Digital Kiarostami and the Open Screenplay

8/18/2019 Digital Kiarostami and the Open Screenplay

1/18


2/18

s eaks from behind the wheel of his 2ange 2o!er as it winds around roads adjacent to therinci le shooting locations from Taste of Cherry (Kiarostami GG)*. he location here is

significant, in that Taste of Cherry re resents Kiarostami-s first incursion into digital cinema.Kiarostami frames this trajectory as an accident. After a film lab error destroyed the celluloidfor the final cha ter of Taste of Cherry , Kiarostami o ted (in lace of a re5shoot* to create a

digital e ilogue from a series of 3behind5the5scenes- digital !ideo rushes (Kiarostami "## *.his 3digital5ending- ro!ed contro!ersial for both critics and audiences. +ts im act was not dueto (digital* aesthetics but in relation to its content 7as a documentary a endage fused to afiction film. +n the e ilogue Kiarostami and his small crew are ca tured, on digital !ideo, onlocation of Taste of Cherry during and in5between takes, establishing camera ositions andinteracting with the actors.

Micro-Narratives

Ten is a film which resists sim le definition. +n Kiarostami-s more con!entional films, a micro5narrati!e structure is re!ealed where /DheF is not afraid to let a scene wander off in anunex ected, seemingly random direction, to let each scene become a self5enclosed mini5storyof its own0 (2a fogel "## *. >owe!er, Ten is not merely an e!olution of this (e isodic*tendency, but in fact, exhibits a far more radical and self5conscious narrati!e structure.+n Ten, Kiarostami ado ts a serial narrati!e structure, one com osed of ten discrete moduleswhich count backwards in intertitles rendered as (digital* film5leader gra hics. he insertion of the film5leader within the body of the film itself, initially, recalls the structuralist5materialisttradition of a!ant5garde and ex erimental cinema (6a uto "##H*. >owe!er, on closeranalysis, Ten can be more recisely situated in relation to narrati!e cinema, !ia Ieter Jollen-snotion of 36ounter56inema-' /+ts function is to struggle against the fantasies, ideologies andaesthetic de!ices of one cinema with its own antagonistic fantasies, ideologies and aestheticde!ices0 (Jollen G;"a' G *.

+n his theory of the 3 wo A!ant58ardes-, Jollen di!ides a!ant5garde filmmakers into twodistinct grou s. Both grou s function as an ideological and?or aesthetic criti$ue of mainstreamcinema. >owe!er, where one grou artici ate in a 6ounter56inema within the framework of afilm culture, the other look toward a !isual arts culture, articularly that of ainting. he keydifference is that while 6ounter56inema maintains the /signifieds0 of narrati!e cinema, being

/words and stories0, the other a!ant5garde cinema is marked by an exclusion of !erballanguage and narrati!e ( G;"b' G:*.

Ten , as a collection of ten con!ersations (clearly 3words and stories-* can be confidentlysituated within the first grou , as 6ounter56inema. +n this context, Ten gains an a!ant5gardestatus, rinci ally due to its /narrati!e intransi!ity0 7 where story roceeds !ia /ga s and

interru tions, e isodic construction, DandF undigested digression0 ( G;"b' ;#*. 1o, Ten is afilm counter to the /narrati!e transi!ity0 of 6lassical >ollywood defined as linear narrati!ecausality ( G;"b' ;#*. his retroacti!e framing of Ten (!ia Jollen* is reinforced byKiarostami-s conclusion to 10 on Ten, when he satirically ad!ises his students of the cinema'

/+f you want to be successful filmmakers + suggest, as another filmmaker, that you ne!erforget the formula of the American cinema0 (Kiarostami "## *.


3/18

Ten might also be framed as 3counter- to the ubi$uitous 3Multi51trand- mode of narration where /interwo!en multi5strand narrati!es0 exist as a /tangled web of stories to be deferred, crossedor tied together0 (King "##&' ;:*. he Multi51trand narrati!e mode has become a sta lescri twriting model for +ndie, +ndiewood, >ollywood and network tele!ision drama. +n its mostcommercial guise, the Multi51trand narrati!e functions a mere multi lication of (6lassical*

conflict dri!en causality. +n contrast, Ten is an exercise in serial narration where the featurefilm re resents an accumulation of micro5narrati!es 7 ten car tri s. his narrati!e organisationhas recedence in American +nde endent cinema. 8eoff King identifies 3+ndie- films by LimLarmusch Night on Earth ( GG * and >al >artley Flirt ( GG&* as exercises innarrati!e repetition . or King, this mode of narration demands an audience to assume a moreinteracti!e role (than that re$uired for the slicker Multi51trand mode*'

Dthe audience need toF backtrack, to re!isit material, to identify re etitions and oints of difference, establishes a !ery different dynamic, a structure akin to a s iral in which theramifications of nuances are ex lored rather than a linear narrati!e that offers a singlemo!ement towards resolution ("##&' G)*.

