Khane-ye doust kodjast? (1987) watch online HD

Actually it's hard to find any more words to define this masterpiece than the ones in the title of this review. If you are looking for something that would make you feel like you're reading a classic short story rather than watching a film, then this one is right that film. When you watch a film you have the vision, the sound, the effects, the music; almost nothing's left to your imagination and you watch the film effortlessly. Eventually, the story is misted over. On the other hand, in Khane-ye doust kodjast?, Kiarostami with his fascinating simplicity, takes you deep into a world of childish innocence. Everything from acting to cameras, is full of that precious amateur feeling. You actually feel amazed when you see how well Kiarostami managed to get such natural acting from a cast of all non-professional actors. Each character, each scene is tailored with Kiarostami's masterful observations. The film is so purely simple that, for a second, I even wished we didn't even have the music that plays only in two scenes, though I loved it. I personally believe, it really is a piece of art than a film.

This is one of the great works on youth, and Kiarostami wrings out as many ounces of emotional truth as he can. When a teacher punishes a student in front of the class and he cries, it has the potential to be cloying, but it's the more breathy, hiccupping type of crying as opposed to that doe-eyed variety that usually accompanies children in tears. The acting, as per usual with Kiarostami, is perfect, not at all showy or actorly. The film is told from the child's perspective, and we see how the adults view children as pestering annoyances, and how adults' duty-oriented simple-mindedness is so often not in tune to the rigid sense of morality that children sometimes have. The film is like an examination of children's moral code of righteousness -- the young hero here needs to return his friends' notebook so he can do his homework, but his parents fail to understand him and see it as more important for him to tend to his requirements outside of school. Meanwhile, his teacher tells the children that their schoolwork should come first. What is he to do? He's trying to do one right thing (that would help another) and getting quashed for not doing another right thing.

The film, which is addictively watchable, plays like a thriller in some ways (albeit a slow one): the notebook is its own character, and in jeopardy when another adult wants to write in it. The search for the friends' house (and the darkening of night indicating the loss of time for his friend to do his homework should he find him) is invigorating and thrilling. But more than that, the film has those little moments of pureness that Kiarostami blesses us with: The soft tenderness when one boy rubs water on another's knee after falling down outside; the wonderful images of children wandering in the slum-like houses and not at all worried about our immediate fears like violence or drugs; or the great scene where our hero sneaks away from his mother, who has forbade him from his mission, with the notebook tucked under his vest -- then realizing he's mistaken his own for his friends'. 9/10

This dear and simple story is the most wonderful film I have seen this year. The children are non-actors who bring a reality and wonder to this film that is sadly absent from American films, and you will be left in awe by their performances.

The story involves a little boy who must track down his friend to give him a notebook, or his friend may be kicked out of school. All along the way he is blocked from this quest to "do the right thing" but adults who are too stuck on their own silly business to listen to him and offer assistance. Instead of helping this sincere and good child, they do everything imaginable to block him. How very real this situation is, and how refreshing to see adults forced to examine the condescending way they communicate with children. The child Ahmed in this film is a refreshing hero for little boys... so much better than the smart-alleck and spoiled brats offered up in American films. It is a beautiful story, and it is a beautiful experience to sit and take in this magnificent film!

A true masterpiece. When I watched it in 2015, 28 years after the movie was made, I am ashamed of my time wasted watching Hollywood movies, which had no substance. I watched movies when it was box office hits. This movie showed me what life is, what movie making is all about, how to tell a story. I felt human life to my bare bones. I feel I'm human again. The slow moving pace of the movie , is amazingly engaging, as I was absorbed in the child's journey as if it my own. I wish more parents, teachers and elders would watch it. In this age, we lack empathy, hence we lost touch with our human values. This movie is a masterpiece.

Ahmad's classmate has a bad rapport with teacher because he doesn't finish his homework and is given a 'last' warning. Ahmad by mistake take his notebook home as their notebooks look the same. Ahmad must return the notebook but unfortunately his friend lives a little far and he doesn't know his exact address.

