Close Up (mini summary)

            Abbas Kiarostami became a great Iranian filmmaker that can be attributed to the timeframe in which he was born and grew up. He had several influences, one of such being post war Iran and a second being the temporary time of being free from monarchy. “Kiarostami was thus born into a nation-state that had become conscious of its political and cultural identity through a century long process of seclurixation of its political culture, a semibourbeois revolution, a foreign occupation, the bloom of literacy and poetic self awareness, and a series of catastrophic and debilitating colonial interventions” (Dabashi 35).

            Kiarostami and other Iranian filmmakers used cinema to express their political standpoints and to educate the world about the trials and tribulations of Iran. It was their outlet but were sometimes censored or attempted to be censored. One problem that Kiarostami faced was comparing lives of children to those of adults. It showed his belief that children were of a future reality, a reality that adults had surpassed.

Abbas Kiarostami

            Kiarostomi was an award winning filmmaker. Known as being controversial, Kiarostomi was using cinema to portray his ideas and perspectives. Some Iranians argued that some of the portrayals depicted an idea that Iranians were simple peasants. Iranian cinema is recognized for ethical and humanistic portrayals. His film The House is Black highlights the stereotype that Iranians and Iraqis are demonized by the rest of the world (Rosenbaum 2).

            The author describes Kiarostami’s films as mostly insightful. The House is Black and First Graders were a couple of the less than satisfactory films. Through the Olive Trees is one of his best films this author reports.

            Taste of Cherry was one of his most controversial films, but won the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Films Festival in 1997. The film told about a man that contemplated suicide. He picked up three different passengers throughout his day and asked them if they would bury him after he was dead. Some people argued that not revealing the ending ruined the interpretation.

            The author describes how Kiarostami cannot easily separate documentary and fiction. He believes that there is no difference. Whatever the case may be, he lead viewers to a land of reflection.