A Conversation with Mohammad Ali Sajjadi, Prompted by the Selection of Abbas Kiarostami’s Close-Up as the Second-Best Film of the 1990s by IndieWire

Abbas Kiarostami
Director

A Conversation with Mohammad Ali Sajjadi, Prompted by the Selection of Abbas Kiarostami’s Close-Up as the Second-Best Film of the 1990s by IndieWire

A Theme That Delights the Audience

Behnaz Shirbani:
Close-Up, directed by Abbas Kiarostami, was filmed in 1989. A drama and realist film, it did not gain widespread attention at the time of its release, but gradually, over the years, it became highly popular among critics.

Many have regarded it as one of the best realist films in cinema, and even years after its production, people continue to return to this unique and unrepeatable work by Kiarostami and talk about it on various occasions.

The film follows a clear storyline based on real events, and this aspect has made Close-Up one of the most prominent and noteworthy works in Kiarostami’s body of work—and even one of his most influential and trendsetting films.

Although, at the time of its production, some critics considered the film’s blurred line between documentary and fiction to be its Achilles’ heel, over time this approach became a roadmap for young filmmakers, and the influence of this film is more or less evident in the works of many directors.

Two years ago, Far Out magazine, in its description and praise of Close-Up, wrote:
“Abbas Kiarostami, the greatest filmmaker of the Iranian New Wave, skillfully erases the boundary between fiction and nonfiction, fantasy and reality, in his postmodern work Close-Up.”

According to the Sight & Sound magazine’s ranking, the film was placed 47th among the 50 greatest films in cinema history. In this poll by Sight & Sound, 846 critics, programmers, and film distributors were invited to vote, and Close-Up received 31 votes, ranking 42nd among the greatest films in cinema history, according to the British Film Institute.

However, according to a recent report by Cinema Daily, Close-Up has now been included among the best films of the 1990s, selected by IndieWire. This site reviewed the films of the 1990s and selected the top 100 of the decade. Among them, Abbas Kiarostami’s Close-Up ranked second—only after Stanley Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut.

The site’s writers wrote about the film:
“To discuss the magic of Close-Up is to discuss the magic of the movies themselves (its title alludes to a particular shot of Sabzian in court, but also to the sort of illusion that happens right in front of your face). Close-Up convincingly illustrates how cinema has the ability to transform the fabric of life itself. ‘I don’t have time for movies,’ laughs a cab driver in the opening sequence, ‘I’m too busy with life!’ It’s a line that was scripted for him to say at the start of a film that defies you to articulate the difference (life and cinema).”

Previously, the site had also ranked Close-Up alongside works by Quentin Tarantino and Martin Scorsese at the top of the best films of the 1990s.

On this occasion, we had a short conversation with Mohammad Ali Sajjadi about Close-Up, one of Kiarostami’s most controversial films.

Mohammad Ali Sajjadi, director and screenwriter, about the importance of the film Close-Up and why it has been praised by many critics around the world over time, told Shargh:

“This film cannot be evaluated without considering the general atmosphere surrounding the late great Abbas Kiarostami, both inside and outside the country. I believe over the years this film has become mixed with various affirmations and denials.

Regarding your question that the film was not well received at its own time in Iran and was even dismissed, I must say it is natural that many films and works throughout the history of art were not understood in their own era, and later their audiences concluded that a work previously considered unworthy had some qualities—or conversely.

Another discussion is that there is essentially a valuation system in unconventional and Western cinema concerning Abbas Kiarostami and specifically about the film Close-Up, which I think is an important matter. And we must take this meta-text into account, as several reasons played a role in the acceptance of Close-Up and his other works.

What is thought-provoking is that many people from our country didn’t know much, and now, thanks to virtual space and recent events, they have come to some recognition. We live in an agitated society that, in all international festivals, prepares this agitation for the acceptance of films. We are full of drama and subject matter. In this situation, our subject matter is attractive to them.”

The director of the film The Road continued:
“I must add that, in any case, in Western countries where the cinema industry is intertwined with a set of technology and industry and is, in a way, saturated, in fact, a film or a body of work from a filmmaker like the late great Mr. Kiarostami has turned toward another part of cinema—a return to simplicity and attention to what lies between the lines of drama and life.

That is, a return to the essence of cinema’s innocence, meaning silent cinema that does not yet show off—of course, with a view to today. I believe the general points I mentioned cannot be ignored in the collection of foreign audience critiques and opinions on Kiarostami’s works.

In addition, Close-Up is a film that preserves its geographic characteristics in every frame, and certainly this context must be considered; meaning, it is an Iranian film.”

