symbol of Iran, such as oil or something
like that. And the entire town in the movie was afraid of the Bolouris, which
could be a symbol of other countries, who seek to attack and steal things for
their own benefit. So to me, the screenplay and plot seemed quite logical. And
in Dabashi’s article he says, “My point is that Saedi’s treatment of the
subject—though entirely within the context of his own literary experimentations
with the uncanny—was not completely outlandish, and had deep-rooted
philosophical and mystical forbears in his intermediate intellectual history”
(122). I found that to be very intriguing.
As far as the film production goes, I thought the camerawork
was very effective. There was a scene where the cow died and the town was
throwing it into a hole and all sound ceased in that moment. The close-up
camera view of the cow and the complete silence kind of sealed its death. It’s
as though their only hope was this cow, and it’s gone. The music also gave an
element of suspense. The short, quick notes lead me to believe that something
important was about to happen. Dabashi discusses in his article that the camera
itself acts as member of the village, Bayal. “[Mehrjui’s] camera becomes a
local inhabitant of the village, dwelling inside one of those cave-like
cubicles, loitering around the village pool, and then sitting for a cup of tea
with Islam and his buddies.” And I thought that we the viewers, might too act
as an inhabitant of the village for a short period of time, because we can only
see Bayal through the camera’s lens. So the views of the camera can absolutely
affect the way we portray the village and the Bayalis.
No comments:
Post a Comment