This is a wonderful film of a very special kind. Not your average movie in the sense that it is highly realistic and its subject somehow pedestrian. But the humanity with which it is shot and delivered is amazing: a world of humility, pride and grace is portrayed which at the present time could be much more than what we expect. It brings home the fact that whatever we might think of people and their ability to act as horribly as possible, there's always art and the art of the heart.
66 Reviews
Art Imitating Life...
Xstal13 January 2023
You've been in court, for being someone that you're not, under a light that's put you right under the spot, a cinema director, or a fraudulent prospector, against a family who perceived your foolish plot. But events then take a turn, become surreal, as endeavours are inscribed on cine reel, re-enacting your conviction, with the family of victims, you play the lead in your own life and their ordeal.
An imaginative and inspired way to portray the events that the Ahankhah family went through when Hossain Sabzian decided to take on the persona of a well-known Iranian film director, with the cast playing themselves for the most part.
An imaginative and inspired way to portray the events that the Ahankhah family went through when Hossain Sabzian decided to take on the persona of a well-known Iranian film director, with the cast playing themselves for the most part.
Curious movie
valadas12 August 2017
And a psychological one. This movie is only, so to speak, about a man, his mind and his conscience and this is well portrayed by his attitude and his reactions. His love of art and cinema led him to impersonate a famous film director and convincing of that a rich family to whom he said he would like to make a movie at their home and with them He ended up charged with fraud and his behaviour during trial was moving and very expressive. This story happened really and most of the performers were the real people that intervened on the real event which makes this movie half documentary half fictional. That simple story is so well directed and performed that keeps you interested and sensible through the whole film projection.
10/10
desperateliving12 August 2003
Method acting is taken to the extreme in the case of this film's main character, Sabzian, a real-life person who impersonated a real-life filmmaker (Mohsen Makhmalbaf) he deeply admired, and who is taken to court by a family he has deceived -- and has his trial filmed by Abbas Kiarostami. Watching the film, I was aware that these events really did occur, and that the actors playing these characters were the real people involved (the opening credits clue us in, when they say, "appearing as themselves"), but I did not catch on that the courtroom scenes were real footage -- to be honest, I'm still not quite sure. (That IMDb lists the judge in the credits as "judge" and not as "himself," makes me suspect that this is indeed all a reenactment.) But whether or not the entire film is a reenactment or only the time-shifting parts with Sabzian and the family at their home are reenacted, the moment where Makhmalbaf appears onscreen is a transcendent one, as true in spirit as "real life" (which it may indeed be).
Kiarostami is a true artist, the ideal described by Sabzian in the film, one who makes his films to depict the suffering of people. He's one of the few with the power to seem wholly pure -- he makes me feel, at least in the moment, that film's real artists are the ones who aren't mere stylists. They're the ones interested in our hopes, our guilts, our ambitions, our fears. The ones interested in people. And here, Sabzian is trying to do something for other people; he's symbol of their love for the arts, by himself masquerading as a great artist. He's living vicariously through the artist he admires, and in doing so -- however morally ambiguously -- accentuating the most candid aspects of himself. By simply assuming another name, he can have people treat his views with respect, and in this way the film is a scathing attack on celebrity status and the priority with which we give them. However, Kiarostami doesn't let us be satisfied with Sabzian's candor; we're never sure where we stand with him, and the possibility is that his entire court appearance is another grand performance. (With the credits rolling over a frozen image of Sabzian's face, and his general persona of a troubled but deeply good-hearted person, I was reminded of an adult Antoine Doinel.)
Kiarostami and Sabzian admit that we're all actors in one way or another, from a director to you and me: "We are the slaves of a mask hiding our true face. If we free ourselves from this, the beauty of truth will be ours." This film and "Taste of Cherry" have got to me on such an intimate and personal level, and seem so honest and truthful -- sometimes in a seemingly banal way -- that I don't know how I can recommend them to others. While I think this is a masterpiece, if you expect to be blown away you'll be disappointed. But with artists this open, if you're willing to open yourself up, too, hopefully it can mean as much to you as it does to me. 10/10
Kiarostami is a true artist, the ideal described by Sabzian in the film, one who makes his films to depict the suffering of people. He's one of the few with the power to seem wholly pure -- he makes me feel, at least in the moment, that film's real artists are the ones who aren't mere stylists. They're the ones interested in our hopes, our guilts, our ambitions, our fears. The ones interested in people. And here, Sabzian is trying to do something for other people; he's symbol of their love for the arts, by himself masquerading as a great artist. He's living vicariously through the artist he admires, and in doing so -- however morally ambiguously -- accentuating the most candid aspects of himself. By simply assuming another name, he can have people treat his views with respect, and in this way the film is a scathing attack on celebrity status and the priority with which we give them. However, Kiarostami doesn't let us be satisfied with Sabzian's candor; we're never sure where we stand with him, and the possibility is that his entire court appearance is another grand performance. (With the credits rolling over a frozen image of Sabzian's face, and his general persona of a troubled but deeply good-hearted person, I was reminded of an adult Antoine Doinel.)
Kiarostami and Sabzian admit that we're all actors in one way or another, from a director to you and me: "We are the slaves of a mask hiding our true face. If we free ourselves from this, the beauty of truth will be ours." This film and "Taste of Cherry" have got to me on such an intimate and personal level, and seem so honest and truthful -- sometimes in a seemingly banal way -- that I don't know how I can recommend them to others. While I think this is a masterpiece, if you expect to be blown away you'll be disappointed. But with artists this open, if you're willing to open yourself up, too, hopefully it can mean as much to you as it does to me. 10/10
a unique and exceptional movie
fmoslehi25 July 2005
Not the usual Kiarostami movie, this is a half documentary, half reenactment by the actual people who were involved! That alone makes it a very unique movie.
