SCOTT KRZYCH

Auto-Motivation s: Digital Cinema and Kiarostami's

Relational Aesthetics

i]m theory has never strayed far from the Carry Us (1999)—as to his characters and their spiritual
question of movement. What we mean by journeys.The camera itself, frequendy placed on the front
cinematic movement, of course, can take seat or dashboard of a vehicle (Taste of Cherry in 1997 and
various forms: an image produced by a seriesÍ 0 in 2002, among others), engages in an almost perpetual
of stillframesin motion, an indexical recording of mov- display of movement. Here, the space between takes pre-
ing objects, or even the manner by which a camera passes cedence over both origin and destination. The meaning
through space in the course of a sequence shot. With the behind Kiarostami's ongoing fascination with movement
emergence of digital cinema, however, the established is complicated further by tbe director's foray into digital
terminology of cinemadc movement appears to be at cinema, where lightweight cameras enhance the freedom
an impasse. In The Virtual Life of Film, for instance, D. N.
of mobility.
Rodowick explores the philosophical challenge raised for I explore in this árdele, then, the impact of digital tech-
film studies by the still ongoing conversionfromanalog to nology on directorial style, evidenced in unique fashion
digital. Rodowick finds that even ir'fiknmakers" condnue by Kiarostami's forays into digital cinema, which extend
to employ classica] modes of cinematic storyte]]ing, the in new ways his long-held interest in the intersection
digita] means and mode of capture, storage, and projec- between representadon, mediadon, and movement. Begin-
tion fundamentally alter what we mean by image and ning with several examples from the director's predigital
the movement that the image is believed to document. films, I examine the tendency of fikn scholars to correlate
Compared to film stock's physical and therefore constandy Kiarostami's self-conscious cinema with reflexive detach-
deterioradng existence, the electronic image exists "in a ment.These crides rightly identify Kiarostami's tendency,
constant state of reconstruction through a process of scan-
across a range of films, to draw viewers' attendon to the
ning" and is accordingly "never wholly present in either mechanical means of recording and to the codes of nar-
space or dme" (Rodowick 137).This árdele takes seriously rative cinema, both of which separate the audience from
the theoredcal significance of such a radical change to the
the historical reality of the profilmic events. However,
cinemadc medium and attempts to follow the implicadons these so-called instances of detachment and objectiv-
of Rodowick's conclusion that, with visual representation ity, as they are often termed, reveal the tendency of film
now constituted by abstract digital code, "cinema has theorists to divorce form from content and say Utde about
become more like language than image" (166). Kiarostami's actual aesthetic intentions, particulady his
To this end. Abbas Kiarostami's body of work is interest in showing how the camera, director, and audi-
unique]y re]evant. Kiarostami's contempiative style of ence pardcipate equally in the production of meaning.
filmmaking consistently interrogates tbe epistemológica] Seeking a more philosophically appropriate approach to
status of visua] representadon at the ]evel of medium and Kiarostami's ephemeral style, I discuss Rodowick's recent
movement. His cinematic vision often takes the form of ontology of new media, which treats digital technology
a passive giance rather than an intentional gaze, with as as an ephemeral medium that, as abstract code, impHcidy
much attention paid to the random paths of objects in resists the kind of medium-specific assumptions of film
motion—the aluminum can rolling down the street in theory and thus serves as a ready ally for Kiarostami's
Close-Up (1990), the tumbling apple in The Wind Will attempts to transcend the strict binaries of subject and

The Velvet Light Trap, Number 66, Fall 2010 ©2010 by the University ofTexas Press, RO, Box 7819, Austin,TX 787 i 3-7819
Scott Krzych 27

object. Finally, I ;conclude with brief discussions with access into the home of strangers. The subsequent
Africa (2001) and Í0, two instances of digital cinema that conflict then draws the attention of another filmmaker
demonstrate the practical benefits of a medium (digital (Kiarostami), who relies on his own celebrity to convince
video) that allows for a manner of cinematic style tbat the participants to replay the events on-screen. At the
actually eschews; style itself. conclusion, after mixing fictional, metafictional, and docu-
mentary images, the supposed freedom of interpretation
left to the viewer actually appears foreclosed in advance.
Reflexive Moves
That is to say, the blurred boundaries between fact and
At the conclusion of Kiarostami's C/ose-Up, Sabzian finally fiction leave little room for any determinant ascription
meets the famous Iranian director Moshen Makhmalbaf, of meaning whatsoever. A viewer's affective investment in
whom he had impersonated in an attempt to defraud a the screened events remains minimal, limited by a recur-
family eager to act in his "next movie." In contrast to the ring, unanswerable question: Is this moment real or fake?
