Close-Up hovers in the fuzzy boundary that defines cinéma vérité; there are many layers here, and Kiarostami creates an artifice within the film, and then shatters it. The actors play themselves, re-enacting their own roles and giving their recounts and suggestions, and then are ordered themselves to act in a certain manner, and to glance a certain way as to not recognise the camera when not necessary. Is there a more thrilling sense of the auteur than in Close-Up? Kiarostami, the hidden director behind the film, obscures his face and takes suggestions from the accused, and then asks permission to shoot a trial that seems by all accounts uninteresting. Early on, there is a segment where he explains his different lenses and their purposes to Sabzian. Their shared interest is doubly layered; it is an important step to ensure that the correct equipment is used to capture this event, even as Kiarostami fiddles around in the background and adjusts his set for the real film. The journalist Farazmad knows this too, as he hurries around for a tape recorder - authenticity is key. Kiarostami uses symbols to highlight this to us. A clapper-board indicates filming is about to begin. Yes, within the film itself. The camera is hand-held and nervy, and has a certain faded, graininess to it that we immediately associate with an observatory presence rather than presentation. While the all important arrest is being made, he focuses instead on the outside; the taxi driver picking flowers and rolling an aerosol can down the road endlessly. Later he returns to it and it is without confrontation, but with a quiet reservation that Sabzian accepts his arrest. The suspicion that has been brought to our attention is as meek as it comes. Sabzian's own performance is informed by his own experiences. He does not have that 'look' that conmen have, and strives to avoid it. He admits that acting is more his style, but also that playing the part of a director is a performance in itself. And he puts a little of himself into his Makhmalbaf as many actors would; the down to earth approach to his suggestions, his lies, his work ethic. None of them witnessing seem to understand this sort of approach to the role; the culture is occupied with more concrete manners. Escapism in art, and through real life performance, is discouraged. The final sequence is supposedly impromptu without Sabzian's knowledge that this was to be filmed too. Kiarostami had arranged for a real life reconciliation between him and his lifelong idol, and the affection shown in the hug is real. While we have been thrust into so many closeups that are 'real' throughout the film, this one is shot from a distance, and followed raggedly through traffic. Their dialogue is lopsided; one is according to script, pre-planned and rigid, while the other is authentically starstruck and bursting with amazement. So what does Kiarostami do? He chops up the audio track. It's a genius move. In an auteurist act, he cuts all the fixed elements of it until he is left with only the spontaneity, and this pushes at our objective understandings of the previous portrayals of realism. And we are left scratching our heads and wondering whether our speakers are broken, and how what we have just watched could be captured in any other way.

The Iranian film Nema-ye Nazdik was shown in the U.S. with the title Close-Up (1990). It was written and directed by Abbas Kiarostami, who also appears in the film.Close-Up is an very unusual movie. It's based upon a real event--a man named Hossain Sabzian convinces a wealthy family that he is Mohsen Makhmalbaf, another Iranian filmmaker. Kiarostami recreates the original deception, using Sabzian and the family as actors in their own drama. Eventually, the film shifts into real time, at Sabzian's trial and after. Not only is Kiarostami permitted to film the trial, but he's permitted to take part in it! (As Kiarostami has said, "Things that are possible everywhere else are impossible in Iran. Things that are impossible everywhere else are possible in Iran.)Kiarostami is a genius, and there are many examples of his incredible skill throughout the movie. Often, Kiarostami turns his camera on events that are at the periphery of the action, rather than at the center. For example, in the beginning of the movie, a journalist and two policemen travel by taxi to the home of the wealthy family. When they get there, there's all kinds of discussion about who should go inside, who should stay hidden, etc. Finally, all three men go into the house where, obviously, something important is going to happen.Any other director would take his camera into the house to film the action. Not Kiarostami. We're left outside with the taxi driver. The family's gardener has swept cuttings and brush into a pile on the street. The taxi driver leaves his cab to pick through the cuttings in search of flowers. Along with the flowers, he finds an empty spray can. He sends it into the street where we watch it roll and bounce downhill. Suddenly you realize, "There's action going on inside the house, and we're not seeing it." However, until that dawns on you, you've really become interested in whether the can will roll all the way down the street to the bottom, or whether it will be hung up on debris or at the curb. Kiarostami is saying to us, "Many things are happening simultaneously. This is the thing I've chose to show you. Isn't it interesting?"The movie wouldn't work if Sabzian weren't such an unusual and fascinating character. Much is made in the movie about why he entered into this deception. He wasn't trying to steal from or cheat the family. He just wanted to fool them, which he did.I think his motivation is obvious. Outside the walls of the family's home he's just a poor, inconsequential person who is barely managing to get by. Inside the walls he's a wealthy, prestigious director. Which would you rather be?We saw the film on DVD, and it worked well. It's a fascinating movie. Seek it out and watch it!

I've just finished "Nema-ye Nazdik" (Close-up) and i LOVED it. It's about the trial of a man who impersonate the identity of Mohsen Makhmalbaf to a family. Hossain Sabzian is the protagonist and he played the role in a very good way. He tell honestly what he did and assumes as he has done something bad, which is different than clichés as we can see on others movies like "I'm innocent, i didn't do anything".It's also a movie about cinema, the names of Makhmalbaf movies are mentioned many times like "Bicycleran" (The Cyclist) and "Arousi-ye Khouban" (Marriage of the Blessed). The movie title is also a reference to the cinema because a "close-up" it's a type of shot, the director who wants to make a film about the trial of Hossain Sabzian shoot him in close-up.

I think Close-Up is a very well thought film.Abbas Kiarostami makes us doubt about what cinema is, and makes some questions like if cinema is an art restricted to people who have money and means. It makes us think about the true meaning of cinema.We have this poor man who wants to make a movie to expose or transpose the suffering of the simple low-class worker (like himself). He commits the crime of using another known director's identity, lying to an upper-medium class family, just to get some resources for his film. We can see from his statements, later, that he wouldn't want to do any harm to the family. He just saw an easy way out of his daily routine and awareness of not having the money to make something.I feel that a film can be made when there are loads of emotion at stake. It doesn't matter that much what kind of skill or knowledge the director has; Cinema is a vehicle of emotions. Aren't our favourite films the one's who mesh with our background, with our past emotions or with anything related to a moment in our lives? There are moments in the film where we loose the notion of fiction or trueness. We see very grainy shots from the court's room , mostly with a fixed camera pointing at him. They seem really true and honest, like when someone is completely nude. We get to see the real man, and what has driven him to do what he did. The last scene where the actual director gives him a motorcycle ride,it's just so damn beautiful, and the "mea culpa" at the end... well,this is just a magical peace of art.