While the story was unfolding, Kiarostami found out about it through a magazine article and as luck would have it, he was all geared up to make a movie (Pocket Money) but he decided to talk the executive producer into making this movie! It's shot in 40 days and all the events that happen after Kiarostami started to make the movie are a documentary, and all the events that had happened before are reenacted by the original people after the fact.
The movie works much better if one is familiar with Iranian cinema and particularly with Kiarostami and Makhmalbaaf (an equally famous, some would even say "the other" Iranian director who is not just the subject of this film but also appears in it as himself!) The documentary also gives a rare look inside the typical post revolution Iranian court system. Much of what people know about the Iranian judicial system has to do with high profile political cases which are very different than the overwhelming majority of cases that are about everyday legal problems that would typically not make the international news! In fact, when Kiarostami is trying to get the judge's permission to film the court room events, the judge tries to convince him to pick another trial, something more interesting!something having to do with a much bigger crime! Kiarostami has to explain to the judge that it is this particular case (having to do with Makhmalbaaf and cinema) that he's interested in! During the actual court proceedings, Kiarostami, with the judge's approving smiles, occasionally interjects and asks for more details and explanations! And some of the finest parts of the movie are the exchanges that take place during the trial between Kiarostami and the accused. When the accused mentions that he has finally realized that he is the "traveler" (a 1974 Kiarostami movie) Kiarostami is somewhat caught off guard! Many have suggested that the movie is a profound statement about the loss and the subsequent search for identity by an entire nation after a revolution. To his credit, in an interview recorded much later, Kiarostami claimed that although he agrees with that interpretation, he wasn't aware of it while he was making the movie! It is unusual for a director to pass up an interpretation like that as not having been part of his original vision! artistic integrity like that is truly a rarity, but then again, that's what makes Kiarostami the unique director that he is and why Kirosawa considered him the finest at his craft! In short, not your usual Kiarostami movie, yet for my money, an absolute treat. Here's a movie that engages the audience completely without a single car chase, without a single shot being fired, no aliens, no UFOs, no bad guys, no good guys, and it goes without saying that no one falls in love, let alone sex and cheating and the rest of what makes up 95% of the movies today! Yet, without using any of these standard tricks of the trade, Kiarostami keeps his audience glued to the screen from the first to the very last frame! At the end, I tend to agree with the great Kirosawa. Kiarostami has come pretty close to perfecting his craft!
While the story was unfolding, Kiarostami found out about it through a magazine article and as luck would have it, he was all geared up to make a movie (Pocket Money) but he decided to talk the executive producer into making this movie! It's shot in 40 days and all the events that happen after Kiarostami started to make the movie are a documentary, and all the events that had happened before are reenacted by the original people after the fact.
The movie works much better if one is familiar with Iranian cinema and particularly with Kiarostami and Makhmalbaaf (an equally famous, some would even say "the other" Iranian director who is not just the subject of this film but also appears in it as himself!) The documentary also gives a rare look inside the typical post revolution Iranian court system. Much of what people know about the Iranian judicial system has to do with high profile political cases which are very different than the overwhelming majority of cases that are about everyday legal problems that would typically not make the international news! In fact, when Kiarostami is trying to get the judge's permission to film the court room events, the judge tries to convince him to pick another trial, something more interesting!something having to do with a much bigger crime! Kiarostami has to explain to the judge that it is this particular case (having to do with Makhmalbaaf and cinema) that he's interested in! During the actual court proceedings, Kiarostami, with the judge's approving smiles, occasionally interjects and asks for more details and explanations! And some of the finest parts of the movie are the exchanges that take place during the trial between Kiarostami and the accused. When the accused mentions that he has finally realized that he is the "traveler" (a 1974 Kiarostami movie) Kiarostami is somewhat caught off guard! Many have suggested that the movie is a profound statement about the loss and the subsequent search for identity by an entire nation after a revolution. To his credit, in an interview recorded much later, Kiarostami claimed that although he agrees with that interpretation, he wasn't aware of it while he was making the movie! It is unusual for a director to pass up an interpretation like that as not having been part of his original vision! artistic integrity like that is truly a rarity, but then again, that's what makes Kiarostami the unique director that he is and why Kirosawa considered him the finest at his craft! In short, not your usual Kiarostami movie, yet for my money, an absolute treat. Here's a movie that engages the audience completely without a single car chase, without a single shot being fired, no aliens, no UFOs, no bad guys, no good guys, and it goes without saying that no one falls in love, let alone sex and cheating and the rest of what makes up 95% of the movies today! Yet, without using any of these standard tricks of the trade, Kiarostami keeps his audience glued to the screen from the first to the very last frame! At the end, I tend to agree with the great Kirosawa. Kiarostami has come pretty close to perfecting his craft!
An Iranian Cinematic Masterpiece
weston_luca_liggett8 March 2005
Nothing short of a masterpiece. Not for everyone's tastes. Discerning viewers tired of all the Hollywood tripe should definitely check out this low key but highly accomplished work about the amorphous quality of identity and the untrustworthy nature of celebrity. A film that will grow more and more important as the years go by.
The film's limited production values may turn off even the most discerning of viewers. Don't fear. It's just one of the many refreshing aspects about Kiarostami's "Close Up."
One of the best films of the nineties that people have never seen according to the stats here at IMDb.
Ten out of Ten.
The film's limited production values may turn off even the most discerning of viewers. Don't fear. It's just one of the many refreshing aspects about Kiarostami's "Close Up."
One of the best films of the nineties that people have never seen according to the stats here at IMDb.
Ten out of Ten.