Ten can also be read as an exercise in the /aesthetic rinci le of banality0 which can be tracedfrom the films of the +talian eorealists, !ia international Art 6inema, to the AmericanNnderground ("##&' )#*. his trajectory re resents a di!erse grou of filmmakers who seek toengage with /ordinary, e!eryday occurrences too small for >ollywood ictures0 (1uOre9 GG:'""H $uoted in King "##&' :G*. his mode of storytelling is one designed to extract /the smallerdetails of the li!es of characters or the milieux in which they are found0 ("##&' )#*. %dmund>ayes offers a roducti!e working of the banality aesthetic in relation to Ten . >e describes thefilm as one engaged with the /smallness of contem orary tragedy0 and /drama of the deferrednature of human fulfilment0 (>ayes "##"' *.

o describe Ten as a 3little tragedy- is not to belittle the film, but to describe a $uality which

makes it articularly fitting to a modern understanding of the tragic. Ierha s great tragedyneed not be e ic or all5encom assing right now ("##"' "*.

+n consideration of the relationshi between Kiarostami and the American Nndergroundcinema, Alberto %lena has situated Fellow Citizen (Kiarostami G;H* as a Jarholian exercise inre etition and restraint (%lena "##&' &)*. +n this film (Kiarostami-s first medium lengthfeature* the narrati!e (like Ten * unfolds in a serial fashion, as a series of consecuti!earguments between dri!ers and a traffic oliceman, in their !arious attem ts to ass a trafficbarrier. Fellow Citizen has been described as a /monotony DwhichF borders on the limits of theex erimental genre, forcing the attention ca acity of the audience to the limit0 (2oth GG&'

"# $uoted in %lena "##&' &)*. 1o, if Ten , suggests a new (forward* direction for Kiarostami,

then it also reflects a re!i!al of earlier reoccu ations with narrati!e seriality and repetition .

+f the con!ersations of Ten form mediations on some rather big subjects for contem orary+ranian women (of lo!e, di!orce, religion, motherhood, rostitution and abortion* then theyare firmly grounded within the milieu of e!eryday life. Kiarostami-s (micro* cinema, is onewhere 3little tragedies- unfold within the microcosm of the family car, constructed byKiarostami as /a !eritable cinematic a aratus0 (Martin "## *. he tightly integrated structureof Ten ' as ten micro5narrati!es inserted into a singular (micro* s ace suggests a rigour of


4/18

scri twriting that recalls Adrian Martin-s notion that the cinematic is /not something that-sgoing to be added by the director, but something already inherently there in the ro osal, orthe lan, or the ro osition which the scri t is0 ("##:*. +n this light, Ten is a film firmlycounter to the commonly held assum tion that 3content- ( lot lus characters* is readilyse arable from 3form- (the cinematic elements* (Martin "##H*.

The Open Screenplay

10 on Ten ("## * Abbas Kiarostami, +ran? rance6li ' he < en 1creen lay 5 click the image to o en cli in o 5u window6li "'


5/18

+n 10 on Ten during E# he 1cri t' Kiarostami introduces the < en 1creen lay(Kiarostami"## *. Jhilst a concise, formal definition is withheld, the key features of Kiarostami-salternati!e screen lay structure can be gauged from his series of lessons, articularly whenread in conjunction with existing literature on his filmmaking methods. he < en 1creen lay,as the name im lies, is an o en5ended and orous scri twriting form. wo of its salient

features are' an absence of written dialogue (making it more akin to a traditional 1toryayes"##"*.