rest of the film, the camera in this scene remains at a re- When Jonathan Rosenbauni describes the film's reflexive
spectftil distance. Up until this point Kiarostami's camera quality as "fostering a sense of detachment about wbat's
serves as an active participant in the storyhne, providing being sbown," bis assessment properly diagnoses the film's
several scenes of reportage juxtaposed and intercut with circular iterations and distancing effect (Rosenbaum and
creative reenactnients of actual events. The film's quasi- Saeed-Vafa 15). It also begs the question of what detach-
documentary status effectively questions the distinction ment itself might mean. If the indeterminate status of
between reality and fiction, complicated and personalized cinematic representation is at stake, as it most certainly is
by tbe director's decision to cast the actual participants as in Close-Up and many other Kiarostami fihns, then what
themselves. Even more than the actual trial caught on film, might be said once we bave acknowledged this indeter-
the reenactment scenes create a sense of intimacy, perhaps minacy? Can anything be said beyond the recognition of
even an uncontfortable one, as we watch the "characters" our difficulty to say anything at all?
act out the very events that lead to the emotionally charged In the broader context of documentary studies scholars
exchange before a courtroom judge. But when Makhmalbaf often prescribe self-reflexive detachment in order to pre-
and his would-be twin meet and travel to tbe family's vent a viewer's uncritical acceptance of the imaged events.
bome in tbe hcipe of a final reconciliation, the intimacy Offering one of the more useful discussions of reflexive
of the close-up gives way to a more voyeuristic long shot. documentary, Linda WiUiains argues that "truth" can still
As the sound cuts in and out, and with the image partly serve as an operative term for documentary filmmaking—
obscured due to the distance of the surreptitious camera, as long as it is properly qualified. ForWiUiams, the multiple
we hear Kiarostami and the production crew comment on perspectives offered in a film like Errol Morris's The Thin
the technical difficulties, drawing attention to the means Blue Une (1988) offer an instructive compromise "between
of recording in what appears to be a typical instance of idealistic faith in documentary truth and cynical recourse
modernist reflexivity.The questionable bistorical status of to fiction" (14). As WiUiams shows, Morris clearly intends
the concluding images, in which Kiarostami may or may to prove the innocence of Randall Adams, convicted for
not relinquish lus control over the profilmic event, results the 1976 murder of a Dallas police officer, and the director
in a point of indeterminacy consistent with the director's avoids aspects of the case not conducive to this purpose.
frequently expressed desire to leave the meaning of his Yet despite Morris's intention to clear Adams's name and
films to the audience's determination. establish the guilt of his accuser, the film's structural pre-
Yet, even if we, the audience, accept our role as arbiters sentation nevertheless avoids a dominant, single viewpoint
of cinematic truth (a task not necessarily of our choosing), by virtue of its reflexive organization. The interviews
the possibility of gleaning a positive interpretation of any with various witnesses, detectives, and attorneys allow
Kiarostami film, especially since Glose-Up, seems difficult contradictory versions of the murder to emerge, whue
at best. After all^ to continue with the example, the orga- the numerous reenactnients replay the event according
nizing logic oi\Glose-Up follows a reflexive and circular to the various competing perspectives. Though the film
movement, where the cultural celebrity bestowed on one privileges Adams's profession of innocence over all others,
successftil filmmaker (Makhmalbaf) affords his look-alike the very presence of multiple viewpoints—in both word
28 Auto-Motivations
and image—amounts to a metacritical commentary on love story that occurred during production between two
the very process of documentary fümmaking.The bricolage nonprofessional actors.The intertextual connections estab-
thereby reveals tbe documentary mode to be "a set of lished across these three fdms already indicate a significant
strategies designed to choose from among a horizon of departure from tbe kind of relativity Williams finds in The
relative and contingent truths" (Williams 14). Like the de- Thin Blue Line. Whereas Errol Morris supplies the viewer
tached perspective that interests Rosenbaum at the end of with a prepackaged assortment of competing points of
C/oie-L^,forWitlianis,self-reflexivity avoids the semblance view, Kiarostami's Koker trdogy only exists as a trdogy to
of predetermined meaning or absolute truth. Tbe ethical tbe extent that a knowledgeable audience identifies it as
benefit of self-conscious cinema, then, is precisely the such. Since there is no expositional content to introduce
extent to which the "real" appears far removed from the the recurring characters and settings as recurring, the very
space and time of cinematic reception. As opposed to the emergence of intertexuaUty requires the active participa-
reality effects standardized by fiction filmmaking, where tion of a viewer who has seen aU three fdms and has noted
the audience suspends disbelief and accepts the reality of tbeir moments of similarity, repetition, and rearticulation.
the diegesis without question, reflexivity erects a barrier Yet even with this more active participation of tbe audi-
to prevent tbe too easy attachment between screen and ence in mind (a topic to which we wdl return), Kiarostami
viewer. In other words, intellect triumphs over affect. undoubtedly retains a significant interest in tbe apparent
In contrast to tbis correlation between reflexivity and gap between historical reality and its mediated represen-
detachment, however, I want to offer Kiarostami's work tation, and we should thus consider specifically the ways
as a mode of reflexivity that counters the illusory prac- in which he conceives of this divide in and through bis
tices of narrative cinema wbüe still seeking tbe audience's films.
engagement, investment, and emotional attachment.With In her discussion of the Koker fdms Mulvey finds a
Kiarostami we find a form of reflexivity constituted not distinct shift from tbe realism of Where Is the Friend's House?
