A Russian nesting doll, a mise en abime, a mediation on the intense need to create, a riff on the impossibility of true "documentary", a loving snipe at the more ethnic or folklorical of the two great Iranian directors. A film where a can rolling down the street functions as a beautifully observed, understated poetic trope. A film that examines the whole notion of "image". A film that shows us the richness and depth of a society which we so often reduce to a series of negative clichés. A film with humor and compassion for all of its characters, but that doesn't bang you over the head with it. A radical approach to narrative which reconciles both post - narrative and post - post - narrative approaches to cinema. A film that makes you think, without slathering on any kind of "message". A film that brings up issues pertinent to film itself: questions of representation,storytelling, form, truth,etc. A freaking masterpiece!

This film seemed to get an awful lot of plaudits. It's a story of a man who oversteps his bounds as a supposed film producer and gets arrested for fraud. He led a wealthy Iranian family to believe he was filming them as a famous director when he had no such position. It involves his efforts to avoid prosecution and make right what he has done. There are several scenes presented documentary style, using non-actors. I have to say I had some trouble making my way through it.

"Nema-ye Nazdik" or (way easier to remember) "Close Up" is an Iranian movie from 1990 that is mostly in the Persian language. It runs for almost 100 minutes and was written and directed by Abbas Kiarostami who is not from Finland as you could guess with his name, but from Iran of course. It is neither an early-nor a late career effort from the recently deceased filmmaker, somewhere in the middle time-wise. But in terms of popularity, it is nowhere in the middle because looking at the film's imdb rating and also the number of votes, it is among Kiarostami's more known efforts, even if the awards recognition was not exactly gigantic, but with this we also need to keep in mind that it was 1990, a year with consiserably fewer awards bodies, let alone shows. Still it did not go empty-handed. Now as for the the film itself. It is as simpel as it is maybe bizarre. We have a man who posed as a famous Iranian director in order to get into the house of a well-off Iranian family and in order to have them give him a great deal of money. That is the very basic premise. Back then, televisions etc. were not a huge thing in Iran yet I guess, so they did not exactly know how the man really looked, even if they were at least partially skeptic, some of them. Now it did take me a little while to be really drawn in by this movie I must admit. The arrest early on did not do too much for me. However, the reenactments later on and also the courtroom action definitely got me hooked. The latter really worked very well. The accused's partial silence, the somewhat funny judge and of course also the victims. Now it was obvious the judge somehow liked the defendant with how he kept saying he should not say anything about a burglary and also how he asked the family to forgive the man. In the end, it is up to you to decide how much (if at all) you like him or if you just see him as a criminal. It is probably difficult to do the latter as there are many mitigating circumstances for him here, not just the children he has to make money for, but also clearly he is dedicated to movies as an art form be it as a fake director or actor. Actor ir fake actor? Up for you to decide too how much of what you saw in the courtroom was staged and how much was real. It is overall certainly a drama movie with crime elements, but here and there we also got a little laugh to lighten things up. The best example is the hectic guy looking for a devide during the arrest sequence or at the very end when we have the impostor show up at the family's house again and when they ask who is the one riniging the bell he says his real name first of all and it is unclear if they know who he is (they probably should) and then he says the name of the director, which was really laugh-out-loud funny. And another minor moment early on how we randomly see a guy with two turkeys on the street.

But even if it is a drama movie, it is not too serious all the time. For example with a country like Iran you never know and there was no extremely harsh sentence on the table, let alone the death penalty. By the way the defendant looked a bit like Ahmadinejad didn't he? I can't be the only one who thought so. He (i.e. the actor) was also never in another movie. Anyway, also the judge's behavior and eventually the family's forgiveness show that mercy is more important than revenge you could even say. The one thing I am really not sure at all here is how much was real and how much was staged. I went into this movie thinking it was a documentary, also with how Kiarostami played himself and we watched his struggles to get permission to film inside the courtroom etc. But now I believe even if everybody has theor own names in here apparently that it was in fact all scripted and staged. Still it surprises me then that we have not Hossain Sabzian play Hossain Sabzian according to the cast list (or another name),but "Himself" and same is true for every other cast member. Still I mean why would the family reenact these moments again at their home only for a movie? I don't think so. It is a fictitious movie. But while the imposter is really dedicated to movies, you can also see that Kiarostami is with the subject here. And he sure did a good job, not only with the camera work and direction and screenplay, but also with how I really thought this was a documentary because it felt so real and authentic most of the time. Also gives a fairly decent picture of Iran when the action does not take place in the house or the courtroom and we see the streets outside, like especially early on during this long sequence with the two soldiers. Also kinda memorable to me how Panahi drove through the country in a taxi not too long ago and here other vehicles, not just those with a motor, but also at the end the bike for example, play at least minor roles, maybe even major. It's up to interpretation. After all the sum they pay him is directly linked to transport too. Kiarostami has many nice momenst and scenes here that show how much attention to detail he pays really. One example would be the magazine with a photo of the real Mohsen Makhmalbaf. And this man is indeed a very prolific and successful filmmaker, still alive today because he was/is considerably younger than Kiarostami. Now I don't know if these two were friends or so, but if this film is not seen as a tribute by Kiarostami to film and movies in general, there is no denying it is a tribute to Makhmalbaf already through the fact how many of his works are mentioned throughout the course of these 100 minutes. Overall, I do think maybe the rating is slightly too high, but I enjoyed the watch and if you don't mind seeing obscure movies in languages you will never understand (I assume you are not Iranian reading my review),then this one is worth checking out. If you're Iranian, then it is the same, probably even more so. No hesitation here for me when it comes to the final verdict. Thumbs up for this at times charming, but almost always interesting film. Go watch and I as actually surprised by how many people were at my showing. I mean it was not Tarantino level or so, but I still did not think this film would create so much interest. Good.