Monday 1 December 2014

Jafar Panahi (Director)

Born 1960. Mianeh, East Azerbaijan region in north-west Iran.

Was assistant to Abbas Kiarostami during the making of Through the Olive Trees. Panahi's short film The Friend in 1992 had been a homage to Kiarostami, before he worked with him or had even met him. Kiarostami then wrote Panahi's debut feature, The White Balloon, which won the Camera d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival and catapulted him to international fame. Soon after that, Panahi made Ayeneh (The Mirror, 1997), which received the Locarno Film Festival's Golden Leopard award. Panahi received even more global recognition with his third feature film, Dayereh (The Circle, 2000), which won the Golden Lion at the 2000 Venice Film Festival.






Filmography:

Features as director:

  • The White Balloon (1995)
  • The Mirror (1997)
  • The Circle (2000)
  • Crimson Gold (2003)
  • Offside (2006)
  • This is Not A Film (2011)
  • Closed Curtain (2013)

Taste of Cherry (Film)

1997. Dir: Abbas Kiarostami.



Context:

In its tackling of a subject (suicide) that remains a distinct taboo with the cultural boundaries of Islamic Iran, the film can be seen as one of Kiarostami's most directly provocative acts. Mohsen Makhmalbaf's 1990 film The Nights of Zayandeh-Rood had previously dealt with this topic but was promptly banned, never to be screened publically again since its festival premiere.

Kiarostami has several times said the genesis of the film was influenced by a quote from Romanian philosopher Emil Cioran ("If it wasn't for the possibility of suicide, I would have killed myself long ago"), but it is possible to also infer personal and autobiographical elements (related for example to the long slow terminal illness his father had to endure which deeply marked Kiarostami, but also perhaps to some suicidal feelings of his own although this is speculative as he has remained cryptic on this matter), with the film's idea seemingly having been in Kiarostami's head for a long time. Shooting finally begun in 1996.

The film shows the influence of the poetry and philosophy of Omar Khayyam, whom Kiarostami has often spoken about, admiring the precision and succinctness of his poems which manage to celebrate life while constantly being aware of death. The shadow of Sadegh Hedayat, the modernist writer who himself committed suicide and was deeply influenced by Khayyam in his work, can also be felt. One particular quatrain by Khayyam was a source of inspiration to Kiarostami for this film:
The cloud came and wept on the greenness
Oh rose-hued wine, there is no living without you;
This green is our pleasure ground today,
But whose pleasure ground will be the green springing from our dust?
 The green here reminds of the video epilogue of the film (which could be possibly read as a vision of paradise too?).


The shooting was a rough ride, Kiarostami suffering a car accident later in 1996 which prevented him for working for a few months, and then some of the negative accidentally burning meaning certain scenes had to be reshot in 1997. Its last-minute permission in getting sent to the Cannes festival for its premiere (despite its sensitive subject matter and not previously having been shown at the Fajr Film Festival as it should have been) is also a well-known story.









The Film:

The film's structure consists of alternation between the main conversations with different characters and the driver (Mr Badei) and periods of silence, essentially allowing us to think about the meaning of the previous conversations. Marco Della Grossa has done an analysis of this structure, timing the various segments (See p124 in Elena).

We are told nothing about Mr Badei, who he is and what might have led him to want to commit suicide. Therefore we are in some way alienated from emotionally identifying with him. This is relevant to the film's technique which Laura Mulvey has described as using 'the uncertainty principle' in Sight & Sound, that is drawing our curiosity in by leaving us uncertain for long spells. This works up right until the end which also leaves us uncertain and without a clear resolution.

Kiarostami's motif of filming within cars is very much on display here and reaches its high-point (at least until Ten) with almost all the film being inside a car. Badei meanders around the roads of the outskirts of Tehran, often going around in circles (moving without really getting anywhere), rather than in a linear trajectory. This car motif here merges with Kiarostami's tendency for repetition (especially in the structure, see first paragraph above).

As in so many of his films, a journey is central here, but unlike those of his archetypal characters which end up teaching them a lesson and bearing fruit despite an uncertain/unplanned final destination, here it is far less obvious whether Mr Badei's journey takes him anywhere or bears any philosophical fruit within him.

The three central meetings/conversations Mr Badei has are with three characters of particular symbolic resonance, partly for their professions (soldier, seminarian, ordinary taxidermist) and their ethnic backgrounds (Kurd, Afghan, Turk). The three men are, in contrast to Badei, from underprivileged backgrounds, as well as marginalised ethnic groups.This, and the mention of wars, pulls back what is in many ways an abstract philosophical fable into a very concrete political context. (Some critics see in Badei a direct negation of the self-sacrifice of the soldiers during the Iran-Iraq War, whose only way of proving their existence was through death. Here Badei wishes to reclaim his own stake and control over death.)

The function of the Afghan seminary student is, partly at least, to pre-empty the kind of religious criticisms which Kiarostami knew would inevitably be levelled at the film's mention of suicide, by figuring them in the film first.

The in-car conversations are always shown in a kind of shot/reverse-shot and never in the film do we see Badei together with any of the 3 interlocutors in the same shot (in fact they were shot separately, the shots of the 3 people being filmed with Kiarostami actually in the driver seat asking questions which were then removed in post-production).

The earth seems to take up all the on-screen room in the frame, leaving hardly any for the sky. This earth constantly reminds of the idea of burial, and its ochre-yellow colour has associations with desolation and depression in Iranian cultural symbolism.

The theme of solidarity (one that echoes in importance with the allegorical depiction of a multi-ethnic Iranian society) comes up again, as it did in Life and Nothing More, but Badei unlike that film's protagonist cannot learn the lesson. He is already too detached, pained and distant to be touched by the help he is given by workers in pulling out his car. Does he even thank them or acknowledge them? (Check). This theme can also be seen in Kiarostami's script for Crimson Gold, where the pizza deliveryman does show solidarity in his distribution of the pizzas.

The video epilogue (Kiarostami's first instance of DV use which in the 2000s he would adopt completely), which Kiarostami only though of after several months of thinking over, must be seen as a natural progression of the rest of film rather than an added-on afterthought. It is possible to read in it some religious connotations, specifically linking to the verses of the Quran describing the Day of Judgment, in its imagery of clouds (seen in the film) and storm (heard) and of a trumpet-call blowing (the coda begins with the music of Louis Armstrong's trumpet from St James Infirmary, itself a funereal song which turns into a celebration).



Reception:

Sunday 16 November 2014

Persian theatre traditions (Culture/History)

Taziyeh:

Dabashi: "Contrary to Aristotelian mimesis, in Taziyeh there does not exist a stage-based, one-to-one correspondence between reality and its dramatic representation. The mimetic act in Taziyeh, as a result, is not permanent. It is spontaneous and transitory. A Taziyeh actor can do his lines as Shemr or Imam Hos-sein, and then while still on "stage" turn around and chat with a friend in the "audience" about a business matter. A quintessential condition of this manner of mimesis is that in Taziyeh there is neither a stage nor a proscenium, as there is in Greek theater, nor, as a result, an audience distinct from the actors. The stage is where the audience is, and the audience is integral to the stage. Acting as a result is not stipulated as a permanent (for the duration of the play) representation of some other reality. In Aristotelian mimesis, no actor ever comes out of character to say anything. If you notice in European theater, even when the actors all come to stage to acknowledge the applause of the audience they remain absolutely silent and in costume, for they are still onstage, and as a result they cannot dissolve the mimetic illusion of their characters. Not so in Taziyeh, where acting is predicated entirely on a spontaneous, momentary, and transitory conception of representation. The actor says his line and then he is no longer Imam Hossein or Shemr (historically, no women were allowed to act in Taziyeh, and just like old-fashioned Shakespearean plays in Europe, all the female roles were played by male actors). This particular manner of mimesis might be attributed to the doctrinal prohibition of artistic representation in Islam, or it might be related to the absolute inimitability (for they have an exclusive claim to infallibility) of Imams and saints." ....{compare to Brechtian vs Aristotelian conventions...}

