Copie conforme (2010) Reviews

• An enigma, a puzzle, a portrait and a copy

  jasongrimshaw2010-09-17

  Certified Copy is at first sight a romantic drama set on a single day in a small Tuscan village. A beautiful, if typical European art-house picture, but in fact it has something much more significant to offer. I have to laugh at the constant use of the word "pretentious" on this site in relation to films which are challenging thematically and which do not engage all viewers. These reviewers use it in place of the word 'boring' because, I suppose, they feel that labelling it as merely boring suggests they have difficulty understanding it or engaging with it, when in fact that's their criticism. It's a miss representation of both the correct meaning of that word and what this film achieves. This film is not pretentious, it is exactly what it purports to be - an examination of a relationship in terms of reality and perception. A conversation examining the value of copies within our lives. It is also unmistakably a Kiarostami film. It's not for everybody. A French woman (Binoche) attends a lecture from a British author, James Miller (Shimell). Miller has just published a book on the subject of copies in the art world. She leaves the lecture early, but not before leaving her number for the author. The next day he calls to her gallery and the pair travel to Luciagno on what seems at first like a date. As the day progresses and the pair discuss his book and argue about the validity of copies versus originals, a complicity between them emerges. Perhaps they know each other quite well. perhaps this is not a first date. In a café a waitress mistakes them for a married couple and they decide to play along. However this game seems to get out of hand as they assume the roles of a couple who have been married for 15 years. Or do they. Perhaps they are or were married... Kiarostami skillfully weaves his tale around these two characters while examining his central theme that nothing is really original and that we all assume roles in our lives. This is a recall of the themes he masterfully examined in Close Up. At first sight the film may seem like an almost clichéd European art film, but it is in fact a version or copy of one, this is examined in a startling scene where the couple argue about the aesthetic value of a fountain. (Which is not real and was only placed there for the film). She loves it he doesn't. He finds it clichéd and ornate, while she has a very personal and sentimental reaction to it, much like many viewers are having to the film. However, Kiarostami is keen to ensure that it's clear that her perception is no less important or correct than his. Hers may be an emotional reaction, but it is a perfectly legitimate one. This film is not called Certified Copy' for nothing, it's Kiarostami's copy of a European art film, but is it any less valuable than the originals? Of course not. It exists in and of itself, independently of the 'original'. Kiarostami's film is very open ended. It never really explains the relationship between the two, which will exasperate audiences looking for a clear resolution. However, while people may come to different decisions as to the truth all the ingredients necessary are there. My interpretation is that they are not married, nor are they strangers, I believe that she is his mistress of 15 years and she longs to be his wife, while he is somewhat indifferent to her and probably has a wife. Their relationship is a 'copy' of a marriage without the legitimacy afforded to the other brides who appear regularly throughout the film. Kiarostami's film makes it clear that although she is 'only' the mistress, her feelings are legitimate. Kiarostami's film looks beautiful and uses it's location to great effect, without becoming a postcard travelogue. His usual visual tropes are all present from the long, unbroken takes to the direct to camera acting. In his first screen role William Shimell gives a solid and believable performance as the pompous and emotionally distant English man, while Binoche in her Cannes Best Actress winning role is a revelation. Her character is a mess of emotions and Binoche performs them with sheer skill. At times one can see that she is portraying her character as portraying these emotions and this acts to add depth to the concept of copies and reality. A brave and thoughtful performance. Certified Copy is not for everyone. To really 'get' the film one must fully engage in their discussion of some abstract and philosophical themes and in that respect the film may be more enjoyable in retrospect or on second viewing (I need to see it again!). However, for those who submit to it, it's a rich and rewarding cinematic diversion from the Iranian master of illusion. Terrific!