It's a masterpiece. There is no doubt that the only other film, based on the psychology of children, which can be compared with this great film is 'Chilren of heaven'. Feel of the film is 'Bicycle thief' like which was again the main source behind 'Pather Panchali'. Story is very simple but it's amazingly complex. Its about the morality children have which elders are too grown up to own. While Ahmad has such compassion and concern for his friend, for rest of the world it's not even an issue. Ahmad gives a helping hand to his mother at home and so he has to really sneak out. Small details like Ahmad know his friend's father's occupation and so he tries to find people of that profession. In one scene he asks a lady if she knew about his friend and that lady asks him to stop for a while and comes down from her house and asks Ahmad to help him in some very weird work I don't remember. It's brilliant. Film is not made with a documentary touch; it's made with a fantastic film touch. It gives a fantastic view of roads and people in Iran. My favorite scene is when an elder uses the notebook for some scribbling and Ahmad watches it helplessly and disapprovingly. Classroom scenes are marvelous.

Acting wise it's unbelievable how an 8 years old boy has done such a terrific job. Abbas Kiarostami is definitely one of the top 5 directors of our times.10/10

I'm sorry I've seen this movie doubled in Spanish and not subtitled in Portuguese but, even so, I found it lovely. It is all about how children live in the adult's world and how they perceive and deal with them. It is also about how children can understand each other and help each other to survive the power and rules of adults. It is filmed very closely to the children which means we see the adults, houses, streets and landscapes from their point of view. The story is very well written, playing very wisely with our expectations. It is an almost timeless and universal story but the where and when it happens is brilliant.

WHERE IS MY FRIEND'S HOME is a bittersweet, subtle film about a simple mix-up. When young Ahmed discovers he has taken his best friend Nematzedeh's notebook, he's determined to get it back to him, as the young boy is dangerously close to expulsion and can no longer risk their teacher's wrath. He sets out for his friend's neighboring town only to discover finding him amongst the winding, steep streets is no easy task.

In line with Kiarostami's body of work, he never feels the need to spell out plot points, characters' feelings, or the atmosphere of a scene through heavy dialogue. For example, the moment when Ahmed realizes he has Nematzedeh's notebook, we only see him remove his notebook...and then a second identical one. His shock is enough, we don't need to HEAR it's his friend's notebook. We can see it register on his face immediately. Also characteristic of his style, WIMFH pays special attention to the feelings of children, and the injustice of the adult world. And as usual, Kiarostami pulls a wonderful, naturalistic performances from all his child actors.

The L.A. County Museum of Art is currently holding a retrospective of Kiarostami's work, and this film by far is one of my favorites of his work. The quiet climax of this film is so simple and joyous that there was an audible gasp in the theater, a gasp of refreshing delight. Kiarostami may be hard going for the average movie fan, but I believe the rewards of a film like this are too great to pass this by for cinefiles of foreign film.

Abbas Kiarostami is a director from Iran. His movies are not shown in his native country. But elsewhere in the world he is a critically acclaimed director. His output in the 90's has been tremendously acclaimed and he is called the best or the most important director of the 90's.However before that came the beautiful " Where is the friend's home?" in 1987.

This movie is one of the most human movies I have ever seen. The story is quite simple. A little boy keeps forgetting to do his homework in the book and finally he is threatened with dire consequences. His friend has the book and must return it.

But the story has so much warmth and is shown with so much beauty that it is impossible not to like the film. The characters that we see throughout the movie are very nicely drawn out. Ahmed's interactions with the old man at the end are so beautiful and filled with emotion that I am brimming with joy just recalling those moments.

Akira Kurosawa said of his films, " When Satyajit Ray dies I was sad. But Abbas has taken his place"

This was my first Kiarostami's movie. There could not be a better one. Some trademarks of his movies are minimal dialogs, slow pace, purposeful and realistic acting. Many conversations happen during the ride on a car moving at gentle speed. A stark contrast of what we are used to. Yet, his movies touch you right in the heart. You get very involved with the characters. His movies never get overtly sentimental. He remarked in an interview that he doesn't like to cheat with the audiences.