by the camera's distance from tbe recorded event but to the reflexivity ofLife and Nothing More—a shift that she
rather by its close relation to the environment in which attributes to Kiarostami's encounter with tbe earthquake's
it actively participates. Here truth remains relative in the aftermath and the challenge that sucb a traumatic event
same manner proposed by Williams, but the multiplica- poses for cinematic translation. The director himself gives
tion of perspectives results from the layered connections credence to sucb a reading, noting in an interview bis
established between technology, human, and environment, desire to keep the viewer of Life and Nothing More at an
not from intellectual objectivity. Indeed, by privileging appropriate distance from tbe event's reimagining:"I quite
participation over detachment, Kiarostami's documentary simply wanted to remind the spectators, in tbe middle of
aesthetic foregrounds an even broader field of relational the screening, that they were watching a fdm and not reality.
and relative components constituting the image's "truth," Because reality—that is tbe moment when the earthquake
where the camera exists as just one participant among happened—we were not there to fdm" (Mulvey 22).Tbe
many. specific distancing effect to which Kiarostami refers occurs
In order to address Kiarostami's brand of reflexivity more in Life and Nothing More when Mr. Ruhi, unable to open
speciflcally, we can begin with a set of films frequendy de- the door to his home, acknowledges tbe presence of tbe
scribed as the Koker trilogy (named so for tbe location in production crew in his request for help, which is followed
northern Iran where the films are set), which Laura Mulvey by the brief entrance into the frame by a script girl. Miss
identifies as tbe origin of Kiarostami's ongoing concern Rabbi. For Mulvey, this Brecbtian device reminds viewers
with reflexive cinema (19).The middle installment. Life tbat"the translation of reality involves distortion" (22). But
and Nothing More (1991), offers a semi-autobiographical as Mulvey is also quick to clarify, such a reminder of real-
account of Kiarostami's return to the small village of Koker ity's analog conversion onto celluloid does not necessarily
after it has been bit by a devastating earthquake and his entad a positive, rational outcome: "Rather than creating
search for two young boys who acted in the earlier fdm. a new certainty by revealing the truth behind tbe process
Where Is the Friend's House? (1987).Tbe final installment of production this scene creates uncertainty" (22). Much
in the trdogy. Through the Olive Trees (1994), chronicles like the ending of Close- Up, where tbe camera crew's pres-
tbe making of Life and Nothing More, tbis time following a ence only complicates our understanding of the scene, the
Scott Krzych 29

appearance of ai production assistant Mathin the diegesis, structures of cinematic communication.The "explanatory
as Mulvey rightly argues, multiplies the layers of possible power" of such reflexive discussions, as Steven Shaviro
meaning, resulting in more questions than answers. notes, actually transforms "local, contingent phenomena
Mulvey's discussion appears to demonstrate again the into transcendental conditions or developmental neces-
difficulty of saying anything positive or determinant about sities" and thereby in ironic fashion "ends up echoing
Kiarostami's reflexive cinema beyond the mere identifica- and amphfying those constraints, reproducing them on
tion of its exemplary moments. Yet even if the modernist a larger scale" (12).That is to say, the so-called detached
gesture of revealing the means of production is likely to perspective of reflexive style, when it is so identified or
produce uncertainty in the viewer, Mulvey is quite certain labeled, may in fact reflect more the aitic's abstract inter-
about the cause behind Kiarostami's style. Faced with the est in the means and modes of mediation rather than
impossibility of translating real-life tragedy into a screened the director's. An alternative approach—one more care-
narrative, Mulvey finds that the "comparative certainty of fully attuned to the complex arrangement of image and
realism weakens^ as it struggles to find its way to create a sound in the films themselves—would treat the reflexive
visual record of an actual historical tragedy" (23).Then in not as a device extrinsic to the "regular" functioning of
what amounts to a case of autoreflexivity "the cinema itself cinematic representation but rather as one element along
begins to materialize in the gap separating the event and its a continuum of elements that coalesce in the cinematic
adequate representation" (Mulvey 23).To put this view in object.Thus we encounter a positive multiplication of, not
psychoanalytic terms, the filmic apparatus appears in Life a subtraction from, the image's potential affective impact.
and Nothing More hke a symptom signifying the inability After all, to return to the earher example, the voices heard
of cinema to subUmate the representation of trauma into by the production crew in Close-Up as the sound cuts in
the established forms of realism. Since cinema inherently and out need not subsume our response to the interaction
distorts what it represents, at least according to this view, between Sabzian and Makhmalbaf on-screen; the increase
the proper ethical choice, for which Mulvey praises the of relational elements just as easily provokes our interest in
director, is a metacritical acknowledgment of this distor- the relation between foreground and background.
