> Internationally revered Iranian filmmaker Abbas Kiarostami has created some of the most inventive and transcendent cinema of the past thirty years, and Close-up is his most radical, brilliant work. This fiction-documentary hybrid uses a sensational real-life event—the arrest of a young man on charges that he fraudulently impersonated the well-known filmmaker Mohsen Makhmalbaf—as the basis for a stunning, multilayered investigation into movies, identity, artistic creation, and existence, in which the real people from the case play themselves. With its universal themes and fascinating narrative knots, Close-up has resonated with viewers around the world.
I simply love this film and so many of Kiarostami. Close-up wins out in my top 3 because of just how brilliantly he and his found-actor make use of each other. To perfect ends.
(Where is the friend's house, and Through the olive trees are my other favourites, though truly all are fantastic)
This is on my list now. Sounds similar to one of my favs, Charlie Kaufman's Adaptation, a movie about himself and his alter ego struggling to write an adaptation of a book.
If anyone is looking for a streaming service to support, the Criterion Channel is phenomenal.
They do historical, current, American, gay, black, Latino, female, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, etc. films without any pretense other than a film in its honest self.
I've been introduced to so many films and ideas without pretext from the CC that I consider the fee worth it even as I return to the high seas.
```The Auteurs was founded in 2007 by Efe Çakarel, who began work on the business model for MUBI after being unable to watch In the Mood for Love online while in a café in Tokyo.```[0]
speaks to me on a spiritual level. I'll have to check it out. Thanks!
I have mild ADD and can't read books very well. I read a book like I read Twitter, extracting little soundbites and quotes out of it to mull over later. With movies, I get the basic gist of a story and I'm happy with that. A movie is a watered down book that I don't have to wade through. Some key movies that I always loved: Limitless, The Matrix, Fight Club, all of the LOTR movies.
Those movies moved me in ways a book simply couldn't. And I've tried reading Tolkien, and just couldn't pay attention. A little hack I do (since I will never read all the books in the world), is read the last line of a book I randomly picked up in the library or a book shop, and commit that line to memory. I've memorized ~100 'last sentences' of books now!
Audiobook publisher GraphicAudio has cheesy tagline: "A Movie In Your Mind.". Well yeah, that's where all movies play. But there is a sense in which an audiobook is more movie than book. Especially with light reading while doing something else, like driving or gardening.
I agree. I have a vivid imagination (visual and otherwise) and like reading. When I imagined this scene, it was rich in detail (colors, textures, lighting etc.), but the person's hair wasn't a part of it, because I had "zoomed in" too close to the action.
I imagined what you said, but my thought was focused on the ball, and so the person was "unfocused", or "not as detailed" - I'm not even sure what gender they were.
Oh, and I'm colour blind (which is relatively common), so probably don't think of colours in the same way as others.
When I was younger, I would always skip over those kinds of long, windy paragraphs full of visual descriptions. It’s like noise to me.
I do have a sort of movie playing in my head, but it’s not really a visual or auditory experience. It’s more like a running list of bullet points; a stream of facts. Visual descriptions are chock full of these facts, but they’re all usually inconsequential to the plot so I tune them out.
I find aphantasia very strange. I don’t lack a mind’s eye, but I do lack the ability to use it while conscious. My dreams are extremely visual and movie-like, but my conscious experience isn’t really visual at all. It wasn’t until recently that I learned “day dreams” are named that way because for most people they resemble dreams, but mine don’t at all.
Sounds like pop science. I did as you asked and didn't imagine the person's hair, but I can imagine things visually and have been an avid reader since childhood.
One little trick that works for me: read and listen at the same time.
I love books, I love reading, but my main struggle while reading was having to go back and read a few pages again and again when I caught myself lost in random thoughts. Sometimes it took quite a long time to finish a simple book because of this.
Most books today have and audiobook version. So just try both at the same time. It's less likely you'll get distracted and if you do, you can just catch up to what you have been listening.
But most important trick is to read things you like and that interest you. Don't force on books that aren't interesting just to say that you finished it.
Reminds me of Camus’ Myth of Sisyphus. If you haven’t read it, basically one of his recommendations of how to live life knowing that the human condition is absurd, is to be an artist. If you’re an actor, you become the role. If you truly become the role, you’ve lived a whole new life.
PS - if you’ve read it, I’d love to hear your thoughts. I’m sure people have different interpretations.
I read the first few pages but it so dense with references to other works/philosophers it felt unreadable to me (and I've read a decent bit of philosophy but not a ton).
I just checked it out, on your recommendation :-) Uh, there's only about one philosopher/fictional character mentioned per page in the first 10 pages, and not unnecessary mentions. Very disappointed. /s It's very readable too. (Well, it would be but I don't read bleak writers these days. From everything I've heard, Camus was vastly superior as man and writer to Sartre. I read a lot of Sartre decades ago and don't recommend it.)
