By All Accounts: Changing the Narrative in Close-Up and Casting JonBenet

Abbas Kiarostami is considered to be one of Iran’s greatest filmmakers and I am inclined to agree. His films are known for their humanity, emotion and intimacy; both the intimacy between the characters in the film and the intimacy between the film and its viewers. His cinema is centred around the human condition, the individual and our relationships with each other. Not only are these deep and emotional tales, but there is often a subtle political element to them; a commentary on the issues currently facing Iran. Kiarostami includes it delicately so as to not allow it to detract from or dominate the films' more emotional and charming elements.

His films are often slow-paced and simple and based on such an intense realism that his fictional work often looks like a documentary. This blending of the real and fictional worlds will be the focus of this week's ramblings. Sometimes crossing the line between fiction and reality can, in turn, create something more powerful and beautiful than either ever could alone.

His 1990 classic Close-Up is a key example of this blending of fact and fiction. Close-Up is my favourite film in Kiarostami’s collection (although Homework (1989) and Where is the Friend's Home? (1987) follow closely behind). I believe that what is achieved in this film by the ingenious filmic techniques deployed by Kiarostami paved the way for other filmmakers and led to what I believe to be one of the greatest documentaries in recent year's: Kitty Green’s 2017 Netflix hit Casting JonBenet.

Close-Up is truly a mix of fact and fiction. The line that separates the two is blurred and Kiarostami does not define the line for the viewer. Part of this blurring is due to the fact that the film's narrative is, in fact, based on real-life events. Hossain Sabzian impersonated Mohsen Makhmalbaf. Makhmalbaf is another one of Iran’s great directors and Sabzian was a fan, to put it mildly. Sabzian not only convinced a family that he was Makhmalbaf, but also that they would be the stars of his next film.

What really augments this clash of realities is that not only is this film based on real events, but all of the people in the film are playing themselves. Kiarostami is, in a sense, recreating what has already happened. Of course, some scenes are total fiction and even the replications of true events are not totally accurate because, well, they can’t be. It is a true story that is in a way no longer 'true'. As we all know, the more we go into the past, the more we change it and the less true it becomes.

While maybe some of the truth in the film becomes diluted or altered, it still happened. Kiarostami’s directional decisions no doubt added to this already incredible story and absolutely made it more emotional and human. The fact that the family that took Sabzian to court are now starring alongside him, acting out the very events that drove them apart, brings them together again. How many films have the victims and perpetrators acting alongside each other? The dynamic this creates, its humanity, its emotion, would any of this have been present without the merging of the two worlds?

This film says a lot about truth, not just in its themes, but also in its whole approach. As a viewer, how do we know which scenes are based on the truth and which are total fiction? Unless you read about Close-Up before you watch it, you might think it was all fiction or, because of its look and its grounding in reality, it may come across as a documentary. Does any of this matter? In the end, do we not reach a truth of some kind? And does the addition of the fictional scenes not enhance this already impactful story? The film ends with what is possibly one of the most emotional scenes in cinema history. Did it ever happen though? And does it even matter when it makes us feel so much?

After I watched Casting JonBenet, I was left in total awe by its genius and, of course, immediately thought of Close-Up. I had been hesitant to watch it at all as documentaries on the Ramsey murder are a dime a dozen and most added very little to what we already think we know about the case.

Casting JonBenet is categorised as a documentary, but, for me, much like Close-Up, the mixing of fiction and reality create something new and, in this case, better. When doing my research for this post, I saw that one of the most googled responses to this film is “what is the point?”, which is disappointing. So, many people seemed to have missed the point of what I consider to be an outstanding film. This is perhaps due to the film's unique approach and its dissimilarity to most documentaries to date.

The film uses real-life people from Boulder and the Colorado area, where the family lived and the murder took place. Each person is going through the casting process for the lead roles in the film. Similar to Close-Up, this addition of real people begins to blur the lines between a fiction film and a documentary.

The film becomes a mix of staged recreations of the case's most famous moments and private interviews with the hopeful actors. These recreations are extremely high budget and look like something out of a Hollywood thriller or the high-end Netflix 'Docuseries' that we are all very familiar with now. However, these recreations are infrequent and as the film goes on, we realise that they are in fact not the point. The content of these reenactments does create meaning, though, because, like in Close-Up, we can never truly know what happened behind closed doors and the revisitation of the past can bring with it new meaning. And with regard to the ‘auditions’, while they are real, the audition process doesn't matter because, unbeknownst to the actors, they will all ultimately get cast. The content of the auditions does, though, because that is where the meaning lies, this is the new element brought to something that has already happened in the hope that something new can be created. The case is real, the people are real, but the recreations and the opinions of the people of Colorado are pure speculations. The film continues as this constant mix of these contradictions.

The film's opening sequence has a great impact and sets up the viewer for what the film wants of us. Several little JonBenet’s run into shot. One hopeful young actor, clapperboard in hand, asks, ‘Do you know who killed her?”. I don’t know if this was scripted or the genuine curiosity of a child, but it reminds us of the answer we are hoping to find. The film's title, in cursive, glitters above a beautiful mountain landscape with orchestral music, like something out of a Disney film. This is the exact kind of duality we encounter throughout.

Much of this case is unknown. If we are going to speculate, why not hear from the people who lived there and were near the case? Not only do we hear their opinions on the case, but we also hear their own stories, their own life experiences, some with little relevance to the case. Still, it is interesting to listen to people's life stories and see what the case triggers in them. Each opinion adds insight and who knows what could lead to a breakthrough?

Much like Close-Up, this film makes us very aware of the filmmaking process. This is most evident during the film's closing sequence. We see the preparation of the shoot; the work that goes into preparing each scene. Each actor is cast and each one gets the chance to recreate what happened and express how they believe their character was feeling. We watch the various speculated scenarios play out. It is an intensely emotional scene and it is here that we are reminded that this is a human story, and, at the end of the day, each family member had their own problems and struggles, and a little girl was killed.

Close-Up reenacts the past with the people who took part in the original events, which makes the events less true, but no less impactful. This directorial presentation, along with the addition of fictional scenes, creates a work greater than the sum of its parts. How many of us get to relive something we have already done and imagine what we could change or gain from living it again? Casting JonBenet replays the past, but adds new players whose own life experience may tell us something about a seemingly tired case. Both films' stories are human stories. Both films are a blend of what’s real, what might be real and what we will never know. What both of these films show is that there is something to be gained from thinking outside of the box. Nothing has to be one thing or the other.

With every good film I see, I feel reborn.