Amateur movie with Big budget

Absolutely Fantastic

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

'Close-Up' on a technical level is docufiction where the distinction between what's real and what's fiction gets blurred constantly. But on a broader thematic level, I think it is a film that showcases the power and the magic of Cinema as a medium of art. It shows how cinema can inspire a nobody and give him/her a sense of joy, identity, catharsis and a relief from their tough unrelenting life. Hossain is a nobody. He is a poor working class fellow who finds it very difficult to make ends meet and lead a fulfilling life. He is constantly plagued by financial and existential inadequacy. But cinema gives him joy. He says Makhmalbaf's 'The Cyclist' is a 'part of him'. Seeing Makhmalbaf capture the grief and pain that he says lives with everyday, on screen gives him a cathartic experience whenever he watches the films of his favorite filmmaker. This is why when the chance encounter of him meeting Mrs. Ahankhahs takes place, he decides to impersonate his hero Mohsen Makhmalbaf. This impersonation of Mohsen Makhmalbaf also represents something else apart from Hossain's love and unconditional admiration for Makhmalbaf. What it clearly represents and is verbalised later by Hossain himself in the court is his need for respect, importance and a sense of control. In this way Kiarostami is probably making a meta statement about how filmmaking to a great extent is about control and importance. A person who wants to be a filmmaker is actually someone who wants to show the viewer the world from his/her perspective which inherently involves a position of control, respect and importance. Being treated with respect and dignity by the Ahankhah family gave Hossain a sense of fulfillment which is why he decided to persist with the act. He created his own world of make- believe to escape his tough real life. 'Close-Up' is a meta therapy session for Hossain. Kiarostami gives Hossain exactly what he craves which is attention and respect. Through his docufiction film, he allows Hossain to tell his story on celluloid and allows him to see himself on screen instead of having to be content with finding similarities between himself and the characters on screen. The ending is especially sweet. Hossain meets the real Mohsen Makhmalbaf and starts to cry. The very last shot of the film is especially profound - instead of the grainy documentary-esque photography, we get a gorgeously lit close-up of Hossain's side profile with the roses to the right of the frame - a visual cue to denote that the film was a tribute to the man on screen.P.S. - the moment where Kiarostami devotes a minute or so just to watch a can rolling down the street is one of those visual moments of cinematic profundity that will stay with me.

Close-Up hovers in the fuzzy boundary that defines cinéma vérité; there are many layers here, and Kiarostami creates an artifice within the film, and then shatters it. The actors play themselves, re-enacting their own roles and giving their recounts and suggestions, and then are ordered themselves to act in a certain manner, and to glance a certain way as to not recognise the camera when not necessary. Is there a more thrilling sense of the auteur than in Close-Up? Kiarostami, the hidden director behind the film, obscures his face and takes suggestions from the accused, and then asks permission to shoot a trial that seems by all accounts uninteresting. Early on, there is a segment where he explains his different lenses and their purposes to Sabzian. Their shared interest is doubly layered; it is an important step to ensure that the correct equipment is used to capture this event, even as Kiarostami fiddles around in the background and adjusts his set for the real film. The journalist Farazmad knows this too, as he hurries around for a tape recorder - authenticity is key. Kiarostami uses symbols to highlight this to us. A clapper-board indicates filming is about to begin. Yes, within the film itself. The camera is hand-held and nervy, and has a certain faded, graininess to it that we immediately associate with an observatory presence rather than presentation. While the all important arrest is being made, he focuses instead on the outside; the taxi driver picking flowers and rolling an aerosol can down the road endlessly. Later he returns to it and it is without confrontation, but with a quiet reservation that Sabzian accepts his arrest. The suspicion that has been brought to our attention is as meek as it comes. Sabzian's own performance is informed by his own experiences. He does not have that 'look' that conmen have, and strives to avoid it. He admits that acting is more his style, but also that playing the part of a director is a performance in itself. And he puts a little of himself into his Makhmalbaf as many actors would; the down to earth approach to his suggestions, his lies, his work ethic. None of them witnessing seem to understand this sort of approach to the role; the culture is occupied with more concrete manners. Escapism in art, and through real life performance, is discouraged. The final sequence is supposedly impromptu without Sabzian's knowledge that this was to be filmed too. Kiarostami had arranged for a real life reconciliation between him and his lifelong idol, and the affection shown in the hug is real. While we have been thrust into so many closeups that are 'real' throughout the film, this one is shot from a distance, and followed raggedly through traffic. Their dialogue is lopsided; one is according to script, pre-planned and rigid, while the other is authentically starstruck and bursting with amazement. So what does Kiarostami do? He chops up the audio track. It's a genius move. In an auteurist act, he cuts all the fixed elements of it until he is left with only the spontaneity, and this pushes at our objective understandings of the previous portrayals of realism. And we are left scratching our heads and wondering whether our speakers are broken, and how what we have just watched could be captured in any other way.

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.

One close look at the history of cinema will tell that some of the great films have been made using everyday events as background.This is done in order to include a certain dose of creativity in scenario.This is also the case of Iranian film Nemaye Nazdik (Close Up) based on a famous incident of impersonation involving great Iranian director Mohsen Makhmalbaf.If we believe that cinema is like magic and its actors and actress are like stars,we must also be ready to face the negative consequences of the so called star status of cinema's luminaries.There are many admirers who do not understand the detrimental consequences of their actions when they try to imitate what is fiction.Close Up talks of one such case involving a poor Iranian man named Ali Sabzian who deceives a lady by stating that he would like to shoot in her house as he is famous Iranian filmmaker Mohsen Makhmalbaf.His deceit is exposed and he is imprisoned.All this might appear as a simple tale to layman but in reality "Close Up" is more complex than one can think.It is a film which challenges our notions of cinema and reality,truth or falsehood.As these concepts are subjective in nature,it is better if viewers are left to draw their own conclusions after having seen the film.One of the greatest scenes from "Close Up" shows Ali Sabzian (as he is sobbing uncontrollably) being comforted by great Mohsen Makhmalbaf.This is the most perfect example of how reality meets reality.