"Where is the Friend's Home?" offers an insight into the simplistic and innocent world of childhood. Adults do not really see and appreciate that world. Watching this movie is a completely different experience. And writing a lot about this movie does not make a lot of sense. You can hardly wait to watch "And Life Goes on".

A must watch if you are into the art of beautiful cinema.

I saw this movie when I was 15 and really enjoyed it at that time because I could find myself instead of the boy playing in the movie. I was older than him, but I felt there was something, let's say, close connection between us. That was the best movie I had ever seen. I learned many things about life and the world around me. Everyone could see simplicity and honesty in his eyes. After 10 years I saw the movie again when I was around 25; and the interesting thing was that I had the same feeling! I didn't know why? But when I look at that precisely I think the story of our life is so simple: When you do good, you feel good and when you do bad you feel bad! Kiarostami visualizes the whole story simply and memorably, it doesn't matter at what age you are watching the movie, just you can feel it, touch it and live it!

If you ever feel like you've lost track of what's truly important in life, then don't miss Abbas Kiarostami's film, Where is the Friend's House. After mistakenly taking his friend's notebook, Ahmadpoor is torn between obedience to his parents and a need to help his friend Nematzadeh. Faced with the difficult choice of either disobeying his mother and returning his friend's notebook in the Iranian village of Poshteh over the hill, or staying at home and taking the chance that his friend will be expelled from school, Ahmad takes advantage of the situation when his mother sends him out to buy bread for dinner and sets out for Poshteh.

Unfortunately, Ahmad does not know where his friend's house is. Following Ahmad through a series of disappointments and near misses, the viewer is drawn into the desperate search for Nematzadeh or anyone who knows him. Finally, Ahmad is befriended by an old door maker who agrees to take him to Nematzadeh's house. While this part of the film does drag, with the door maker walking slowly and talking constantly about different doors and windows he has made, it is a price worth paying, and almost succeeds in making the viewer feel like he or she is in Ahmad's shoes, being forced to plod along slowly behind an old man. By far the most disappointing part of this film for the viewer is that the journey with the old man lacks a payoff, and Ahmad returns to his own village having not found his friend. Determined to make sure his friend is not punished for a mistake he made, Ahmad stays up late into the night writing not only his own homework, but Nematzadeh's as well. While this film has some slow points and may leave some viewers feeling like the payoff was only marginal, the message is sincere and it shows that sometimes there are more important things in life than doing what you're told.

Mohamed Reda Nematzadeth has been told off three times already for not doing his homework in the book provided, next time he fails to do it in the book he will be expelled. So whenever his classmate Ahmed gets home and finds that Mohamed's book is in his bag. Knowing that it will be his fault that his friend gets into trouble, he tries to get his mother to help him return it but, when she refuses, he sneaks out of the house knowing only that Mohamed lives in an area several miles away across the hills. Getting to the area turns out to be the easy part as, regardless of who he asks, few are able or willing to help him find the house of his friend.

It is perhaps fitting (and pointless) that Channel 4 in the UK chose to broadcast a short season of films from Iran; after all, Iran is being talked about in the same way as Iraq was a year before we went to war with them, so it looks like some form of action may be taken against Iran – a country that few people really know a great deal about. I don't think that watching a few films from a country will teach you all you need to know about it, but it is a start I suppose and kudos to Channel 4 for giving up so much time (albeit late night) to screen 2-3 films a night for a week. This was the first in the mini-season and it presents a disarmingly simple story to provide an insight into life in a semi-rural area of Iran although it is certainly too slow, uneventful and layered to really learn a great deal from. For starters the plot is simple and does as little as my plot summary suggests it does; viewers reared on "bang a minute" action films will certainly not be impressed by the pace, the delivery or the conclusion. I enjoyed it but even I must admit that the running time did have a certain about of slack in it that could have been taken in a bit without losing too much.

