Taste of Cherry (1997) is an Iranian film directed by Abbas Kiarostami; it is one of the most philosophically rich films in world cinema. The Iranian film won Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival, making Kiarostami one of the most important film directors of the late 20^th century. Rather than relying on dramatic plot twists or traditional storytelling, film goes on with minimal action and long conversations, just about regular life and glimpses of Iran as a war-torn country. Its simplicity allows it to explore themes like life, death, loneliness and meaning of existence.

In a nutshell, Taste of Cherry tells the story of a middle-aged man Mr. Badii, driving around outskirts of Tehran in search of someone willing to perform a specific yet controversial task. He asks strangers to bury him the next morning after he commits suicide which is a sin in Islam. This request shocks many people. Throughout the film Badii picks up many different strangers, a young Kurdish soldier, an Afghan seminarian, and an elderly Turkish taxidermist, each representing different perspectives on life, human connections and morality.

Personal Reflection:

When I first watched Taste of Cherry, I was amazed by how quiet and restrained the film is and how can one portray a film on such a deep topic while making it as quiet as possible, I feel it was also done to make the audience understand how quiet death really is to someone who has given up on life, family, or the world in general.

What I appreciated the most about the film is that it doesn’t give answers, rather it invokes a sense of reflection among the audience. We never get to know why Mr. Badii wants to free himself from the misery of the world. Now I call it a misery because life as many call it beautiful isn’t the same for everyone. Some may find it burdening and for people like Badii no amount of “helpful lectures” are helpful really for a person who has given up completely on everything just wants to rest in peace.

Another element that I really liked about the film was the simplicity of conversations Badii has with people he meets. Each person reacts differently to his request. The young Kurdish soldier becomes frightened and tries to escape the situation. The religious seminarian refuses as suicide is morally forbidden. Finally, an older taxidermist speaks to Badii calmly and shares his experience of wanting to end life. This sequence of conversation feels less like traditional storytelling and more of philosophical dialogues.

I feel these different reactions have been influenced by the age and experience of the person. The young soldier tries to escape the situation by running away from him because for him its too much to comprehend as he has seen so little of life. The seminarian refuses as he follows the word of God and for him that is the ultimate truth, whereas the taxidermist who agrees to his request has had his own experience of almost ending his life.

But again, I feel age isn’t the right factor to judge someone’s intellect because what if a young person has gone through tragedies and faced the world whereas another person who grew up being pampered without facing any tragedies or problems first hand.

Both these examples are pretty extreme to comprehend as there is no black and white in life but we can assume it for now. This changes how we assume someone’s intellect with age.

The moment that affected me the most was when the taxidermist was explaining how the taste of cherries saved his life and changed his decision of ending it. This scene suggests how meaning of life doesn’t necessarily come from grand achievements or dramatic moments but from little nuances and these small and little experiences change our life.

Philosophical Enquiry:

Beyond the narrative, Taste of Cherry is a story raising questions about reality and knowledge of life.

It raises one important metaphysical question about the nature of existence and meaning of life. Mr. Badii seems to view life as empty and unbearable, yet the film never tells us why. This raises a question: Does life inherently possess meaning or do humans have to create a meaning out of it?

The taxidermist’s conversation suggests how small things in life can affect our views towards it and how it can be the difference between life and death. Something as ordinary as tasting a fruit or observing nature can remind the person of value of being alive.

It can be connected to some interpretations of the Buddhist philosophy; suffering arises from attachment and dissatisfaction with life as it is. The solution isn’t necessarily to escape but to change one’s perception and awareness of looking at it. Similarly, taxidermist’s realisation comes from observing small beautiful moment that he had previously ignored.

Another philosophical aspect of the film comes from epistemology i.e. Throughout the film we never truly understand why Badii wants to free himself, our understanding is limited to what we observe. This shows that knowledge about another person’s life is always incomplete to us.

Morality is another core issue as we see the seminarian’s perspective. From his perspective suicide is morally wrong whereas from Badii’s perspective it is morally correct as to free oneself is to free others around him. To elaborate this, Badii thinks that being miserable is harmful to others around you too which in this sense true to some extent as you do end up hurting your loved once while you are fighting your own battles. So, this is quite a conflict of morals as one is bound by the religious moral that he follows whereas other is bound by his own experiences of it.

Conclusion:

Taste of Cherry is a film that challenges traditional storytelling and prioritises philosophical reflection over dramatic action. Through the journey of Mr. Badii and his conversations with people the film explores deep questions like the meaning of life.

Personally, I loved this film because it encourages viewers to think rather than simply observe.