  More

• Time and time again

  chaos-rampant2011-05-13

  The mystery of this relationship will likely resonate the most with people. How do these two people know each other, is she the mistress, wife? I think it counts that Kiarostami has designed it to be impenetrable by logic, blurred the cause and effect, which is a way of dispelling the notion that we can know the world by it. Is he going to put his hand on her shoulder, will he take the 9 o'clock train out of there, I'd rather ask these questions myself. Both pertain here eventually, as abstractions of life. A man and a woman, whose relationship real or imaginary we might know from our own efforts. They stop in a museum before the picture of a portrait, thought for centuries to be the original, though lately discovered to have been only a perfect copy. What value has changed in this object, what new perception now regards it, this is where I believe this is best unraveled. Things change the man quips philosophically, an intellectual much like Kiarostami perhaps. Yet we see the same cypresses standing by the same old road, the same plazas and hotels they once visited, then young and booming with love. Having spoken so well, we see however that the man understands little of that. He can't even enjoy a simple glass of wine without complaining that it is corked, what should be a simple pleasure is tainted by the gross irritation that comes from too much satisfaction. Having satisfied our desires so many times, in so many different ways, we can see that we are no closer to happiness. Where does this weariness then, born from too much familiarity, from having seen or tasted too much, come from and why does it invest our gaze with this constant dissatisfaction? Another line of thought to connect the web of allusions. The woman, who has made herself beautiful for him in the day of their anniversary, says he doesn't see her anymore. He looks at her but doesn't see, meaning something has dissipated with time, grown withered in his eyes, though she is still the same, except a little older. Kiarostami perfectly visualizes the burden that saddles these people in the scene where they are driving around town in the car. On the windshield we see cast over their faces the reflections of buildings gliding by, not simply the gap that exists between them, indeed between any two human beings, but the burden of time, life passing them over. In a poignant metaphor, we see them move through existence. A perfect copy, the original, two identical objects which we are taught to perceive differently. The lines being the same in the same places, the hues of color painted exactly the same, the one intrinsic value that separates the two is merely time. Which is to say that as humans, who wither away with time, we allow ourselves to regard it as the most precious good, the one we cannot buy or sell. The movie shows us how, although we may understand our transience as an idea, we live as though we will always be here, as though we have time enough to postpone a small gesture of affection. But if we simply perceive the world around us, this present moment? This draught of air now coming from an open window or this glass of wine? Or indeed this woman who has made herself beautiful for us? This is a great film by one of the few gifted filmmakers of our times, perhaps his first truly great one. In the right ears, this will be a sutra that will permit us to meditate on fundamental precepts of existence, how time thought to matter matters little, how craving and ego blind us. How ultimately, like a mandala upon which Tibetan monks work tirelessly day and night only to destroy it upon completion, life is to be lived in full, with knowledge that it will come to pass.

  More

• Review: Certified Copy (Copie Conforme)

  movieevangelist2011-01-28

  The Pitch: It's like looking in a mirror, only… not. The Review: Juliette Binoche has had a career spanning nearly thirty years, and for much of that has jumped between roles in her natural language and English. You might think that, with the supposed paucity of good female roles in movies, that there's not much left for Binoche to cover that she hasn't before, but here she gets to explore some new territory to Cannes best actress award-winning effect. In the process, she gets to cover a range of languages, not only English and French but Italian, but in this case there is a specific purpose to the variances of the language. The set-up is simple: William Shimell plays James Miller, an British author on a tour of Tuscany where his work on originality in art has been better received than in his homeland. Binoche is the woman who comes to hear his talk, and the two are then drawn together in a discussion of his work. Once the two meet again, the course of the movie charts their discussions over the course of an afternoon, taking in the Italian countryside and engaging with a number of characters along the way who cause them to reflect on their differing viewpoints on Miller's work. There's a turning point as we approach the halfway mark where one of those characters seemingly mistakes the pair for a married couple. What starts as a role play, set off by the misunderstanding, takes on more and more aspects, and eventually both the pair and the audience are lost in the drama. The whole movie reveals itself to be an intricate construct on this concept, almost every aspect of the theme, the performances or the setting playing with the motif of originality versus imitation. Reflections in car windows sometimes obscure the actors themselves, POV shots ask us to engage directly in the drama almost as a participant and this even extends to the leading pair themselves – Shimell is a renowned baritone, not an actor, and there is a slight but noticeable difference between his performance and that of Binoche, which almost feels like a copy of acting rather than being fully immersed in the role. While this reinforces the concept, it does prevent the audience from fully engaging, being kept slightly at arm's length by the constant artifice. That's not to say that there's not a lot to enjoy here, with the confusions and the tensions making this verge on a romantic comedy at times. Despite the differences in acting ability, Shimell and Binoche make an engaging couple at times and as time wears on, you find yourself more keen to believe that the beginning was the illusion and that their relationship is real and not the copy. Much of the credit for this must be placed at Binoche's door, using the language differences to vary mood effectively, but also adding colour and emotion in all of the languages she uses. The only one here who's on familiar ground is director Kiarostami, who's explored these themes before but never to such mainstream effect – worth checking out if you'd like to engage your mind and your heart. Why see it at the cinema: There is a very literal aspect of the visuals which runs throughout the course of the movie, which the cinema screen will allow you to fully appreciate. The score: 7/10

