|  |  | 

| Ten 
         
 |  | 
| In Abbas Kiarostami’s Ten, a woman (Mania
        Akbari) drives to the spot where she will pick up her garrulous son, Amin (Amin
        Maher). When she parks, we see through her car door a van from which Amin
        emerges to cross the road. There is a tense, shouted exchange, through the
        passing traffic, between the woman and her ex-husband concerning how many hours
        she can have the child and when and where she must return him. The woman drives
        off. A moment later, the van pulls up alongside the car; more heated words are
        exchanged in motion, and the van zooms away.
           
         This scene is
        perfectly keeping with the peculiar, formal constraints that Kiarostami chose
        for making Ten: not a single scene in
        it takes place outside the woman’s car. But it also speaks volumes about modern
        life, and the role of the car as (in critic Mehrnaz Saeed-Vafa’s words) the “ultimate
        private space” – more of a functioning home than anything that has four, solid
        walls. It makes for a fascinating comparison with another, contemporaneous
        film, Claire Denis’ Friday Night (2002).
         
         In a
        far-reaching essay called “Fate and the Family Sedan”, the Australian critic
        Meaghan Morris argued that a car is, in cultural terms, a curious kind of
        uncertain border space: it seals in the passengers in their rigidly circumscribed,
        social roles, but also cannot help but let in the multifarious influences of
        the outside world and its changing history.
   
         This is
        partly what Ten – the most
        aggressively urban film that
        Kiarostami has ever made – is about. Everyday day life is portrayed as a
        small-scale but ceaseless war (each of the ten scenes is introduced with the sound
        of a boxing-match bell) in which traditional and progressive values duke it
        out, especially around the role of women in present-day Iranian society. And
        while there is a heavy pull towards the dour triumph of patriarchy, the
        bustling world which constantly forces its presence on the characters and us
        through the car windows suggests other possibilities.
   
         Kiarostami
        finds a simple but brilliant way to express this dynamic: making his actors
        actually contend with real streets, traffic and strangers takes them out of the
        interiority of their little lives and stories, and puts them in a constantly
        surprising relation to the real world.
             
         As Saeed-Vafa
        remarks, Kiarostami’s digital cameras mounted on the car dashboard not only
        capture of the intimacy of life in cars, but also suggest the cold eye of the
        surveillance camera – in other words, the convergence of private and public
        spheres.
   
         There is
        another aspect or context to this camera set-up that generates the film. For Ten marked a genuine break in
          Kiarostami’s illustrious career. It was a break that many – some of his most
          fervent admirers and champions included – had a hard time coming to terms with,
          and maybe some still haven’t managed it. 
   
         A measure of the discomfort generated by Kiarostami’s
        surprising ‘Knight’s move’ can be gauged from the negative capsule review of Shirin (2008) that appeared in Cahiers du cinéma (no. 652, January
        2010). Patrice Blouin – himself no stranger to the analysis of video art and
        digital culture, as his Art Press columns show – recalls the director’s “audacious gesture” in Ten of simply attaching cameras to the left and
          right sides of a car and letting his cast members drive off to improvise their
          conversations, ten times over. With this gesture, according to Blouin,
          Kiarostami sort to “do away with mise en scène”
  – meaning, all traditional procedures of scripting, staging, dressing the décor
          and setting the lights, choreographing the moves, guiding the actors … in place
          of which Ten instituted what the
          French call a dispositif, a fixed,
          rule-bound system for generating a work, a game which (in Kiarostami’s case)
          allowed for an “automatic recording”.
   
         For the
        greater part of his subsequent output, Kiarostami went the way of the dispositif. This much is clear even from
        the titles, when Ten announces its
        structure of ten dialogue scenes and Five
          Dedicated to Ozu (2003) flags its five, static, long takes. Blouin, while
        sympathetic to the initial audacity of the director’s gesture in Ten, finds this career-reorientation a
        case of diminishing returns: once you, as a viewer, ‘get’ the game played in Shirin – the fact that you will only
        hear the soundtrack of an epic movie off-screen, and will only see a procession
        of women in close-up seemingly in the process of watching and reacting to it –
        there is nothing more to experience or explore. An endgame typical, we might
        say, of much contemporary art in the galleries: to know it is not to love it.
   
         But
        Kiarostami is an artist who refuses to be contained by the categories we –
        particularly in the West – erect to comprehend him. The origin of his current
        evolution is perfectly clear: Kiarostami has long been an inhabitant of the
        international art world – as photographer, installation artist and videaste – and he has evidently been
        exposed to much on that circuit that has inspired and excited him. Presumably,
        he has found that work more inspiring and exciting than what he has seen lately
        on cinema screens. And who can blame him?
   MORE Kiarostami: Taste of Cherry, Certified Copy © Adrian Martin July 2003 / July 2010 / January 2014 | 