The actual story is just a frame to see aspects of life in Iran – behaviour, environment, habits and conditions; to the unfamiliar (such as myself) this will provide distraction easily enough as it is interesting in what it does, although I suspect that more was lost on me than I realised. I got the impression that the story was a metaphor for Iran and that the themes of doing the right thing, being distracted by individual minor squabbles, giving for others etc were all set within a national context that I failed to understand, perhaps a little help for the uninitiated would have been useful in the shape of text explaining the country up front? Regardless, this is my loss and the film owes me nothing; I still felt that the theme that really Ahmed's ongoing thoughtfulness and friendship was more useful than just finding the boy's house worked – not easily reached perhaps but it is there.

The performances are all convincingly natural and the camera could easily not have been there. Babek Ahmed Poor's Ahmed naturally steals the film and, although he doesn't show a great range he is as natural and as likable as the film required him to be – you forget he is acting and this could easily be fly-on-the-wall stuff. Likewise, the support cast all come off the same albeit with less screen time – they provide an interesting view of the country and fill out the story with colour.

Overall then, not the film to watch if you are itching for the US to attack Iran, nor if you prefer more action and less talk; but it is an interesting and worthwhile film nonetheless. Despite feeling that some of it was lost on me, I still enjoyed the central theme of friendship and the tour around some aspects of Iranian life while it greatly benefited from a very natural delivery from all sides of the camera.

An 8 year old boy must return his friend's notebook he took by mistake, lest his friend be punished by expulsion from school.

Iranian filmmaker Bahman Ghobadi said that "I always have this film in mind because of the director's profound perspective on filmmaking and its strange and distinct structure." Indeed, this film is quite good, and not surprisingly has found its way to a number of "top ten" lists.

If they don't already, colleges really need something like a "modern Iranian film" class. For most of my life, Iran has been seen as this terrible place. And it is films like these that show, regardless of whatever our governments may think, the people of Iran are a generally good people. We must not confuse the people of a country with the rhetoric of its leaders.

I just watched this movie because of my liking towards Iranian movies without knowing much about Abbas Kiarostami. After completing the movie i kind of felt like i had traveled along with Ahmed throughout the movie as a kid. This entire movie is so nostalgic and stirred a lot of my childhood memories. All the characters are almost crafted to the perfection in terms of portraying their attitudes. The scene where he realizes that the old man has shown the same Nematzadeh's house which he visited earlier and then hiding the notebook is just excellent!! In climax, you actually start to fear for Nematzadeh, when the teacher starts correcting the home work. And the final scene, where you get to see the flower in the notebook is just bliss!! I'd say "Don't miss to revisit your childhood through this movie!!"

From the very first sequence in the film until the last, we're shown how the great chasm of misunderstanding existing between children and adults is a universally identifiable allegory.

Our miniature hero runs unheard and unseen through the labyrinthine streets of an old nearby village trying to return his classmate's homework notepad, which he accidentally took himself. The problem is, without it, his friend can't complete his homework and thus risks being expelled from school.

In his quest to find his friend, he encounters several unconcerned adults and a general lack of understanding of the profundity of his mission. The list is a long and winding psychological path mirroring the maze-like passages of the ancient villages...

-His mom seems unable to hear or understand his explanation of the problem -The residents in the nearby village he seeks are oblivious to the seriousness of his mission and of little help - His grandfather is callously concerned with instilling discipline by giving absurd orders instead of offering assistance in his time of need -The iron-door salesman rudely rips a page from the all-important notepad and nearly takes off with it himself -The amiable old blacksmith, though well-meaning, fails to understand the urgency of the boy's mission and out of politeness is placated at the expense of finding the friend's house.

When our little hero runs up the zig-zag hill for a second time to try and find his classmate, we're left in awe at the great lengths to which he's willing to right a wrong, no matter how trivial it is to the ignorant adult world. His sense of responsibility toward his fellow classmate is a small epiphany in a strict moral world of big "truths".

As night falls on the neighboring village, our hero returns home having failed in his quest to deliver the notepad, but not in his obligation to his friend. As the wind blows hard outside his home, he makes a choice to stay up and do the homework again.

This has become a bigger favourite of mine than even his best work 'Close-up'.