I didn't read the actual Myth of Sisyphus, but I've listened to some lectures about it and read some descriptions of it. I can't quite convince myself that studying it is worth it, and I'd like to hear why exactly it is worthwhile.
From my perspective, absurdism seems like Greek stoicism, but created by a deeply depressed person. The stoic perspective is that we're capable of persevering through the worst possible situations in life and that our intelligences, minds are able to handle such problems, that if we just listen to ourselves we can see how to navigate the most difficult scenarios and to thrive despite them. What is also appealing to me about stoicism is that it's not only a perspective on life, it's a set of practices which can help you adopt the perspective (sort of like Zen koans are supposed to help you adopt the Zen mindset).
On the other hand, what I've heard of absurdism seems to tell me that its overall outlook is very similar, but it sounds far, far more depressive, which is quite impressive if I'm comparing it with a philosophy that tries to convince you it's good to think about your child's death when you're telling them goodnight.
For me stoicism was more of a stop along the path, and for now zen buddhism is where I'm at.
The main issues I had with stoicism was that 1) it struck me as a bit too much tied to a particular type of person (that I am perhaps not), and 2) while much more practical than the faith I grew up with, it still often felt a bit too much stuck with aphorisms and not enough of an entire 'system'.
I found zen, even without the support of a community, to scratch a bit more of that itch I felt every since I left the comprehensive religion that I was part of.
I didn't get it to be depressive at all. Perhaps you should read it for yourself. The essay is quite uplifting, actually.
I think Nietzsche criticism against stoicism is on point. I would compare Absurdism which Nietzschean thought. The difference being Albert Camus is much more relatedable for the modern working man.
Thanks for the recommendation! What genuinely surprised me was that the stoic perspective to trust your own self felt incredibly relatable to me. That and the various opinions on Roman society expressed by both Seneca and Aurelius.
I definitely want to read Nietzsche. I'm currently trying to get a broader perspective, and it seems that Nietzsche should be next in line.
Would you care to outline what exactly was Nietzsche's criticism?
I was thinking about your comment today. The fact that you found Absurdism depressing is actually the most common response which is addressed in the essay. Albert Camus goes through the reasons why life being absurd does not predicate a depressing conclusion. At the end, he wanted to remind himself and the world of the reasons why life is worth living.
As for Nietzsche, I can't outline what he said. Any summary would be a disservice. In order to comprehend his ideas, he must be studied seriously. Otherwise, you might get the impression that he is a madman rambling.
I only will paste the following excerpt to give you enough curiosity for further reading:
“You desire to LIVE "according to Nature"? Oh, you noble Stoics, what fraud of words! Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power—how COULD you live in accordance with such indifference? To live—is not that just endeavouring to be otherwise than this Nature? Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different? And granted that your imperative, "living according to Nature," means actually the same as "living according to life"—how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be? In reality, however, it is quite otherwise with you: while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature, you want something quite the contrary, you extraordinary stage-players and self-deluders! In your pride you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you insist that it shall be Nature "according to the Stoa," and would like everything to be made after your own image, as a vast, eternal glorification and generalism of Stoicism! With all your love for truth, you have forced yourselves so long, so persistently, and with such hypnotic rigidity to see Nature FALSELY, that is to say, Stoically, that you are no longer able to see it otherwise—and to crown all, some unfathomable superciliousness gives you the Bedlamite hope that BECAUSE you are able to tyrannize over yourselves—Stoicism is self-tyranny—Nature will also allow herself to be tyrannized over: is not the Stoic a PART of Nature?... But this is an old and everlasting story: what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual Will to Power, the will to "creation of the world," the will to the causa prima.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
38 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 81.4 ms ] thread> Internationally revered Iranian filmmaker Abbas Kiarostami has created some of the most inventive and transcendent cinema of the past thirty years, and Close-up is his most radical, brilliant work. This fiction-documentary hybrid uses a sensational real-life event—the arrest of a young man on charges that he fraudulently impersonated the well-known filmmaker Mohsen Makhmalbaf—as the basis for a stunning, multilayered investigation into movies, identity, artistic creation, and existence, in which the real people from the case play themselves. With its universal themes and fascinating narrative knots, Close-up has resonated with viewers around the world.
https://www.criterion.com/films/1092-close-up
(Where is the friend's house, and Through the olive trees are my other favourites, though truly all are fantastic)
They do historical, current, American, gay, black, Latino, female, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, etc. films without any pretense other than a film in its honest self.
I've been introduced to so many films and ideas without pretext from the CC that I consider the fee worth it even as I return to the high seas.
