![]() |
The two "Makhmalbaf(s)" |
Every so often, a simple story is
captured by a special eye, and becomes a spectacle. That special eye in this
case belongs to Abbas Kiarostami, the director of Close Up. This Iranian film is
a 1990 documentary style story (though based on true events, it has been called
a docufiction) about a poor man accused of fraud for impersonating a famous
writer and filmmaker (Mohsen Makhmalbaf as himself) and cheating an upper
middle class family off some money.
It is a simple, emotive story that
uses delicate close up shots of Hossain Sabzian (as himself) defending himself
in a court of law. When approached by Kiarostami and asked what can be done for
him while in prison, he simply requests that a film be made about his suffering.
He states that “The Cyclist”, Mohsen Makhmalbaf’s book later adapted into a
film, was a part of him.
The film addresses major “Third
cinema” themes, like inequality, poverty and unemployment in Iran. Sabzian is
an unsuspecting fellow, and as described by a guard, does not appear capable of
committing a crime. He is a cinephile, and for no clear reason, pretends to be a
famous film director because of the respect and self-confidence he gains from
it. Sabzian claims that nobody would have listened to him as himself, yet in
his new “role” he even gets the opportunity to direct his own movie, hoping
that the family he cheated would sponsor it. At the trial, his actions seem
justified by his poverty; he cannot support his family, and is only partly
employed. His crime even seems escapist in a sense, committed just to forget about his
misfortunes for a while. However, the film suggests that unemployment does not
only affect poor people, but even the educated, as the Ahankhah boys (sons
belonging to the Iranian middle class family) both studied engineering and have not found any jobs.
The storytelling technique used by
Kiarostami is quite fascinating, as the trial is the real one that Sabzian actually
went through for the crime that he had committed. However, the tale of his arrest
is a reconstruction of the actual events surrounding the story. The first scene
lays the foundation upon which the whole story is built, as the journalist, who
does not appear again throughout the film, explains the whole story, that we later get to see enacted. Kariostami read Sabzian’s story in a magazine, and decided to visit
him in prison, asking if he could film his trial where everybody appear as themselves. This makes it a movie reality show of sorts, and adds
to its raw, authentic feel. The fact that the trial is also filmed with a hand-held camera makes the movie very earthy. It makes the audience
feel as if they are watching a live event, rather than be drawn away by
elaborate cinematography. Interestingly, Kariostami uses many point of view shots, almost as if he is telling the story from a different number of
perspectives. After giving us what seems to be a synopsis of the film through
the journalist (Farazmand), the story is told from the eye of the film maker, with
the added point of views of Sabzian and Ahankhah’s friend, Mohseni (as himself).
Kariostami manages to maintain a delicate balance between the serious and the mundane.
In the first scene, one is not very sure about the gravity of the situation the
journalist is describing; yet the audience is left outside the house, where the
arrest is being made. We are left with the taxi driver who kicks an empty
aerosol can which the camera follows for a while. This is slightly confusing,
as the audience does not know whether to take the can seriously - it seems that we
are shut out from the action, yet it is the mundane aspect of this scene that helps
to add to the normalcy of the story, or its humanity so to speak. The final scene has the camera
following Sabzian and Makhmalbaf on a motorcycle through the city, going to the
Ahankhah residence to seek forgiveness. It is as if the audience experiences a
peek through a window into a private, intimate event. The person behind the
camera also says that the sound is faulty and therefore the sound keeps going
off as we follow the duo through the city, adding a mystery as to what a fan
and impersonator of a famous person would say in conversation with their
“idol”.
At the trial, the judge says that Sabzian’s
actions are indeed punishable by crime, but asks that the family to pardon him;
Sabzian is told not repeat his actions. Despite the fact that Kariostami did
not have much control over the verdict of the trial, I felt the outcome was too
prescriptive. It was obvious that Sabzian was poor and struggling to raise a
family, but this did not have to be verbally announced. Ahankhah saying that
Sabzian was forgiven because he was a victim of unemployment among other
things took away from the reality of the situation. It appeared to be a forced
prescription as to why something should be done about poverty and unemployment
in Iran, like a theatre or media for development forum rather than an honest
look at the fate of one man.
All in all, Close Up is a powerful film on the genuineness of humanity and the
power of art to influence its actions.
No comments:
Post a Comment