This is a courtroom drama unlike any you may have seen.
spazmodeus25 June 2003
I find it amazing that this movie works as well as it does. The people in it are not actors. They are ordinary Iranian citizens who happened to be involved in a curious incident that aroused the interest of a very talented film director. As an American who is aware of the tension between Iran's government and its vibrant film industry, you can't help but to scour this simple story for an ideological message. Is it a protest film? Is it an "all is well with Iran" film? Well, it's not either. It's just a simple and relatively mundane story told by the people who actually lived it.
What I got out of it, and your mileage may vary, is a deep sense that there is something beautiful about seeing a relatively small matter as an event of deep significance, one that requires all your attention. There is no larger story that gives meaning to the small events portrayed in the film, but the people in it, as well as the filmmakers themselves, imbue them all with a great seriousness. All of it is done without a hint of parody or ulterior motive.
And it's not like Iran didn't have "big" issues to confront in 1990, as it was rebuilding its society after the brutal war with Iraq. The cheap and obvious thing to do, which many foreign movies try, is to tell a simple story with a background of an emotionally charged historical time. It's quite beautiful to see this movie avoid that trap. It's not like you'll be moved to tears or something, but that's a part of the point! In a way, the film's ostensible lack of manipulativeness is so fresh to American eyes that you might find yourself moved on a much deeper level. Well, that, or you might be totally confused. After all, there is no background score to instruct you on how you should be feeling at each instant.
What I got out of it, and your mileage may vary, is a deep sense that there is something beautiful about seeing a relatively small matter as an event of deep significance, one that requires all your attention. There is no larger story that gives meaning to the small events portrayed in the film, but the people in it, as well as the filmmakers themselves, imbue them all with a great seriousness. All of it is done without a hint of parody or ulterior motive.
And it's not like Iran didn't have "big" issues to confront in 1990, as it was rebuilding its society after the brutal war with Iraq. The cheap and obvious thing to do, which many foreign movies try, is to tell a simple story with a background of an emotionally charged historical time. It's quite beautiful to see this movie avoid that trap. It's not like you'll be moved to tears or something, but that's a part of the point! In a way, the film's ostensible lack of manipulativeness is so fresh to American eyes that you might find yourself moved on a much deeper level. Well, that, or you might be totally confused. After all, there is no background score to instruct you on how you should be feeling at each instant.
Kiarostami Captivates
His Girl Friday28 April 2001
One day on a bus, an out of work father of two is mistaken for Mohsen Makhmalbaf, a famous Iranian filmmaker. He carries through with the ruse until he gets caught, and the family takes him to court, accusing him of fraud. The story is told through layers of flashback and shifting points of view. The look of the film is just as dynamic, using all sorts of film techniques - handheld, grainy 16 mm stock, the subtle use of shifting focus, and the all important close-up.
People tend to say that Abbas Kiarostami's style is a dead-crawl pace coupled with dry documentary images, but I've found his films to be wonderfully unravelling puzzles, full of frustrations and moments of perfect understanding. At times I think the key to Kiarostami's work is to simply earn it - the film may seem hard at first, you might be lost in the story, but don't give up! If you hang in there, you'll be rewarded with an unforgettable ending, like the one here in Close-up.
People tend to say that Abbas Kiarostami's style is a dead-crawl pace coupled with dry documentary images, but I've found his films to be wonderfully unravelling puzzles, full of frustrations and moments of perfect understanding. At times I think the key to Kiarostami's work is to simply earn it - the film may seem hard at first, you might be lost in the story, but don't give up! If you hang in there, you'll be rewarded with an unforgettable ending, like the one here in Close-up.
The greatest film of our time
antcol89 June 2006
A Russian nesting doll, a mise en abime, a mediation on the intense need to create, a riff on the impossibility of true "documentary", a loving snipe at the more ethnic or folklorical of the two great Iranian directors. A film where a can rolling down the street functions as a beautifully observed, understated poetic trope. A film that examines the whole notion of "image". A film that shows us the richness and depth of a society which we so often reduce to a series of negative clichés. A film with humor and compassion for all of its characters, but that doesn't bang you over the head with it. A radical approach to narrative which reconciles both post - narrative and post - post - narrative approaches to cinema. A film that makes you think, without slathering on any kind of "message". A film that brings up issues pertinent to film itself: questions of representation,storytelling, form, truth,etc. A freaking masterpiece!
Great movie from Iran's Kiarostami
Red-1254 February 2014
The Iranian film Nema-ye Nazdik was shown in the U.S. with the title Close-Up (1990). It was written and directed by Abbas Kiarostami, who also appears in the film.
Close-Up is an very unusual movie. It's based upon a real event--a man named Hossain Sabzian convinces a wealthy family that he is Mohsen Makhmalbaf, another Iranian filmmaker. Kiarostami recreates the original deception, using Sabzian and the family as actors in their own drama. Eventually, the film shifts into real time, at Sabzian's trial and after. Not only is Kiarostami permitted to film the trial, but he's permitted to take part in it! (As Kiarostami has said, "Things that are possible everywhere else are impossible in Iran. Things that are impossible everywhere else are possible in Iran.)
Kiarostami is a genius, and there are many examples of his incredible skill throughout the movie. Often, Kiarostami turns his camera on events that are at the periphery of the action, rather than at the center. For example, in the beginning of the movie, a journalist and two policemen travel by taxi to the home of the wealthy family. When they get there, there's all kinds of discussion about who should go inside, who should stay hidden, etc. Finally, all three men go into the house where, obviously, something important is going to happen.
Any other director would take his camera into the house to film the action. Not Kiarostami. We're left outside with the taxi driver. The family's gardener has swept cuttings and brush into a pile on the street. The taxi driver leaves his cab to pick through the cuttings in search of flowers. Along with the flowers, he finds an empty spray can. He sends it into the street where we watch it roll and bounce downhill.
