Tweet

One of the very many remarkable things about Abbas Kiarostami's Close-up is that its incredible narrative is based on a true story. A man, Hossain Sabzian, starts chatting to a woman on a bus and, on impulse, lies that he is the renowned Iranian director Mohsen Makhmalbaf (Gabbeh, A Moment of Innocence). She welcomes him into her family, where he checks out the house for preparation for his next film, which will star members of the family. When he shows no knowledge of a recent festival award Makhmalbaf has just won, he is arrested and charged with fraud (he borrowed money from the family under false pretences). As the trial progresses, however, it becomes apparent that Sabzian is no slick con-artist, but an art-worshipping outsider who lied about his status owing to a severe lack of self-esteem.

Amazingly, Kiarostami managed to persuade all the real people involved - the imposter, the family, the prosecutors - to play themselves in this pioneering picture, creating a fascinating blend of documentary and drama. It will not ruin any enjoyment of the film to know that the family were eventually so moved by Sabzian's frank and ashamed testimony that they dropped the charges, and in a delightful twist of fate, got their wish to appear in a film after all - as Close-Up remains one of the most acclaimed films of recent times, they could scarcely have wished for a more audacious debut. Kiarostami also manages to include a degree of social critique, a rare feat in a film culture ravaged by censorship, as it was Sabzian's unemployment and depression that lead him to deceive.

Volumes could be written about the unique qualities of Close-Up, and the film is a must for cineastes, so crucial is the love of film to the work's narrative. The final sequence, which features the real Makhmalbaf meeting his doppelganger and in which a faulty microphone confuses the sense of the scene, is one of the most-analysed in recent cinema, and was described by Geoff Andrew as "one of the sharpest, funniest deconstructions of film form ever shot"; as the fourth wall finally crumbles, the effect is incredibly moving.

 

Alex Davidson on 12th July 2007
View all 212 of Alex Davidson's reviews

1.Simple but complex film: Close-up is a film about which lots of people have been writing ever since it was made in 1990. Every aspect of the film has been talked abo... more >

1.Simple but complex film: Close-up is a film about which lots of people have been writing ever since it was made in 1990. Every aspect of the film has been talked about, but once I started writing on the film, I found that it still remains like a magic hat with lots to pull out. There is only one way to describe this film - as a simple but complex film. Simple in its appearance and extremely complex when you go closer or up close. Out of all the reviews and articles I read about the film, one article title does most justice to Close-up. It described the film as 'a mirror facing a mirror'. In all sense the film is a mirror facing a mirror, which creates infinite reflections. This is an attempt to understand few aspects of the film, few of those reflections, which to me look most important in this point of time.

2.Three-dimensional space: By switching constantly between documentary and fiction, Close-up creates an extremely innovative space. If we look at the space in a fiction film, it is fictitious; the identities of the people in the screen are not real. They are characters and whatever happens in the film is happening in a space that is imaginary and we are seeing it as spectators. On the other hand if we look at the space in a documentary film, all events happen in a space which is real; the space in which we the audience are standing. In Close-up though, Kiarostami mixes these two spaces beautifully and creates a twilight space, which is between these two, as though he is searching for something in between the reality of documentary and imaginary of fiction- must be the truth. And it takes the film much forward. From a space equivalent to painting or photograph in a gallery to a space equivalent to installation art. Where the audience becomes part of the art and the positions t he audience takes in this space change the art itself. This use of space effectively creates an ideal triangle between the director, the film and the audience.

3. The story: what is the story of Close-up? A man who pretends to be Makhmalbaf and visits / stays in a house; finally he gets arrested. After hearing the case, the court, the people whom he cheated and Makhmalbaf himself forgive him- simple enough. But if we analyze the film by all the elements present on the screen, the film does not appear as only Sabzian's story. The film is also the story of Kiarostami (a filmmaker) making a film about Sabzian. The Director of 'this' particular film happens to be Kiarostami himself. So if I need to describe the film, this is a film about Kiarostami, the director making a film about Kiarostami, a director making a film about Sabzian. Now if we agree that filmmakers tell stories, then this is how one can define this whole activity - Kiarostami is telling a story about Kiarostami telling a story about Sabzian who is telling a story that he is Makhmalbaf. If there are three kinds of stories then are all these stories real or fake? Or is onl
y Sabzian's story fake? Not to forget all the scenes in the film apart from courtroom scenes are recreated and the characters acted as themselves.

4. Reality and Truth: Close-up is a film about a question on what is reality and what is truth? Reality is that Sabzian is not Makhmalbaf but the truth is that he is a man in suffering who is looking for hope by becoming someone else. Through the film Kiarostami is telling us that he is only interested in the truth. Not in reality. For example, if Kiarostami was interested in reality he wouldn't have recreated the things that happened before he got involved with the subject. Even if the last scene appears to be a documentary footage, it must have been planned. Then the question is, if Kiarostami was not interested in reality why did he mix documentary treatment with fiction? Because unfortunately every one else around is interested in reality.

