From the "People" Archives:

by Anthony Kaufman

At a time when Iran is opening up to more cultural exchange, it seems more than coincidental that famous Iranian filmmaker, Abbas Kiarostami is touring the U.S. to publicize his Cannes Palme d'Or winning film, "Taste of Cherry," his second to come to this country with official distribution. But Kiarostami insists that his trip to the States was planned two years before and adds, "People in countries are like children. While their parents may be fighting, they still establish relationships. Even though they are children from different households, they still have a relationship."

"Taste of Cherry" is a simple and profound film about a man driving through dusty mountainsides and construction sites, searching for a man to help him commit suicide. Although the film comes from a place where most Americans only think of hostages and Khomeni, it transcends its country, creating a universal story that audiences worldwide have felt in their souls. And with a conclusion that just twists your mind inside out, the film is perhaps the most risk-taking to play in the U.S. since Kiarostami fan, Jean-Luc Godard came here nearly 40 years ago.

indieWIRE: Can people make films in Iran without the government? Can they just get a camera and start getting the money together?

Abbas Kiarostami: No, it can't be done in Iran. Before the election of President Hatami, there were more restrictions and it was more difficult for a director to start a film. But the restrictions have been curtailed and have been diminished right now and it's a better environment for filmmaking.

iW: Would you take credit for any of that?

Kiarostami: No, it's not related. It's just the pressure that was about to boil over and they had to do something.

iW: In an article by Godfrey Cheshire, he explains the technique you use when filming the conversations in the car, that none of the actors in the film met each other and it was always you sitting opposite them and talking to them. How did these scenes work? Did you improvise?

Kiarostami: Yes and no. I write every line first because that gives me self-confidence when I go to shoot a scene. But that's not something I'm committed to. I go with an open mind. I'm willing to change the lines if necessary. If one day I feel obligated that I have to shoot whatever is in my script already, than that might be a boring day for me.

iW: The young soldier you talk to is particularly real and spontaneous. He's not an actor, obviously, how did you find him and elicit such responses from him?

Kiarostami: Originally, that guy appeared in one of the earlier shots of the film where there are some young people volunteering to do some work. It's there where we found him and liked him for the part of the soldier. But the interesting thing about the soldier is throughout the shooting of the film, he didn't think we were shooting the real movie, so he kept asking him, "When are we going to do the movie?" Because I was sitting across from him, talking to him. The camera was mounted on the side of the car and there was a key on the steering wheel which I was using to both start the sound and the camera. Since it was always me driving and talking to them, this made the soldier think it was not really the part. He kept waiting for us to give him a gun and ask him to kill someone or be killed by someone. He kept asking us, "What is your business with me, why don't you tell me what my part is?"

Whatever reaction you see from him is a true reaction. Including when I wasn't telling him what we wanted him to do. Including one time where in the dashboard of the car, I told him, "Could you give me a box of chocolates from the dashbaord," and there was a knife in there with some pomegrante juice on it, so he thought we had killed someone -- so that was how we got the kind of horrified reactions you see from him in the film.

Within the style I use, there's really no other way of doing it because you can't pair two non-actors together. If you do that, they can't act. They can't do the scene. So that's why I was using myself.

iW: Can you speak about the locations of the film? I know that these barren hillsides with a lone tree are very important in your work. Why these recurring images?

Kiarostami: I can't tell you why exactly I'm attracted to those type of locations, to those type of lone trees that you mentioned, but I agree with you that I'm very attracted to them. I've been shooting lone trees for the past twenty years. Maybe it is the tree that is inviting me to take a picture of it.

iW: And what about the use of the contruction sites? [My interviewing partner, a writer from the Boston Phoenix, likens this sites to the way Rome was depicted by some of the Italian Neorealists.]

Kiarostami: I was looking for a location where the type of strangers that you see in the film could have a meaningful and logical presence. If I were to go to a remote desert, there would be no reason for them to be there. In a city, in an urban environement, he could not have the type of communication and interaction with these people, so I had to use a location in which there was a reason for these people to come together. But the most important motif in that environment was the dust itself, the dust had to be dominating everything.

iW: And did people like Rosselini have an influence on you?

Kiarostami: I remember when I was a more impressionable audience member, I was getting inspiration from the Neorealist filmmakers. But the similarity you see with the Neorealist films is because Neorealism had to do with Italy after the war and here in Iran, you see a situation which is again, a city after a war, an 8 year old war. And it's more the social conditions and the human elements that reminds you of a Neorealist film than the stylistic ones.

iW: The ending of the film creates a violent reaction. My expectations were completely ripped out from me. It's a big risk, it must be a big risk even for an Iranian film. Can you discuss this risk?

Kiarostami: It's like you're speaking for me. Because I felt the exact same way. One night, when I was conceiving the ending, I did think this was a huge twist in the end. I wasn't quite comfortable with it and throughout the night, and when I woke up in the morning, I did think this was a really big risk, but it was a risk worth taking. Even when I have people arguing about the ending of the film, I like it because it means the movie hasn't ended. I don't care if it meets some people's expectations or goes against those expectations, but the fact that the film has a life in their minds and they keep thinking about it -- that's what I like. It creates some energy in the mind of the viewer. And sometimes, I think that kind of energy is more important than people agreeing on what they see or liking what they see.

["Taste of Cherry" is being distributed by Zeitgeist and opens tomorrow at select theaters.]