```The Auteurs was founded in 2007 by Efe Çakarel, who began work on the business model for MUBI after being unable to watch In the Mood for Love online while in a café in Tokyo.```[0]
speaks to me on a spiritual level. I'll have to check it out. Thanks!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mubi_(streaming_service)
Those movies moved me in ways a book simply couldn't. And I've tried reading Tolkien, and just couldn't pay attention. A little hack I do (since I will never read all the books in the world), is read the last line of a book I randomly picked up in the library or a book shop, and commit that line to memory. I've memorized ~100 'last sentences' of books now!
Maybe that loophole will work for your ADD.
The aphantasia test: imagine a person rolling a ball across the table.
What color was the person's hair? If it didn't occur to you, you may have aphantasia.
(This ability, I assume, is key in reading books. It's like an ongoing movie in your head if you can do it. I can't.)
I imagined what you said, but my thought was focused on the ball, and so the person was "unfocused", or "not as detailed" - I'm not even sure what gender they were.
Oh, and I'm colour blind (which is relatively common), so probably don't think of colours in the same way as others.
I do have a sort of movie playing in my head, but it’s not really a visual or auditory experience. It’s more like a running list of bullet points; a stream of facts. Visual descriptions are chock full of these facts, but they’re all usually inconsequential to the plot so I tune them out.
I find aphantasia very strange. I don’t lack a mind’s eye, but I do lack the ability to use it while conscious. My dreams are extremely visual and movie-like, but my conscious experience isn’t really visual at all. It wasn’t until recently that I learned “day dreams” are named that way because for most people they resemble dreams, but mine don’t at all.
I love books, I love reading, but my main struggle while reading was having to go back and read a few pages again and again when I caught myself lost in random thoughts. Sometimes it took quite a long time to finish a simple book because of this.
Most books today have and audiobook version. So just try both at the same time. It's less likely you'll get distracted and if you do, you can just catch up to what you have been listening.
But most important trick is to read things you like and that interest you. Don't force on books that aren't interesting just to say that you finished it.
I hope this helps.
PS - if you’ve read it, I’d love to hear your thoughts. I’m sure people have different interpretations.
From my perspective, absurdism seems like Greek stoicism, but created by a deeply depressed person. The stoic perspective is that we're capable of persevering through the worst possible situations in life and that our intelligences, minds are able to handle such problems, that if we just listen to ourselves we can see how to navigate the most difficult scenarios and to thrive despite them. What is also appealing to me about stoicism is that it's not only a perspective on life, it's a set of practices which can help you adopt the perspective (sort of like Zen koans are supposed to help you adopt the Zen mindset).
On the other hand, what I've heard of absurdism seems to tell me that its overall outlook is very similar, but it sounds far, far more depressive, which is quite impressive if I'm comparing it with a philosophy that tries to convince you it's good to think about your child's death when you're telling them goodnight.
Sorry if the take seems too hot.
The main issues I had with stoicism was that 1) it struck me as a bit too much tied to a particular type of person (that I am perhaps not), and 2) while much more practical than the faith I grew up with, it still often felt a bit too much stuck with aphorisms and not enough of an entire 'system'.
I found zen, even without the support of a community, to scratch a bit more of that itch I felt every since I left the comprehensive religion that I was part of.
That said, I do love the stoics.
I think Nietzsche criticism against stoicism is on point. I would compare Absurdism which Nietzschean thought. The difference being Albert Camus is much more relatedable for the modern working man.
I definitely want to read Nietzsche. I'm currently trying to get a broader perspective, and it seems that Nietzsche should be next in line.
Would you care to outline what exactly was Nietzsche's criticism?
As for Nietzsche, I can't outline what he said. Any summary would be a disservice. In order to comprehend his ideas, he must be studied seriously. Otherwise, you might get the impression that he is a madman rambling.
I only will paste the following excerpt to give you enough curiosity for further reading:
“You desire to LIVE "according to Nature"? Oh, you noble Stoics, what fraud of words! Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power—how COULD you live in accordance with such indifference? To live—is not that just endeavouring to be otherwise than this Nature? Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different? And granted that your imperative, "living according to Nature," means actually the same as "living according to life"—how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be? In reality, however, it is quite otherwise with you: while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature, you want something quite the contrary, you extraordinary stage-players and self-deluders! In your pride you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you insist that it shall be Nature "according to the Stoa," and would like everything to be made after your own image, as a vast, eternal glorification and generalism of Stoicism! With all your love for truth, you have forced yourselves so long, so persistently, and with such hypnotic rigidity to see Nature FALSELY, that is to say, Stoically, that you are no longer able to see it otherwise—and to crown all, some unfathomable superciliousness gives you the Bedlamite hope that BECAUSE you are able to tyrannize over yourselves—Stoicism is self-tyranny—Nature will also allow herself to be tyrannized over: is not the Stoic a PART of Nature?... But this is an old and everlasting story: what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual Will to Power, the will to "creation of the world," the will to the causa prima.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
Love the honesty