"My suggestion here is that the double-edged sword of icastic (Muhakah) and phantastic (Takhyil) mimesis in Persian aesthetics gives the character of our literary, visual, and performative representations an altogether different quality than a mimetic tradition that gives primacy to one and ignores the other.
The best place to see this dual mimesis in operation is in a Taziyeh performance, because this passion play is formally and stylistically the dramatic embodiment of this particular mimetic feature. The mise en scene, narrative conventions, performance techniques, staging, costume design, sound effects, dramaturgical tensions, musical accompaniment, and audience participation in Taziyeh are mimetic modes both icastic and phantastic—without the two being (except at an analytical level) overtly identifiable. The dialectic result of these two conflating modes of mimesis is a kind of realism that usually baffles an audience that is conditioned to Aristotelian mimesis."

Influential on the cinematic modes (reflexive, breaking the fourth wall, characters shifting out of mimesis, etc) of Beyzai, Kiarostami, Makhmalbaf, Panahi especially with The Mirror, etc, and more generally of many of the traits of reflexivity in Iranian cinema in which fact and fiction merge.

http://iranian.com/Arts/Taziyeh/
http://asiasociety.org/time-out-memory-taziyeh-total-drama

The Travellers (Film)

1992. Dir: Bahram Beyzai.


Context:








The Film:


  • Dabashi, on the film's ties to the Taziyeh tradition: "Consider the opening gambit of The Travelers—a woman facing a camera and telling the audience that she and her family are going to have a car accident and die. As you know, the stories of Taziyeh are pious remembrances of the lives and predicaments of Shia imams and saints, and the drama that animates a particular Taziyeh performance is not one of a plot crescendo in which a major crisis is generated, drawn out, and then resolved. The audience knows the story by heart, even before they have entered the theater (or the mosque or the street corner or wherever the Taziyeh is performed). So the challenge of Taziyeh is not to tell a story that no one knows and then let the hidden trauma gradually unfold. The challenge of the Taziyeh performance is in how to tell the story, for the plot of the story is already evident, or known. (In this respect Taziyeh is, of course, like European opera, where the audience again probably knows the story, or, if they have forgotten it, a summary is given to them before the opera starts.) So when Mahtab Davaran faces the camera and tells everyone what is going to happen, Beizai, in effect, is using a standard dramatic feature of Taziyeh—the audience has full knowledge of the impending tragedy before it even takes place. The result is rather shocking, because in cinematic narrative we are not supposed to know what the central conflict is until such time that it happens. But Beizai has here adapted a standard feature of Taziyeh drama, wedded it to a well-known principle borrowed from Alfred Hitchcock—that fear is when you know what is going to happen but you just don't know when it's going to happen—and alchemized the result with mesmerizing energy." [M&M, 263]







Reception:



The 'Kanun' Institute (Industry)

The Centre for the intellectual development of Children and Young Adults founded in 1965 on the initiative of the Shah’s wife. Its objective was to set up a large children’s library in Tehran and to promote the production and publication of reading material suitable for children and adolescents.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_the_Intellectual_Development_of_Children_and_Young_Adults

Hamid Dabashi (International Reception)

Cultural historian, commentator and academic, originally Iranian from the South-West, but has lived and worked in NYC for a long period. Has written several books about Iranian cinema in English.





Quotes:

  • "I believe in a bifocal perspective in what is enduring in our cinema—a vertical and a horizontal perspective. Horizontally, our cinema is linked to a global conversation currently underway among all the major filmmakers around the world. Vertically, I believe Iranian cinema is, inevitably, deeply rooted in a cultural universe much older than the history of film as an art form." [M&M, 258]
  • "It is in the global performance of our art that we as Iranians can begin to see ourselves—and as a result I consider this awkward resentment that some of our compatriots have developed for the success of Iranian cinema abroad—they consider these films domestically irrelevant— entirely misplaced. Of course a Kiarostami or Panahi film cannot attract half as many people as a melodrama with perhaps a little bit of localized feminism thrown in for good measure. But the success of Kiarostami or Makhmalbaf abroad does not mean they are domestically superfluous. Those who accuse them of irrelevance need to consider the following: Those who object to the global success of Iranian films and point to their domestic irrelevance have a rather limited conception of what they call "the West."" [M&M, 28]
  • "What exactly is particular about Iranian cinema? Quite a number of things. It comes out of nowhere. It is simple. Its exoticism is accessible. It is aesthetically ascetic, minimalist in its narrative construction, to the point of pictorial nominalism. It has "the Third World" written all over it. It reveals an image of a culture and society sharply different from that portrayed by the European and the US media since the Islamic revolution. Iranian cinema confirms its European and American audience's belief in the technological superiority of their culture. Iranian filmmakers are not glamorous and their simplicity set against the extravaganza of places such as Cannes or Venice is particularly disarming. A cinematic culture nauseated by excessive violence and tasteless sex is soothed watching a Kiarostami or a Makhmalbaf film. Iranian cinema is at once avant-garde and simple to read. No obscure theory is required to decipher it, as it is in reading a Bergman or a Tarkovsky or a Godard. Iranian cinema, in effect, laughs in the face of complicated cinematic theories, defies them all, posits its own manner of seeing things, and yet it cannot be ignored. Iranian cinema is neither theorized nor does it need to be theorized in terms (at once local and global) inimical to the social production of its own specific aesthetics. Iranian cinema is its own theory." [M&M, 329]

Amir Naderi (Director)

Born: Abadan, 1946.

Bahram Beyzai (Director)

Born: Tehran, 1938.



His output is not limited to cinema. He is a major scholar of Iranian performing arts, and has taught and written on the topic.  He is completely at home in classical Persian prose and poetry, painting, music, intellectual history, and philosophical discourse. But he is also equally at home with world cinema. He has written an authoritative book on Chinese theatre. He has directed and written plays, including the very influential 'Four Boxes' (1967), an allegory about oppression.
He is one of the most learned masters of Taziyeh, the Persian passion play.
His first film was a short, made for the Kanun in 1969. In the 1970s he began to emerge as a significant figure in Iranian cinema.
Once the Islamic Republic came to be, Beyzai was among those censored and harassed by its regime.
In the 1990s he made only one film, as his decision to stay in Iran meant he had little opportunity to work. His films also received comparatively little attention from the global cinema community, in part due to their complex nature rooted in the semiotics of Persian mythology, and also in part due to the 'NIC' of the likes of Kiarostami and Makhmalbaf coming to define Iranian cinema internationally while other filmmakers were not given the same amount of scrutiny.