5. The Rolling Can Shot: In this context let us see one possible interpretation of the rolling can shot. It will be very interesting to know that while Sabzian's arrest (one of the most important incident in the story) was going on in the house; we were being shown an insignificant can rolling down the road in real time. The obvious thing the camera should have done was to follow the policemen and shoot the arrest but Kiarostami's camera chose to stay out and shoot a rolling can. This is because he is not interested in the arrest and things like that; he is interested in something beyond that reality. On the other hand there is a journalist who is running around in panic for a tape recorder to record as much reality as possible.

6. Faulty mike: In the last scene when Sabzian meets Makhmalbaf the mike creates some problem and the voice keeps breaking. Please remember the mike worked well only once for us to hear Makhmalbaf say that 'I am tired of being myself.' It is hard to believe that the faulty mike is by default. I think it is very much by design. This is yet another device Kiarostami has created to let us hear only what he thinks is important and to tell us that in this so-called information age, all the images you see and all the sound you hear as the manifestation of reality is not important. It is the ultimate truth that lies within them is what one should hear and feel. < less

 

Close up (1990) - Abbas Kiarostami

Hossain Sabzian is a young man with an ordinary job and a decidedly unremarkable life. But like so many people in his posit... more >

Close up (1990) - Abbas Kiarostami

Hossain Sabzian is a young man with an ordinary job and a decidedly unremarkable life. But like so many people in his position, Hossain has an outlet from the humdrum of his everyday existence.

In Abbas Kiarostami's 1990 film Close Up we see a man deeply immersed in his passion for movies, in particular the movies of Moshen Makmalbaf, award winner director of fims such as 'Gabbeh' and 'The Cyclist'. Indeed, Hossein's connection with Makmalbaf is so strong that he takes to imagining himself himself as the great auteur in his more wistful moments. As the film progresses it becomes obvious that those moments of fantasy take up more time than his well-being can stand, eventually leading him to completely divorce himself from reality when his fantasy is believed by a family of film lovers.

One afternoon whilst travelling on a bus holding a book about Makmalbaf's film, The Cyclist, Hossain strikes up a conversation with a kindly middle-aged woman who, noticing the book in his hand, tells Hossain how much her family admires Makmalbaf's work. Hossain, in a moment of sheer impulse, tells her that he is the book's author, the very same Moshen Makmalbaf.

This throwaway lie catapults Hossain onto a journey which takes him deeper and deeper into a world of deceit and charlatanism. Soon, the woman is inviting him into her home to meet her family whereupon he, in a moment of reckless hubris, tells the family that would like to feature them in his next picture.

The motive for Hossain's folly is never clear, and Kiarostami makes no attempt to offer his own opinion of his actions preferring instead to leave the viewer to reach their own conclusion but Hossain's lack of guile or artifice make it unlikely that he is a con-man; he is simply too feckless for that. Rather, this confused dreamer becomes so thrilled and flattered by the attention and hospitality (considerations he rarely encounters in life) that he finds himself an enchanted hostage to his own fantasy as it gathers an irreversible momentum.

The charade leads to the hapless Houssain appearing in court accused of attempting to rob the family. The proceedings of the hearing reveal, however, a rather pitiable Walter Mitty figure glorying in a moment of respect, a respect achieved by pretending to be somebody else.

And here we begin to see the wider point of Kiarostami's picture, for there is nothing especially unique about Houssain Sabzian's sense of disappointment with his own life. Only the manner in which he chooses to deal with it is unusual (more commonly, young men turn to drugs as a way out of their daily drudgery). In fact, he represents a million other young, alienated men in modern Iran; working-class men with energy, wit and aspirations who have been failed by the revolution which once promised a new beginning after years of callous indifference under the Shah but now offers only empty rhetoric and a life of un-fulfilment. Houssain is merely one example of how that failure has reduced many young men in Iran to figures of frustration, pathos and unspoken anger.

Kiarostami proved with Close Up, as he had proven before with movies such as The Wind Will Carry Us, that he is consummate story teller. Here, he shows with singular clarity the power of cinema in today's Iran.

Persuading the main protagonists in this true story to play themselves was a remarkable feat and probably ensured a naturalness in the performances that even the most accomplished actors would have found difficult to achieve. The final result is one of the most heart-warming and, ultimately, uplifting films in recent history. The real-life meeting between Houssain and the real Makmalbaf sees Housain fall to his knees and cry. Makmalbaf's reaction is one of generosity and comradeship. It is a deeply affecting moment which stays in the memory for a very long time. < less

View all 9 of Mike Whitworth’s reviews

 

Convincing and warm - very rare quality in a film. more >

Convincing and warm - very rare quality in a film. < less