Kiarostami is one of my favourite filmmakers. He introduced a new form of cinema language and took Godard's 'direct cinema' concept to a new and better level.

The simplicity and purity is what will strike you first. The poise, the naturalistic acting and lighting are the trademarks of Kiarostami's films.

The iron doors metaphorically represent the children, that's why the school's doors are also the 'old' doors. The new doors which are replacing the old doors represent those people who are not concerned about the child's feelings or emotions, like for eg:- the nagging door maker. In the end, its an old door maker who gives Ahmed the flower and the story invariably depicts that adults do need to understand the children, their feelings and emotions and guide them to a better world. The solution is not beating them up every other fortnight, even if there is no reason. Certainly Kiarostami sheds light on the prevailing society pretty subtly.

The ending with the flower is a trademark Kiarostami ending. So subtle his style that minimalism is the triumphant element.

Some sequences are really worth remembering. Throughout the child's journey, there are many beautiful situations. Towards the end, the child's haunted face as darkness descends and wind blows strong is brilliant. The child actor is amazing. God knows why he doesn't act anymore. Stands out with one of the best child performances along with Ana Torrent in ' The Spirit of the Bee-hive'.

My favourite part is where Kiarostami chooses to focus on the old man instead of Ahmed as he runs away towards his home at the very end. Kiarostami follows the old man to his house as he walks up the stairs slowly, removes his dress and finally closes the window which first revealed him. This is terrific film making showing the end of a phase of a narration. Kiarostami could have chosen to follow Ahmed with the camera but he has done it throughout the film and he may prolong it unnecessarily, if he does so again. Then next cut shows Ahmed has reached his place and doing homework. The sense of 'completion' is brought out beautifully and certainly that's the poise that makes a master.

Salute

This is a very enjoyable, slow-paced, yet uniquely enthralling movie. The plot is simple; a young boy must return a school notebook, taken by accident, to his classmate so he can do his homework for the next day. If his friend doesn't get it done he may be expelled. Immediately you are drawn into this simple task, seeing this child's often futile efforts to be acknowledged by the adults around him, empathizing with his difficulties.

A strange sense of foreboding begins to prevail as you await the outcome of his efforts. Will he complete his task and get home before dusk? Why is it so hard to get a straight answer from any of these adults?

The music is often enchanting and contributes much to the atmosphere. Personally I love the old blacksmith he runs into in the neighboring village. An old friendly man with a deep passion for making windows and doors. The life of the village and its history could be seen through the eyes of this old gent, but truly, the boy, has simply got to return this notebook!

If you want to chill out and watch a wonderful tale unfold over just 80 short minutes then go watch this movie. You won't be disappointed.

Many reviewers emphasized the difference between this movie and Kiarostami's works that followed. For some this movie was superior to all that came after (the latter being, in their opinion, too didactic, or too dry, or too snobbish, or too demonstrative in their artfulness, or all of these). Others praised the movies that followed for their daring openings in the cinematic art, while this film was, in their opinion, too simple, too naive, or maybe too didactic (again) in making its point.

Actually there is a didactic dimension in all movies of Kiarostami: he has a point to make and he makes it. In all his works the plot (if any) is just a support for his thoughts on movie art. Each of his movies is a demonstration about what a movie should be. Each of his movies is actually a meta-movie.

Is Where Is the Friend's Home simple? Yes, while also very subtle. It operates on multiple levels.

The exterior level, a plot of astonishing simplicity: like in the fundamental books of mankind, everything is simple, clear, linear, because truth loves nakedness.

Beyond this exterior level you'll discover the universe depicted by Kiarostami. A reviewer has observed that the journey of the boy follows a circular trajectory: he is advancing in his quest just to arrive in the same place, again and again. It's a close space, claustrophobic, while the boy is trying each time to enlarge the space. And I noted this circular trajectory, this close, claustrophobic space in all his movies; and also the temptation of the main character to enlarge the space. The same is in Taste of Cherry, in The Wind Will Carry Us, even in Ten.

