Recent Comment


Close-Up (大寫特寫, 1990)

Close-Up (大寫特寫, 1990)

Abbas Kiarostami
imdb link 



九十年代, 伊朗~ 熱愛電影的製書工人 Sabzian 冒認伊朗著名電影導演 Mohsen Makhmalbaf, 向富裕家庭 Ahankhah 騙錢拍戲, 終被警方拘捕及起訴~ 事件刊登在雜誌上, 本片導演知悉後親身探望 Sabzian, 拍下審訊過程, 並邀請 Sabzian 和 Ahankhah 一家重演案發經過~


真實與虛構在伊朗導演 基阿魯斯達米 的 “Close-Up” 一直糾纏不清~ 電影乍看是一部以騙徒 Sabzian 為主角的紀錄片, 但 基阿魯斯達米 又不時左右事態發展方向, 例如走進法庭拍攝向被告人提問, 又安排 Sabzian 與 Mohsen Makhmalbaf 真人見面~

電影的剪接和鋪陳更是刻意擾亂視聽: 電影以一幕案件重演開始, 看來就像一部劇情片, 中途又不按時序地加插案情重演片段, 而背後原因竟是本片最初在德國放映時有人搞錯菲林次序, 導演看畢覺得效果更好, 於是索性將錯就錯將電影重新剪接至現在的模樣~ 最有趣是一眾負責重演事件的演員, 正正就是 Sabzian 和 Ahankhah 一家人, 讓這些想像情景添加一份同類錄像少有的真實性~

真實與虛構並非如河水不犯井水般互相對立, 基阿魯斯達米 藉本片指出二者關係微妙之處~ 這宗案件以 Sabzian 冒充 Mohsen Makhmalbaf 騙錢拍電影的謊話開始, 但結果卻因而衍生出 “Close-Up” 這部電影~ 那些案件重演片段, 就如實現了 Sabzian 詐騙 Ahankhah 一家時說會為他們拍戲的謊話, 同時又讓 Sabzian 這位超級影痴圓夢, 真正親身參與電影製作~

從法庭對質一幕可見, Sabzian 冒充導演一方面是因為他對電影的熱愛, 希望尋找資金拍戲, 另一方面是因為 “導演” 這銜頭讓他得到一份平常沒有人給予的尊重, 讓他深深感受較高社會地位所賦與的尊嚴~ 審訊過程期間, 更揭示了 Sabzian 跟電影之間又愛又恨的複雜關係~ Sabzian 為電影花費大量私人時間, 賠上自己的事業, 又令家庭破裂, 弄得妻離子散, 但諷刺是他說自己最欣賞的電影就是那些講述小人物之苦的作品~ 電影一方面摧毀了他的人生, 卻又讓他在光影中尋獲一點共鳴和慰藉~

基阿魯斯達米 安排 Mohsen Makhmalbaf 真人與 Sabzian 見面一幕, 把二人對話的音軌弄得斷斷續續, 並騙說觀眾是因為收音器失靈所致, 讓觀眾自行猜想二人的對話~ 這點小小的謊言, 營造出廣闊的想像空間, 令這個百感交雜的場面更具震撼力, 並且證明謊話可能更勝真實, 與及 less is more 的道理~

基阿魯斯達米 跟 Sabzian 在羈留所初次見面時, 曾問及有甚麼可以效勞, 對方回答說希望導演可以拍一部電影講述他的痛苦~ 結尾 Sabzian 跟 Mohsen Makhmalbaf 一同拜訪 Ahankhah 家一幕, 某程度上正好回應了 Sabzian 這訴求~ 二人來到大宅門前, 他在通話器說出自己的名字, 另一方卻茫無頭緒, 他只得補上一句說自己是 Makhmalbaf, 對方才恍然大悟開門~ 這段簡單的小插曲, 殘酷地指出失去導演光環的 Sabzian, 如今再次回復當初無名小卒的身份, 成為他所喜愛那種講述小人物苦難的電影的主角~ 冒充導演時的風光, 被打回原形後的不幸, 真真假假, 攝影機一直默默在看~

6 comments to Close-Up (大寫特寫, 1990)

  • Close Up was my first Kiarostami film (I was lucky to see it in the theatre too), but I wasn’t particularly impressed by it then, feeling that it was all just a simple reenactment of a small but interesting story related to cinema. It’s only recently, when I revisited the film on DVD, that I realised how much nuances and themes it achieved. Do note that Kiarostami admitted in a DVD interview that the omission of sound in the meeting between Makhmalbaf and Sabzian was really due to faulty equipment and not something deliberate (a fortunate accident, I guess). If the film precedes the documentary/fiction interplay trend that is prevalent in world cinema nowadays, it may be the most simple (but not simplistic), naturalistic yet reflexive, and compassionate example of this trend. This blur of reality and fiction is accentuated by Kiarostami’s intervention in conceiving the project and his participation in scenes within the film; but while he never acknowledges this role directly, we as the audience don’t feel manipulated by the events (the trial scenes are apparently genuine) and the restaging of events.

