Certified Copy (2010)

[djross]

Abbas Kiarostami, who died a few days ago, is one of the greatest filmmakers of all time, and this remarkable movie, his first in Europe, with dialogue in English, French and Italian, continues themes and retains stylistic elements of his Iranian works, while also adapting to the very different milieu and circumstances of European cinema. When it was released, it seems that critics (including, for example, Roger Ebert), while mostly praising the film, were puzzled by the narrative, or felt that perhaps the film was too tricky without containing any genuine solution. And perusing some of the interpretations proffered on IMDb, it seems this attitude and this doubt has continued. Was Kiarostami being too clever by half? Is this a film about the impossibility of finding solutions? Is there some strange conjunction of different narratives or times that is hard to decipher because we mistakenly approach the film in too conventional terms?

The answer to all these questions is no. There are, of course, many concerns and themes operating at different levels in the film. This point is so obvious that it is hardly worth mentioning. I only do so to counter those who may think that my claim that the narrative has a rather simple explanation means that I am saying it is a simple film. Of course it isn't, and the fact that simplicity is rarely simple is something stated explicitly in the film itself. Nevertheless, there is an explanation of the circumstances of the protagonists, and it is in no way clever or complex. To me, the inability of critics and viewers to see it says something about contemporary psychology, or perhaps about contemporary morality, but I'm not sure precisely what. I won't bother justifying this explanation thoroughly, but I am certain that anyone who goes back and watches the film again will see that it is confirmed in many small details.

So if you haven't yet seen the movie, stop reading now, and go and watch a very very interesting and wonderful film. Only come back here after having done so (reading the explanation first could only lessen the experience, I am sure).

The "solution", I believe, is this: James and Elle (well that's her named as listed on the IMDb website, or perhaps just "She") met many years ago, he from England and she from France, and engaged in an affair. From that, a child was born, Julien. Probably James was already married, and Elle perhaps did not tell him of the birth of their son. At any rate, they meet again, five years before the time in which the movie is set. James sees Elle and Julien on the street from the two windows of his hotel room (perhaps the same hotel they stayed in on the first occasion), and he surmises that this must be his son (in fact, I'm not sure that Elle ever confirms this during the movie, and the key question is how to interpret the discussion between Elle and Julien about why she didn't wish to use the latter's surname in front of James). So they have been together at least twice, and have a child that is probably his, but they have never had a relationship and he has played no role in the boy's life (and Julien doesn't know that James is his father). His unwillingness to turn their tryst into an affair is presumably because he has another life and perhaps another family back in England. That they should be together and married, that he should be there and in her life, is what Elle would have wanted, what she still wants and what she now resents, which is why the conversation with the woman running the café is so bitter for her. They play act for a while about being married, and go again to visit the hotel, but he is unprepared to give up his life in England to begin an affair with her, and so is determined to catch his nine o'clock flight, back to England and, probably, back to his family.

EDIT: Taking another look at IMDb, I do find that this interpretation exists already after all. I added one little wrinkle to the suggestion made there, however: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1020773/board/thread/170163698?p=6&d=259105637#259105637

[dardan]

Djross reviews containing a jab at either Spielberg or Ebert are the best djross reviews. I laugh my ass off everytime, even though this time was milder than usual.

[djross]

Apologies for the mildness. I'll try to do better.

[karamazov.]

@djross:

Enjoyed the read, however I did stumble over what looks to be a typographical error, early on, at the end of the first paragraph. Assumed at first I was stupidly missing some obvious abbreviation or somehow not following some particular line-of-argument, but the lack of a closing parenthesis seems to indicate otherwise. Would like to know what you intended the sentence to say, hehe.

btw, your mini-review doesn't link to this full review, if you weren't aware.

[djross]

Thanks for drawing my attention to these errors. The part in parentheses should have been deleted: it was stating what I now state at the bottom of the review. More generally, I should point out that this is not meant as a "full" review, just a discussion of the implied narrative. Strange that it wasn't linked: I was sure I did that. It should be now. Thanks again.

P.S. This attention to detail definitely doesn't seem Dmitriesque, so you must be Ivan or Alyosha. Surely not the father!

[karamazov.]

Thanks for drawing my attention to these errors. The part in parentheses should have been deleted: it was stating what I now state at the bottom of the review. More generally, I should point out that this is not meant as a "full" review, just a discussion of the implied narrative. Strange that it wasn't linked: I was sure I did that. It should be now. Thanks again.

ok, that makes more sense. w/r/t linked reviews, if you're looking under "All Your Rankings," and editing the mini-review or score from there, you can lose the respective link, for some reason. There may be additional situations where that can happen, idk, but that's the one I've come across.

P.S. This attention to detail definitely doesn't seem Dmitriesque, so you must be Ivan or Alyosha. Surely not the father!

I wish to god I were Alyosha, but, alas! I am Ivan.