Change Your Image
Mehdi-Sadeghi-Glos
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Oppenheimer (2023)
From The Hell of Pride to The Paradise of Regret!
The entire story of the film is summed up in two identical scenes (which are accompanied by a musical beat): minute 52 and two hours later.
The world of Oppenheimer that Nolan created is in between these two points: the greatest invention and the greatest regret.
In the 52nd minute, Robert proudly puts on his hat, takes off his pipe, looks at the open and bright horizon, and moves towards the biggest event that will happen.
He is in a hellish desert, but full of hope to build the most unexpected bomb. With a firm hat on, Robert strides powerfully like a proud cowboy in the middle of a western desert.
Two hours later; He is associated with the green paradise, the beautiful pond, and the song of the raindrops, but inside he is depressed. Like his eyes, his hat doesn't have the strength and hope of the past, and the soft drops of rain have disturbed its beauty.
There is no doubt that the music of this Nolan film, like his other films, plays a significant role and is full of words that don't fit into the picture.
If music is removed from Nolan's films, the concepts of his films will be lame; Emphasizing that none of his films are musical.
Music is to Nolan what food and drink are to the novels and plays of Friedrich Durrenmatt. If we remove them from Durrenmatt's works, the elements of the story will fall apart.
These two minutes of the film are the foreground of Oppenheimer's life, the rest of the film is based on these two minutes.
If these two minutes are removed from the film, we will face a simple film with an ordinary story, not a masterpiece with two golden points.
I had to watch this movie at least ten times to get out of its pure feeling and to understand Nolan's non-linear narrative form from the axis of time. How well he made time out of a simple and straight line, and like Tarantino's Pulp Fiction, time has become a secondary element to narrating an event.
And this is because Oppenheimer is not a simple historical film, with a linear and direct narrative. It is a cinematic portrait of both sides of the same coin: Oppenheimer, the inventor of the atomic bomb, and Oppenheimer, who opposed the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I know of only two people who have so far been able to artistically create the contradictions of the linear narrative of history by breaking the form of time: Picasso with Guernica and Nolan with Oppenheimer.
The Burnt Orange Heresy (2019)
The burnt critic and the orange fly
When art critics hold an exhibition, when they are admired, when they sign their books for their audiences, in fact, they have achieved their goal. It is at this point that the flies prefer to die.
When the critic enters to mud and swamp to hide his terrible secret, the sound of flies is the highest sound in this scene. It's because of flies are alive as long as critics struggle (without any results) to survive and breathe. Maybe they are selling their books falsely. They flounder drastically, but they have always a bounced cheque.
When the critics are happy and celebrating, the flies are ashamed and die. The flies and critics are brothers in the evil which we watch in the film. As we must not deny critics are worse than the flies. The flies do not like the critics to equate them with Nazis. For this reason, after the critic's speech about Nazism (when he was sleeping at night), a fly entered his nose, and it wanted to stifle him.
In this film, there is a ruler to measure evil, and that is the quote that the Nazis had with the prisoners. If we want to measure the humanity of the critic by this ruler, we find that they are zero, and maybe worse. In the evil competition between the flies and the critics, the critics are more vicious and accursed.
Also, the painter artist and the guiltless girl (but she was disobedient) are friends.
In a way, this topic reminds us of the story of "the return of the prodigal son" but they have a bit difference: she is a prodigal in honesty, not in money.
And in the goodness competition between the girl and the artist, she is more honest and better.
Persischstunden (2020)
Reza is the fortieth word!
"Persian Lessons" is a must-see. As an Iranian spectator, I love all of the characters whose name is Reza.
In the first scene, the subject and the story are introduced: the book versus the food. For the same, we will have two components: one is food and cooking and the other is books and lessons.
Important elements that form the main character (Reza) are also introduced: fear and courage.
Reza's character has formed by fear, but he is not inherently timid:
The fear of death which killed his groupmates.
The fear of not being exposed as an Iranian.
The fear of forgetting the words which he made and taught.
And the fear that everyone had in those days: The fear that they did not know what the outcome of the war would be.
But Reza is brave and takes risks. To survive, he must introduce himself as an Iranian. He is not afraid to go hungry, he takes risks and gets a book in exchange for a sandwich. Almost no wise person in such a situation prefers books to food!
Klaus's character is also special. He has an aim in his life, although he is a Nazi, he does not have a heart for this party. His personality is shaped by two things: cooking and the Persian language.
I would prefer to see more and more of Klaus being a chef in the film. For instance, we watched that he was cooking. With precise and penchant.
The end of the film is as splendid as the beginning of the film (book and sandwich): 2840 people come to life again when their names are told by Reza, and they will immortalize in history.
The King's Speech (2010)
If we were equals!