tion, particularly when it concerns the documentation of Though Kiarostami himself maintains at times a too
widespread death and destruction. rigid distinction between the respective roles of director
According to both Williams and Mulvey, then, reflexiv- and audience, thereby encouraging the kind of responses
ity constitutes a doubled movement wherein the image's critiqued above, his description of Í0 also imphes a more
twofold abihty to record and reflect feeds back into itself; complex view of the cinematic image, and one not be-
form and content become inseparable in an instance holden to the rigid categories that inform typical concep-
of self-presence. With narrative content abstracted from tions of reflexivity:
the cinematic image, the formal attributes of cinematic
expression—both the discursive norms of visual story- In 10, we have a shot in the car with the little boy facing the
camera. The scene takes place in front of the camera. And yet
telling and its technological basis—come into high relief,
there are also people who pass by, lower their window, and peer
perhaps dominating the object entirely.There is little to say into the car.That's documentary.That's background.They look
about such moments themselves. How can one describe at the camera. But what happens in front of the camera isn't
the self-same besides naming it? Moreover, the seeming documentary because it's guided and controlled in a way.The
obviousness of reflexivity and the detachment it implies, person in front of the camera manages to forget its presence, it
vanishes for him. Emotion is created in this way, the result of
privileged as it is by these accounts, may in fact contradict
a certain quantity of energy and information that we give and
the supposed ethical benefits of the technique. Aft:er all, then recover later. It circulates . . . resulting in the complexity
a self-conscious,approach to the representation of trauma of the situation. (Rosenbaum and Saeed-Vafa 125)
may keep viewers at a respectful distance or help to reveal
the distorting effects of mediation, but it is difficult to Kiarostami offers here a philosophical reading of a decid-
imagine how such a device promotes an interest in the lives edly reflexive moment in Í 0 where passersby, intrigued by
captured on-screen.' Indeed, the comments noted thus far the cinematic recording in progress, break the narrative's
reveal a certain Kantian flair, taking primary interest in otherAvise closed diegesis when they "lower their vwndow"
the categorical structures of experience or in this case the and "peer into the car."The unpredictable appearance of
30
gawkers in the background mitigates the director's influ-
ence over the mise-en-scène, so that directorial intent
operates as merely one of many influences on the final
image. Rather than a rupture to the reality effect, however,
this moment exemplifies the ephemeral status of any cin-
ematic representation, whether fictional or nonfictional.
Beyond such a strict distinction as fiction and reality or
performance and the unmediated expression of identity,
the various elements composed on-screen combine in an
expression of open relation. Foreground and background
exist not in opposition but in a connection of reciprocal
exchange, where anonymous figures may peer inquisitively
into the lens whue actors may or may not "forget its pres-
ence," producing a final collection of scenic elements that
positively multiplies the interweaving layers in an indeter-
minable "quantity of energy."^
Seen this way, what critics typically identify as self-
reflexivity is instead Kiarostami's attempt to multiply the
range of influences that compose the sound image; his
camera is merely one player among many. As the discussion
above indicates, concern over the invasive camera misses
entirely the manner by which the recorded objects and
the means of recording exist, not in a hierarchy where
either directorial intent or spectatorial reception can as-
sert absolute privilege but rather where every element of
possibility—^before, in, and coming after the image—exists
in a horizontal exchange or mixture, producing a visual
experience of relation itself.
Of course, we must note that the complex array of ele-
ments that constitute the image in this moment from 10
was made possible by the director's transition from celluloid
to digital. The easy mobility of the DV camera—in this
case, two cameras affixed to the dashboard of a vehicle si-
multaneously recording both driver and passenger—allows
for the documentation of semiprivate conversations that
occur separate and apart from the judgmental eye of a
director and the distractions of a large production crew. If
Kiarostami's films have routinely interrogated the impact
of the cinematic medium on representations of reality, as
critics have suggested, then, we might ask, how does a shift
in the technological medium change the image's reality
effect? Before considering the more practical changes to
Kiarostami's cinema made possible by the advent of digital
technology, we should first consider how the very terms
of our discussion—reflexivity, representation, and self-
consciousness, among others—-might change to account
properly for the particularities of the digital medium.
Auto-Motivations
A Relational Mediunn
Rodowick acknowledges that the transition from analog
cinema to digital cinema does not necessarily entail a
foundational shift for the field of visual culture. Generally
speaking, cinema, as a mode of artistic expression and mass
entertainment, continues to maintain established norms of
visual logic (e.g., montage, shot-reverse-shot) and narrative
(e.g., three-act structures and character types) regardless
of the means of visual capture or projection. Technology
has advanced, to be sure, but the precedent of cinematic
language or"codes of meaning" remains largely unchanged.
