Plot
In Tuscany to promote his latest book, a middle-aged British writer meets a French woman who leads him to the village of Lucignano. While there, a chance question reveals something deeper.
Release Year: 2010
Rating: 7.2/10 (5,679 voted)
Critic's Score: 82/100
Director:
Abbas Kiarostami
Stars: Juliette Binoche, William Shimell, Jean-Claude Carrière
Storyline James Miller has just written a book on the value of a copy versus the original work of art. At a book reading, a woman gives him her address, and the next day they meet and take a country-side drive to a local Italian village. Here, they discuss various works of art found in the town, and also the nature of their relationship - which gets both more revealed and concealed as the day progresses.
Cast: Juliette Binoche
-
Elle
William Shimell
-
James Miller
Jean-Claude Carrière
-
L'homme de la place
Agathe Natanson
-
La femme de la place
Gianna Giachetti
-
La patronne du café
Adrian Moore
-
Le fils
Angelo Barbagallo
-
Le traducteur
Andrea Laurenzi
-
Le guide
Filippo Trojano
-
Le marié
Manuela Balsinelli
-
Opening Weekend: $77,937
(USA)
(13 March 2011)
(5 Screens)
Gross: $1,337,384
(USA)
(12 June 2011)
Technical Specs
Runtime:
France:
|
USA:
|
Argentina:
Quotes: Elle:
I know you hate me. There's nothing I can do about that. But at least try to be a little consistent.
User Review
An enigma, a puzzle, a portrait and a copy
Rating: 10/10
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.
0