Ten is a film which accumulates narrati!e from a range of characters that s an the gender, ageand socio5demogra hic s ectrum. Kiarostami-s res ect for this di!ersity is e!ident from his useof term 3culture- as a character5s ecific notion 7 o!er and abo!e any broad determination of religion, race or nationality (Kiarostami "## *. +n this context, the < en 1creen lay ro!ides as ace for an authentic 3language- of the characters to emerge. +n relation to Taste of Cherry Kiarostami says' / othing was written, it was all s ontaneous. + would control certain

arts and get them to say certain lines, but it was basically im ro!isation0 (2osenbaum GG;'*. +n another inter!iew he re!eals the < en 1creen lay to be a mode of scri twriting o en

to those (cinematic* elements of chance and sur rise.


6/18

Kiarostami has indicated a reference for the term 3guidance- (3hedayat-* o!er 3control- inrelation to his filmmaking ractice (>ayes "##"' *. he fact that the < en 1creen lay is nothanded o!er to either crew or actors suggests that (for Kiarostami* distribution of the scri tre resents the threat of closure and a waning of creati!e engagement with the filmmaking

rocess. Moreo!er, the hidden nature of Kiarostami-s < en 1creen lay is erha s crucial for

the extraction of cinematic erformances. he cinematic, here, exists on a micro scale, in theca ture of /the momentary gesture, frown or falsehood 7 gestures that ex ress the difficultyof li!ing amongst humanity, gestures that er etuate this difficulty0 ("##"' "*. 1o, forKiarostami, the cinematic is wrought from a synchronicity between an actor-s own dialogue(their 3language- and 3culture-* and his ability to ca ture their intrinsic gestures. +n thefollowing cli from Ten , Amin-s defiant /hand gestures of argumentation0 com rise asignificant art of his erformance, working in conjunction with his dialogue ("##"' :*.

Ten ("##"* Abbas Kiarostami, rance?+ran?N1A6li H' Mania Q Amin' Module

The New Wave Open Screenplay

Although Kiarostami claims minimal awareness of the cinema of la No!"elle #ag!e , hisarticulation of the < en 1creen lay, ne!ertheless, re resents a legacy of o!erla ing concerns(4ouchet GGG' H &*. ew Ja!e scri twriting, !ia the +talian eo52ealists, refocused cinematowards an engagement with the resent. +n articular, the screen lays of Lean5 uc 8odardare inhabited by characters without asts, or futures, as characters who ossess /nothing butthe uncertainty, intoxication, and tragedy of the moment0 ( GGG' ;)*. 8odard, likeKiarostami, also conducted an 3on5the5s ot- mode of scri twriting. At times 8odard deli!ereddialogue to his actors (whilst camera rolling* !ia a micro hone to ear iece arrangement. hisenabled an extraction of (sur rise* gestures to be rendered as cinematic moments. 6hantal8oya, who layed Madeline in 8odard-s $asc!lin F%minin ( G::*, reflects on her ex erience


7/18

with this 3scri twriting- method, in a recent inter!iew included as an extra to the 4C4 release(Criterion *'

At the end + didn-t realise how strong my erformance was. At the olice station when theyasked me 7 after + find out Iaul has committed suicide, and +-m regnant by him, when the

oliceman asked /Jhat will you do now=0 + didn-t answer. After a ause, Lean5 uc whis eredthrough the ear hone. + heard him say /+-ll use a curtain rod.0 + said /+-ll use a curtain rod0 butin such a way that the audience was staggered. +t came as a real blow. But that-s what hewanted. (8oya "##&*

+n relation to the cinema of the rench ew Ja!e, Ten might also be considered a (digital*re!i!al of a 3tableaux- based cinema, where narrati!e is assembled in distinct blocks. 8odard-sfilms, from the mid to late G:#s, re resent an increasingly fragmentation of narrati!e in thefiction feature film. his trend begins with #i"ra sa #ie ( G:"* 7 the story of ana-s (AnnaKarina* descent from as iring actress to (dead* rostitute 7 narrated in twel!e Brechtianstyled tableaux (or cha ters*. A similar narrati!e structure resurfaces in Une Femme$aree ( G: *@ $asc!lin-Feminin (8odard G::* and ee&end ( G:)*. +n articular,Kiarostami-s intertitles (of Ten' recall those of $asc!lin-Feminine . Jhere 8odard marked eachnarrati!e block with an abrasi!e gun5shot audio sam le, Kiarostami o ts for a /boxing matchbell0 (Martin "## ' H* to signify his cinematic challenge, which unfolds in ten 3rounds-.

