User Reviews

If certifying an art piece as a copy means defining the authenticity of its original, watching Certified Copy means reviewing how much ideals, expectations, and fantasies about love you have projected to your life. What does your true self intrinsically need from love? And, how do time and life changes affect your perspective?

James the protagonist would rather challenge himself with one of the most difficult writing tasks, i.e. endorsing the originality of art work, than get engaged in the search for an authentic love. For marriage, he holds a pessimistically detached attitude, which is seen at different points in the film, and cannot be clearer when he refused to take a picture with the young couple at the popular wedding spot. For him, marriage is just a copy of an image of what people think love should ultimately lead to, but marriage is not exactly what love is meant to be. For him, love should be liberating (like the way that Cypress trees extend their branches); it cannot be maintained without adaptation to changes, including changes caused by the lapse of time, new responsibilities, career ambition, etc. His detachment towards Juliet Binoche (who played the nameless character, the woman who sometimes seems to be his wife and sometimes simply seems to be a book fan) may be an expression of his insistence on the originality of love.

Binoche is the opposite of James. She gives values to copies, even though she recognizes the superiority of originals. This is reflected in her antique shop, where both originals and copies are displayed and sold. While James shows contempt to Original Copy, she highly regards it. (Original Copy is the painting copy which was mistaken as the original for such a long time that it eventually got acknowledged as a valuable art work and displayed in the Tuscany museum). For her, love is an ideal but not without responsibilities. Marriage may be just an illusion of love, but it can be just as real and rewarding if you believe in it hard enough and work on it hard enough. Unfortunately, she is in love with someone who does not share the same value as her, someone who does not want his own liberal spirit to be inhibited by responsibilities, and someone who does not conform to the inferiority of copies.

The most intriguing part of the story is that you never know the relationship between James and Binoche. Obviously this is not a mystery to solve, but an idea to play with. You can see them as two people who newly met, but just play along after being mistaken as a couple. Both of them have demonstrated certain transference as the story goes, but Binoche was almost overtaken by it. Unintentionally, they projected their feelings towards their spouse onto each other. You can also see James as the constantly unavailable husband of Binoche, a man who needs to be free from obligations to enjoy life. It is interesting to note that, what seems to be confusing to viewers is plain and clear to the people around these two persons – they all see them as a couple, including the waitress, the new young couple at the church, the old couple by the fountain, and the inn keeper. For us viewers, the confusion did not start until after the conversation between the waitress and Binoche. From then on, James and Bionche started role playing or revealing their past. Either way, the process is punctuated by intense and emotional moments. It raised the questions of how we react to others' interpretation of us, what constitutes their interpretation, and how our reaction to the interpretation affects us in return. If one's identity is shaped by - or worse- caters to other's interpretation, how authentic can his life remain? How well are we aware of our true self? How much does awareness matter?

I love the way that the director uses the camera. At some points, the viewer feels like standing behind a two-way mirror watching the characters. At some points, the viewer feels like sitting in the position of James or Binoche, being looked right into the eyes and talked to. At some other points, the viewer feels like being in the position of the new couple, whom Binoche was waving at. The open ending is excellent. The question that is left to be answered is whether James took the train and left, or he stayed with Binoche.How to draw the line between the value of originality and the value of copies? Are you going to compromise? What is the standard for a "certified copy"? What are acceptable and not acceptable for an authentic love/life?

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.

Terrific!

I have seen the movie twice and here is my interpretation of the plot.

Fifteen years before the start of the movie, the woman played by Juliette Binoche and James have an affair. They live in France. James is probably married since she sees her relationship with him as a "certified copy," not an original like his relationship with his wife. They go on a holiday to Tuscany, staying at the hotel shown at the end of the movie. The night before the day shown in the movie is the 15th anniversary of their first night there. Her son is conceived early in the relationship. Although they never marry, the affair lasts at least a year or two. After the breakup, James abandons his son.

Five years before the start of the movie, without telling James, she moves to Florence. By coincidence James visits the city shortly afterward. He happens to see her and the boy walking past his hotel window, but he doesn't recognize her. Later in the piazza, he notices her again—she is looking at a statue with the boy. Although James still doesn't recognize her, he is struck by the fact that the boy apparently loves the statue, a copy, just as much as if it were the original. This gives him the idea for a book about certified copies in art. The central theme of the book is that a copy can be just as good in some ways as the original, as evidenced by the subtitle: "Forget the original, just get a good copy."