The real point of philosophical interest for Rodowick,
then, concerns the manner by which the digital image re-
creates, via an entirely different techno-ontology, the same
visual effect previously produced by light on sensitive film
stock in the process of photography. Whereas film theory
has historically concerned itself with the correlation be-
tween reality and its analog (re)presentation, the question
of realism in digital imaging emerges only as a secondary
concern. Instead, as Rodowick explains, "the concept of
realism in use by computer graphics professionals has a
rather restrictive and circular definition. It does not cor-
respond to an ordinary spatial sense of the world and actual
events taking place within it, but rather to our perceptual
and cognitive norms for apprehending a represented space,
especially a space that can be represented or constructed
according to mathematical notation" (103). In other words,
what digital image makers seek is not a true rendering of
reality but a more particular simulation of the modes of
representation to which we are accustomed by a now long-
standing history of the moving image. While the analog
image records an event's trace, where the relation between
the camera and recorded object exists in a direct relation
within time and space, the digital produces a mathematical
calculation relative to the recorded object that is no dif-
ferent, ontologically, from a visual image created entirely
from scratch. Computer-generated images in the attempt
to portray photo-realistic objects stiü at times show signs
of their artifice, but at bottom there is no fundamental
distinction between the coded information of a picture
taken by a digital camera and the coded information of a
picture constructed entirely on computer software without
any original referent in the living world. This differentia-
tion between visual media leads Rodowick to question
the status of the digital image itself, since the terms we
typically use to describe the image (representation, reality.
Scott Krzych 31
resemblance) nd longer apply to a digita] code entireiy In practice, high-definidon cameras and digital projectors
inaccessible to human senses apart from some means of continue to offer cinemagoers narratives, storylines, and
technological display. The digital image is a contradiction images that may seem entirely undifferentiated—apart
in terms. from such re]adve]y minor changes as illumination and
The relevance of this conception of digital represen- resoludon—from the feature fUms of decades past. Nev-
tadon for our consideration of Kiarostami lies precisely erthe]ess, what this discussion of digita] virtuaiity makes
in the extent tq which the digital accomphshes—by its possib]e,pardcu]ady for reflections on Kiarostami's cinema,
very constitution—r-the kind of categorical abstraction that is a new way of conceiving cinemadc representadon, where
critics so often claim to find in reflexive cinema. Digital the image's ontoiogical status finds a subjective correlative
representadon, vyhich either translates a visual image into in a surprising place: directorial style. After aU, the advent
abstract code or creates the image out of nothing by way of digital imaging does more than exceed or transcend
of the same code, provides an instance of the very uni- the limitations of analog; its unique ontology provides
versality sought after by Mulvey; even better, it does so the opportunity, if we are so inclined, to reconsider some
without any need for recourse to the intendons of either of the long-standing concerns within film and media
an auteur or the moment of audience reception. That is theory, of which our consideradon of reflexivity provides
to say, if the digital image is a paradoxical combination of one important exampie. Thus, the self-conscious style in
terms because it maintains no physical, spadal, or temporal Kiarostami's analog films, including Close-Up and Ltfe and
reciprocity with the real, then in a similar fashion digital Nothing More, formally andcipates the very abstract, rela-
reflexivity is an endrely redundant combination of terms, donal nature of digital code posited by Rodowick. More
because the digita] itseif is composed already of an abstract specifically, we might say that such celluloid-based films
collection of information where meaning itself is noth- prefigure tbe more nuanced achievement of reladonality
ing more or less than the reladon estabhsbed between that emerges when Kiarostami takes a small DV camera
coded informadon.^ Whereas both Williams and Mulvey into his own hands or shoots a feature where the acdon
in different contexts demand the camera reveal itself in occurs endrely in his absence. In either case the positive
order to counter the distordng effect of translating reality muldplication of reiation exceeds quotidian concerns of
onto celluloid, yvith digital representadons—where the authorship by virtue of their visua] and aural resemblance
medium produces its image independent of reality—the to the very medium through which they come to exist.
capture of "light does not become temporalized space; it
To say that the digital image exists independendy from
becomes abstract'symboiizadon.The singuiarity of an event
the rea], as Rodov\âck does, also opens a path by which
present in space and in dme is converted into an abstract
to consider the pracdcal differences between Kiarostami's
universal" (Rodowick 118). Or, as Rodowick puts it a bit
pre- and postdigital cinema. Witbout a propordonal or
earlier, "where analogical transcripdons record traces of
reciprocal reladon between the recorded object and tbe
events as condnuides in time, digital capture and synthesis
means of recording, as in the case of photographic ceUuloid,
produce tokens of numbers through a process of calcu]a-
we may need to describe the role of the director in terms
don, producing a mathemadcal equivalent—a symbolic
separate from typical nodons of style. Kiarostami's cin-
expression—of what humans would call a 'percepdon'"
emadc aesthèdc, beginning with his earlier, self-conscious
(112).Accordingly, the privilege Mulvey affords cinemadc
films and developing flarther in his digital features, is best
reflexivity—as that which marks "the difficulty of finding
described as a relational aesthetic, to borrow from Nicolas
an adequate transiadon" of reality by self-idendfying the
Bourriaud. In Bourriaud's view much of contemporary
very act of transladon and thereby revealing our experience
art refuses the disdnction between a practice of objecdve
of reality as something mediated by language—emerges
detacbment, on the one hand, and subjecdve involvement,
even more direcdy and objecdvely via the virtual language
on the other. Instead, instaUadon ardsts, among others, seek
of the digital, which literally constructs a reality out of an abstract
to counter the social divisions erected by the society of
language (24).
