Although probably not one of the greatest and most profound films ever made, as many have claimed, Abbas Kiarostami's Close-Up is certainly a notable achievement, a very interesting and often fascinating film. Either a pseudo- or semi-documentary, Kiarostami keeps everything very ambiguous. The "story" is a true one. Hossain Sabzian is unemployed, divorced, and a pathetic human being. He enjoys the cinema very much and, when the chance presents itself, he tells an aging woman, Mahrokh Ahankhah, that he is the famed director Mohsen Makhmalbaf. She and her family had recently enjoyed one of his films, and she invites him to dinner. At the Ahankhahs' home he continues his charade, and begins to lie about wanting to make a film starring the family, using their home as the setting. He searches through their house and the surrounding area and even borrows money from the youngest son. Their relationship continues, but soon they are tipped off to the fraud he is committing. They have him arrested and take him to court on fraud charges. Now a good portion of this narrative that I've described is not shown on screen. Close-Up begins with Sabzian's arrest as viewed from the outside. I don't know when else I can do it in this review, but I'd like to express my fondness for the two scenes where the camera watches an empty can of spray paint roll down the street. I'm not sure if it's supposed to represent something or not, but the camera captures it beautifully as it rolls over top of a couple of dried leaves, lifting them up and tossing them mere centimeters in the air.
Moving on, we watch Abbas Kiarostami ask Sabzian if he can document his trial on film. Of course, as a huge film lover, he agrees. Most of the film takes place at the trial, where Sabzian defends himself and the youngest member of the Ahankhah family prosecutes him. A judge presides. It is never really revealed whether the footage of the trial is real or a recreation. I read up on the film a little, and both circumstances are claimed by different reviews. Personally, I think it's all a recreation for a couple of different reasons (that I don't feel like going over; it's not really that important). A couple of times the film goes into flashback. We see Sabzian and Mrs. Ahankhah on the bus. We also see the arrest again, but this time from the inside. During the trial, Sabzian explains his reasons for impersonating Makhmalbaf, which are actually very touching. The film also has some subtle humor and it refrains from making fun of its subject. Questions are raised on the cult of identity and on the power of the cinema. They aren't really fully explored however. I think Kiarostami's biggest problem is his undying faith in his film's utter ambiguity. The idea is interesting and rather successful, but it shouldn't be taken as profundity. Other films have explored the documentary genre with as much or more success. Orson Welles' final film, F for Fake, is a lot more entertaining than Close-Up, although it has its flaws, as well. The best film like this that I've seen is Victor Erice's masterpiece Dream of Light (aka Quince Tree of the Sun), which was made a couple of years later. That film left me with more to think about, both in its themes and its playfulness with the documentary genre, than this one does. However, Close-Up, as I've said, is an achievement, not to be scoffed at. 8/10.
Moving on, we watch Abbas Kiarostami ask Sabzian if he can document his trial on film. Of course, as a huge film lover, he agrees. Most of the film takes place at the trial, where Sabzian defends himself and the youngest member of the Ahankhah family prosecutes him. A judge presides. It is never really revealed whether the footage of the trial is real or a recreation. I read up on the film a little, and both circumstances are claimed by different reviews. Personally, I think it's all a recreation for a couple of different reasons (that I don't feel like going over; it's not really that important). A couple of times the film goes into flashback. We see Sabzian and Mrs. Ahankhah on the bus. We also see the arrest again, but this time from the inside. During the trial, Sabzian explains his reasons for impersonating Makhmalbaf, which are actually very touching. The film also has some subtle humor and it refrains from making fun of its subject. Questions are raised on the cult of identity and on the power of the cinema. They aren't really fully explored however. I think Kiarostami's biggest problem is his undying faith in his film's utter ambiguity. The idea is interesting and rather successful, but it shouldn't be taken as profundity. Other films have explored the documentary genre with as much or more success. Orson Welles' final film, F for Fake, is a lot more entertaining than Close-Up, although it has its flaws, as well. The best film like this that I've seen is Victor Erice's masterpiece Dream of Light (aka Quince Tree of the Sun), which was made a couple of years later. That film left me with more to think about, both in its themes and its playfulness with the documentary genre, than this one does. However, Close-Up, as I've said, is an achievement, not to be scoffed at. 8/10.