I think watching movies is mainly about what the film director wants to express through the shots, lines and pictures and wants our audience to think. This "Taxi" is to make us think about the punishment methods that the whole society should take in the face of crime, or the changes that Iranian society needs to make, or the education of the people from a young age by the hypocritical ruling class, we should to think about the rationale for this. The above points are huge philosophical and social propositions, and we will not discuss them here, only this movie.
I don't think there is anything newer and more worth talking about in terms of cinematography in this film, of course, this is probably due to my shallow knowledge. Throughout the film, the role of all the characters in the taxi is to propose a new proposition to the director, and then to think. During the period, it reflected the crime problem in Iranian society, the cultural control problem of the informed class, the ignorance of the bottom people, the issue of women's rights and so on. If I just put these things up, I can't agree with how high the artistic achievement of this film is. In the high-pressure Iranian society, the film director is worthy of our admiration for being able to stand up and say these words bravely and make a film that is quite smooth and thought-provoking. But the question is, can such a mediocre film win such a film award as the Berlin Golden Bear? Why do films that bravely expose the social problems of China, Iran, Russia and other countries always win major awards from European and American countries? Why do many films that expose many social problems in these countries end up enjoying the same bans and suppression of film directors in their own countries? So, it's a political issue that goes beyond the movie itself.
To be continued --------
View more about Taxi reviews