the spectacle, to instead act as a "bonding agent" wherein
There is of course nothing that requires digital cinema the "artist dwells in the circumstances the present offers
to take an appearance or form that differs in large mea- him, so as to turn the setdng of his Ufe (his links with the
sure firom the history of analog cinema that precedes it. physical and conceptual world) into a lasting world. He
32 Auto-Motivations

catches the world on the move" (Bourriaud 13-14). For who play knowingly to the camera. Pausing to kneel on the
Bourriaud, then, the artist is more of a technician than an ground, Kiarostami allows the children to view for them-
author, where a technician is understood not as the prime . selves the recording in progress, a gesture made possible
mover behind the created object but rather as a stimulat- by a pop-out LCD screen. The sequence then cuts to the
ing agent who brings various elements into relation with perspective of Kiarostami's camera, allowing the cinematic
each other. Similarly, Kiarostami has long been a director audience to see what the children and the director himself
interested in catching the world "on the move."What his saw on the miniature screen at this moment.
digital pieces evidence, though, is a kind of movement in The relation established here through editing—^where
which the camera not only documents movement but a camera records a camera recording, then switches to the
also participates in the movement in a way that exceeds first camera's perspective—provides an instance of what
the director's control, thereby challenging conceptions of might normally be understood as reflexive mise-en-abyme,
authorship and style. made possible in this particular moment by the aesthetic
freedom granted by digital technology. To term this mo-
ment reflexive, however, as I have attempted to show, would
"A car is like a man": Mobile Techniques
miss a more complex and interesting display of relational
It would be entirely reasonable to argue that Kiarostami's content and would account only for the imaging tech-
transition from analog to digital marks a continuation nology rather than the manner by which in this moment
rather than a radical shift, in which his ongoing interest in technology enables multiple subjectivities to meet in a
the mobue camera—^particularly the camera placed in and positive connection. The participants on-screen are no
around moving automobiles—^progresses only minimally more or less spectators than those who eventually view the
with his employment of digital video. Even though 10, documentary on DVD. Here, spatial metaphors (i.e., the
for example, includes no exterior shots of Mania's vehicle camera is too close and invasive, or the camera is too detached
as she drives her various passengers through the streets of or distant) find no application. Instead, the sequence pro-
Tehran, the majority of the interior shots do not differ in gresses from one shot to the next in a display of movement
kind from most of those found in a predigital film Uke Taste understood only as a confluence of related and relative
of C/ierry. Nevertheless, Kiarostami himself appears to treat perspectives, where the connections themselves produce a
his foray into digital cinema as a significant change, if not reality affect that falls somewhere between objectivity and
a radical break, from his earlier work. As he succinctly puts subjectivity. Like the virtual imaging of digital code that
it in the featurette 10 on 10 (2004),"It was impossible to exists independently of the real and thereby challenges our
make a film like 10 without using a digital camera." Such conceptions of the image as such, in ABG Africa the very
a definitive statement about the necessity of the digital terms objective and subjective lose all relevance in a virtual
medium for a "fikn" set entirely in a moving vehicle may display of the in-between.
seem counterintuitive for a director whose oeuvre, even To propose such a view of the interactive and relational
before his transition to digital, has so frequently placed image, however, does not imply an absolute evacuation
characters in the intimate setting of a moving vehicle. of directorial intention or influence. Discussing this very
However, Kiarostami ultimately reveals a lack of concern moment from ABG Africa, Kiarostami describes tbe "film-
ioT what a camera visually captures; he instead appears ing" process precisely in terms of a medium that simply
primarily interested in how the camera impacts its sUr- reveals the world without the necessity of an intentional,
rounding environment. guiding vision of a director: "I felt that a 35 mm camera
A rather striking instance of the impact of digital would Hmit both us and the people there, whereas the
technology on a profilmic setting occurs in ABG Africa, video camera displayed truth from every angle and not a
where Kiarostami records a trip to Uganda on two digital forged truth.To me, this camera was a discovery Like a God,
camcorders, one operated by himself and the other by it was all encompassing, omnipresent. The camera could
an assistant. Approximately fifteen minutes into the piece turn 360 degrees and thus reported the truth, an absolute
Kiarostami appears on-screen holding a small video camera; trutb. Directing was spontaneously and unconsciously
the assistant cameraman records the director's movements eliminated, by which I mean artificial and conventional
as he likewise records a group of anonymous youngsters directing." As Kiarostami describes it, filming in 35 mm
Scott Krzych 33

involves a mucb bulkier camera on a set crowded by directorial style. With sniad DV cameras attached to the
various members of a production crew, not to mention, front of a car, tbe "characters" in 10 engage in conversa-
he later notes, the arbitrary, intermittent cries of "action"tion separated, at least momentardy, from the judgmental
and "cut" emitted by tbe director. Faced with the invasive eye of a director and are conceivably less distracted by tbe
presence of the technological apparatus and burdened by unobtrusive recording device.As we follow Mania through
tbe task of living up to expectations, both those specific the streets of Tehran and spy on the conversations with
to a particular director and the more general expectations her various passengers, our position as spectators becomes
associated with ''being in the movies," actors and nonac- comparable to that of the director, who, like us, was absent
tors alike are unable to achieve the kind of self-presence from the actual recording. In Won 10Kiarostami describes
and being togetber that so interests Kiarostami. "Unlike tbis free mobdity as producing a form of spontaneity never
an object that is closed in on itself by the intervention of before achieved by actors in his earlierfilms.As evidence of
a style and a signature," to draw again from Bourriaud, this this fact the documentary cuts to a moment from 10 tbat
moment from ABC Africa "shows that form only exists in seems especially improvisational. Witb tbe camera fixed
tbe encounter and in the dynamic relationship enjoyed on Mania's sister in the passenger seat, she advises Mania
by an artistic proposition with other formations, artistic to avoid a pothole in tbe road ahead. Moments later, the
or otherwise" (21). Kiarostami's relational form, then, does car, camera, and passenger josde in unison; tbe sister com-
not demonstrate style or signature but rather reveals the ments sarcastically, "You found it." Several other moments
complexity of an encounter instigated by the director throughout 10 depict the process of driving in an urban
where the eventiaal product of this instigation exceeds his setting, with Mania arguing with other drivers.Tbe very act
control. of driving also impacts the emotional tenor of the dialogue.