The Digital Open Screenplay


8/18

10 on Ten ("## * Abbas Kiarostami, +ran? rance6li ' he digital camera 5 click the image to o en cli in o 5u window6li &' 6ity of stories 5 click the image to o en cli in o 5u window

his discussion so far has situated the < en 1creen lay in relation to Kiarostami-s re!iousfilms and to the historical recedent of the rench ew Ja!e. hus, gi!en that thisscri twriting model is not entirely new, the task here is to analyse its transition in digitalcinema (!ia Ten * and to look for a reconfiguration of the 3cinematic- in this (new* context. hethemes of access and intimacy ro!ide a way forward.

1. ccess


9/18

+n 10 on Ten , Kiarostami describes the digital (d!* camera as a 3cinematic en-, which offers /a!ery firm and !alid in!itation to return the auteur to the scene0 (Kiarostami "## *. Althoughnot ex licitly stated, this meta hor denotes a (digital* re!i!al of Alexander Astruc-s cam Rra-stylo (or camera en* which consolidated auteur theory and fuelled the roducti!ity of the

rench ew Ja!e. +n the abo!e cli , Kiarostami stands ato the hilly outskirts of ehran,

looking down o!er its bustling streets, and reconfirms his reference for a cinema of recording.his ro!okes the idea that if stories surround Kiarostami then his digital cinematic ga9e hasincreased his access to these.

he otential for a renewed access to stories, in digital cinema, is also highlighted byKiarostami-s call to /ex and the dimensions0 of cinema ("## *. he micro5 roduction basisof Ten (minimal e$ui ment and crew* is materialised in Kiarostami-s 3dashboard5cam-' wheretwo cameras (both fixed angle and lens* construct /a two5 oint mise en sc(ne 0 (Martin "## *.>olly Jillis ostulates that ad!ances in digital camera technology can be seen as an e!olutionof 8odard-s conce t (dating from G):* for a /glo!e5box camera0 7 a de!ice easily accessiblefor the s ontaneous recording of (high resolution* mo!ing images (Jillis "##&' G*. hat is,the roliferation of mobile, lightweight and high definition digital cameras affords increasedaccess to new (and ex anded* cinematic s aces. +n relation to Ten , Kiarostami hasliterally inserted his 3micro5tragedies- into the urban fabric of ehran 7 into a ublic s acenoted as /highly roblematic in ost5re!olutionary +ran0 (%lena "##&' )G*. urthermore, the

3ex ansion- of cinematic s ace in Ten reinforces the ca acity for digital cinema to challengeexisting media censorshi '

ere, narrati!e is literally 3on themo!e-, remaining a ste ahead of the threat of censorshi . Also, it is recisely the digitalformat of Ten which allows this reduced le!el of censorshi ' although both digital and H&mmfeatures re$uire scri t a ro!al in +ran, a scri t 3minder- is only re$uired for the H&mm

roductions (8an9 and Khatib "##:' "G*.

he notion of a renewed access (for digital cinema* is also rele!ant to considerations of

audience. +n relation to Ten , the audience assume a role of / ri!ileged access0 to the s ace of erformance and one not so different from Kiarostami-s 7 restricted to !ideo monitor, ost5erformance ("##:' H#*. Adam 8an9 and ina Khatib suggest that the otential of digital

cinema lies not so much in the narration of 3new- or 3different- stories but in the reconfigurationof existing relationshi s between actor, director and s ectator.

he audience is gi!en ri!ileged access to the s ace, and through listening to fragmentedcon!ersations, is allowed to deduce what the story is. +n other words, the stories in


10/18

themsel!es are not 3different-, it is the relationshi between subject and object that makesthem different. he audience is allowed to make a decision about the material that the directorwould make0 ("##:' H#*.

!. "ntimacy

10 on Ten ("## * Abbas Kiarostami, +ran? rance6li :' 4ialogue !s monologue 5 click the image to o en cli in o 5u window6li )'


11/18

he < en 1creen lay of Ten originated with a more con!entional lot. he central character(Mania* was initially written as a sychothera ist who, after ha!ing her office closed down bythe authorities, was forced to use her car as a mobile thera y unit. he lot of sychothera ist(dri!er* and client ( assenger* was e!entually abandoned by Kiarostami. >is reasoning re!ealsa subtle a roach to scri twriting, in his reference for dialogue o!er monologue. or

Kiarostami the cinematic resides in that abstraction fundamental to the cinema 7 thedisassociation of sound and image. +n Ten this, seemingly minor, decision (for dialogue o!ermonologue* has !ast ramifications for the film which relies u on a cle!er mani ulation of sound and image from dashboard5cam.