Suddenly you realize, "There's action going on inside the house, and we're not seeing it." However, until that dawns on you, you've really become interested in whether the can will roll all the way down the street to the bottom, or whether it will be hung up on debris or at the curb. Kiarostami is saying to us, "Many things are happening simultaneously. This is the thing I've chose to show you. Isn't it interesting?"
The movie wouldn't work if Sabzian weren't such an unusual and fascinating character. Much is made in the movie about why he entered into this deception. He wasn't trying to steal from or cheat the family. He just wanted to fool them, which he did.
I think his motivation is obvious. Outside the walls of the family's home he's just a poor, inconsequential person who is barely managing to get by. Inside the walls he's a wealthy, prestigious director. Which would you rather be?
We saw the film on DVD, and it worked well. It's a fascinating movie. Seek it out and watch it!
Close-Up is an very unusual movie. It's based upon a real event--a man named Hossain Sabzian convinces a wealthy family that he is Mohsen Makhmalbaf, another Iranian filmmaker. Kiarostami recreates the original deception, using Sabzian and the family as actors in their own drama. Eventually, the film shifts into real time, at Sabzian's trial and after. Not only is Kiarostami permitted to film the trial, but he's permitted to take part in it! (As Kiarostami has said, "Things that are possible everywhere else are impossible in Iran. Things that are impossible everywhere else are possible in Iran.)
Kiarostami is a genius, and there are many examples of his incredible skill throughout the movie. Often, Kiarostami turns his camera on events that are at the periphery of the action, rather than at the center. For example, in the beginning of the movie, a journalist and two policemen travel by taxi to the home of the wealthy family. When they get there, there's all kinds of discussion about who should go inside, who should stay hidden, etc. Finally, all three men go into the house where, obviously, something important is going to happen.
Any other director would take his camera into the house to film the action. Not Kiarostami. We're left outside with the taxi driver. The family's gardener has swept cuttings and brush into a pile on the street. The taxi driver leaves his cab to pick through the cuttings in search of flowers. Along with the flowers, he finds an empty spray can. He sends it into the street where we watch it roll and bounce downhill.
Suddenly you realize, "There's action going on inside the house, and we're not seeing it." However, until that dawns on you, you've really become interested in whether the can will roll all the way down the street to the bottom, or whether it will be hung up on debris or at the curb. Kiarostami is saying to us, "Many things are happening simultaneously. This is the thing I've chose to show you. Isn't it interesting?"
The movie wouldn't work if Sabzian weren't such an unusual and fascinating character. Much is made in the movie about why he entered into this deception. He wasn't trying to steal from or cheat the family. He just wanted to fool them, which he did.
I think his motivation is obvious. Outside the walls of the family's home he's just a poor, inconsequential person who is barely managing to get by. Inside the walls he's a wealthy, prestigious director. Which would you rather be?
We saw the film on DVD, and it worked well. It's a fascinating movie. Seek it out and watch it!
Interesting courtroom drama
Horst_In_Translation9 September 2019
Warning: Spoilers
"Nema-ye Nazdik" or (way easier to remember) "Close Up" is an Iranian movie from 1990 that is mostly in the Persian language. It runs for almost 100 minutes and was written and directed by Abbas Kiarostami who is not from Finland as you could guess with his name, but from Iran of course. It is neither an early-nor a late career effort from the recently deceased filmmaker, somewhere in the middle time-wise. But in terms of popularity, it is nowhere in the middle because looking at the film's imdb rating and also the number of votes, it is among Kiarostami's more known efforts, even if the awards recognition was not exactly gigantic, but with this we also need to keep in mind that it was 1990, a year with consiserably fewer awards bodies, let alone shows. Still it did not go empty-handed. Now as for the the film itself. It is as simpel as it is maybe bizarre. We have a man who posed as a famous Iranian director in order to get into the house of a well-off Iranian family and in order to have them give him a great deal of money. That is the very basic premise. Back then, televisions etc. were not a huge thing in Iran yet I guess, so they did not exactly know how the man really looked, even if they were at least partially skeptic, some of them. Now it did take me a little while to be really drawn in by this movie I must admit. The arrest early on did not do too much for me. However, the reenactments later on and also the courtroom action definitely got me hooked. The latter really worked very well. The accused's partial silence, the somewhat funny judge and of course also the victims. Now it was obvious the judge somehow liked the defendant with how he kept saying he should not say anything about a burglary and also how he asked the family to forgive the man. In the end, it is up to you to decide how much (if at all) you like him or if you just see him as a criminal. It is probably difficult to do the latter as there are many mitigating circumstances for him here, not just the children he has to make money for, but also clearly he is dedicated to movies as an art form be it as a fake director or actor. Actor ir fake actor? Up for you to decide too how much of what you saw in the courtroom was staged and how much was real. It is overall certainly a drama movie with crime elements, but here and there we also got a little laugh to lighten things up. The best example is the hectic guy looking for a devide during the arrest sequence or at the very end when we have the impostor show up at the family's house again and when they ask who is the one riniging the bell he says his real name first of all and it is unclear if they know who he is (they probably should) and then he says the name of the director, which was really laugh-out-loud funny. And another minor moment early on how we randomly see a guy with two turkeys on the street.