  • Dabashi calls his style a form of 'mythic realism', deeply embedded in the symbolism of Persian culture. He wrote of the director: "Beizai is a filmmaker whose cinema, more than anyone else's, is rooted in the deepest layers of Iran's cultural memories, all the way back to its inaugural mythic imaginings"

  • Beizai once said, "You see, my duty is to show you things that you have not experienced yet and that are not tangible to you, for things that you already know are no longer of any interest to you. You cannot call these things that I show you unreal. Pages of newspapers are full of incidents, but since they have not happened to us we think they are unreal." [Dabashi, M&M, 257]









Filmography:

  • Thundershower (1971)
  • Journey (1972)
  • The Stranger and the Fog (1974)
  • Crow (1976)
  • The Ballad of Tara (1979)
  • The Death of Yazdegerd (1982)
  • Bashu the Little Stranger (1986)
  • The Travellers (1992)

Resources:

Bashu the Little Stranger (Film)

1986. Dir: Bahram Bayzai.




Context:







The Film:

Bashu is a young boy from Southern Iran, close to the Iraqi border. Indeed he does not speak Persian but a dialect of Iraqi Arabic. His mother and sister are killed by a bomb during the Iran-Iraq war (glimpsed in brief flashback, and in the apparitions he - and perhaps even other characters- seems to see throughout the film). After surviving this he escapes on a truck, which takes him all the way to Northern Iran, somewhere around the Mazandaran province by the Caspian sea.
Bashu is completely bewildered in the jungles of Mazandaran. He hears the sound of an explosion and runs away in fear, thinking that these are the Iraqi bombers attacking, even though the sound has come from dynamite being used in the construction of a tunnel. He flees, bewildered and confused, through the rice paddies and woods, having no clue where in the world he has landed, for he was asleep when the truck left and he has no indication that he is even in Iran.











Reception:

Friday 7 November 2014

Through the Olive Trees (Film)

1994. Dir: Abbas Kiarostami.

Co-produced with CiBy (France), the Farabi Film Foundation (Iran) and Miramax Films (USA).



Context:

Kiarostami had first noticed some romantic tension on the set of Life and Nothing More..., with Hossein's attempted courting of Tahereh in real-life meeting some hurdles.






The Film:
The film begins with the actor playing the director, Mohammed Ali Keshavaz, directly addressing the camera in front of a crowd of young, chador-chd village women auditioning for the film. One woman asks if the film will be shown in her village and whether there is any point in making the film if it is not shown: Tour last film went out on Channel 2, which we can't get here.' At the outset, the film activates self-reflexive anxiety, not only about the construction of the film artefact but also about who its main audiences are - not rural inhabitants whose earthquake tragedy the crew has come to film, but 'cultural consumers back in Tehran and in cities around the world'.

Hossein is in love with Tahereh in real life and wishes to marry her, although her family have rejected him because he is illiterate and has no house. The film director, acting like a matchmaker, gives Hossein a second chance, potentially enabling life to imitate art.

In numerous retakes, Hossein repeatedly fluffs his line, displaying the complexities involved when art tries to imitate life. The repetition breaks the naturalistic illusion, together with clapperboards [with the title of this film rather than And Life Goes On written on them???] announcing the start of each take and bleeps calling for retakes.

Hossein sees the silver lining behind the earthquake, as a leveller that has put him and Tahereh's family on an equal footing, since their primary (class-driven) complaint against him as possible suitor was his not owning a house, by destroying everyone's houses. He expounds his logic in the truck scene, to the surrogate-Kiarostami... ("The rich should marry the poor, the illiterate the literate, the homeowners the homeless...")

The motif of the zigzag path (from e.g. Where is the Friend's Home? where it recurs several times on a hill, and also arguably the winding roads of Life and Nothing More... especially the finale) appears here too near the end, when Hossein and Tahereh climb up one before entering the olive grove of the final shot.

Events are referred to before they happen. This begins in the prologue, where the fictional director, talking direct to camera, relates that 'actors were hired on location'. Past tense shifts into present tense as we see the actors being hired before our eyes. In another instance, Hossein reports his visit to the cemetery where he sees Tahereh at her parents' grave (they perished in the earthquake), then the scene is dramatised (and filmed). This 'flashback' to the cemetery, where Hossein makes his proposal to Tahereh, happens almost without warning, our only bearing being that we've previously been told of this moment in an earlier (later in time) scene in the film.

Point-of-view shots are rare in New Iranian Cinema; but there is a startling instance of one here in the cemetery, where the camera takes Tahereh's position and shows Hossein as the point of her glance. Later, Hossein reveals, 'Since [you gave me] that look, I've been following you ...'.

Off-screen sound is used, especially (again, a Kiarostami trait) in the car journey scenes, which restrict the audience's view to a POV shot through the windscreen.

A shaky camera that is never quite sure where to stand, a story line that cannot resist departing tangentially, a dialogue that oscillates between a Tehrani accent and the local Gilaki dialect, a fiction that is prohibited by a reality it cannot control, a paradise-like village ravaged by an earthquake and invaded by this oudandish camera crew, a director who while waiting for a new leading man casually leaves his set to mingle with the local children or chat with the cook in his camp, and scores of other, similar ends that release this film and all its narrative boundaries into the surrounding hills of the village are the defining moments of Kiarostami's deliberately free-form mode of storytelling. [Dabashi M&M, 312-3.]
No young woman speaks to a young man in this film. Tahereh in fact epitomizes forbidden speech, which elsewhere is equally present. Young men do not fare much better. There is an absolutely mesmerizing scene where Azim, a local man who was first supposed to play the lead role, finally confides in the director that he cannot talk to Tahereh, "because whenever I talk to a girl, I stutter." This is the ultimate sign of an arrested culture in which an unarticulated sense of fear and shame prohibits the most natural of acts.
The long shot is almost identical to the penultimate sequence of Close-Up, where Kiarostami again instructs his camera and sound crew to stay out of private, and supremely beautiful, moments in people's lives.
Gary Dauphin, in The Village Voice (on 21 February 1995), has brilliantly captured the essence of this hauntingly beautiful shot:
"How Kiarostami weaves together these disparate threads is the film's closing gift to its audience. The last scene is less an ending about Hossein and Tahereh than it is a revelation of what Kiarostami has been doing throughout the film, the image comprising a cinematic gesture so in keeping with his always gende intrusions that to even reveal its existence is to do Kiarostami something of a disservice. Let's just say that much like Hossein's final trip through the grove of the film's tide, getting the point of Olive Trees1 ending requires a certain measure of faith, not so much in Hossein's blind love for Tahereh as in Kiarostami's love of all of them."
[Car motif, relevant for later films] The last shot is even more perceptive if one remembers that Kiarostami's camera has learned to know its limitations and keep its nose out of people's business only after its very opening shot when the camera literally opens into a wall, from which both it and the car that carries it have to turn away as they begin their journey into people's lives. The initial version of this delicately constructed sequence was damaged in a film laboratory, and Kiarostami had to reshoot it. The camera and the cars of the director and the assistant director in fact have similar intrusive functions throughout the film. They always have to negotiate an uncomfortable passageway for themselves into lives and spaces in which they do not belong. 


The ending was changed at the last minute, because of the director's own growing sympathy for his 'character' Hossein, whose importance grew as the production went along, helping Kiarostami shape it into something different than initially intended. (Note that at some point before the end of the shoot he'd described his film as a tale of social injustice and inhibiting traditions, but the final result is something more than this alone, in fact being the closest thing Kiarostami had ever made to a love story thanks to the ending.) Kiarostami's original ending was more pessimistic. Again the film shows the transformative power of cinema, as Kiarostami allows himself to show the ideal ending, the way he would wish real life were, as Tahereh finally (albeit we barely see it from afar) talks to Hossein. The music accompanying this memorable ending is a concerto by Cimarosa.

The extreme-long-shot of the end, where Hossein and Tahereh are reduced to mere dots in the distance, is of course partly down to censorship, but also displays Kiarostami's restraint in getting too close in moments of intimacy (think of the ending of Close-Up for example). It perhaps also indicates uncertainty in its open-endedness as Kiarostami himself knows no more than us of what will become of these two characters, hence adding a layer of real-ness to them. He has merely presented them to us. (But in many ways we know he also manipulates them while shooting, as the repetitive filming scenes show). This goes with the film's hybridity, as half-fiction, half-documentary.