Another observation made by a reviewer: Ahmed finds the friend's house only to find out that the friend is not there: an unfulfilled journey? Actually the fulfillment is just the journey! The journey has the purpose in itself, even if the personage does not know that. Again, the same in Taste of Cherry, or The Wind Will Carry Us, or Ten.

It was noted that no adult could take the boy seriously. I would say, it is more than that. The boy needs to find his friend to give him the notebook: but this is the subject of the movie. Asking the adults to help him is asking the adults to participate in the movie: asking the people from the real world to be also part of the world of the movie. Bringing the real world in the movie! The wish of the artwork to be accepted as reality, to become part of the reality: to make the reality part of the artwork. But this is the crux of Kiarostami's work! And, like in all the other movies, in the end someone understands and participates: the old door maker here, the old taxidermist in Taste of Cherry, the old physician in The Wind Will Carry Us, the woman who shaved her head in Ten.

No wonder that this movie was followed by two documentaries (And Life Goes On and Through the Olive Trees): Kiarostami came back where he had filmed Where Is My Friend's Home, to talk to the people there, to see the effect of the movie upon them, if any, to understand better the universe there, to be accepted, to make that reality artwork.

I believe that the recent movies of Iranian director Abbas Kiarostami have been hugely overrated (in the rarefied world of art movie criticism), but this 1987 movie is a genuine gem. A transition between his early didactic shorts and his later full blown (and somewhat pretentious) art movies, this was one of the first Iranian movies to receive some notice in the west, at least in the film festival circuit. It tells a deceptively simple story: a boy has mistakenly taken home another schoolboy's notebook. Fearing the other child will be severely punished at school the following day if he doesn't bring to class the home assignment completed, he decides to go to his house to return the item. The problem is he doesn't known where he exactly lives, so a small odyssey to finds him starts. The boys live in a fascinating mountain village, with very narrow streets, and stone houses. That village was destroyed by an earthquake a few years later, and reportedly the young actors playing the two main characters were killed in it. Kiarostami tells a fictionalized story of a film director searching for the young actors after the earthquake in his 1992's And Life Goes On. Knowing their sad fate makes this film even more moving. And as in many Kiarostami movies, the final scene is a knock out.

This film captures the emotions of a small boy brilliantly. Facing a crisis that (as usual) none of the adults around him seem to appreciate, he sets off on an adventure that would have been of epic proportions if it had been scaled up to compare with the experiences of any grown-up. Is Where Is the Friend's Home simple? Yes, while also very subtle. It operates on multiple levels. This movie is one of the most human movies I have ever seen. The story is quite simple. A little boy keeps forgetting to do his homework in the book and finally he is threatened with dire consequences. His friend has the book and must return it. But the story has so much warmth and is shown with so much beauty that it is impossible not to like the film. The characters that we see throughout the movie are very nicely drawn out. Ahmed's interactions with the old man at the end are so beautiful and filled with emotion that I am brimming with joy just recalling those moments.

This film changes the game of life, and art. A cinema of kindness trumps darkness. Trumps noir even. When a boy's freckled face and concerned eyes eradicate all glorious hoods in cinema' greatest sub-genre, then the lion must lie down with the lamb. Honety and integrity have a place in cinema, beyond our treacly, brutal storytelling parameters. Where did this boy's morality come from? The father, an enigmatic figure who listens to the transistor radio? The mother, who works hard on the home front doing laundry and caring for a newborn? The young brother who we learn is heading into the army at a very young age? True,adults are lost in their own world, but I would argue that the love Kiarostami shows for his own society transcends an "adults v.children" argument. The boy's family, including the grandfather who interrupted the boys quest,was kind and gentle, however anachronistic. The proud, elderly door maker who escorted the boy to his friends house inserted the tiny flower that exploded our emotions at the end. Even the teacher who was stringent in his approach was a good man who only wanted his students to excel. This is a celebration of Iranian culture. By negation, we must contemplate our own.

'Where is the Friend's Home?' was the first film that gave Abbas Kiarostami some critical acclaim and recognition on a global scale. He subsequently went on to become a heavily acclaimed director with his other films that came later. The storyline of 'Where is the Friend's Home?' is very straightforward quite unlike the experimental and abstract nature of Kiarostami's later films. But in spite of the the simple nature of the basic plot, the film becomes deeply profound due to the rich structure of the screenplay and Kiarostami's direction.