The book is published a few months before the movie begins. She discovers the book in a bookstore and buys several copies. By this time she has moved from Florence to a town near the place where she and James vacationed 15 years earlier. She runs a local antique shop. After she hears that James is visiting her town to lecture about his new book, she contacts him to see if they might meet. Apparently they haven't seen each other in many years.

He plans to arrive the evening before his lecture, and they agree that she will meet him at his hotel. While James considers their affair to be a long-ago closed chapter in his life, her feelings for him are as strong as ever. On their "15th anniversary" she is hoping to rekindle their relationship, both romantically and sexually. But James isn't so enthusiastic. Not only does he arrive late, but he falls asleep while she is freshening up in the bathroom. Finding him asleep on the bed, she leaves and returns home.

The next morning she attends the lecture but has to leave early to get the boy something to eat. Before leaving she passes a note to James asking him to meet her at her shop after the lecture. At the restaurant, she gives the boy a book she got James to autograph, and the boy teasingly asks why she got James to write only his first name. The fact that her son had to take her last name because he was born out of wedlock is such a painful subject for her that she has to leave the table.

Later when James arrives at her shop, they act almost like strangers because they haven't seen each other in years. They apparently spoke only a few words the night before. For the moment she overlooks his rude behavior at the hotel, hoping to salvage what she can of her original plans. James suggests an afternoon ride in the country before he catches his nine o'clock train. She says, "I'll take you to a place that you might find interesting," meaning the town where they stayed 15 years earlier.

As they drive through the countryside, they start arguing about his book. From the outset it is clear that she doesn't agree with his main point. Although it seems that they are discussing art, she is really talking about their relationship. She tells him that she doesn't like copies (she never wanted their relationship to be a facsimile of the real thing). But he tells her that he thinks copies are just fine.

When they arrive at their destination, they stop at a coffee shop. She asks how he got the idea for the book. When he begins to tell her about the woman in Florence, she realizes that it was her, and at the same time she thinks, "How could you not recognize me?" Once James sees the tears in her eyes, he slowly starts to comprehend his mistake in Florence but doesn't openly acknowledge this fact to her.

After James takes a call, perhaps from his wife, Binoche says that the woman behind the counter mistook them for a married couple. As they leave the shop, they fall into a game of pretending to be married. She uses the role-playing as a way to voice her complaints to James. She tells him how difficult and frustrating it is to be a single parent. Later when they stop at a restaurant, she talks about how he hurt her feelings the night before. At this point James is fed up with the game and yells at her, even telling her that he hates her after they leave the restaurant.

They wander through the streets and end up at the hotel where they had stayed so many years before. As they sit on the front steps of the hotel, he apologizes for "fifteen years ago and five years ago". She softens and becomes more flirty. She suggests that they go look at the room where they stayed. She remembers every detail about their holiday, but James doesn't recognize the hotel or the view outside the room window. Hoping to seduce him, she lies on the bed and asks him to stay with her. Instead he goes to the bathroom to freshen up as the bell outside the window rings eight times.

There is no action except talking, unless you figure that two people getting in and out of a car is action. The movie is essentially one long conversation between James and a women, billed as "Elle" (Juliette Binoche). James is an art historian and Elle is an antique dealer specializing in art. James has just written a book, "Certified Copy" which asks why good reproductions should not be equally as valuable as originals. The book appears to be one of those that takes an idea of some merit and intellectualizes it to death, like asking if an original of anything exists, or if we are only DNA reproductions of our parents, or if a tree is not to be considered an original work of art? The conversation struck me as only a slight cut above what you might hear in a typical college dorm.

Halfway through we are thrown a curve ball. While at a restaurant James steps out to take a phone call during which the proprietor dispenses wisdom to Elle about male/female relationships, like how a wife should be happy that her husband works, since work is necessary for a man, allowing the wife to live her own life. The proprietor mistakes Elle and James for husband and wife and Elle does not dispute that assumption. From here on I was left to deduce whether James and Elle had known each other in the past and were play-acting at the beginning, or weather they had just met and were play-acting after James' return to the restaurant.

Perhaps a point is being made about the relationship between perception and reality, or that maybe perception *is* reality. There was a scene between Elle and her young son Julien in a café where he asks her why James did not sign his book using Julien's surname. This question so upsets Elle that she runs out of the café. I thought that there must be some significance in that scene. Does James have an alias with the same surname as Julien? Is James Julien's father out of wedlock? I could not ultimately make any reasonable inferences about this scene, though I feel it is of importance. In the end I found the message being delivered, if there is one, so muddled that I lost patience in trying to figure it out.

