Close-Up: Is Anything Real?

“Aren’t you acting for the camera now?” Kiarostami asks Hossain Sabzian, an attempted fraudster posing as famed Iranian director Mohsen Makhmalbaf. “What are you doing now?” he continues. “I’m speaking of my suffering, I’m not acting, I’m speaking from the heart” mutters Sabzian. This courtroom scene, interspersed throughout much of the film, is as challenging for the audience as it is for those on screen. But let’s start from the beginning.

Close-up shows us a recreation of a true story in which the characters play themselves. But the above courtroom scene stands out. It is restricted to two camera angles and we are consistently exposed to a boom mic cropping into the frame or even the entire sound man. These creative restrictions make it stand out against the other scenes which utilise multiple camera angles and a clear creative control over what we see and what is happening. We immediately question if this scene is “real”, if it is Sabzian’s trial being documented or a mere reconstruction. We aren’t given any direct answers from Kiarostami, but the moment we assume it as ‘true’ we recall the opening credits claiming the film is “written and directed by Abbas Kiarostami”.

This leaves us in a void between documentary and fiction, constantly unaware of which side of the line we are on until the camera moves or changes angle in a set-piece/clearly blocked scene where the camera could never have been if this were the real occurrence of the true story. I think, then, the way we end up identifying a scene as truth from recreation via the filmic techniques employed. Do we have four clear angles of dialogue, are we holding on a can rolling down the street which is later kicked by a character? Or can we see the boom, is the sound cutting in an out, can we see the camera man, is Kiarostami talking from behind the camera? But as the film came to a close I questioned these assumptions with an alternative possibility; is Kiarostami purposefully employing these documentary aesthetics to make us reconsider the fiction and instead place it closer to the true story it is based upon. With this mind-set it forces me to revisit the scenes I felt were true documents (the courtroom scene, and final sequence) and probe them to find whether they’re crafted or captured images.

Looking at a different side of the film, we should consider the actors. Instead of playing a part they must come to understand, Kiarostami asks of them to play a past version of themselves. Again we are faced with a dilemma. Does this recreation of the self, in recreating the acts and scenes one has already lived, stray too far from the original to be worthy of attention or does the power of hindsight actually reveal a deeper truth about the people, their actions and their relationships? The most exciting example of this is the probing of Sabzian. Sabzian claims he impersonated Makhmalbaf for the attention, but most importantly the respect, it brought to a poor and generally unnoticed man. In a similar way Sabzian, now playing a past self who was impersonating Makhmalbaf, re-receives such attention and interest from the outside world (both on set and in the cinema). You can see this exact glow (only seen around others who listen, like and respect you) resurface in the set-piece scenes where he is able to play the all important filmmaker once again. Does this recreation and foregrounding of Sabzian then reveal deeper truth about himself, and many of us, that we want to be appreciated and respected no matter the cost. It is interesting that he acts so positively to the recreation of his story, as I’m sure many would take it with much embarrassment to be exposed to the world as a fraudster but he simply takes it in his stride, basking in the glow of being the centre of attention once more.

Does, then, the act of recreating such a story hold a greater meaning than if Kiarostami were to document all of these occurrences when they occurred for the first time? Can we then take Sabzian’s claim (“I’m speaking of my suffering, I’m not acting, I’m speaking from the heart”) as true for the entire film, both recreation and document alike?

Close-Up (1990)

3/4/3

10/13

~Leo