The ending of course, also invites the audience's active participation, in choosing which interpretation or which ending they want to see (glass half-full or half-empty?),

Yet again in the same issue of Film, Naghmeh Samini gave by far the most insightful reading of the concluding scene of Through the Olive Trees, calling it a "magical long shot," and noting how the camera:
in the most sensitive moment, precisely at that instant when because of our previous cinematic experience we expect an answer for all our curiosities and thus share in the emotional climax of the work, the camera shies away from the focal center of contention, and authoritatively imposes its distance on us too. As if it does not consider us intimate enough, or think us worthy of closely witnessing this love poem.
On the same long shot, Ahmad Talebi-Nezhad, in his piece in the December 1994 issue of Film, offered a similar reading, emphasizing, however, that the intimate expression of love—of a sort that could persuade Tahereh to marry Hossein—is simply not permitted in Iranian cinema nowadays, and thus he accounts for the social and political imperatives underlying this hauntingly beautiful long shot. [Dabashi M&M, 292]


Reception:

As for his previous films, Kiarostami was attacked by some quarters of the Iranian press for this one. The magazine Naqd-e cinema accused (once again) him of taking advantage of the tragic earthquake in his filmmaking.

It met warm response at its Cannes screening however. The film was also set to serve as his 'breakthrough' into the US market, where it was shown at NY and Chicago festivals and purchased for distribution by Miramax.

Monday 20 October 2014

Farabi Cinema Foundation (Industry)

Founded in 1983. Responsible for distribution of new Iranian films. It facilitates production loans, provided by banks, for new features made by the private sector.

Farabi consolidated the acquisition of production equipment and raw material that were difficult to access other than through the black market, particularly once the US sanctions against Iran fell into place in the early 1980s. Soon after its institution, Farabi took over the confiscated Misaghieh Studio (one of the prominent production studios that financed and produced a number of New Wave films of the 1970s), refurbished its site and equipment, and supplemented its post-production and storage facilities.

Sunday 5 October 2014

Life and Nothing More... (Film)

1992. Dir: Abbas Kiarostami.


Context:
"In June 1990, an earthquake of catastrophic proportions jolted northern Iran, killing tens of thousands of people and causing unbelievable damage. Immediately, I decided to make my way to the vicinity of Koker, a village where four years earlier I shot Where is the Friend's Home? My concern was to find out the fate of the two young actors who played in the film but I failed to locate them. However, there was so much else to see... I was observing the efforts of people trying to rebuild their lives in spite of their material and emotional sufferings. The enthusiasm for life that I was witnessing gradually changed my perspective. The tragedy of death and destruction grew paler and paler. Towards the end of the trip, I became less and less obsessed by the two boys. What was certain was this: more than 50,000 people had died, some of whom could have been boys of the same age as the two who acted in my film (the two boys at the end of this film may be taken as substitutes for the original pair). Therefore, I needed a stronger motivation to g on with the trip. Finally I felt that perhaps it was more important to help the survivors who bore no recognisable faces, but were making every effort to start a new life for themselves under very difficult conditions and in the midst of an environment of natural beauty that was going on with its old ways as if nothing had happened. Such is life, it seemed to tell them, go on, seize the days..." - Kiarostami, in Elena, p.92.

Like Close-Up, this is in a way a re-enacting of a real event or experience, namely the trip Kiarostami actually made, with his young son like in the film, to the village of Koker in Gilan region after hearing about the devastating earthquake, to find out what had happened to the two Ahmadpour boys who'd starred in Where is the Friend's House?. Also, as in the latter film, the story revolves around a search for a specific person, which will turn out to lead to something else (a journey of exploration).

The film:

  • In a sense, this deals with the quintessential cinematic theme of the helpless voyeur who can do nothing but watch the world without interacting or helping (e.g. Chinatown and countless other private-eye noirs and their derivatives, Rear Window, Code Unknown, etc), with the Kiarostami surrogate starting the film as such a character but gradually learning within himself a new way of looking at the world and being touched by it.
  • The film begins to show Kiarostami's growing taste for playfully putting the viewer's expectations into question, and forcing them to re-think and reconfigure what they are watching.
  • It also begins to show Kiarostami's increased fondness for nature, at this stage of career. This indicates possible influence from, as well as Persian poetry of course, traditional miniature paintings in which human figures were always small in comparison to the natural setting.


Reception:

  • The film was, for the most part, quite harshly received by domestic Iranian critics. Farad Golzar writing in Sureh accused Kiarostami of trivialising the earthquake and human dignity, as well as, more generally, his supposed primary interest in foreign film festivals (see Dabahi M&M p.286). Massud Farasati (see again M&M, p287), in the sam publication, went further, matching Kiarostami's gaze in the film with that of a neutral foreign observer who is glad not to have been present in the worst of the disaster but nonetheless patronises it by his presence after-the-fact. Another critic was critical of Kiarostami's choice of Vivaldi's music as opposed to some Iranian composition. Shahrokh Dulku meanwhile called the film troubling, and described Kiarostami's vision as arrogant and emotionless, hiding being sunglasses.(see Dabahi M&M p.290-1 for Dulku quotes):
  • In his essay Dulku gave a full description of how Kiarostami disregards the rudiments of point of view, but ultimately concludes with a moral condemnation of Kiarostami's cinema. Of And Life Goes On he writes: "I cannot disregard one crucial issue, and that is the moral lesson that the filmmaker wants to draw, following his previous film [Where Is the Friends House?], and yet, just like in the previous film, because of weak execution, structural confusion, misconception of truth, and a convoluted vision of man and life, he reaches precisely the opposite conclusion that he wishes to reach. And Life Goes On wants to say that the "human" life is something precious and praiseworthy, but [actually] says that the "bestial" life is dear and lustful. It intends to praise and propagate human life, but in reality it propagates the bestial life. In order to give meaning to life, Kiarostami reduces it to the level of animal instincts (eating, sleeping, sex, and defecation). As opposed to noble, conscientious, and selfless men, the people in And Life Goes On are introduced at the end as base and mindless animals, ready to pull apart the dead bodies of the members of their family like carcasses, and spend their wedding night under a few feet of 'palastik'"...... Dulku proceeded to denounce the European reception of Kiarostami's cinema and concluded with a sweeping condemnation of what he takes to be Kiarostami's arrogant view of his own country and its culture: "I could have finished this review right here. But one small item, perhaps even repetitious, is left which is troubling me badly and I am going to say it. Although I believe that content criticism is not criticism at all, and a film that in form and structure has not yet reached the point of "speaking" does not deserve to be discussed in terms of its content, nevertheless I am going to say what I have to say. There are things in And Life Goes On that are extremely troubling, so troubling that one cannot just pass them by.... I will just mention them in a list and leave them to the readers' judgment: A man with a touristy appearance, whitish hair, and a "European" and "emotionless" look among the victims of the earthquake, the presence of a Renault automobile, the French poster of the film Where Is the Friends House?. ..the repeated appearance of the Red Cross cars, overwhelming emphasis on the instinctual (and not intellectual) aspects of life, and more importantly, a train of thought that looks at life not face to face and eyeball to eyeball but from above (high on top), and with a pair of dark glasses.... This arrogant, emotionless, and calculating look inevitably represents an unreal picture of life, a picture about which (and in my view about Kiarostami's cinema in general) the judgment of Mohammad Hossein Ruhi [another critic] as an accurate doubt is applicable: "What kind of cinema is this?"" 
  • On the other hand, the film was warmly greeted in Cannes, following its screening in the Un Certain Regard strand and winning the Rossellini prize. It helped cement Kiarostami's new status in Western circles.