3 alk- intensi!e scri twriting resents ob!ious benefits, at the scale of economy re$uired formicro budget filmmaking. >owe!er, dialogue can also resent an obstacle to cinematicscri twriting. +n his Cinematic *criptwriting *eminar , Adrian Martin stated that 3talk- resents

/one of the hardest challenges for any filmmaker0 (Martin "##:* Martin ro osed that locationoffers one solution (and one decided in the scri twriting hase* to the roblem of talk. Jithreference to Notorio!s , (>itchcock G :* he re!ealed how the >itchcock?>echt decision to seta scene within the confined s ace of a lane created a desirable /combination of formality anddistance0 re$uired for the scene where 6ary 8rant re!eals to +ngrid Bergman the bad newsabout her father (Martin "##:*. Kiarostami has re!iously acknowledged >itchcock as a

3master- and has erha s, learned from him that location can indeed become a catalystfor cinematic con"ersation+

ere, the fluid city s aces of ehran ro!idefleeting images of architecture, urban texture and local inhabitants. A raw texture to thesoundtrack (traffic, cars bee ing and ambulance sirens* accom anies these images. he(exterior5 ublic* subsidiary s ace is also cinematic and one in constant tension with the( ri!ate* claustro hobic s ace of the family car. +n re!ious films Kiarostami often uses the carwindow as a 3frame within a frame- but in Ten , the lacement of dashboard5cam the (larger*story of the city is only re!ealed artially and fleetingly. +n Ten , narrati!e isliterally dri"en forward, as a kinetic and unstable force which at times also ro!ides a feedback

effect. +n articular, this is e!ident when local inhabitants stare at the 3characters- of Ten . heirgestures and curiosity com licate the fictional status of the film. +n such moments 3life- (asdescribed by Lean56laude 6arriRre* infiltrates the fictional skeleton of Ten '

ife as we ordinarily ercei!e it is confused and e!en incoherent. Je walk down a street, wehear snatches of sentences, we see eo le of whom we know nothing erforming actionswhose significance eludes us .Jriting a story or screen lay means injecting order into thisdisorder .+t means !iolating reality (or at least what we ercei!e of reality* to rebuild it in


12/18

another way, confining the images within a gi!en frame, selecting the real 7 !oices, emotions ,and sometimes ideas (6arriRre GG&' ;H*.

+n Ten , Kiarostami has 3injected- an order (of his stories* within the chaos of the city to fusefictional and documentary narrati!e modes. arrati!e feedback also occurs in Ten during

% isode DE#HF (with Amin as assenger* when the car esca es the congested city streets forthe o en freeway. As the car builds s eed, tension in the !ehicle is tem orarily dissi ated. +t isonly at this oint, that Mania a roaches resignation of the ongoing difficulties she faces withher son, Amin.

Ten ("##"* Abbas Kiarostami, rance?+ran?N1A6li ;' Mania Q Amin' Module H 5 click the image to o en cli in o 5u window

Mo#$larity% epetition & 'ariation


13/18

igure ' 6inematic 4iagram of Ten (Munt "##:*

he o ening module DE #F establishes the central relationshi between Mania (mother* andAmin (son*@ it is the longest at around se!enteen minutes. Amin a ears in a total of four of the ten modules' DE #F, DE&F, DEHF and DE F. 2olando 6a uto describes the 3Amin se$uences- as the /s ine of the film around which the others slot in0 and notes that these are indeed /therichest in terms of story information0 (6a uto "##H*. >e also oints out that the conjoining of module DE #F with module DE F ro!ides symmetry where they / erfectly merge together liketwo ends of a circle finally meeting0 ("##H*. he story of a young woman who is 3jilted- by herfiancR also unfolds in elli ses. +n module DE:F she enters Mania-s car, on her way to rayer 7for commitment from her fiancR, a man she describes as 3full of contradictions-. +n moduleDE"F she returns to the assenger seat, after her 3little tragedy- has occurred, and re!eals herfiancR has left her. +n this module, Kiarostami enacts a /literal un!eiling0 as she remo!es herhead5scarf to re!eal a radical new (sha!ed* haircut ("##H*. +n both cases, Kiarostami workswith rinci les of "ariation , repetition and cinematic d!ration to structure the discrete modulesof Ten into the holistic sha e they conform to in their final arrangement.