The film starts with the shot of a door. The door is closed. But we can hear the voices and the shouting of children. That tells us that this door is of a classroom and on the other side of the door are young students. The teacher then opens the door and enters the room. He scolds the children for shouting and making noise. He gives them a lecture about the importance of discipline. While he is giving this lecture, the door of the classroom keeps opening and he keeps closing it repeatedly. In a thematic sense, this opening scene pretty much sums up the whole film. Doors play a big part in the film's thematic core. The door symbolises the lack of freedom that was forced on the Iranian kids at least at the time . Kiarostami clearly thinks that in the name of discipline and the need to grow up as a 'strong' person, the youth of Iran were being forced to grow up prematurely without them properly enjoying their childhood which is a point of time which never comes back. Ahmed, the protagonist in the film gets constantly ignored and talked down to by adults who don't take children seriously. Along with Ahmed, almost all the children in the film are constantly forced by adults to work and do activities that they are clearly too young for. Kiarostami celebrates the inherent innocence and purity that exists in a young child. The characters who respect Ahmed in the film in turn get respectfully treated, and the ones who behave badly with Ahmed are in turn subtly judged by Kiarostami.

Other than the celebration of childhood, I felt the film is also a restrained study of the modernisation of Iran. There are references to the fact that people are leaving the villages and flocking to the cities. The door here again becomes a symbol as we are informed that people are gradually starting to reject the old fashioned doors(and windows) and starting to opt for the newer iron-made ones. I guess Kiarostami in a spiritual way is equating the innocence of village life with the innocence of a child.

Kiarostami's style of direction here is restrained and not flashy. He doesn't do anything over-the-top, but knows exactly where the camera needs to be pick up a reaction. He uses the music in the most economically brilliant way. The majority of the film is devoid of music, but when it does hit, Kiarostami uses it beautifully to underline a change in mood. The plot itself is very loose and it really is a character driven piece. Kiarostami's restrained directorial style in capturing the life of middle-class village people and the poetic rhythms of this boy Ahmed's journey to do something which he thinks is the right thing to do reminded me a lot of Italian neorealism.

The character of Ahmed is adorable, cute and exceptionally admirable. Babek Ahmed Poor has a very cute and likable face. I think Kiarostami does the right thing in not asking Babek to do anything too extraordinary with his face or gestures. He remains dreamy eyed and quietly intense and that actually works for the role of an eight year old.

Yes, an argument can be made that once a viewer watches the first scene of the film, he/she will probably get an idea of what the basic driving factor of the plot will be and maybe the general structure of the broad story is somewhat predictable, but if the director/screenwriter can make me so closely engaged with the protagonist of the film, if he can make me care so much about what happens to this boy and whether he succeeds in his act or not and lastly if he can make me cry(yes the film made me cry which is tough to do), then I will gladly forgive some minor glitches in the plot structure.

In an age where the theatres get bombarded with superhero films constantly(I don't mind them, but they do feel a bit repetitive due to the preponderance of their releases), it's nice to go back to a film which gives us a different hero. A hero who doesn't wear spandex or a cape, a hero who stands 4 ft tall, a hero who doesn't save millions of people from apocalyptic destruction, but what Ahmed does for his friend and the extents to which he goes just to help him is no less of an act than anything that Superman or Captain America has ever managed.

Precious little Ahmed, while on his determined journey to give his friend's homework book back, is asked by his grandfather to fetch his cigarettes. His face immediately perks up and his eyes betray his panic; he has no time for this 'duty' that the young must serve the old, because Nematzadeh's spot in the school is in jeopardy. As he hurries off, his grandfather slyly reveals that he is already carrying his cigarettes with him and that Ahmed's task is merely a symbolic one. He monologues passionately about the importance of the younger generation having obedience and respect beaten into them (literally) like he did with his own son. Discipline is what shapes the man. The schoolteacher likewise stresses their homework as a way of building discipline, no matter the other menial work that must be completed (what is farming for food to dictation and comprehension?). But the great irony is that the grandfather is blinded by the courageous act right in front of him; Ahmed's steadfast determination to find Nematzadeh and return his book, bearing the responsibility of the long and arduous journey onto those little limbs of his.