But even if it is a drama movie, it is not too serious all the time. For example with a country like Iran you never know and there was no extremely harsh sentence on the table, let alone the death penalty. By the way the defendant looked a bit like Ahmadinejad didn't he? I can't be the only one who thought so. He (i.e. the actor) was also never in another movie. Anyway, also the judge's behavior and eventually the family's forgiveness show that mercy is more important than revenge you could even say. The one thing I am really not sure at all here is how much was real and how much was staged. I went into this movie thinking it was a documentary, also with how Kiarostami played himself and we watched his struggles to get permission to film inside the courtroom etc. But now I believe even if everybody has theor own names in here apparently that it was in fact all scripted and staged. Still it surprises me then that we have not Hossain Sabzian play Hossain Sabzian according to the cast list (or another name), but "Himself" and same is true for every other cast member. Still I mean why would the family reenact these moments again at their home only for a movie? I don't think so. It is a fictitious movie. But while the imposter is really dedicated to movies, you can also see that Kiarostami is with the subject here. And he sure did a good job, not only with the camera work and direction and screenplay, but also with how I really thought this was a documentary because it felt so real and authentic most of the time. Also gives a fairly decent picture of Iran when the action does not take place in the house or the courtroom and we see the streets outside, like especially early on during this long sequence with the two soldiers. Also kinda memorable to me how Panahi drove through the country in a taxi not too long ago and here other vehicles, not just those with a motor, but also at the end the bike for example, play at least minor roles, maybe even major. It's up to interpretation. After all the sum they pay him is directly linked to transport too. Kiarostami has many nice momenst and scenes here that show how much attention to detail he pays really. One example would be the magazine with a photo of the real Mohsen Makhmalbaf. And this man is indeed a very prolific and successful filmmaker, still alive today because he was/is considerably younger than Kiarostami. Now I don't know if these two were friends or so, but if this film is not seen as a tribute by Kiarostami to film and movies in general, there is no denying it is a tribute to Makhmalbaf already through the fact how many of his works are mentioned throughout the course of these 100 minutes. Overall, I do think maybe the rating is slightly too high, but I enjoyed the watch and if you don't mind seeing obscure movies in languages you will never understand (I assume you are not Iranian reading my review), then this one is worth checking out. If you're Iranian, then it is the same, probably even more so. No hesitation here for me when it comes to the final verdict. Thumbs up for this at times charming, but almost always interesting film. Go watch and I as actually surprised by how many people were at my showing. I mean it was not Tarantino level or so, but I still did not think this film would create so much interest. Good.
But even if it is a drama movie, it is not too serious all the time. For example with a country like Iran you never know and there was no extremely harsh sentence on the table, let alone the death penalty. By the way the defendant looked a bit like Ahmadinejad didn't he? I can't be the only one who thought so. He (i.e. the actor) was also never in another movie. Anyway, also the judge's behavior and eventually the family's forgiveness show that mercy is more important than revenge you could even say. The one thing I am really not sure at all here is how much was real and how much was staged. I went into this movie thinking it was a documentary, also with how Kiarostami played himself and we watched his struggles to get permission to film inside the courtroom etc. But now I believe even if everybody has theor own names in here apparently that it was in fact all scripted and staged. Still it surprises me then that we have not Hossain Sabzian play Hossain Sabzian according to the cast list (or another name), but "Himself" and same is true for every other cast member. Still I mean why would the family reenact these moments again at their home only for a movie? I don't think so. It is a fictitious movie. But while the imposter is really dedicated to movies, you can also see that Kiarostami is with the subject here. And he sure did a good job, not only with the camera work and direction and screenplay, but also with how I really thought this was a documentary because it felt so real and authentic most of the time. Also gives a fairly decent picture of Iran when the action does not take place in the house or the courtroom and we see the streets outside, like especially early on during this long sequence with the two soldiers. Also kinda memorable to me how Panahi drove through the country in a taxi not too long ago and here other vehicles, not just those with a motor, but also at the end the bike for example, play at least minor roles, maybe even major. It's up to interpretation. After all the sum they pay him is directly linked to transport too. Kiarostami has many nice momenst and scenes here that show how much attention to detail he pays really. One example would be the magazine with a photo of the real Mohsen Makhmalbaf. And this man is indeed a very prolific and successful filmmaker, still alive today because he was/is considerably younger than Kiarostami. Now I don't know if these two were friends or so, but if this film is not seen as a tribute by Kiarostami to film and movies in general, there is no denying it is a tribute to Makhmalbaf already through the fact how many of his works are mentioned throughout the course of these 100 minutes. Overall, I do think maybe the rating is slightly too high, but I enjoyed the watch and if you don't mind seeing obscure movies in languages you will never understand (I assume you are not Iranian reading my review), then this one is worth checking out. If you're Iranian, then it is the same, probably even more so. No hesitation here for me when it comes to the final verdict. Thumbs up for this at times charming, but almost always interesting film. Go watch and I as actually surprised by how many people were at my showing. I mean it was not Tarantino level or so, but I still did not think this film would create so much interest. Good.
Only in Iran!
DevikaSethi22 February 2014
Only in Iran would a small time fraudster, otherwise unemployed salesman/printer's assistant quote Tolstoy (on art and life) at his trial.
Only in Iran would the mother of the family defrauded by this fraudster ask the police not to arrest him,but -- in keeping with her code of hospitality -- ask them to 'let him finish his lunch' first.
And perhaps only in Iran would a film director not only be allowed to film a trial in a courtroom, but also allowed to ask questions about of the fraudster, not only about his 'crime' of impersonating another famous director, but also about his views on art and life.
Just as the distinction between fiction and non fiction has become increasingly blurred,this film is one of many other Iranian films where the viewer is not sure what is 'real' or 'enacted', since the people involved in the original incident (the family, the fraudster and the journalist') are 'playing themselves'.
For me the most interesting part of the film was the testimony of the man on trial about the motivation for his impersonation. He testifies to the great power he held over this otherwise canny, educated family, who for some time at least he held in his power by virtue of his (assumed) identity. One doesn't know whether to applaud his honesty or to castigate him for his crime. This ambivalence towards individuals or regarding charged situations is a hallmark of new wave Iranian cinema, of which this film is an excellent representative.
'Close up' is an incredibly simple AND complex film. It can be read as a parable for post revolution Iranian society, or a realistic depiction of the problems faced both by the rich and poor (unemployment, for instance, affects the rich kids as well as the fraudster, making the former amenable to the schemes of the latter).
