certified copy: let's talk about art

the first hour and a half of director ABBAS KIAROSTAMI's COPIE CONFORME (CERTIFIED COPY) offers a most profound discussion on art and marriage. it is, for the most part, a walk-and-talk; the audience follows two opinionated, intelligent, 40/50-something europeans through a small tuscan town as they talk about the nature, purpose, and viewing experience of a work of art and the nature, purpose, and experience of the lasting romantic human relationship otherwise known as marriage.

an obvious story begins as the two converse and middle-aged sparks fly, but after a beautiful exchange between JULIETTE BINOCHE and an old, wrinkled italian barista about the pangs and privileges of wifehood, things just get weird. binoche and her male counterpart, WILLIAM SHIMELL, start without announcement to behave as if they were a married couple and have been for a good while. they act strangely, silly, forcing the emotions of their 'characters' and failing to react accordingly, as the film's genuine first half suggests. where had the story gone? and where did this french absurdism spring from? was it important thematically, poetically, even structurally? what was this to communicate now about marriage, about art?

i rode the remainder of the movie out in anger, feeling as if we the audience had been cheated out of eight matinee dollars. part of what we as audience members pay for is the story that what was marketed to us (SEE TRAILER); part an enjoyable viewing experience, a dramatic foray into a world unknown; part an original worldview, a point-of-view that expresses truth about humanity and the madness that surrounds us.

perhaps mr. kiarostami has satisfied that last part, perhaps not. binoche and WILLIAM SHIMELL's characters speak at length about the insignificance of whether a piece of art is a copy, for the viewing experience remains the same. the 'copy' of binoche and shimell's fabricated relationship, on the other hand, was hard to observe. if CERTIFIED COPY's two recurring topics were art and marriage, he has to be comparing them. is he saying marriages cannot be faked with any success? is that some twisted critique of romantic drama? unfortunately, this argument stems more as a product of my frustration than it does from specific evidence or claims of the film, so i can hardly take anything in this paragraph seriously.

is this a movie i can recommend? for the first hour and a half, yes, it's a great experience. in its entirety, however, it seems at best to be certifiable confusion.