MovieChat Forums > Copie conforme (2011) Discussion > windows and mirrors / views and reflecti...

windows and mirrors / views and reflections


Like everyone, I have my own views on the film, the relationship of James and ? (i don't even think Binoche's character has a name) and what the film is trying to say. To start with, I find it fascinating how the film begins and ends.

I find it curious that the film begins with James being absent from a scheduled lecture. When he does show up, late..he begins to talk about his theories to the room assembled without being the least bothered by Binoche's character (who is making a fuss in the reserved seats in the front row)

The ending shows James looking deeply into a mirror at himself. He steps away from the frame and the audience is left staring out a window, as a church bell sounds from a distance, in a darkening sky.

It seems that TIME is of vital importance to the movie. The idea that .... it is getting late....

Another thing I find curious is Kiarostami's use of mirror's and windows. Both characters have a long scene of themselves looking into a mirror. James' look, at the end, seems introspective. Binoche's is more of vanity, and love for James. In the restaurant scene, a window is directly behind James as Binoche fights to direct her focus between him and a wedding party behind. At the hotel room, she tells James to look at something outside the window, something he can't see or remember seeing years before. and then the film's final image out the window. These images seem to point out that James (representing all of us men) has difficulty seeing his life beyond himself as an individual (.. I live my life, my family lives theirs) and that he does not have much time left to undo many things, time is passing.. and that dusk is settling in.

This movie is Kiarostami's indictment of modern man's view of what it is to be a man. The CERTIFIED COPY, I think, is man himself, going through the motions of being a real man, when in fact most are living solely for themselves, their careers, their tastes, their choices. In time, they may regret those choices.

reply

[deleted]

WilliamCKH, that is quite an illuminating analysis of the film! I've seen it twice and this sheds more light on it for me.

I think you're right that Kiarostami is more critical of men than women in the film. He shows Binoche as a woman who is well-adept to modern life and whose emotions are in harmony with her thoughts. This manifests itself when she gets angry and frustrated with the world, particularly her son's lack of consideration. Here we see that she is a real woman with feelings and responsibilities. James Miller, on the other hand, is almost too witty and easy-going. He seems to have no concerns and simply glides through life on the conviction of his theories without much trouble. But now he has gotten to a point where his thoughts and feelings have become isolated from each other. The ideas he writes in his books, though they look good on paper, are too abstract and don't connect with him emotionally. The arc of his character shows this gradual separation, and, in the stunning last shot, he comes face-to-face with the shell of a man he has become.

Time is vital, too, as you pointed out. Kiarostami dares, as few directors do, to make time a crucial element of the story.

reply

Really interesting analysis - though I had a slightly different take on the mirrors thing. Certainly the film means to throw up illusions. The whole thing revolves around the very idea of authenticity, so we're granted several shots of not only each character looking into a mirror (or a POV shot of one's view of the other, which are always blocked almost identically... take from that what you will) - but there are also several shots where we see things reflected on surfaces - the long drive through Tuscany - James and She in her antique shop - James by the motorcycle (three mirrors in that shot - I counted). The significance of each individual shot was lost on me, of course. I just saw the movie a few hours ago. Need to see it again to get a full grasp on it. But I, too, noticed the use of reflection.

I will niggle at one thing you mentioned, though. I do so, of course, in the spirit of healthy discussion, not to flame or argue :). I don't think She was vain at all. He was. Yes, She spent her time in mirrors altering her appearance - putting on makeup, fiddling with her earrings... but that was all to help him see her. To get him to notice. Sure, you could argue that an impulse like that is essentially vain... but I don't think that's where it's coming from. I think She (for numerous reasons, some sensible, some irrational) is desperate for him to notice and love her in the way she most longs to be seen and loved. James, however, being the truly vain character, cannot do this. He's too caught up in his own little world. He never notices her. Or - what's worse - when he does see her, he chooses to look away. Chooses not to see her for what she is, notice her authenticity, acknowledge her want for his affection and love - instead, he chooses to see her how he most wants her to be. Which, I think, fits with the whole idea of the film.

Still - I really liked your interpretation.

I loved this goddamn movie.

http://eugenicsbeginswithyou.wordpress.com/

reply

Hey, that's marriage...

reply

[deleted]

Some good points here.

But "indictment"? I really have a hard time seeing Kiarostami making indictments about ANYTHING.

We (hopefully) understand the man's perspective like we understand hers. He really was tired, just like she was at the wheel. Objectively speaking, the two events are quite similar. What differs, of course, are how individuals react to the "same" situation.

What I took away from this film is the subjectivity of everything. A copy IS the original until something changes our viewpoint. The piece at the museum was real until they found out it wasn't after the war. The statues at the antique shop are real to the man until she tells him they aren't.

The countless mirrors reflect this endlessness of perspectives to me, too. We are watching a physical copy of a film which is a digital copy of actors copying real people, etc. etc.

But I do agree that time is essential here. It's indeed getting late, and when the day is early there is time for (general, even playful) philosophy, later on it's time for serious self-reflection.

reply

if he has to go away at 9 o'clock, as he says two times in the movie, and in the final scene the bells ring 8 times, does that mean he still got time to solve his life? or the exact opposite, that everything is coming to an end?

reply

It's decision time.

~.~
I WANT THE TRUTH! http://www.imdb.com/list/ze4EduNaQ-s/

reply

I thought the entire point of the movie was to dissolve the line between "original" and "copy."

reply