a return at the movies
So last week I watched Tala-yeh Sorkh (Crimson Gold) and Nema-yeh Nazdik (Close-Up) and it kinda made me miss Iran. Tala-yeh Sorkh was spectacular, and I'll write on it soon. Today, however, I want to explain why Nema-yeh Nazdik was such a blast to see. It has to do with the ending.
Kiarostami's movies, including this one, can seem to be shot from an emotionally inert perspective--the scenes are presented in such an intentionally bland, distanced way that real identification with the characters seems absurd. In Nema-yeh Nazdik, after a whole film's worth of this deadened viewing experience, a moment of simultaneous empathy and realization of the film's grand concept erupts.
In the main courtroom scene of the film, a static camera captures Sabzian pleading for leniency with pathetic platitudes on the importance of being an art lover. The younger Ahankhah, who clearly relishes his filmic moment in the sun just as much as the man in the dock, speaks in stilted prose no doubt practiced for the screen. My feeling here is that in this scene they were still working the kinks out of their “performances”--for me, this scene is capturing the actual trial, where the real-life chronology of the film’s construction begins. If one dissects Kiarostami’s likeliest creative progression (from magazine article to movie idea to actual movie), it makes sense that the first scenes shot in “real-life” chronology would have been his interview with Sabzian in jail, his interview with the Ahankhahs in their home and the courtroom scene. He had to wait until Sabzian was released from his sentence before he could shoot any of the “re-enacted” scenes with the Ahankhahs and Sabzian together.
In this interpretation, the final sequence, in which Sabzian meets his idol Makhmalbaf and re-encounters Agha-ye Ahankhah (both of which elicit tears of disbelief), becomes doubly poignant. Just then, the viewer sees that this is the moment when Sabzian realizes he is loved in spite of his ruse; that he is indeed going to star in his own movie. We also then realize that, in a way, the whole film—all the scenes prior, from the documentary footage of the trial to the odd and artificial interviews with the Ahankhahs and the policemen to the re-enacted scenes chronicling the fraud’s inception and defeat—can be seen as an elaborate rehabilitation effort for Sabzian and his misguided endeavor. We understand that Kiarostami, through ingenuity and careful chronological construction, and Makhmalbaf and the Ahankhahs, through their cooperation, were elevating Sabzian’s two-bit role-play, in spite of its banal message and directionless nature, into real “art”—which is what Sabzian wanted it to be all along. That these recognitions, for the viewer outside the film and Sabzian inside it, come simultaneously means the close of the film hits in a sudden empathic bang.