    There’s still a lot of Kiarostami that I haven’t experienced, and I’m pretty frustrated I’m going to skip the entire retrospective (no thanks to work and a pre-booked holiday trip)- his films, particularly his later experimental works require the patience and attention that you can only give in a cinema setting. I’m sure I would have been moved by Shirin if I saw it in the cinema rather than at home, although on the other hand I don’t think I’ll ever appreciate the very spare Five Dedicated to Ozu.

    Just wondering, are they giving out mini essay booklets for Kiarostami/Vietnam retrospectives like they did previously for Antonioni/Bergman/Angelopoulos?

  • re: The Daydreamer
    Which DVD are you referring to? It’s quite well documented in Criterion’s DVD and other discussions of the film that the soundtrack of that meeting scene is deliberately dropped out intermittently~

    As for the trial scene, the questions raised by Kiarostami are asked after the the judge’s interrogation, and later edited together as if the director is asking the questions during the trial~ By the way, the Criterion DVD also features a documentary on Sabzian made a few years after this film, which I find very moving and shed more light on him~

    It’s interesting that Kiarostami himself seems to be fond of confusing things and promoting people to have their own readings of his films~ If you read Jonathan Rosenbaum and Mehrnaz Saeed-Vafa’s book on the director, you’ll notice JR mentioned an instance (pp.28) when Kiarostami answered an audience’s erraneous question about film stock as though it is correct~ I guess it’s difficult to say how much of all these anecdotes are true, perhaps they are part of this reality/forgery game~

    Yes, there is a little booklet for Kiarostami’s retrospective~ It contains a piece written by the critic 王瑞祺 (in both English and Chinese)~ A translated piece of David Bordwell’s writing on “Shirin”, and a translated interview taken from the book I mentioned above, and also short notes and credits for each film~

  • Oh damn, I’ll have to find some way/someone to sneak a booklet for me then :S

    I’m referring to the Criterion DVD, but I do remember in the interview Kiarostami said it was really due to faulty equipment (memory playing tricks with me?). As for the trial, you mean Kiarostami asked the questions after the trial but within the court setting with the characters, and then edit it to make it as a seamless whole? Of course there’s manipulation throughout the film (that’s the whole point), but the way he stages and directs his characters makes it feel as natural as possible. Shabzian comes off in the documentary as a flawed and pitiful figure (although we have no idea how much of it is playing for the camera- the question of reality lingers on!), which makes Close Up even more a masterful film as it’s profoundly humanistic and not a little bit condescending. And I’m aware of Rosenbaum’s book but I feel I shouldn’t read it until I’ve seen more of his early works.

  • gNo Gravatar

    the booklet is well put together i think.
    worth take one to read. it’s available at the counter of each screening outside the theatre.

  • re: The Daydreamer
    @21:00 of the interview on the CC disc, Kiarostami said that “I included up to the ‘Makh-’ and erased the rest, and decided to say that the sound had dropped out”~ As for the trial, you may take a look at this article~ I have no way to confirm its claims though~

    Dropping out the sound is a clever move, since banal and irrelevant conversation would really spoil the emotional impact of the whole scene~

    And yes, we’ll never know when does real-life end and acting begin (and vice versa), this may well be an intrinsic flaw of the documentary form that Kiarostami tries to reveal in this film and other films like “Homework”~

    re: g
    Too bad they don’t have a booklet for the Vietnamese films!

  • [...] 含劇情描述 電影的剪接和鋪陳更是刻意擾亂視聽:電影以一幕案件重演開始,看來就像一部劇情片,中途又不按時序地加插案情重演片段,而背後原因竟是本片最初在德國放映時有人搞錯菲林次序,導演看畢覺得效果更好,於是索性將錯就錯將電影重新剪接至現在的模樣~ 最有趣是一眾負責重演事件的演員,正正就是 Sabzian 和 Ahankhah 一家人,讓這些想像情景添加一份同類錄像少有的真實性~(…閱讀全文) [...]

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>