References:
Elena, 104.

The Night it Rained (Film)

1967. Dir: Kamran Shirdel.


A precursor of Iranian cinema's self-reflexive traditions...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9fIl44qDLY

Thursday 25 September 2014

Academic Responses (International Reception)

  • Bill Nichols - "New Cinemas and the film festival circuit". 
"Films from nations not previously regarded as prominent film-producing countries receive praise for their ability to transcend local issues and provincial tastes while simultaneously providing a window onto a different culture. We are invited to receive such films as evidence of artistic maturity-the work of directors ready to take their place within an international fraternity of auteurs-and of a distinctive national culture work that remains distinct from Hollywood-based norms both in style and theme"

"To want to know of foreign cinemas, for example, of their indebtedness to state control often betrays our own ideology of the free market and artistic license. We ask more to gain reassurance that this is a cinema like the one we imagine our own to be than to explore the intricacies of the relationship between culture, ideology, and the state"

"Part of what we want to discover in our film festival encounters is something akin to what Dean MacCannell calls "back region" knowledge. Like the tourist, we hope to go behind appearances, to grasp the meaning of things as those who present them would, to step outside our (inescapable) status as outsiders and diagnosticians to attain a more intimate, more authentic form of experience. Festivals, like museums and tourist sites, foster and accommodate such desire"

"New Iranian Cinema is [designed to travel]. What the critic from elsewhere adds, as a supplement, might also, in this light, be regarded as the finishing touch that completes a distinctive, complex fusion of the local and the global."

"[On censorship] As in China, film-makers have considerable freedom to make what they can get funded, knowing that direct attacks (but not necessarily aesthetically esteemed ones) will hinder their own advancement."

"Every year, Attebai explained, Farabi organizes the Fajr Festival and the Ministry of Culture classifies films into four categories, "A" through "D," on the basis of their perceived quality (a mix, apparently,o f formal and social criteria). The "A" and "B" films receive greater distribution support, they can command higher box-office prices, and their makers receive priority for further film-making proposals. "C" and "D" rated films receive far less support and their makers must struggle harder to make another film."

"Iranian film representatives learn... what predispositions and doubts loom in the festival-goer's mind.Their answers aim to satisfy our curiosity... arouse our sympathies and heighten our appreciation. As with most contemporary forms of crosscultural encounter, an inevitable degree of knowing calculation enters into the experience on both sides."

Wednesday 3 September 2014

Close-Up (Film)

1990. Dir: Abbas Kiarostami.


Context:
In the Autumn of 1989, after just having made Homework, Kiarostami was planning to make a similar documentary this time focusing on children and pocket money. However, shortly before filming was scheduled to start on that project, Kiarostami read a newspaper article about the case of a man accused of impersonating Mohsen Makhmalbaf with the intention of swindling a well-off Tehran family (the Ahankhahs). This article completely fascinated Kiarostami and immediately mobilised him into cancelling the pocket money film and calling (the real) Makhmalbaf to discuss a new project.
Both men agreed to work together, and visited Tehran's Ghasr Prison meet the man (Hossein Sabzian, an unemployed print worker and huge film fan), and convince him and the Ahankhah family to appear in a film, as well as the judicial authorities who also needed convincing since the trial was still taking place.
Kiarostami ended up filming the tribunal hearing, with two 16mm cameras, not knowing for certain at the time whether this could really make a worthwhile film. Said Kiarostami of the film: "This is a film that made itself, which came about completely naturally... I shot the film during the day and made notes at night. There wasn't much time to think, and when it was finished, I watched the film like any other spectator because it was new even to me. I think it's something completely different from anything I've done before."
Sabzian had a deep sense of identification with Makhmalbaf, especially due to his film's concerns with the fate of those dispossessed and neglected by society. Ali Sabzian's great admiration for Makhmalbaf points to the broad mass appeal that Makhmalbaf's films enjoyed in Iran at the time. Makhmalbaf himself comes from a poor background; men like him formed the vanguard of the Islamic Revolution.
He also (as we see in the film) has a strong sense of identification with the protagonist of Kiarostami's first full feature The Traveller. This links Sabzian to a long history of similar and typical Kiarostami protagonists (lost, neglected young men who are dispossessed on the margins of society but still display impressive resourcefulness, e.g. those in the shorts or medium-length Bread and Alley, The Wedding Suit or Experience as well to the boy in The Traveller, and more loosely it also links Sabzian to the boy in Where is the Friend's Home?). In a sense then, Kiarostami had found his archetypal protagonist in a real-life person. Although, there are differences too; for instance none of the earlier characters took the time to stop and feel sorry for themselves, the way Sabzian does when he gives a speech about how wretched his life is.

The film:

  • Kiarostami has said of the film: "The main issue raised by the film is the need that people feel, whatever their material circumstances, for respect and social recognition... Ultimately, what the film is dealing with is the difference between the 'ideal self' and the 'real self'; the greater the difference the more unbalanced the person."
  • The use of close-ups of Sabzian in the trial sequence not only resonate with the film's title, but offer an identification device for the audience to empathise with Sabzian, and to attempt to understand him and get in his mind.
  • The film 'persona' and the real-life persona of Sabzian are of course different (as could be said of any documentary character but perhaps a touch more so in this case) and this must be noted. It is Kiarostami's shaping of the serendipitous material that makes Sabzian a universal figure, making us feel for him and him resonate ideas about many differing grand themes (personal, societal and about the transformative quality of cinema/art itself). In this sense Sabzian, the film character, truly transcends Sabzian the man and becomes a character who can live forever, like a Dostoyevskian character, standing for so much more than one specific human could.
  • The Ahankhahs were also (or thought they were) using Sabzian, when they thought he was Makhmalbaf and would cast them in his film. The boost to their egos this provided came at a time when their family happened to be just in need of such a shot-in-the-arm, as they have their own share of problems. On closer inspection, nobody in the film is happy with who they are or what they do, including the sons of the Ahankhah family and even the journalist in the opening scene, who is desperate to become some sort of respectable investigative journalist. The film thus reflects a wider societal trend in Iran at the period, one of unhappy people who cannot find or form their ideal selves.
  • A large part of the trial was recreated, when the judge had already left. Kiarostami described this tactic as "one of the biggest lies I have allowed myself to tell".
  • The film makes use of the score from The Traveller, composed by Kambiz Roshanravan, towards the end when Sabzian and Makhmalbaf are travelling to the Ahankhah home on a motorbike.

Reception:

  • The initial domestic reception was poor. Certain critics even attacked on political grounds, while others called it a mere publicity stunt for Kiarostami and Makhmalbaf.
  • International, it was first welcomed to a positive response in France. In 1996, Nanni Moretti would make it the subject of a short film.



References:
Elena, The Cinema of Abbas Kiarostami, 82-.

Wednesday 20 August 2014

Where is the Friend's House? (Film)

1986: Dir: Abbas Kiarostami.



Context:
Title taken from poem 'Adress' by Sohrab Sepehri (note in the mystical tradition of sufi poetry etc, 'friend' is synonymous with God). Translation from Dabashi:
"Where is the friend's house?''
It was in the dawn when the rider asked this question.
The sky paused.
The passenger presented the branch of light he held with his lips to the darkness of sands
And pointed to a white poplar and said:
"Before you reach that tree,
There is a tree-road, greener than Gods dream.
On it, love is as blue as the feathers of honesty.
You go to the end of that road,
Which takes you to the other side of puberty.
Then you turn to the flower of solitude.
Just two steps before that flower,
You pause at the foot of the eternal fountain of earthly myths.
A transparent fear overcomes you there.
Then you hear a hissing sound in the fluid sincerity of the air,
And you will see a small child
Who has climbed a tall cypress to catch a bird in the nest of light,
And you will ask him
Where the friend's house is."








