Essay About Moral Debate And Man Of Means

Politics in the Third Cinema
Essay title: Politics in the Third Cinema
Politics in The Third Cinema
To be clear every piece of filmmaking is political. It is in the nature of the medium, and as Chomsky said ‘the medium is the message’. What I mean by this is that every film has an ideology. They all base themselves in a created world that maintains certain core values and would represent a certain view of different political issues. Whether that be a liberal, conservative, dogmatic or whatever type of view depends on the film. Many of the films we have views have been innately political, and try to represent the political state of each country they were filmed in, repsectively. In the films I have chosen to include in this essay, most of them float outside popular views throughout the United States especially and if anything would be to the far left. The films I discuss herein, A Taste of Cherry, Oldboy, In The Mood for Love and The Motorcycle Diaries discuss a wide array of issues and ideologies. I feel the most political overall, with the most significance is A Taste of Cherry.

The first question raised in Kiarostami’s A Taste of Cherry is concerning suicide. Is it a sin to commit suicide? Many would of course say yes, and on multiple levels this is a moral debate and not a political one. However the film’s main character, Badii, offers a valid argument. Why should one not commit suicide if life only causes pain to

himself and others? This is a debate that has been raised in many levels of government. It operates on many levels as well, from abortion to living wills to assisted suicide. All of these raise the issues of right to life but conversely as Badii asks, what of an individual’s right to death? We all die eventually, for some what would be the difference in sooner rather than later.

I for one fight it ridiculous that suicide is technically illegal. It is hypocritical to say that, for instance, I have the right to say whatever I want even if that offends people, but I do not have the right to do to my own body whatever I wish. I also think that for how serious a threat overpopulation is to our species and this planet that maybe somehow assisted suicide can be a viable form of population control, much how China limits the number of children a family can have. To be sure, these are extreme measures but I feel

this film helps explore them in a real, emotional, and more importantly personal sense.
The second question for Badii, and us as the audience becomes will anybody help him achieve this? It seems that across all the cultures of peoples he expresses his wishes to; nobody possesses the compassion to understand Badii’s pain in life. In fact they all unsuccessfully and repeatedly try to convince him that life his is life worth living without asking what has driven him to this conclusion. The deciding factor for the one person who does decide to help him is what it always is, money. Herein lies the division between Badii and the people he positions. Badii is obviously a man of means, expressed by Kirostami through

the car that he drives and the money he offers each man to help with his suicide. Badii has the means to offer these men an exorbitant amount of cash for their assistance.

We are under the assumption, much like Badii, that these men are all quite poor or in any case in need of the money. To me, it felt like this cheapened Badii’s plight. He becomes much more suspicious, and his aims seem scattered, and at times take on a sexual element. His is no longer a cry for help, or freedom from pain, but a solicitation of service from random men. This money also seeks to remove the moral and legal associations of helping someone commit suicide, in a court of law perhaps 2nd degree murder. Badii does not seem to care who helps, if they agree or disagree or why they do so, he simply wants it done. These men are forced to question themselves and their morals to see if their commitment to their fellow man is greater than their own personal views.

My biggest question was why he wanted it done in the manner he does. Though this can be attributed to depression and the single goal in mind, I felt it detracted from his character, that he was suicide and that’s all. What prevents this detraction from fully depriving this character is the gravity of his situation. That we do not know precisely why he desires death is so much of the question. The debate does not devolve into finding a reason good enough to commit the act. The issue of suicide does not become bound up in, when is it ok to do so? Instead it is black or white, ok or not ok, right or wrong. This is part of the reason I was glad religion was not forcibly injected by Kirostami. It was a much more individualistic approach with interpretations by characters of the Kuran and other religious texts.

Upon further review