he rinci le of !ariation is also e!ident from Kiarostami-s handling of Ioint of Ciew (I


14/18

closer (more !oyeuristic* shot withheld. Also, in Ten any retence to 3real5time- (a bu995wordof digital cinema* is a!oided. his is counter to a tendency e!ident from recent exercises in thedigital 3 onger ake- 7 as executed in !ssian r& (1okuro!, "##"* and Timecode ( iggis,"###*. +n contrast, the cinematic duration of Ten remains ambiguous. %ight of the tense$uences are set during the day. ere, thenarrati!e sha e of Ten is not one of seriality (which obstructs narrati!e rogression* nor that of a erfect circle (!ia 6a uto* but rather one of deformation, somewhere in5between. his isreinforced by the fact that Ten does not offer narrati!e closure (resolution* but rathercontinuation, which is a ro riate to /the deferred nature of human fulfilment0, rendered inKiarostami-s /small tragedies0. (>ayes "##"' *. he final line of dialogue in the film is telling,when Amin instructs Mania' / ake me to 8randma-s0. 1o, Ten closes with sim ly another

journey, another con!ersation, another destination .or more bleakly 7 an im ossibility of resolution where /each DcharacterF seems tra ed, unable to gi!e or recei!e hel 0 ("##"' "*.+nTen , the < en 1creen lay functions as narrati!e 3scaffolding- which allows the o!erall sha eof the film to be scul ted by Kiarostami-s assured hands.

his cinematic mani ulation of Ten !ia symmetry, hierarchy, re etition and !ariation (allfundamental rinci les of design ractice* can be read in relation to the filmmaker-s re!iouscareer. Kiarostami-s ath to the cinema was !ia gra hic design and illustration, which forms anex lanation for his dexterity with these com ositional rinci les.

+-!e learned a lot from gra hic design, which in my o inion is the mother of all art forms. Youha!e to say what you want in a small s ace 7 the age of a maga9ine, for exam le 7 and sayit in a con!incing way . +t is the art of communication (Kiarostami in Bono GG#' &) $uoted

in %lena "##&' " :*.


15/18

igure "'


16/18

is one assembled from fi!e se arate sections designed to be screened in any order (Jillis"##&' *.

3Modularity- is listed, by new media theorist e! Mano!ich, as a key rinci le of the new mediato describe a art5whole relationshi ' where media elements exist as discrete modules with

the otential to be assembled into larger5scale objects, while retaining their inde endence(Mano!ich "## ' H#* Another rinci le of the new media is that of 3Cariability- (made ossibleby Modularity*. his framework ro!okes the idea that the digital feature film might /exist indifferent, otentially infinite !ersions0 ("## ' H:*. +n this context, does the digital cinemaof Ten conform to 3new media- logic= owe!er, there is some e!idence to thecontrary.

+n GG), a series of festi!al screenings of Taste of Cherry in +taly were shown with the digitale ilogue erased. +n res onse to this, film critic Lonathon 2osenbaum sent a letter to AbbasKiarostami which leaded with him to retain the e ilogue. or 2osenbaum, this was resentedto the s ectator as /a gift that has com lex and rofound conse$uences in terms of how e!ery!iewer comes to terms with e!erything in the film receding that ending0 (2osenbaum GG;'H:*. Kiarostami-s faxed res onse to his letter re!eals (an unantici ated* interest in 3!ariability- for the feature film !ia a notion of 3 lay-'

+ just saw the dubbed !ersion of my film in +taly and decided to lay around the screening of the film with and without the !ideo ending in se!eral cities. 1ome theatres are showing thefilm with the !ideo ending and some without. +t-s just the sort of laying, done out of the

film .a lay that you can see the audience reactions after two different endings franklys eaking, + like this lay..it-s !ery interesting like cinema ( GG;' H)*.

+f Kiarostami-s digital cinema is to e!ol!e, as a form of cinematic layfulness, then this wouldre resent a !iolent collision of new media aesthetics with a well established auteur5based artcinema. A wayward rediction erha s, but it is im ortant to note that such hybridity is notinconsistent with Kiarostami-s 3o en- a roach to filmmaking, articularly when situated as a

36ounter56inema- to both Jestern mainstream cinema and the 3digital dogmatism- of recentdigital cinema.