  More

• Profound, intelligent, enthralling.

  Rockwell_Cronenberg2011-07-27

  "Certified Copy" is a film essentially cut in two. Both halves are lovely and when put together it makes for a remarkable whole work. It's a very simple film on the surface, the plot made up almost entirely of a day-long conversation between an author (William Shimell) and a woman (Juliette Binoche) showing him around town. The conversation begins with them being these strangers meeting for the first time, as they discuss his new book (the title of the film) and the theories he brings up within it. They discuss the significance of a copy as opposed to it's original and the film brings up a lot of questions on artificiality, within culture and within life. Questions arise as to whether or not every individual person is just essentially a copy of someone else, and this becomes absolutely fascinating. Then, everything changes. A waitress at a cafe mistakes them for a married couple and the two spend the rest of the day going along with this, playing a game that they are married and they go back and forth as an unhappy couple would. Or was it mistake? It becomes clear that these people have some connection with each other, whether they are divorced, former lovers or something entirely separate, and the conversation becomes much more biting and intriguing. Writer/director Abbas Kiarostami keeps us gripped into this conversation, as these two ponder on the copies of the world, along with the tribulations of a marriage, what makes a good husband, what makes a good father and so much more. She attacks him for being such an absent father (is her son really his?) and he explains that sometimes one partner in the marriage just has to be gone and that's the way the world is. The film poses so many interesting questions on the world and leaves it up to the viewer to decide the answers for themselves. Each character has their own strong opinion, but Kiarostami never takes a side and tells the viewer the resolution. It's a powerful picture that keeps you thinking long after it's over. Part of the power of course relies on the strength of the performances, and both of these actors knock it out of the park. William Shimell was the perfect choice for the distant, simple author. Juliette Binoche, however, steals the show, with an authentic and brave performance that ranks up with some of her absolute best. She is arguably the finest actress in cinema today, and has a grasp on portraying vulnerability that very few actors can come close to achieving. Within her you really see the pain of a woman scorned and the exhausting life led by a single mother constantly having to think of someone other than herself. She is everything here; emotional, strong, falling apart and beautiful. It's a perfect performance in a magnificent film. I feel like this is a picture that will only get better on repeated viewings, and it's still quite strong on the first one.

  More

• The Ideas of Plato Writ Large

  mrwillpeters2014-01-27

  I came across the film when researching a piece I was writing on Plato's ideas of beauty and aesthetics. Although Plato isn't for everyone I thought this film really helped my students understand some of his central concerns relating to the difference between an idea, a reality and an imitation. In our class discussions on Plato's notions of Mimesis and Diegesis, this film greatly helped. The film forces us to wonder to what extent the relationship between the two central characters is real, or an imitation of a once real relationship. It asks is a real relationship any better than a certified copy i.e a fake relationship where both parties pretend it is real. That is the central question - the value of the authentic versus the value of the fake.

  More