Close up

Explain what Dabashi means by this statement through critical examination of “Close Up”.

Close up is one of Abbas Kiarostami’s greatest film’s I believe; nonetheless, it also unfortunately carries some contrary indications about Kiarostami’s work. All the actors in the film play themselves and all the scenes are recreations of actual events, except for a few of the scene in the court room. It's difficult to differentiate between what's real from what's written. The barrier between cinema or acting and life is erased, not just for the viewers but also for the characters in the film as well. What makes Abbas Kiarostami one of the greatest filmmakers? He has the skill of making beautiful films, carefully premeditated and executed, that tell about the human spirit. Nonetheless, at the same time, he's capable of making quick, hasty, swift pictures that tell about the human fundamental of nature. All of his films have his stamps. Close-Up (1990), is one of Kiarostami's most incredible movies. Close up is a story of a real-life incident involving a con artist who posed as a famous Iranian director named Mohsen Makhmalbaf that ended up making a living from a family. The contradictory is that the film is"based on a true story" but there are actually parties that involved playing themselves. The aspect of the film is not entirely true. I will discuss the first part of the film

Close-Up, first scene unwraps with a long shot focuses on a man coming out of a police station with officers following him. The advantage of the long shot is that it allows to show a character and his surroundings in a single frame. The person followed by the two officers is the re-enactment as Farazmand. He is a reporter, traveling to see his friends in the Ahankhah family. The Ahankhah family has invested in a man they believe to be the Iranian director Mohsen Makhmalbaf. Nonetheless, they have become suspicious of the man. The Ahankhah family calls for the reporter to come and see whether the man really is Mohsen Makhmalbaf. Soon is Farazmand step in the car he engaged in some conversation and tells the story of the swindler to the cab driver. The two officers in the back are the ones going to arrest the con actor. His name is Sabzian. During their conversation the driver said “I don’t have time for movies I am too busy with life”. This statement to me shows realism and humanism. They used close shut and shallow focus. In the close shot, they frame the head of each individual separately and show them in a large scale. They used shallow focus to keep only one figure in sharp focus. Shallow focus also suggests mental observation; implied that actions and thoughts of the character overcome everything else. When they arrive, the reporter he appears to be totally unprepared to do his job; he had to ask for directions to his friend's house. In addition, he forgot to bring a tape recorder. This is the part that got confuse and lack of Kiarostami realism. As reporter you must always be prepared, especially in an event like this. A recorded device is one if not the priory tool for a reporter to do his or her job. It seems irrelevant to reporter job and none related. He should have thought to bring camera. Why Kiarostami spends time a focusing on the cab driver? No one knows. What I know is that the cab driver is not relevant to the story to be filmed for at least one minute long.  It shows the cab driver finish digging some flowers out garbage; he rolled a spray can down the street. The most significant part of the scene is that it appears in the beginning of the film and then at the end. When the cab driver wait outside while the reporter goes inside to shovel some info and come back out and take the officer with them. From there the action locks inside. As result, it challenges the audience to imagine what is happening inside of the house at that time. It's not until the end of the film that we see the same scene again; however, this time from the inside of the house.

Written by student: Donald