This is, actually, a deeply fascinating film, and I readily admit that it took the entire length for me to fully appreciate it. The case of Hossain Sabzian is highly interesting, speaking to multiple factors, and given that filmmaker Abbas Kiarostami was able to become involved in the actual legal proceedings raises questions of how important his role was. 'Close-up' gets labeled as "docufiction," but seeing as your ordinary "documentary" also sometimes includes reenactments and that is the sole distinguishing factor here, the only manner in my mind in which this bears significant disparity from common non-fiction cinema is that there is a concrete narrative flow to the proceedings. However one wishes to categorize the picture, it is softly absorbing even with its quiet tenor and is very much worth exploring; it's no wonder that it has been held in such high regard over the years.
While a couple specific sequences are reenacted with the graceful aid of all the figures involved in the real-life drama, rounding out the non-fiction narrative, the core of these ninety-eight minutes lies in the footage obtained as Kiarostami was allowed to film Sabzian's trial. All told the "story" is a very simple one, but it is incredibly revealing, and is relatable no matter one's frame of reference. 'Close-up' speaks to wealth inequality and social conditions in which poverty and unemployment foster desperation and criminal behavior, and - very notably the precise interest that Kiarostami himself indicates - the power of cinema as an outlet, as a means of expression, and as a way of organizing our thoughts in such a manner as to find we're not alone in the world, or in our troubles. The movie further speaks to identity: our self-perception, the perception of others, and how circumstances might lead to insight or to alteration in either perception or the identity that we express. Some of these very matters are given voice in the feature, and some we can just easily infer, but all lie at the heart of Kiarostami's work.
And that leads us to one critical aspect of the proceedings, one which we could discuss endlessly: the role of the filmmaker in Sabzian's case, and the lives of the Ahankhah family. Kiarostami was granted access to Sabzian in prison, and permission to film the trial in front of Judge Haj Ali Reza Ahmadi. We readily observe how, of the footage included herein of the court proceedings, the number of questions that are asked of Sabzian as a defendant, and the amount of the discussion that is fomented, come as much as if not more from Kiarostami as from Ahmadi. Would Ahmadi have asked the same questions as Kiarostami did? Would he have prompted the same points of candid discussion from Sabzian as Kiarostami was able to? As Sabzian's answers are the grounds for the ultimate outcome, it's not unreasonable to suppose that the very involvement of Kiarostami - not just filming the trial, but remarkably being allowed himself to participate in the questioning - had an impact on the ultimate outcome. Would the course of events have gone the way they did otherwise?
With all this firmly in mind, it bears reflecting on the small glimpse we see of Iran, here not filtered through the lens of U. S. hegemonic propaganda. It's inconceivable that we would see an outsider figure (a filmmaker) allowed to actively participate in American courtroom proceedings the way that Kiarostami does here. It's almost impossible to imagine the American criminal justice system acting with the prudent consideration and compassion that Ahmadi is seen to here, or possibly even the victimized family. It's feasible that this glimpse, too, is also impacted by Kiarostami's involvement, yet it's not as if the man were a western filmmaker given access to a domestic courtroom. What we see, then, is that for all the profound issues that plague Iran politically and culturally, the differences between our countries are not nearly so great as U. S. politicians would want us to believe. The same virtues and commendable values that our country can claim are also found in Iranian society; the same awful faults, chiefly authoritarianism, political corruption, and persecution of minorities, that are routinely emphasized as part of Iranian society also run rampant in our country, and increasingly so. 'Close-up' is an examination of one curious case of impersonation, yes, and of the esoteric factors that we draw from it, but it is also a tiny, demystifying peek at a nation-state that is usually little more than a boogeyman to the average American viewer. And in all these ways, it is fantastically engrossing, and satisfying.