I found James to be a cynical, pretentious, obnoxious, and petulant pedant. The main positive is Juliette Binoche who is almost always worth watching no matter what movie she is in. While her performance is not without interest here, it was not enough to save the day for me. The production values are high and there are some nice scenes of the Tuscany countryside.

So it goes like this...My parents have quarreled as always. My boyfriend is on the other part of the world and I haven't seen him for a month (5 more to go). OK, so I'm sitting in my room and pitying myself as good as I can. And along came...no, not Polly. Along came 'Certified Copy'.

Couple of things to consider before watching the movie (I wish someone's told me those). If you're looking for a French romantic comedy in style of 'Jet Lag'(starring Binoche and Reno),don't count on this one. Get ready to struggle through the first 40 minutes of the movie. It may seem boring even for those who are interested in art. Why? 'Cause it's not about art as you'll discover later.

I have to give credit to Abbas Kiarostami for that plot twist that finally brought the story line to life. At the end you even start to appreciate that first part which seemed to be meaningless.

So it's not about art. The subject is trivial and eternal - relationship between husband and wife. The whole plot could be put in one line - here's what almost every couple will be after 15 years of marriage. And no matter what she does, no matter how hard she tries to recreate the past full of happy illusions, he still has to catch his train at 9 o'clock.

In the course of the movie you keep stumbling across happy newlyweds here and there. However, seeing the protagonists at the same time, you do realize that not many of those married couples will grow old together sweetly holding hands everywhere they go.

For many people everything written above is obvious 'cause they've already lived through this and have come to terms with the fact that there's no eternal love and the marriage ceremony is much more beautiful than the marriage itself. However, if you're in your early 20's and everyone around you keeps saying: 'Stop dreaming, this is real life, wake up!' But you remain stubborn and say: 'No, I can do better than that. I'll find my real love and I'll treat it with care'.

After watching this movie you may think: 'Well, it's time to admit everything they've told me is true'. And that's when you grow up.

'Certified Copy' is one of the latest films by Iranian master Abbas Kiarostami and one of the few made by him outside Iran. The landscape is very different from his previous films. The film looks completely 'European' and the assimilation of the European cultural background is perfect. At the same time, we find here familiar themes that have preoccupied Kiarostami throughout his career - family and couple relationships, the place of children in the family, the different personal memories and perceptions of the characters. As in his best films of earlier periods, the director manages to tell a meaningful story with simple and expressive means. But what we also find in 'Certified Copy' is a game of meanings with which the director envelops the behavior and the words of the heroes of the story that is being told on screen in an atmosphere of mystery and ambiguity. The story in the film haunts its viewers after the screening. What did we actually see?

The main heroine, played by Juliette Binoche, whose name we never know, is a mature French woman, who raises alone a boy in his early teens and keeps a gallery of antiques and art objects in the Tuscan town of Arezzo. James Miller (William Shimell) is a British author of art books, the most recent one having as topic the relation between originals and copies of works of art. She witnesses the launch of the author's book in Arezzo and then becomes his guide for a few hours in the villages of Tuscany. At one point, in a cafe, the owner of the place confuses them with a married couple. The two seem amused by the confusion, and from now on they gradually enter the roles and behave more and more naturally as a couple for 15 years, maybe separated or on the verge of separation, in any case a couple in crisis. A game or reality, because their behavior becomes more and more deeply suited to the attitudes of a loving woman and of an indifferent man, concerned only with his career? Which of the two hypotheses is the 'true'? Discussions about originals and copies suddenly can be viewed in a different dimension, get a different meaning. What is truth? what is authenticity? can the copy generate more emotion than the original? can the feelings in the game be deeper than those in reality? or maybe everything around us is a multitude of copies or the result of simulation games? or just imagination?

Juliette Binoche is perfect and in my opinion makes this film one of the best roles in her mature career. I wasn't extremely convinced by William Shimell, a semi-professional actor (and famous tenor). His intellectualism and emotional disconnection may have been in line with Kiarostami's vision, but I couldn't help but think as I watched the film to alternative casting choices (Daniel Day-Lewis? Jeremy Irons?). James Miller's character remains one of the many mysteries of this beautiful film, which is worth seeing and reviewing, and then discussing in mind or with friends. I recommend you do it.