The resolution of the film is a beautiful depiction of the grace that comes with rising above retribution.
Only in Iran would the mother of the family defrauded by this fraudster ask the police not to arrest him,but -- in keeping with her code of hospitality -- ask them to 'let him finish his lunch' first.
And perhaps only in Iran would a film director not only be allowed to film a trial in a courtroom, but also allowed to ask questions about of the fraudster, not only about his 'crime' of impersonating another famous director, but also about his views on art and life.
Just as the distinction between fiction and non fiction has become increasingly blurred,this film is one of many other Iranian films where the viewer is not sure what is 'real' or 'enacted', since the people involved in the original incident (the family, the fraudster and the journalist') are 'playing themselves'.
For me the most interesting part of the film was the testimony of the man on trial about the motivation for his impersonation. He testifies to the great power he held over this otherwise canny, educated family, who for some time at least he held in his power by virtue of his (assumed) identity. One doesn't know whether to applaud his honesty or to castigate him for his crime. This ambivalence towards individuals or regarding charged situations is a hallmark of new wave Iranian cinema, of which this film is an excellent representative.
'Close up' is an incredibly simple AND complex film. It can be read as a parable for post revolution Iranian society, or a realistic depiction of the problems faced both by the rich and poor (unemployment, for instance, affects the rich kids as well as the fraudster, making the former amenable to the schemes of the latter).
The resolution of the film is a beautiful depiction of the grace that comes with rising above retribution.
I Was Interested, Culturally
Hitchcoc30 December 2019
This film seemed to get an awful lot of plaudits. It's a story of a man who oversteps his bounds as a supposed film producer and gets arrested for fraud. He led a wealthy Iranian family to believe he was filming them as a famous director when he had no such position. It involves his efforts to avoid prosecution and make right what he has done. There are several scenes presented documentary style, using non-actors. I have to say I had some trouble making my way through it.
Fundamentally dull and unmemorable.
Kdosda_Hegen23 May 2021
A Truly Remarkable, Unique & Most Natural Illustration Of Human Identity!
CinemaClown29 March 2016
Blurring the line between what's real & what's reconstructed from scratch, Close-Up is truly unique in what it pulls off over the course of its runtime and is an incredibly original, meditative & masterly constructed example of experimental filmmaking that offers an interesting glimpse into the psyche of a complicated man while showcasing the power of cinema itself.
Set in Iran, Close-Up covers the real-life trial of a cinephile who impersonated an acclaimed Iranian filmmaker and successfully conned a wealthy family in Tehran into believing that they would star in his new feature, that is until his luck ran out. The plot captures the ensuing trial that's filmed by the crew as it transpires in the courthouse while interspersed within those images are reenactments of the case.
Directed by Abbas Kiarostami, Close-Up marks my first stint with his works & what instantly caught my attention was the opening credits that showed every cast member to be playing themselves, an unusually surprising move. Kiarostami's direction deserves kudos for he manages to erase the line that differentiates reality from fiction by using same individuals who were involved in the real-life scene to reenact the earlier events.
What's also striking is that the reconstructed segments retain the raw, crude & untainted quality of recorded footage, while everything that unfolds in the courthouse is not a result of any rehearsed wordplay. Although the confession of the accused gives us a peek into his complex persona as well as his thought process, it also elegantly exposes the existing divide between the rich & the poor in Iranian society.
Throughout the trial, Kiarostami tries to get the perpetrator's side of the story on the camera and while there are times that make you wonder if he's still staging an act or is being honest, some of the things said by him do reflect a bitter truth about the society we live in, like when he talks about the love, respect & hospitality he received from the family when he pretended to be someone else, something he never would've experienced otherwise.
It's not that you can't differentiate between what's real & what's reenacted in Close-Up but the way its entire plot is executed, it makes you forget that deception & allows you experience it for what it is. Cinematography makes splendid use of the camera which is brilliantly utilised for long unbroken takes, hidden recordings, fixed smooth pans & fluid movements while Editing cleverly arranges the different segments into one consistently engaging narrative.
On an overall scale, Close-Up is an expertly crafted docufiction about human identity and captures it in its most natural form. Real-life can be just as full of drama & spices as any story brought to life on a film canvas and both forms inspire one another more often than usual. Although regarded by many to be one of modern cinema's greatest works, Close-Up didn't enthral me enough to join that particular crowd but I do admire its uniqueness, originality & honesty. Definitely recommended.
Set in Iran, Close-Up covers the real-life trial of a cinephile who impersonated an acclaimed Iranian filmmaker and successfully conned a wealthy family in Tehran into believing that they would star in his new feature, that is until his luck ran out. The plot captures the ensuing trial that's filmed by the crew as it transpires in the courthouse while interspersed within those images are reenactments of the case.
Directed by Abbas Kiarostami, Close-Up marks my first stint with his works & what instantly caught my attention was the opening credits that showed every cast member to be playing themselves, an unusually surprising move. Kiarostami's direction deserves kudos for he manages to erase the line that differentiates reality from fiction by using same individuals who were involved in the real-life scene to reenact the earlier events.
What's also striking is that the reconstructed segments retain the raw, crude & untainted quality of recorded footage, while everything that unfolds in the courthouse is not a result of any rehearsed wordplay. Although the confession of the accused gives us a peek into his complex persona as well as his thought process, it also elegantly exposes the existing divide between the rich & the poor in Iranian society.
Throughout the trial, Kiarostami tries to get the perpetrator's side of the story on the camera and while there are times that make you wonder if he's still staging an act or is being honest, some of the things said by him do reflect a bitter truth about the society we live in, like when he talks about the love, respect & hospitality he received from the family when he pretended to be someone else, something he never would've experienced otherwise.
