Cinema verite, Neo-realism, Documentary. Throw all these out, or mix them in a blender, either way might get us close to understanding what we just witnessed when you reach the end of this film. It does declare during opening credits that it is 'based on a true story', and that the individuals from that true story are playing themselves, but at that point it is too early to grasp what they are declaring.
Before the opening credits even roll, we are exposed to some of the characters already, a part of the story that then the viewer can place in the right place once the story is told after the credits. What conclusions I was able to reach from it, was that the creative spirit that is Abbas Kiarostami probably operates at a whole different level. Other than the story being told, a person impersonated a famous director and then a trial ensues between the party who was the 'victim', and the 'criminal' to put it bluntly. Noticeably there are no lawyers, it is like a mediation between them by a judge. From this however multiple questions are raised - what is art? Who is it for? What could drive someone to impersonate someone famous? What is the role or impact of poverty in society? The most asked question during that trial is however, why did you do it? To what end? That these questions raise the others I put above in the viewers mind. It is achieved artfully of course as Mr. Kiarostami is a master director who didn't use any heavy handedness in telling the story.
I know in places where there are nascent film industries where a lot trying to make movies are often dazzled and inspired by what is produced by Hollywood, Bollywood and the like. Having big budgets, use of special effects, big stars, snappy dialogues etc. Can be what people extract are necessary elements for making a great movie. Abbas' films however seem to sit at the other end of the spectrum and his ability to tell a story and equally dazzle an audience with nothing compared to what makes a blockbuster is worth noting. Provided you have the patience and open mind to watch a film like close-up, where the narratives aren't creating waves of tension with dialogue, sound etc. I hope everyone watches this movie, or is shown in schools. Watch it!!!!
Before the opening credits even roll, we are exposed to some of the characters already, a part of the story that then the viewer can place in the right place once the story is told after the credits. What conclusions I was able to reach from it, was that the creative spirit that is Abbas Kiarostami probably operates at a whole different level. Other than the story being told, a person impersonated a famous director and then a trial ensues between the party who was the 'victim', and the 'criminal' to put it bluntly. Noticeably there are no lawyers, it is like a mediation between them by a judge. From this however multiple questions are raised - what is art? Who is it for? What could drive someone to impersonate someone famous? What is the role or impact of poverty in society? The most asked question during that trial is however, why did you do it? To what end? That these questions raise the others I put above in the viewers mind. It is achieved artfully of course as Mr. Kiarostami is a master director who didn't use any heavy handedness in telling the story.
I know in places where there are nascent film industries where a lot trying to make movies are often dazzled and inspired by what is produced by Hollywood, Bollywood and the like. Having big budgets, use of special effects, big stars, snappy dialogues etc. Can be what people extract are necessary elements for making a great movie. Abbas' films however seem to sit at the other end of the spectrum and his ability to tell a story and equally dazzle an audience with nothing compared to what makes a blockbuster is worth noting. Provided you have the patience and open mind to watch a film like close-up, where the narratives aren't creating waves of tension with dialogue, sound etc. I hope everyone watches this movie, or is shown in schools. Watch it!!!!
Tell Your Friends