04/26/2002 Entry:
"Close Up again"

Had an afternoon off work and took in another watching of Kiarostami's Close Up and confirmed my earlier opinion that watching it on the train had ruined it. I think the biggest problem is the noise. Kiarostami makes quiet films, almost entirely without soundtrack and minimal ambient noise, and the excess chaos of the train (announcer, people around you, general machinery clanking) really detracts from this experience. I will have to keep this in mind when choosing train movies in the future.

Keeping true to its namesake, this film makes excellent use of close ups and long shots to emphasize certain segments. One of the only long shots in the movie is when the cops are coming to arrest Sabzian, he sits alone awaiting them at the end of a room, quietly being led away. This is in contrast to the close ups, which always come when Sabzian is trying to get to the core of why he undertook his venture. Most of these are in the trial segments. The judge asks him, "how far did you want to go with this?" and he with his face filling the frame answers, "As far as they wanted to go." Then there's a cut. Another - "I'm speaking of my suffering, thats not acting." There are several more, and they are very effective.

There are also various points where Kiarostami uses the fabric of filmmaking as a part of the story, some more obvious than the others. There are shots where we see the boom mikes, a slate cracking down to signal the beginning of the trial (is this trial real life or not?), and of course the broken microphone. I was initially somewhat shocked to discover that Kiarostami had actually faked this technical glitch, although after more thought it seemed to not be so surprising. A more subtle way this film intrudes on the real life (and vice versa) is they way Kiarostami inserts himself at various points. We see him interviewing Sabzian in prison. At various points in the trial he interrupts the proceeding to ask Sabzian questions. At one point we hear him interrupt and see the judge and the court clerk looking off-camera at him as he asks a question. This was a very subtle way to kind of pull people out of the story and back into the making of the film itself. Again in the van as Sabzian meets Makhmalbaf - "he's in the wrong place, we can't reshoot this." There is a lot of that kind of self-referentialism going on here and it works great. I am curious how much of this was conceptualized beforehand and how much was shaped in the editing room. There's nothing here that relied on the shooting to have been done. I am also quite curious as to whether or not the courtroom scene isn't a re-enactment as well.

The re-enactment of Sabzian's arrest is a key scene, we see him acting as Makhmalbaf for an extended period of time, but he is seen only in long shots. The scenes of the Ahankhah family are all nicely lit, with bright vibrant colors, but Sabzian is all washed out because of the bright light from the window where he is sitting (I refuse to believe this is an accident.) This scene unfolds in apparent real time, it takes a long time to unfold. Sabzian's loneliness and discomfort are stressed not only by the long shots and different lighting, but by the fact that throughout this sequence he is shown sitting alone while everyone else is shown with other people - Ahankhah is always shown in a two-shot with with his friend Mohseni or with other members of his family. This scene is also (along with the bus scene) the mostly blatantly re-enacted.

A theme which I detected throughout the film but isn't as upfront as some others is a kind of universiality. Sabzian's plight parallels the celebrity worship of the US (there have actual been several similar circumstances here.) He is aimless and adrift without purpose. The infamous rolling paint can early on reminded me of Sabzian's purposelessness - notice how the journalist kicks it at one point (but it keeps rolling, dented but not broken.) The Ahankhah sons are having trouble getting work (although there it is a lack of raw materials rather than a lack of orders which causes the factories to be shuttered.) Their mother acts like mothers everywhere - her son doesn't sell bread, he manages a bakery. In the trail scene at one point, Sabzian's mother speaks of his divorce. I am curious about the implication of divorce in Iranian society. Does it make you a lower class? Are you looked upon less favorably because of it?

I just love the moments when Sabzian meets the real Makhmalbaf. They are so raw and heartfelt. If they weren't retakes, then Sabzian is an amazing actor. Its interesting that some of the scenes of the motorbike were shot through a cracked windshield. Makhmalbaf seems truly sincere about meeting him too. Their conversation when they first meet is wonderful. Makhmalbaf: Who would you rather be? Sabzian or Makhmalbaf? Sabzian - I don't know. Then one of them says, "I'm sick of being me." I THINK it was Makhmalbaf but I'm not sure. If so, the scene carries a very poignant meaning. If not, it jsut serves to reinforce what we already knew.

I haven't loved a movie this much in a very great while.

Further Reading:
Short review at AboutFilm.com
Strictly Film School piece on Close Up
Rosenbaum review of Taste Of Cherry. Interesting in that it discusses various aspects of Kiarostami's filmmaking