And a psychological one. This movie is only, so to speak, about a man, his mind and his conscience and this is well portrayed by his attitude and his reactions. His love of art and cinema led him to impersonate a famous film director and convincing of that a rich family to whom he said he would like to make a movie at their home and with them He ended up charged with fraud and his behaviour during trial was moving and very expressive. This story happened really and most of the performers were the real people that intervened on the real event which makes this movie half documentary half fictional. That simple story is so well directed and performed that keeps you interested and sensible through the whole film projection.

Abbas Kiarostami died a few months ago, so I decided that I would watch this movie of his. "Nemā-ye nazdīk" ("Close-Up" in English) is based on the story of a man who pretended to be filmmaker Mohsen Makhmalbaf, and the subsequent trial. The movie tests your attention span with its long scenes and emphasis on dialog.I hadn't known of the story until I watched the movie. Kiarostami's movies often look at people striving towards goals (the only other one that I've seen is "Taste of Cherry"). But beyond the story, the movie functions as a look at this turning point in Iran's history. They had just come out of the eight-year-long war with Iraq - when the US, UK, Israel and USSR had armed Saddam Hussein against the revolutionary government - and Ayatollah Khomeini had just died. Iran remained a mostly isolated state for years afterwards until the US overthrow of Saddam Hussein allowed the Islamic Republic to have a stronger hand in the region.Anyway, the movie is worth seeing. Both Kiarostami and Mokhmalbaf play themselves in it. Too bad that we won't see any more Kiarostami movies. This year took him, David Bowie, Alan Rickman, Prince, Muhammad Ali, Gene Wilder, Leonard Cohen, Leon Russell and Lupita Tovar. That and the ascendance to the US presidency of an unhinged demagogue make 2016 one crummy year.

A powerful film that has a question, how do we know if something is real or fake.A man is disguised and pretends himself to be a film director, he uses that alibi so as to feed himself and earn some petty money. Now that he is satisfied, he overdoes it to a point that he gets caught by the law. But wasn't he real to a good amount of time, are people so easily convinced and if all is true, then what is the real truth. Now, this might sum up an intrigue I kept jotting myself as I was curious even after the end of the film. Primarily, I thank criterion again for putting this in their collection and helping me learn about it. I respect their collection much. Secondly, I was lucky to have decided to watch this on Sunday night as this kind of film makes up most of the lost weekend. It simply makes me a viewer joyous, coz this is not a regular film that has a beginning with the introduction of hero, and ending with a big fight or dance. This is film, where there are questions, be it of identity or even purpose of existence and means of survival. That's like fodder to the cattle of viewers and I love such good fodder which makes me relish as well as make me try the same taste again.Abbas Kiarostami took this story from a real incident and make it as a docu-drama and he did it with finesse and perfection. So thanks to him in a very big way. As my earlier Kiarostami movie which is WHERE IS FRIEND'S HOME, this film is also low on production values and rich in content. Thanks to the ensemble cast who have played out their real life characters here. Kiarostami pulled it off astonishingly well. I would be critical if I said that anybody in the film acted well, indeed it's not called acting, it's called living the role and each one has done that exquisitely well. Kiarostami also used the sound superbly, it was real and yet so dramatic. The dialogs conveyed a deeper philosophical meaning and they had layers. The questions the judge put across to the accused were well drafted and they clarified most of my doubts as viewer too.As and when, I cast a logical doubt, the film returned me the answer asking a similar question that was running in my head and it was phenomenal in my perspective. Seldom, I have seen such a thing that keeps you glued making you think and as if it has heard your questions, answers you back. Kiarostami seems to have known the psyche of a viewer way too well, that he might have himself asked so many questions before putting the script in place. Also, I got to know of another wonderful Iranian director in this film Mohsen Makhamalbaf. Maybe I will catch up with some of Mohsen's films too. But for now, I am happy to have seen this and reviewing it for my own good gives me a happiness. I am going with 4/5 and please see this in any which way possible and I assure you that you will be subjected to a different kind of experience that's unique to say the least.

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!