Reception: 
While preserving his critically positive judgment of Kiarostami and of Where Is the Friends House? in particular, Allamehzadeh condemns both the Islamic Republic and the Locarno Film Festival for having accepted this film, which was produced in 1986 but was included in the festival in 1989 against the specific stipulation of section C, Article 6 of their bylaws, which says that only those films produced during the preceding twelve months may be included in the annual festival





References/Resources:
http://www.criterionforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=13007&start=650#p479530

Sohrab Sepehri (Culture/History)

(1928-1980)
Poet and artist. Considered one of the greatest proponents the New Poetry movement which occurred in Iran in the 1950s and 60s, Sepehri was actually also a painter. He can in some ways be seen as the poetic counterpart of Abbas Kiarostami, who took the title of Where is the Friend's House? from a poem by Sepehri, as well as dedicating the film to him in the first frame.
 

"In 1951, Sepehri published another collection of poetry, The Death of Color, and by 1953 he had graduated from the College of Fine Arts— the top of his class, he went to the royal palace to receive recognition from the monarch, who had just been restored to his peacock throne by a CIA-engineered coup. In 1957, Sepehri traveled to London and Paris, where he studied lithography at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. In 1958, his paintings were exhibited at the Venice Biennale. By 1960, he had secured funding to go to Japan and study wood engraving. After returning to Iran he traveled to India, came back to Iran and began traveling around the country and exhibiting his work throughout the early 1960s, while publishing volumes of his poetry, and in 1970 he moved to New York and lived on Long Island for a few months. He spent much of the early 1970s showing his paintings in Europe, North Africa, and the Levant, including Palestine." [Dabashi]

Abbas Kiarostami (Director)

Born: 1940, Tehran




After university (where he studied fine arts/graphic arts), Kiarostami discovered interest in graphic design of which he is quoted as saying “an art that communicates its message to the general public with the minimum of means and the maximum of constraints” – hence a connection with the way he would later be comfortable making films through the constraints of censorship, seeing it as a guiding challenge to find ways around these.

He began his film career making credit titles and commercials. From 1969, he worked at the Institute for the Intellectual Development of Children and Young Adults and established a film department there, directing his first film, a short called Bread and Alley, in 1970. Kiarostami's earliest films (shorts and features) were educational films for children which regularly won prizes at Iran's Fajr Film Festival.

Some aspects of his shorts seem like experiments/tests/rehearsals for his later films. Most obviously the recurring young boy protagonist who struggles in the adult world and must display resourcefulness. But also in the schema of repetitions (e.g. in 'Two Solutions for One Problem', or in 'Orderly or Disorderly?') where even the self-reflexivity comes in with the shots of the clapperboard punctuating the different versions of events being repeated. This reminds of the multiple takes being re-done in Through the Olive Trees for example.

The Institute supported his films up to and including And Life Goes On (1991), after which he has tended to collaborate with the French company MK2.



Style:
Kiarostami's films are elliptical and minimalist. The idea of the 'half-finished' film, inviting creative input from viewers, and the principle of uncertainty, which plays with viewers' expectations, are distinctive aspects.
He works without a script, using mostly non-professional actors (including children) and largely rural or outskirt locations; landscape is an important feature of his post-revolutionary films, as is repetition.
Kiarostami's signature shots are of zigzagging roads. These reflect broad existential statements as well as the particular predicament of his characters. For example, in Where's Is the Friend's Home?, the zigzag path - constructed specifically for the film - signifies the 'hurrying around' of modern life as well as its child protagonist's tortuous quest.
Kiarostami's later films turn increasingly self-reflexive. In these, the blend of documentary and fiction, a characteristic of all his work, is extremely complex. In the earlier works, he often appears as an interviewer; in the later films, he recedes from view, deploying a stand-in, representing a director or producer whose motives we question, filming a film-within-the-film. This self-reflexive trait has roots in Persian storytelling traditions but resonates internationally with European modernist forms. Moreover, Kiarostami's brand of self-reflexivity is inflected by the conditions of Third World filmmaking: the films-within-the-films raise questions about the ethics of middle-class urban outsiders, like Kiarostami himself, who go to remote rural locations in order to film villagers and tribal folk. They highlight the potential for exploiting and exoticising their rural subjects, activating anxiety about replicating the Orientalist gaze.
Another important trait emerging in these films is use of the car as a kind of camera, especially in shots giving the car's point-of-view in place of the driver's point-of-view. Windscreen shots are a staple of A Taste of Cherry. As a zone which is both public and private, the car enables Kiarostami to avoid censorship restrictions on the depiction of private space.



Reception:
Domestic:

Not all negative: "Whoever can describe a tragic event more lamentably we consider that person a more eloquent and capable orator." Golmakani then proceeded to read every technical aspect of Kiarostami's virtuosity with a view toward the highest compliment that an Iranian aesthetician can give an artist: that his art is "impossibly simple," for that is the way we usually describe the work of our great medieval poet, Sa'di (1184—1291). Golmakani is not alone in his praise for Kiarostami. Javad Tusi also has given rather positive reviews of Kiarostami's cinema, with certain reservations. Kiarostami's "realism" in particular is refreshing and healthy in Tusi's reading. He does object, though, to Kiarostami's preference for Vivaldi's music as opposed to any number of jubilant melodies in Persian classical music. Robert Safarian, Reza Dorostkar, and Majid Islami all have had positive responses to Kiarostami's vision. Gholam Heydari, in his theoretically informed book Zaviyeh-ye Did dar Cinema-ye Iran {Point of View in Iranian Cinema, 1990), has included a positive reading of Kiarostami's camera work as a good and relatively consistent example of third-person-singular narrative." [Dabashi M&M, 290]

On the domestic-abroad dialectic: "So as you can see Kiarostami's cinema has received a far more positive reception outside his homeland—unmercifully vilified at home and yet enthusiastically glorified abroad. It is safe to say that had it not been for the accidental chance of the no man's land of film festivals and the naked eyes of a foreign audience, the culturally compromised eyes of Iranians would never have seen what Kiarostami is trying to show. Kiarostami's cinema is, in my judgment, too simple, and the Iranian perspective too conspiratorially compromised, too culturally curtailed, for a revolutionary aesthetic to register in the immediate neighborhood of its own creative vicinity. It seems to me that Kiarostami had to be celebrated abroad in order to be understood domestically at home. This is a bizarre thing to say, but I believe it to be true. A dialectic soon emerged between his foreign admirers who were trying to figure out his cinema and his native audience who were trying to see him otherwise than they had." [Dabashi M&M, 298]


Quotes:

  • "I want to create the type of cinema that shows by not showing."
  • "My experience in showing this film [Close-Up] in Iran has been quite peculiar. I remember very vividly that after the film was first screened some people came up to me and said, "What was wrong with the sound in the last scene, when Makhmalbaf and Sabzian were driving on a motorcycle? Was something wrong with the sound? Could you not dub it afterward? And some were even suggesting that I intentionally screwed up that scene.... None of the Iranian viewers could follow that I had an intention other than showing the conversation between the two men. .... But viewers in Berlin all recognized that scene as an exceptionally good one, fall of innovation. The director of the academy, who is one of the great German filmmakers, told me, "I wish I could cut this section of your film and keep it for myself." It never occurred to any of the [German] viewers that that scene was accidentally screwed up, or that I had done a trick. They viewed the film as a mode of filmmaking, and they liked the film for that reason, and I think that perhaps precisely for this reason people did not like the film in Iran. At any rate, I am absolutely convinced that we are an intelligent people, and I do not think that Iranian viewers lack anything in comparison with European viewers. Actually, when I compare the reviews that Iranian critics have written on my films with those written by European critics, I come to the conclusion that the Iranian critics are very intelligent. The only distinction that exists, in my judgment, is our politics-stricken consciousness, as a result of which we confront a product maliciously. In addition, since we have not yet passed through the melodramatic period [in our filmmaking], we still look for story. Thus when we confront a film, instead of trying to find out what it wants to convey, we are more interested in what we want to understand by it, and if we come up short [in our reading] then We swiftly dismiss the film and refuse to connect with it." [From a 1992 interview with the important Iranian magazine 'Film', which was largely sympathetic to Kiarostami unlike other domestic publications such as Sumeh, and quoted in Dabashi M&M p288.]
  • "If you wanted to reduce Kiarostami to a single idea, you would be not far wrong in saying that he has spent his career developing a cinematic equivalent to Iranian modernist poetry" - Godfrey Cheshire

Filmography:

  • The Bread and the Alley
  • Experience
  • The Traveller
  • ..
  • The Report
  • ..
  • Where is the Friend's House?
  • Homework
  • Close Up
  • Life and Nothing More...
  • Through the Olive Trees
  • Taste of Cherry
  • The Wind Will Carry Us
  • ABC Africa
  • Ten
  • Five (2004)
  • 10 on Ten (2004)
  • ...

Resources:
‘Abbas Kiarostami: A Cinema of Questions’ – Godfrey Cheshire (Film Comment 1996) 

Saturday 16 August 2014

Locarno International Film Festival (International reception)

Held annually in Locarno, Switzerland. In 1989, Where is the Friend's House? was screened there in competition (despite having been produced almost 2 years earlier) and won the Bronze Leopard, which caused it and its director Abbas Kiarostami to attract global interest from specialist film magazines for the first time. This screening is now seen as a key moment both for the path of Kiarostami's career and for the fate of the New Iranian cinema too.

Iranian Cinema Retrospective at Locarno 1995: "Thanks to the indefatigable energy and enthusiasm of Marco Muller, at the time the director of the festival, Iranian cinema in general and Kiarostami's in particular received the most enthusiastic global audience that it always deserved but had never attained. Over the course of ten days some thirty Iranian films were shown. In addition to a complete retrospective of Kiarostami's cinema, the festival also included an exclusive section on Iranian women filmmakers, ranging from Forugh Farrokhzad's The House Is Black to Rakhshan Bani-Etemad's The Blue-Veiled. Also screened were Mohsen Makhmalbaf's Salaam Cinema (1994) and Jafar Panahi's The White Balloon (1995). In the long run, and after the initial shocks of this phenomenal exposure had disappeared, the presence of this worldwide audience for Iranian cinema had a catalytic effect on the rest of its history, which was soon to unfold." [Dabashi M&M, 296-7]

In Le Monde, August 4th 1995, the film critic Jean-Michel Frodon wrote about this retrospective and about Kiarostami in particularly, championing his films, and fully encapsulating the significance of the event. Dabashi writes:
Frodon's piece in Le Monde was subtitled with the provocative question: "How can one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers be from an Islamic Republic?" Frodon was quick and accurate in recognizing the connection between the simplicity of Kiarostami's cinematic aesthetic and the particular problems of cultural production in an Islamic Republic. Kiarostami's "aesthetic and civic ambitions," Frodon noted, are circumscribed by the fact that he has to operate "in the particularly constraining and complex context of the Islamic Republic." In the same vein, he also recognized the ambivalence of the officials of the Islamic Republic vis-avis the success and reputation of Kiarostami abroad. Frodon accurately analyzed that ambivalence as "the mixture of suspicion toward the artists and the pride of being admired by foreigners and the diplomatic use to which they can put this [positive] image." 

Saturday 2 August 2014

The Runner (Film)

Davandeh. 1985.

Context:
Was apparently shot, or started to be shot, as early as 1982. Naderi's perseverance in those early years of post-revolution transition is what allowed the film to finally be produced.



The Film:
Set in the city of Abadan (Naderi's home-city). The character of Amiro has strong autobiographical dimensions with respect to Naderi's own life and personality.




Reception:
Its non-Iranian premiere was at the Nantes Three Continents Festival, where it won the Grand Prize.





References:
Dabashi, Masters & Masterpieces of Iranian Cinema.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Znt1AdpIRM&list=RD_Znt1AdpIRM#t=85


See also Tangsir, Naderi 1973: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwxICKH07wA

Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance (Culture/History & Industry)

Responsible for regulating the import and export of films in Iran. As of the early 1990s, it set limits on foreign, especially US, films, with for example, in 1991 and 1992 only one and two US films licensed for exhibition in Iran respectively. Iranian cinemas must pay higher tax to show foreign films, with these taxes subsidising the Farabi Cinema Foundation and production of new Iranian films.
The Ministry reserves the right to censor scripts or films, at various production stages, including after they are finished and screened at the Fajr International Festival, which is organised by the Ministry and falls under its supervision. The films there are classified (by the Ministry) into four categories, 'A' through to 'D', based on their perceived quality according to a mix of formal and social criteria. A and B films receive far more support and distribution.

The Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance (MCIG) supervises Iran's film industry. Its censorship regulations include rules of he jab (women's veiling and modesty). Films undergo multiple stages of inspection, in addition to synopsis and screenplay stages. The precise rules are always changing, due to debates between government agencies and filmmakers, film critics and audiences - but not always to filmmakers' benefit. Mohammed Khatami, who was appointed Minister of the MCIG when it began in 1982, was known as a supporter of controversial filmmakers like Mohsen Makhmalbaf - one of the reasons why he was removed from his post in 1992.

Fajr International Festival (Industry)

Located in Tehran. Created in 1982, first festival in 1983. Fell under the supervision of the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance.
Was a key platform to showcase local Iranian productions.

Mohammed Khatami (Industry & Iranian Culture/History)

Generally reputed as being more liberal and reform-minded, and benevolent towards the arts. Was the Minister of Culture and Islamic Orientation between 1982 and 1992, and later President of the Islamic Republic in 1997, holding the post until 2005.
In 1983, one measure taken was to ban the distribution of video cassettes and close down video clubs across Iran.
Farabi Cinema Foundation was founded, which oversaw the cinema reforms and reported back to the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance

References:
Albert Elena book, 'The School We Went To' chapter.

Thursday 24 July 2014

Gabbeh (Film)

Mohsen Makhmalbaf (Director)

Born: 1957, Tehran.



"The young Makhmalbaf, meanwhile, was growing up in downtown Tehran under the protective custody of three mother figures: his mother, his maternal grandmother, and his maternal aunt, who formed a modest, devoutly religious family. They also saved him from being kidnapped by his father, who had married Makhmalbafs mother as his second wife, for he did not have a son from his previous marriage; now he had a son whom he desperately wished to claim. Makhmalbaf thus grew up with three strong mother figures, no father, an overwhelming fear of being kidnapped by his father, all at a time when "the father of the nation," as we were told to call the king, was struggling to keep his shaky throne.
Leftist intellectuals for their part were meanwhile busy soul-searching. Religious revolutionaries were by and large silent. A literary and poetic form of resistance was taking shape. Makhmalbafs mother worked as a nurse in a hospital and his upbringing was entrusted to his grandmother and aunt. His grandmother was intensely religious and told him colorful stories of saints and prophets as lullabies during summer nights on the rooftop of their modest home. His aunt soon started teaching him how to read and write, and introduced him to literature. His mother was the breadwinner, his grandmother the pious storyteller, and his aunt his teacher. No father in sight.