I suggest, then, that we should read Kiarostami's exuber- The movie opens witb a heated exchange between Mania
ant declaration of a moment of "absolute truth" in ABC and her son; Amin prefers to ride from school to a soccer
Africa as a moment of hyperbole that nevertheless contains match in relative silence, whereas Mania uses tbe trip as
tbe kernel of a wed-reasoned aesthetic phdosophy.Just as an opportunity to discuss family tensions after a divorce.
tbe hand-held camcorder allows for tbe easy engagement Tbeir verbal spat is as much about a disagreement over
witbin 360 degree space and confers on tbe director tbe the proper use of the vehicle as it is about familial issues.
abdity to move freely amidst tbe people who populate Wben Mania later drives her cousin, who spends most of
the setting, so too does the medium's ontological status, as the scene sobbing over the end of ber marriage. Mania's
Rodowick demonstrates, constitute a new kind of image advice does litde to comfort her passenger; instead, her
unbound by fdm theory's long-held assumptions about cousin only breaks from her emotional display when she
tbe intersection of reality and representation and its me- helps to guide Mania into a parking space. In each of these
chanical reproduction. For instance, in his seminal work instances the unobtrusive presence of the digital camera
Theory of Film Siegfried Kracauer fears an epoch in which adows for tbe simple display of tbe affective relationships
tbe overturning of religious belief for scientific discourse between interlocutors where the pragmatics of auto-
may eventually result in a technicady minded form of motive travel are allowed to appear as direcdy relevant to
cinema, wherein the auteur becomes a mere "technician" tbeir conversations.
who unconsciously explores "the means and functions" Tbe significance of these auto-motive conversations,
of mechanical representation (i.e., an avant-garde "fucker" I suggest, is precisely the extent to which tbe digital
fdm) and thus overlooks a socially conscious style intent camera allows for the emergence of a range of relational
on revealing thé "ends and modes of being" (292). Sur- elements witbin tbe image, none of which propels us to
prisingly enough, Kiarostami actuady engages in an astute detach ourselves from the viewing in an act of subjective
contemplation of human experience precisely through interpretation.Tbe automobde is no stranger, of course, to
tbe kind of emphasis of technique over style that Kracauer Kiarostami's work. However, in films like Life and Nothing
laments. More and The Wind Will Carry Us the car serves as meta-
As a further example of tbe benefits of digital tech- phor for tbe protagonists' emotional and psychological
nique, tbe technique of long take in 10, recorded outside distance from their environment. Tbe "film director"
Kiarostami's presence, obfuscates virtually all traces of (Farhad Kheradmand) in Life and Nothing More shows an
34
altruistic concern for the lives of his young actors after the
earthquake, but he repeatedly disregards the advice of the
locals who tell him that there are no passable roads to his
destination. He is intent on moving forward toward his
self-determined goal, and it is only at the conclusion that he
finally stops his car in order to assist a random pedestrian.
Behzad Dorani in TheWindWill Carry Us frequently jumps
into his car, driving to a high point in the town where he
can locate better reception for his cell phone, demonstrat-
ing his role as an outsider separated from the townspeople
by both sensibility and technology. Both characters are typi-
cally understood as personifications of Kiarostami himself,
with the films engaging in a self-conscious consideration
of how a director perhaps manipulates and appropriates
the very lives he seeks to accurately represent.