It will hardly appeal to all comers, particularly given the muted, plainspoken tone. The high esteem this has enjoyed in the past thirty-odd years no joke, however, and any cinephile who is open to all the wide possibilities of the medium will surely feel right at home with this title. Even recognizing its reputation I had mixed expectations when I sat to watch, and I'm so very pleased with just how rich the viewing experience really is. Think well on whether or not it's something you might like in the first place, but if you do have the opportunity to watch 'Close-up' then it's an outstanding modern classic, a tremendous credit to Kiarostami, that's well worth exploring.
While a couple specific sequences are reenacted with the graceful aid of all the figures involved in the real-life drama, rounding out the non-fiction narrative, the core of these ninety-eight minutes lies in the footage obtained as Kiarostami was allowed to film Sabzian's trial. All told the "story" is a very simple one, but it is incredibly revealing, and is relatable no matter one's frame of reference. 'Close-up' speaks to wealth inequality and social conditions in which poverty and unemployment foster desperation and criminal behavior, and - very notably the precise interest that Kiarostami himself indicates - the power of cinema as an outlet, as a means of expression, and as a way of organizing our thoughts in such a manner as to find we're not alone in the world, or in our troubles. The movie further speaks to identity: our self-perception, the perception of others, and how circumstances might lead to insight or to alteration in either perception or the identity that we express. Some of these very matters are given voice in the feature, and some we can just easily infer, but all lie at the heart of Kiarostami's work.
And that leads us to one critical aspect of the proceedings, one which we could discuss endlessly: the role of the filmmaker in Sabzian's case, and the lives of the Ahankhah family. Kiarostami was granted access to Sabzian in prison, and permission to film the trial in front of Judge Haj Ali Reza Ahmadi. We readily observe how, of the footage included herein of the court proceedings, the number of questions that are asked of Sabzian as a defendant, and the amount of the discussion that is fomented, come as much as if not more from Kiarostami as from Ahmadi. Would Ahmadi have asked the same questions as Kiarostami did? Would he have prompted the same points of candid discussion from Sabzian as Kiarostami was able to? As Sabzian's answers are the grounds for the ultimate outcome, it's not unreasonable to suppose that the very involvement of Kiarostami - not just filming the trial, but remarkably being allowed himself to participate in the questioning - had an impact on the ultimate outcome. Would the course of events have gone the way they did otherwise?
With all this firmly in mind, it bears reflecting on the small glimpse we see of Iran, here not filtered through the lens of U. S. hegemonic propaganda. It's inconceivable that we would see an outsider figure (a filmmaker) allowed to actively participate in American courtroom proceedings the way that Kiarostami does here. It's almost impossible to imagine the American criminal justice system acting with the prudent consideration and compassion that Ahmadi is seen to here, or possibly even the victimized family. It's feasible that this glimpse, too, is also impacted by Kiarostami's involvement, yet it's not as if the man were a western filmmaker given access to a domestic courtroom. What we see, then, is that for all the profound issues that plague Iran politically and culturally, the differences between our countries are not nearly so great as U. S. politicians would want us to believe. The same virtues and commendable values that our country can claim are also found in Iranian society; the same awful faults, chiefly authoritarianism, political corruption, and persecution of minorities, that are routinely emphasized as part of Iranian society also run rampant in our country, and increasingly so. 'Close-up' is an examination of one curious case of impersonation, yes, and of the esoteric factors that we draw from it, but it is also a tiny, demystifying peek at a nation-state that is usually little more than a boogeyman to the average American viewer. And in all these ways, it is fantastically engrossing, and satisfying.
It will hardly appeal to all comers, particularly given the muted, plainspoken tone. The high esteem this has enjoyed in the past thirty-odd years no joke, however, and any cinephile who is open to all the wide possibilities of the medium will surely feel right at home with this title. Even recognizing its reputation I had mixed expectations when I sat to watch, and I'm so very pleased with just how rich the viewing experience really is. Think well on whether or not it's something you might like in the first place, but if you do have the opportunity to watch 'Close-up' then it's an outstanding modern classic, a tremendous credit to Kiarostami, that's well worth exploring.