Kiarostami's visual sensibilities have often been geared towards this motif of blindness, of the inability to truly see the events in front of one's eyes. In both Taste of Cherry and The Wind Will Carry Us his trademark shot was an extreme overhead wide shot of a man-made vehicle moving through natural beauty, coupled with the contradiction of the character's dialogue right in our ears. This technique presents the lack of focus to the audience disconcertingly; what we see is not what we hear, and the film is similarly riddled with moments lacking perception and awareness. The tone here is almost whimsical; Kiarostami's camera aligns the point of view with Ahmed, which allows for visual gags that would be merely throwaway bits in other films. Ahmed moves up a alleyway, only to have a cow block his passage. He seemingly speaks to a magical, moving bush, as if he was living in a children's book, and only afterwards does the man swing around and present his feeble frame carrying the branches. A brown trousered boy walks across the screen, winking liberally, conveniently carrying a board which obscures his identity and Ahmed's true objective.

The story would not be half as engaging without the tremendous work of Babek Ahmedpour, little more than an amateur plucked from the ranks to portray Ahmed. Every breath and every step is less acting and more the natural boy inside him flourishing. When an adult easily plucks Nematzadeh's book from under his arm and tears out a page for himself (and then, for added measure, uses it as a writing board), Ahmedpour's eyes flicker frantically from book to beast ravaging it. This is not something that could be faked; it is the panicked reaction of a child having what little control they possess wrested away before their very eyes. Similarly, his closeup reveals all the motivation we need to see as the teacher scolds a teary Nematzadeh. He scurries along the zig- zag path but finds that structure and convention can only take him so far, and even a brave face is no match for the horrors of nightfall. In the end, his solution is pragmatic but not entirely morally sound - I wonder what his grandfather would say, and how thick the rod might be.

I have just watched this film on Turner Classic Movies and have to say that Where Is The Friend's Home? ranks up there with Truffaut's 400 Blows as one of the most beautiful and honest films about childhood I have ever seen. It is the kind of film where one wants to throw one's arms around the director and thank him for creating something so pure and true. The courage and sheer determination of the little boy as he attempts to find his friend's home was such an inspiring story that was told with such simple and eloquent grace. Simply beautiful! It saddens me to hear that both of the boys and the village in which the film was made were destroyed in the North Iran earthquakes.

Simplest of the stories can be told movingly if told with a good heart.

I never watched an Iran movie and always refrained coz they are extremely sentimental is what I read about them and that kept me away from them.

My premonition came true with this, it moved me in every way for the kid, when he ran through the streets to find out where his friend his, when he met an old man whom gave him what he should be, when he persuaded his mother to go out and return his friend a book, I can see that but my heart was always in the boy and with the boy, I wanted him to win and return the book.

The opening and ending are strange for me, coz the boy whom I thought is the main hero comes and goes in few frames but the whole story is about his friend but I would say it's this boy, who is seldom seen is the protagonist coz he drove the whole story while his friend was just running for him.

Technically, this is not great coz camera is simplistic and there are no production qualities. Also, so much could have been edited out that is still a part of the movie. Like the way this boy persuades hi mother is itself 6 minutes. But it's neither slow nor boring coz of a stronger and a curious story. The dialogues I understood through subtitles seemed apt. Acting is terrific and I would give the boy a special gift.

I heard of this film, when my FTII (film institute ) friend referred this and I must say, this is a typical FTII movie, its an easy watch but hard to digest. I am better off not watching Irani movies coz I cannot just keep wiping off my eyes, i did that 4-5 times in this 75 minute film.

Abbas Kiarostami, the director should be credited for all that he did and in fact he is now one of the very few heart ful directors who has a heart more than a mind.

It's 4/5 for a movie that moved me extremely.