It's not that you can't differentiate between what's real & what's reenacted in Close-Up but the way its entire plot is executed, it makes you forget that deception & allows you experience it for what it is. Cinematography makes splendid use of the camera which is brilliantly utilised for long unbroken takes, hidden recordings, fixed smooth pans & fluid movements while Editing cleverly arranges the different segments into one consistently engaging narrative.
On an overall scale, Close-Up is an expertly crafted docufiction about human identity and captures it in its most natural form. Real-life can be just as full of drama & spices as any story brought to life on a film canvas and both forms inspire one another more often than usual. Although regarded by many to be one of modern cinema's greatest works, Close-Up didn't enthral me enough to join that particular crowd but I do admire its uniqueness, originality & honesty. Definitely recommended.
A little overrated, but certainly very good
zetes24 July 2002
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.
Ready for your close-up, Mr. Sabzian?
Artimidor16 February 2013
Once upon a time in Tehran an unemployed, divorced, out-of-luck father of two is reading a book on his way home in the bus. Asked by the woman next to him about it, he boldly declares that he actually wrote it as well, a statement that leads to further questions, as this would make him Mohsen Makhmalbaf, the famous Iranian filmmaker... And so it all begins, the story of the impostor, Ali Sabzian, who is invited to said woman's home, suggests to make a film with her son in a prominent role in it, and what not. Well, it all ends with a trial against the impersonator, who - according to the members of this well-to-do family - must have been up to no good, planning to spy on them and eventually rob the house, or he was clearly mad and megalomaniac, but this idiosyncratic little fellow has his very own explanation...
The recounted events really happened. The film "Close-Up" re-enacts them as close to reality as possible and was made by Iran's most proficient director Abbas Kiarostami using not only Ali Sabzian in the lead, but also the family involved in their respective parts. With these given parameters it is clear that we're dealing with much more than a semi-documentary, as in the tradition of other works of the New Iranian Wave we become witness of a powerful blending of film and social reality, and in this case completely at the heart of the subject matter. The book at the source of the whole ruckus was Makhmalbaf's script of "The Cyclist", dealing with a man who like Sisyphus is forced to ride a bicycle continuously for a week to help out his sick wife. What others perceive as a crook sees himself as "the traveler", a reference to one of Kiarostami's very own films - and he has a dream, a very unique Iranian one. It's a film with multiple layers and magic that shines from within like no other. Don't expect technical brilliance, dazzling sights and sounds or overblown melodrama. This one is real. Groundbreakingly so.
The recounted events really happened. The film "Close-Up" re-enacts them as close to reality as possible and was made by Iran's most proficient director Abbas Kiarostami using not only Ali Sabzian in the lead, but also the family involved in their respective parts. With these given parameters it is clear that we're dealing with much more than a semi-documentary, as in the tradition of other works of the New Iranian Wave we become witness of a powerful blending of film and social reality, and in this case completely at the heart of the subject matter. The book at the source of the whole ruckus was Makhmalbaf's script of "The Cyclist", dealing with a man who like Sisyphus is forced to ride a bicycle continuously for a week to help out his sick wife. What others perceive as a crook sees himself as "the traveler", a reference to one of Kiarostami's very own films - and he has a dream, a very unique Iranian one. It's a film with multiple layers and magic that shines from within like no other. Don't expect technical brilliance, dazzling sights and sounds or overblown melodrama. This one is real. Groundbreakingly so.
Journey of a cinephile
moviesknight27 February 2021
The movie which leaves the audience with lots of questions and answer is present in way the person develops every character in his mind. This movie is one of them. Very different way of the showing the real life event which they encountered. Was it all the act? The journey we find when we connect with the movie and we lose the concept of our own reality. The same thing happened with the main character
Vanity Fair
p_radulescu22 June 2021
Warning: Spoilers
A guy (just a guy, you know, nothing more) claims to be a well-known filmmaker (Mohsen Makhmalbaf) and the people seem willing to believe him very easily. Is he a scammer, or a man living his illusions to the extreme? (at the end, the real filmmaker appears, and the confusion seems to be total). A reporter notices the possibility of a journalistic hit and determines the police to arrest the guy: the newsman will practically direct the action, while recording everything. Another well-known filmmaker (Abbas Kiarostami this time) asks to film the trial, and his request is approved immediately. The trial fails to clarify anything (in fact, at the end the plaintiffs withdraw their complaint), but the ciné-vérité feeling is overwhelming. Vanity Fair. We are in the Tehran of the 1990's, and the people there seem obsessed with turning their lives into a movie show. After all, is the movie art struggling (and probably failing) to create the illusion of reality, or the other way around?
Abbas Kiarostami, RIP
lee_eisenberg17 November 2016
Abbas Kiarostami died a few months ago, so I decided that I would watch this movie of his. "Nemā-ye nazdīk" ("Close-Up" in English) is based on the story of a man who pretended to be filmmaker Mohsen Makhmalbaf, and the subsequent trial. The movie tests your attention span with its long scenes and emphasis on dialog.
I hadn't known of the story until I watched the movie. Kiarostami's movies often look at people striving towards goals (the only other one that I've seen is "Taste of Cherry"). But beyond the story, the movie functions as a look at this turning point in Iran's history. They had just come out of the eight-year-long war with Iraq - when the US, UK, Israel and USSR had armed Saddam Hussein against the revolutionary government - and Ayatollah Khomeini had just died. Iran remained a mostly isolated state for years afterwards until the US overthrow of Saddam Hussein allowed the Islamic Republic to have a stronger hand in the region.
Anyway, the movie is worth seeing. Both Kiarostami and Mokhmalbaf play themselves in it. Too bad that we won't see any more Kiarostami movies. This year took him, David Bowie, Alan Rickman, Prince, Muhammad Ali, Gene Wilder, Leonard Cohen, Leon Russell and Lupita Tovar. That and the ascendance to the US presidency of an unhinged demagogue make 2016 one crummy year.