I strongly believe that this film can be summed up in two sentences:
1. In here, it's better if we're equals.
2. If we were equal, I wouldn't be here.
Two sentences are uttered by the two main characters of the film: King George VI and the speech therapist. A speech therapist (Lionel Logue) says "in here, it's better if we're equals". What he means by this is that we, the king and an ordinary citizen are equals here (speech therapy office) and both are human beings, whether he is a king or an ordinary citizen. When someone has a speech problem and he is a stammer, it does not matter if he is a king or an ordinary citizen. Both must be treated in the same way. By equal he means that two ordinary human beings (regardless of their social status) are the same. And what he means here is where people go to treat their problems and illnesses. This is a normal place and the person who comes here is not necessarily a special person and anyone can get this disease. In fact, Lionel believes that this is a public place, not a special place.
But the future king has two different purposes than the words equal and here. What he means by equal is that we are not equal because you (Lionel) do not stammer, but I'm a stammer. So the two have a completely different definition of the word equal and it seems that each of them thinks the opposite is wrong. King means here, a place where very special people come, and whoever comes here is definitely in the worst possible situation. In fact, for the King, this is a special place, not a public place.
Anyone who is in here can come up with a different definition of "equal".
The behavior of the King is defined in other parts of the film based on the same view. He does not look at his enemy as a king when he sees the film of Hitler's speech. He finds himself in a place where he can't speak, but Hitler is in a position where he speaks extremely well. He is in here and knows he is not equal to Hitler. As it was in reality: Britain did not have a German military position at the beginning of World War II, and German military superiority over Britain was evident.
The King was a stammer, which made him not equal to others. He always felt inferior. When he talks to his brother, he feels that "I'm a weak person". He feels the same way when he talks to the prime minister or when he talks to the speaker of parliament. The King has a problem, and that is stammering, but that problem makes him feel nowhere equal to others.
The same analysis can be provided for Lionel's behavior. Lionel really believes in the word "equal". Considering himself a wise man, he advised the future king not to think about his relationship with his brother and to think more about the future of Britain. It does not matter to Lionel that the King might be angry at what he said. Lionel considers himself equal to him and, therefore, tries to help him solve his problem.
Lionel feels that he can be a good actor because he considers himself successful in his career and has high self-confidence. He thinks that when he can be equal to an actor on the stage.
He spreads this equality everywhere: when he is with his sons, he plays with them and considers himself equal to them.
Lionel always finds himself in an equal position, not just in one position: when he confronts his wife. He was not afraid to equal himself with the king, but he didn't dare to complete his words in front of his wife. Let us not forget that he didn't fully tell the story of the king to his wife. Also, when he realizes that his wife has come home, anxiety and fear take over his being, because he does not know how to introduce the important guest of the family.
In contrast, the king always considers himself inferior to others. Except for once.
With the help of Lionel, the king overcomes his problem and can deliver an effective speech that will keep the British people standing against Hitler. In the final scene, King calls Lionel "my friend".
When the king ignores "here", he reaches the position of "equal".
The White Tiger (2021)
Roosters don't brush their teeth!
The number of people who have toothbrushes is less than the number of people who have smartphones!
This film is similar to the entrepreneur introduced at the beginning of the film: The entrepreneur should be straight and crooked at the same time. Also, he must be sly and sincere at the same time.
And the film is "cliché" and "original" at the same time. Uses traditional "cliché" to break the same "cliché" and make the "originals" breathe more.
A dialogue on "the wild pear tree" is proper for it (which is from Friedrich Nietzsche): "there are no facts, only interpretations".
"The white tiger" is another "Parasite" (directed by Bong Joon-ho). Bong has presented an aspect of Korean people which we didn't know it. And Ramin now presents another aspect of the Indian people. Our knowledge of the current situation of the people of India and Korea is low and inaccurate. "The white tiger" and "Parasite" move in this direction.
At the end of the film, spectators judge the film based on their own knowledge and perception. And they try to find a proper answer to this question: Why is the number of roosters escaping from the cage always less than the number of roosters staying in the cage?
Pig (2021)
"Pig" continues "Ratatouille"
The "Pig" is reminiscent of "Ratatouille" and continues it.
There are two viewpoints in "Ratatouille": the view of the son-mouse was put against the view of the father-mouse. And then, the story starts.
Too, are two various worlds of Robin in the "Pig": Robin's world today versus his world of 15 years ago.
The father-mouse said: "you can't change nature" and son-mouse answered: "change is nature". The beginning of a new life with this idea: Right in the opposite direction of his community.
Robin chose the same way, and said: "they are not real ... We don't have to care".
At the end of both films, where the story points intersect, the chef's art is shown. He does not cook, he works miracles.