Sajjadi, referring to how the matter of reality and imagination in this film also appears in other works of Kiarostami, said:
“I think this film is a prelude to Certified Copy, a film I like and in which the boundary between imagination and reality and performance is shown very precisely and cleanly.

In fact, I believe we are not dealing with a film that demonstrates professional technical or even structural mastery in Close-Up. In my opinion, it is more the theme and idea that excites many viewers, and there are shortcomings in the film’s technical and structural discussion.

It is natural that when you place the camera, you are fabricating reality. Moreover, Abbas Kiarostami arranges everything in this film. This is also natural because he is the filmmaker and has never claimed that he created reality in Close-Up; rather, he tries to represent reality.

So the matter of cinema, reality, and truth is a given subject that is created and constructed by ourselves. It is a fiction made by theorists and is open to discussion. That there is no boundary, we see in the film. The film, rather than suggesting a certain impression in this regard, presents a line of thought, and the filmmaker is aware of this and has even stated it in his interviews.”

In another part of his remarks about Close-Up, Sajjadi said:
“The issue I have with the film at the narrative level is its structural confusion. The interweaving between the story, the narrator, and the narration is weak.

At certain points, we are supposed to witness mise-en-scène and storytelling—for instance, in the house, look at the placement of the characters and the camera. The family friend appears and disappears in the cuts and has no real role, and the framing sizes, etc.—there we realize the inconsistencies in the mise-en-scène and camera work, and this is precisely where my issue with Close-Up lies.

Just as in the courtroom scene, we are faced with two or three recurring camera placements, which perhaps don’t even need the director’s explanation as to why, because we can already see it. Most of the film is explained through dialogue. The camera approaches, and sometimes observes from a distance, and I can’t grasp the necessity of these choices.”

The director of Ethereal considered the simplicity in Kiarostami’s works to be a major asset and said:
“We must consider the element of making complex subjects more accessible in Kiarostami’s works as a defining characteristic. At times, this ease and subtlety are prominent and reveal the distinct nature of his work. One of Kiarostami’s traits was that he could hand over intricate points to you in a simple way—points that still had depth and created challenges within you. However, in some of his other works, this trait gave way to a kind of over-simplification.

I again emphasize that in Close-Up, the subject matter holds special importance. Although it is clear that what appeals to Western cinema is a kind of anti-mainstream attraction. That the director tries to, for instance, erase himself (though he doesn’t), and abandon conventional norms—Kiarostami had these traits. Let’s not forget that Close-Up was made in 1989, and we should judge its technical shortcomings fairly. One of the key qualities of Kiarostami’s work was precisely this willingness to experiment, and I personally learned from him in that regard.”

He continued:
“In my view, for a filmmaker like Kiarostami who reached such a level of fame and admiration, it’s natural that any work he creates can’t simply be overlooked. Especially in a cultural geography where the disciple–master dynamic still thrives. Surely, as far as I knew him, Abbas Kiarostami was above such tendencies. He did not like undeserved praise for his films and was in a way indifferent to fame. He approached topics and people around him with ease and sincerity.

However, we cannot deny the fact that many of his fans over time attach interpretations to his works that are simply not present within the frames. The concept of postmodernism in his work has often become a source of misunderstanding. In many of his works, this naïveté ends up becoming the true meaning of art.

In Certified Copy or 24 Frames, we reach the border of Kiarostami’s pure artistic identity. In 24 Frames, he shows that besides being a filmmaker, he is also a painter and a photographer. In films like The Traveler and The Experience, he demonstrated how masterfully he could use storytelling tools in his own unique way. But one of his great virtues was that he would sometimes set aside these features and go into experimentation.

Still, do all these experiments mean that we should automatically endorse them all, simply because of the name? Unfortunately, we often fall into the trap of being captivated by a name and take rigid positions.”

Let me return to the film.
“In Close-Up, we are faced with a simple structure. Naturally, all films have a narrative and a story; but the nature of narration differs. This film has a great prologue and a strong opening sequence. We enter the story through the journalist; pay attention to the shots and cuts that sometimes become repetitive, and later on the narration gradually fades as the director himself takes control of the visual and verbal storytelling.

Altogether, it is an interesting subject that results in a visual report with some strong moments, but lacks coherence. The structure isn’t unlike that of detective or mystery films. From flashbacks to reenactments using non-professional actors, none of it really engages the viewer.

In this brief space, it is not possible to say everything comprehensively about this film. These were just a few general points from my perspective on an important filmmaker–artist whom we lost too soon. Kiarostami played a major role in shaping our artistic atmosphere and showing us a different way of looking—and he took many along with him. May his memory remain fresh.”

Shargh Newspaper, August 22, 2022 – Year 19, No. 4355, P 11