+f the cinematic is often located within re resentation of ex ansi!e landsca es, execution of

baro$ue camera mo!es, dis lays of heightened erformance or emoti!e soundtracks . thenKiarostami-s Ten is a film which mounts a bold challenge to such assum tions. Ten is a filmconfined to a single car, filmed with two fixed camera angles, de!oid of soundtrackcom osition (until the end credits* and cast with non5 rofessional actors. +n a close readingof Ten , this article has re!ealed the /pen *creenplay to be scaffolding for a rich cinematicarchitecture. he direction that Ten shifts Kiarostami-s cinema is towards a 4igital Micro6inema, a cinema born from a marriage between small5scale (micro* film roduction anddigital roduction. his article has re!ealed, !ia Ten , hownotions of access and intimacy ha!e


17/18

been reconfigured in the digital context, toward the ex loration of new (and ex anded*cinematic s aces 7 and, of course, new cinematic stories. +t has also been suggested thatKiarostami ex loits design rinci les, in his deft mani ulation of modularity, !ariation andre etition. Kiarostami-s first digital feature is a small, yet significant film which, in theemerging landsca e of digital cinema, o ens u an exciting new s ace.

e)erences

Astruc, A. ( G:;* / he Birth of a ew A!ant5garde' la camRra stylo0 in The New a"e Critical andmar&s selected 2y 3eter 4raham , ew York' 4oubleday

6a uto, 2. ("##H* / i!e to en' i!e 2eflections on Abbas KiarostamiPs #0 in *enses ofCinema , no."G ( o!54ec* http*++www.senseso)cinema.com+contents+, +! +ten.html ,accessed 1e tember ", "##:

6arriRre, L.6. ( GG&* The *ecret ang!age of Film, ondon' aber and aber

6hing, . ( G)G* rchitect!re Form, *pace 5 /rder, New 6or& #an Nostrand einhold

4ouchet, L. ( GGG* French New a"e , ew York' 4istributed Art Iublishers

%lena, A. ("##&* The Cinema of 22as 7iarostami, ondon' 1a$i Books.

einstein, >. ("##H* /Michael Jinterbottom alks About >is ragic 2oad Mo!ie' +n hisJorldS, Indie I E ,http*++www.in#iewire.com+people+people/, , 10winter.html ,accessed 1e tember "&, "##:

8an9, A. Q Khatib, . ("##:* /4igital 6inema' he transformation of film ractice andaesthetics0 in New Cinemas, !ol. no. , ." 5H:

8oya, 6. ("##&* 4C4 %xtra, $asc!lin F%minin , 6riterion 2elease, N1A

>ayes, %. ("##"* / # x en' KiarostamiPs journey into modern+ran0, open8emocracy, http*++www.open#emocracy.net+arts- ilm+article/012.3sp ,accessed 1e tember ", "##:

Kiarostami, A. ("## * 10 on Ten D4C4F

Kiarostami, A. ("##"* Ten 2y 22as

7iarostami , http*++www.m4!.com+ten+home/en.sw) , Accessed 1e tember G "##:

King, 8. ("##&* merican Independent Cinema, ondon' +.B. auris Q 6o td.

Kna man, 6. (ed.* ( GG:* ow $eans ow, 1ydney' Australian ilm 6ommission

Mano!ich, . ("## * The ang!age of New $edia, 6ambridge' he M+ Iress

http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/03/29/ten.htmlhttp://www.indiewire.com/people/people_030918winter.htmlhttp://www.opendemocracy.net/arts-Film/article_815.jsphttp://www.mk2.com/ten/home_en.swfhttp://www.indiewire.com/people/people_030918winter.htmlhttp://www.opendemocracy.net/arts-Film/article_815.jsphttp://www.mk2.com/ten/home_en.swfhttp://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/03/29/ten.html


18/18

Martin, A. ("##H* / herePs a Million 1tories, and a Million Jays to 8et here from >ere0 T/$Conference 9*tory Image, Technology, Ed!cation: , Melbourne.

Martin, A. ("## * /Abbas Kiarostami' he %arth rembles0 in 1;

Digital Kiarostami and the Open Screenplay

Documents

Transcript of Digital Kiarostami and the Open Screenplay