This article examines the application of Bertolt Brecht’s distancing (Verfremdung) techniques in Abbas Kiarostami’s First Case, Second Case, focusing on how these strategies shape the film’s formal and narrative structure during the Kanoon era of his cinema. Through a descriptive-analytical qualitative approach based on Brechtian theory, the study analyzes key elements such as the film’s episodic structure, hybrid docufiction genre, and the visible presence of the filmmaker, clapperboard, and projector—arguing that Kiarostami transforms the cinematic apparatus into an integral part of the narrative. By embedding these distancing strategies in both form and storytelling, the film destabilizes the boundary between documentary and fiction, urging the viewer to interrogate the forces shaping their perception of reality. The article further explores the aesthetic and political implications of these techniques, especially through the role of the projector, which functions as a Brechtian device that privileges projection over mere recording. The projector critiques the dominance of official archives and dominant discourses in shaping collective memory while simultaneously gesturing toward the possibility of forming alternative, individual memories. Thereby, the film approaches the notion of a counter-archive, resisting hegemonic historiography. Ultimately, the article contends that First Case, Second Case rejects a tragic, teleological view of history as a closed sequence of causes and effects. Instead, it adopts a Brechtian lens to view historical events as open-ended and subject to transformation—where history becomes a space for rethinking, critique, and change. The film’s Brechtian capacity lies in its call for reflection and its insistence on history as a mutable process embedded in both individual agency and collective imagination.

Key aspects analyzed include the film’s episodic structure, its blending of documentary and fiction, and the explicit presence of the filmmaker, clapperboard, and projector within the narrative. These elements, the article argues, integrate the filmmaking apparatus into the story, dismantling traditional boundaries between reality and representation. This integration compels the audience to question how reality is constructed in cinema, offering a critical lens for understanding Kiarostami’s unique approach.

The projector functions as a Brechtian device emphasizing projection over recording. This symbolic role critiques the dominance of archives and official discourses in shaping collective memory while suggesting the potential for forming individual, alternative memories. The projector becomes a means of confronting and reimagining historical narratives, transforming the film into a counter-archive that resists hegemonic historiography.

The article concludes by examining the film’s rejection of a tragic, teleological view of history as a fixed sequence of cause-and-effect events. Instead, First Case, Second Case adopts a Brechtian perspective, presenting history as a dynamic and mutable process. By engaging with the historical context and personal narratives of its interviewees, the film challenges viewers to rethink historical understanding as an opportunity for re-imagination. Through its use of Brechtian techniques, the film critiques the construction of dominant memory while offering new possibilities for collective and individual reflection.