The print that played at MOMA was the same as yours – i.e. that notorious scene was cut and Lord knows how many others. No idea why that is. Maybe my girlfriend would know the right person to ask that question at MOMA… I’ll look into it…

More recently the film played as part of the Kiarostami-Erice retro at the Centre Pompidou in Paris, and the edited print seems to have been shown there, too, (based on at least one report), although the Pompidou denies that the film has been altered. Twas ever thus.

There’s a podcast and discussion thread at my site. Conspiracy theories abound, but I just want to see the original cut of the film — I haven’t — and I’m curious about where it’s gone, that’s all.

Thanks for any additional clues.

Cool post and cool site, Kevin. We met briefly at NYFF — acquarello introduced us — so I’m glad to have a reason to touch base again.

Even though FIRST GRADERS is clearly the other Kiarostami film with subject matter closest to HOMEWORK, I was struck at the structural similarities between HOMEWORK and ABC AFRICA. Both start with a reflexive intro that establishes the director’s mission; both contain the director’s visual/verbal presence and occasional direct commentary; both accept and present evidence that might not perfectly illustrate the “inscribed” sociopolitical thesis; and both end with the film’s most aestheticized sequence, shifting the stylistic terms of the piece. By contrast, FIRST GRADERS dips from time to time into a “fictional” shot breakdown instead of a “documentary” shot breakdown; and the fictional elements don’t really shift the terms of the piece – it’s more as if they brush us back a bit, like a pitcher throwing an inside fastball to keep us from getting too comfortable.

Dan K, I plan to watch First Graders tomorrow. that’s a good observation on the ending — you wonder if he did that establishing shot for every interview, or if he felt this one in particular merited a wide shot — and if so, what was he thinking? that this one deserved a more “holistic” visual to connect everyone together in one moment and/or account for everyone’s place in it? i don’t know the answer, but i wouldn’t underestimate his sheer intuition.

Also, to add a bit to the wonderful comments from you and Dan about the ending of Homework, I wish to point out that in that sequence is one of the rare moments in the film that Kiarostami cuts to the camera angle outside of the shot/reverse-shot of interviewee and interviewer/camera, showing both Kiarostami and his camera and sound crew and the child in a single, long two-shot. Does this make the sequence seem more staged? I’m not sure I have an answer.

Just a slight adjustment to my reaction: I wouldn’t exactly say that the child was experiencing ecstasy. I’d say that the child’s breathless delivery of the religious poem had something of the appearance of ecstasy; and that Kiarostami perceived this and used formal elements (music especially, but also rhythm and the abruptness of the freeze-frame ending) to create an experience for the viewer that was redolent of ecstasy. And that we can superimpose this experience onto the mystery of this child (about whom we know very little, and who surprises us with this bold piece of recitation, given that we had heretofore seen little more than crippling fear and an inability to communicate), attribute the ecstasy to the child if we want, not as an accurate indication of his internal state, but as a kind of metaphor for the range of emotions that lie beyond what we can perceive of people in such a documentary.