I hadn't known of the story until I watched the movie. Kiarostami's movies often look at people striving towards goals (the only other one that I've seen is "Taste of Cherry"). But beyond the story, the movie functions as a look at this turning point in Iran's history. They had just come out of the eight-year-long war with Iraq - when the US, UK, Israel and USSR had armed Saddam Hussein against the revolutionary government - and Ayatollah Khomeini had just died. Iran remained a mostly isolated state for years afterwards until the US overthrow of Saddam Hussein allowed the Islamic Republic to have a stronger hand in the region.
Anyway, the movie is worth seeing. Both Kiarostami and Mokhmalbaf play themselves in it. Too bad that we won't see any more Kiarostami movies. This year took him, David Bowie, Alan Rickman, Prince, Muhammad Ali, Gene Wilder, Leonard Cohen, Leon Russell and Lupita Tovar. That and the ascendance to the US presidency of an unhinged demagogue make 2016 one crummy year.
Powerful
gbill-7487728 September 2019
Such a quiet little movie, but so powerful. Without spoiling it, seeing those two guys on the motorcycle and what followed late in the film made my skin tingle. There is such calm, mature deliberation throughout the film, and in the end, a resounding, wonderful sense of humanity. What a fantastic window into at least a part of Iran as well - the system of justice shown in the courtroom was fascinating to me, the reenactments with the actual people came across as natural and heartfelt, and the furnishings in the plaintiffs' home (or maybe it's film set anyway) were beautiful. There are universal themes as well, as this poor guy simply wants to be important and identifies with a film director who "spoke for me and depicted my suffering", and the family he interacts with are swayed initially by the idea of possibly appearing in film. To have all that and the interesting construction of this film by director Abbas Kiarostami make it pretty unique and it works, even if we're never really sure what blurring of reality may be taking place. If the trial and original offense seems rather mundane in the middle of this film, definitely stick with it. If only all people were treated with such dignity and empathy.
Close-Up
jboothmillard26 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
It was a familiar title in the book 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, but it suggested many ideas to me as to what it would be about, I had no idea it was a real life story, but not a documentary, and not a fictionalised version of events, but a combination of both. Basically director Abbas Kiarostami (also appearing in the film) brings together all those involved in the case of Hossain Sabzian, who was charged with impersonating a film director Iranian director Mohsen Makhmalbaf (Gabbeh, The Cyclist) and entering the home of the Ahankhah family, visiting numerous times pretending to be interested in making a film in their house. He even managed to talk members of the family into letting him "borrow" money to "prepare for his film"; he was only caught out when a photograph of the real Makhmalbaf was spotted in a magazine, and a journalist/reporter (Hossain Farazmand) confirms he is an impostor. The footage of the film consists of the real people, playing themselves obviously, re-enacting what they all did in this situation, and the court case, but these scenes are not in chronological order. Also starring Mohsen Makhmalbaf, Abolfazl Ahankhah – father, Mehrdad Ahankhah – son, Monoochehr Ahankhah – son, Mahrokh Ahankhah – daughter, Nayer Mohseni Zonoozi – daughter, Ahmad Reza Moayed Mohseni - family friend and Haj Ali Reza Ahmadi – Judge. The concept of using the real people to play themselves in a nearly fictionalised re-enacting of what they all did in the real situation is quite clever, it is rare that the real people appear acting, especially playing themselves on screen, only United 93 comes to mind, so it I supposed adds realism as well as unusual mischievousness, an interesting experimental documentary drama. Good!
Really well-made human drama.
Amyth4710 February 2019
My Rating : 8/10
Very engaging once you become familiar with the characters and plot. This is a wonderful film of a very special kind. Not your average movie in the sense that it is highly realistic (documentary/fiction) and its subject matter is unique. The standout feature for me is the humanity with which it is shot and delivered : a world of humility, pride and grace is portrayed with a real human touch. It brings home the fact that whatever we might think of people and their ability to act as horribly as possible, there's perhaps always something very touching in the background to empathise with.
Unique, exceptional and touches your heart on some level.
Very engaging once you become familiar with the characters and plot. This is a wonderful film of a very special kind. Not your average movie in the sense that it is highly realistic (documentary/fiction) and its subject matter is unique. The standout feature for me is the humanity with which it is shot and delivered : a world of humility, pride and grace is portrayed with a real human touch. It brings home the fact that whatever we might think of people and their ability to act as horribly as possible, there's perhaps always something very touching in the background to empathise with.
Unique, exceptional and touches your heart on some level.
Inventive cinema from Iran
Atavisten3 April 2011
This is something of a mixed movie, it's a fictionalized documentary or maybe the other way around? I don't grasp how this movie came into being, but for sure it's a beautiful moment in movie history. A guy is impersonating famous Iranian movie director Mohsen Makmalbaf when given a chance to do so on a bus-ride. He plays the game too far though and ends up in court suspected for fraud. This is based on a real story and Abbas Kiarostami got unto this quite early on.
The strength here is the way you get to sympathize with the impersonator given his background, lack of future prospects and general innocence. Besides his crime is very minor.
The strength here is the way you get to sympathize with the impersonator given his background, lack of future prospects and general innocence. Besides his crime is very minor.
Filmic Ick
beginasyouare26 January 2021
A film in love with itself, created by a director's director or an actor's actor, saying little, but the filmic ones pretend that whisper is profound. Reviewers trying to explain why they love this stuff also perform dishonestly. "Close-Up" (1990) echos the silent "The Passion of Joan of Arc" (1928), also a lauded by critics story on the crime of impersonation but that one ends in burnt offering. Obscurantism.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