With the camera placed inside the car in Í0, however,
the role of the automobile becomes understood literally as
a means of travel, where the technological means (the car)
actively contributes to the production of meaning.Viewed
as such, the automobile does not recede in importance;
the frequent references to the act of driving directly in-
fluence the dialogue. What the digital camera affords in
these depictions ofauto-movement, therefore, is precisely
a form of connection between human and technology that
entails no fundamental point of divide. Unlike the ethical
concerns about documentary cinema expressed by Linda
WiUiams and Laura Mulvey, which treat the camera as
something alien to human perception and thus in need of
control, in Í0 the vehicle affects human relations as Httle
or as much as the digital camera in the scene from ABC
yl^i'cij.Technology becomes a point of connection in these
moments, but one that must be treated practically rather
than metaphorically. Whereas the winding roads in the
earlier films, Rolando Caputo notes, seem "of metaphysical
significance, iOis the first of Kiarostami's films that doesn't
allow for any external shots of the car as it makes its journey.
Here, the car is purely a container of the characters and
their dramas, important though they be."
To invoke, finally, what is perhaps Kiarostami's most
famous road film. Taste of Cherry, we might say that the
relational techniques found in ABC Africa and 10 dem-
onstrate the kind of pragmatic relation that Badii seeks Works Cited
from his passengers along the winding dirt roads outside
Tehran. After all, what the suicidal Badii seeks is a person Bourriaud, Nicolas. Relational Aestltetia.Trans. Simon Pleasance and
willing to forgo metaphysical or religious concerns in order
Caputo, Rolando. "Five to 10: Five Reflections on Abbas
to perform a manual task. That is to say, Badii attempts to
convince his passengers to subtract from their moralizing
Auto-Motivations
concerns everything but their ability to act as physical be-
ings. As he tells the seminary student who offers a rehgious
argument in order to dissuade him from suicide, "That's
fine, but I've already told you, I don't need a sermon. If
I wanted one, I'd go to someone with more experience,
who'd at least finished his studies. The only thing I need
from you right now is a pair ofhands!'Like Badii, Kiarostami
has long resisted the metaphysical categories with which
he has too often been labeled. Though his employment
of digital technology by no means ensures a fundamental
change to his aesthetic, it does appear that the free mobil-
ity of DV cameras allows Kiarostami to finally achieve a
pragmatics of technique that mitigates his direction and
stylistic imprint, thereby increasing the freedom available
to both actors and spectators.
Notes
1. Of course, the symbiotic relation between real-life trauma and
cinematic detachment, despite Mulvey's contention, does not neces-
sarily ensure a viewer's heightened concern for the lives depicted
on-screen. Indeed, Mulvey's laudatory reading is countered by Azadeh
Farahmand's critique oí Life and Nothing More on surprisingly similar
terms. Farahmand notes the film's detached perspective, too, but fears
this more objective position diminishes the tragedy's emotional im-
pact:"Identi£ying with Kiarostami's middlema«, the viewer becomes a
detached observer" and "is thus protected from any shock, unpleasant
encounter or guilty conscience. He can maintain his distance and
remain uninvolved" (101).
2. Jean-Luc Nancy offers a similar description oí Life and Nothing
More:"[The film] imparts these words: look, I won't let your attention
become distracted, look! Instead of waiting for thrills and a denoue-
ment, have regard for each image in itself as much as for the way they
line up, bound and unbound" (10). ' ,'•
3. The function of digital information as a collection of codes in
relation leads Rodowick to describe the digital as a medium con-
stituted by montage as its technological ground. William J. Mitchell
comes to a similar conclusion in The Reconfigured Eye."A digital image
may be part scanned photograph, part computer-synthesized shaded
perspective, and part electronic 'painting'—all smoothly melded into
an apparently coherent whole.... Digital imagers give meaning and
value to computational readymades by appropriation, transforma-
tion, reprocessing, and recombination; we have entered the age of
electrobricollage" (7).
Fronza Woods. Dijon: Les Presses du Réel, 2002.
Kiaorstami's 10!' Senses of Ginema 29 (Nov.-Dec. 2003). http://
archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/03/29/ten.html.
Scott Krzych 35

Farahmand,Azadeh. "Perspectives on Recent (International Acclaim Nancy, Jean-Luc. The Evidence of Film.Trans. Christine Irizarry and
for) Iranian Cinema." The New Iranian Cinema: Politics, Representa- Verena Andermatt Conley. Brussels:Yves Gevaert, 2001.
tion and Identity.\Ed. Richard Tapper. London: I. B.Tauris, 2002. Rodowick, D. N. The Virtual Life of Film. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Kracauer, Siegfried; Theory ofFilm:The Redemption of Physical Reality. UP, 2008.
New York: Oxford UP, 1960. Rosenbaum, Jonathan, and Merhnaz Saeed-Vafa. Abbas Kiarostami.
Mitchell, William j . The Reconfigured Eye: Visual Truth in the Post- Urbana: U of IUinois P 2003.
Photographic Eral Cambridge, MA: MIT P, 1992. Shaviro, Steven. The Cinematic Body. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota
Mulvey, Laura. "Repetition and Return: The Spectator's Memory P, 1993.
in Abbas Kiarostami's Koker Trilogy." Third Text 21.1 (2007): Williams, Linda."Mirrors without Memories:Truth, History, and the
19-29. New Documentary." Film Quarterly 46.3 (1993): 9-21.
Copyright of Velvet Light Trap is the property of and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites
or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.