Makhmalbafs mother married the lawyer who had assisted her during her divorce proceedings. Makhmalbafs stepfather was a devout religious man with strong political convictions; he was deeply committed to a young rebellious cleric called Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. In the young Makhmalbafs mind, the stepfather and the revolutionary father figure begin to replace his own estranged father and "the father of the nation," while the material evidence of his livelihood, soul, and intellect remained entrusted to three mothers"[Dabashi, M&M, 337]

"He once told me that his local mosque sent him on a mission to go to Hosseiniyeh Ershad, the religious establishment in which regular anti-regime lectures were organized, in order to plot the assassination of Ali Shariati. He went there, sat and listened to Shariati, and became mesmerized by his revolutionary ideas, and never set foot in his local mosque again, The active hostility of the traditional clerical establishment against Shariati remained a major component of the ideological movement of the mid-1970s. Shariati drew his constituency in part from disaffected youth from religious backgrounds, but also from secular activists disappointed with the legacy of the Tudeh Party."

"After a visit with Khomeini in Najaf in 1974, a group of Mojahedin-e Khalq activists seceded from their main body and formed a more overtly Marxist group called Peykar. This marked a succession of breakups in the urban guerrilla movement. But the general atmosphere of insurrection only intensified, and Makhmalbaf and his small band of comrades began plotting an attack on a police officer in order to steal his gun, rob a bank, and get more seriously involved in the armed uprising against the regime. Makhmalbaf was the leader of the group and chiefly responsible for disarming the police officer, which he failed to do, and was almost killed in the process. He was shot in his belly, captured, initially hospitalized, and then sent to jail in August 1974. He escaped with his life because he was too young to be executed. In the Pahlavi prison, he underwent severe and systematic torture, the scars from which still mark his body."

"Makhmalbaf had now completed his third year of incarceration. He still has bitter memories of how political prisoners who belonged to organized groups were vicious in their behavior toward people like him who were not part of their cliques. In prison, he once told me, he also learned the art of brevity, because he had to memorize instructions, abbreviate and summarize them, in order to communicate them to his cellmates. That art of brevity soon became a hallmark of his asceticism, and in turn found its way into his aesthetic minimalism, and from there into the virtual realism that defines his cinema."

"Around this time [1981, Iran-Iraq war raging] Makhmalbaf wrote Marg-e Digari (Someone Else's Death), an allegorical encounter between a general in his bunker on the verge of a massive military operation and Death. It is a claustrophobic reflection on the incomprehensible ability of people to kill other human beings. All through these years, Makhmalbafs cinema was being formed and imagined (in his mind alone) in the most traumatic experience of Iran's recent national history."

"During this entire year [1983] Makhmalbaf was busy making his next two films, Esteazeb (Fleeing from Evil to God) and Do Chasbm-e Bi-Su (Two Sightless Eyes)—artistically negligible and ideologically at the service of the Islamic Republic. Nevertheless, these films witnessed a noticeable improvement in his command over the camera, a distinct visual vocabulary, and a creative confidence. The critical community of Iranian cineastes began to take notice of Makhmalbaf beyond his ideological identification with the ruling Islamists."

"During this time, Makhmalbaf began to take his chosen profession more seriously and read extensively on cinema. He was equally prolific in writing fiction,. completing two short stories, "Valeh" and "Zangha" ("The Bells"); during the summer, he started working on his best-known novella, Bagh-e Bohr (The Crystal Garden), and in the fall he wrote Hoz-e Soltun (The Soltun Pond), another novella. These two works of fiction deeply complicate an appraisal of his early creative record, for there is not a trace of the committed ideologue in any one of them. It seems as if he had put his cinema at the service of the Islamic revolution, while his fiction remained the exclusive domain of cultivating his own aesthetic concerns. Most who categorically (and correctly) dismiss his early cinema have never bothered to read or consider his fiction of this very same period. They radically differ from his films, as if they were written by an entirely different person. As the war and the revolution raged, these two novellas saved Makhmalbaf for posterity."

"Makhmalbaf made Nobat-e Asheqi (Time of Love) and Shabha-ye Zayandeh-rud (The Nights of Zayandeh-rud). He also wrote Khab-e bi-Ta'bir (The Dream with No Interpretation) and Mard-e Na-Tamam {The Incomplete Man). Banned by the government, The Nights of Zayandeh-rud continues with the same philosophical relativism as Time of Love, this time casting a bitter look at events before and after the Islamic revolution. At the center of the story is a professor of sociology who loses his wife in a motorcycle accident before the revolution, because no one would help him take her to the hospital. In the course of the revolution, the same professor witnesses the love and care that people then had for each other. After the revolution, he sees the same indifference has returned. Not much of an addition to Makhmalbaf's cinematic vision, The Nights of Zayandeh-rud is more an indication of Makhmalbaf's own frustration and disappointment with the revolution"

"Iran remained neutral during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent invasion of Iraq by the United States and its allies in 1991. Iran also accommodated the release of more American hostages in Lebanon. During this year, Makhmalbaf wrote Nasir al-Din Shah, Actor-e Cinema {Once upon a Time, Cinema) and then turned it into a film. He also wrote Honarpisheh {The Actor). Once upon a Time, Cinema shows the birth of Makhmalbaf as a major filmmaker. It is an astounding tribute, a beautiful love letter, to Iranian cinema."

"Makhmalbaf made The Actor into a film along with Gozideh Tasvir-e dar Doreh-ye Qajar (A Selection of Pictures from the Qajar Period). Makhmalbaf himself does not like The Actor. He thinks it is too contrived, that he wrote and shot it formulaically, only to prove that art-house films could sell well. But I like this film a lot, precisely because it does not quite come together, and it is a window into Makhmalbafs subterranean layers of creative energy. The menage a trois that he manages to generate and sustain in this film exudes with an astounding eroticism, including homoeroticism, rarely dared or seen in Iranian cinema."

"In 1994 Makhmalbaf wrote and directed Salaam Cinema. During the winter, he wrote Qaziyeh-ye an Naqqash-e Doreh-gard {The Story, of the Vagabond Painter), Zendegi Rang Ast {Life Is Color), and Gabbeb. Salaam Cinema is a bitter and brutal examination of dictatorship, seeking its roots in the frailty of the human soul. It is also a strange revelation about the power of cinema, and what people do when faced with a camera. The power of a desk, behind which sits a figure of authority (the filmmaker, in this case Makhmalbaf himself), begins to assume eerie, inanimate, and frightful proportions. Salaam Cinema is a historic document about the significance of cinema in contemporary Iran, and the strange effect that it has on a people at large. Is Salaam Cinema also a commentary on the brutal dictatorship of Khomeini during the preceding decade? It might very well be read that way. But like all of Makhmalbafs good films, more than anything else it is the instrumentality of the camera itself that remains at the center of the cinematic event."

"During the fall [of 1995], he wrote "Nun-o-Goldun" and turned it into a film—A Moment of Innocence. During the same year he made the film Gabbeh. With A Moment of Innocence and Gabbeh, Makhmalbaf achieved his purest cinematic form to date, his virtual realism assuming its undiluted poetic style and parabolic narrative. This mature phase of Makhmalbaf's cinema has every trace of two brutal decades of political turmoil, a gut-wrenching revolution, and a bloody and prolonged war—and yet all of these transformed into the visual vocabulary of a deeply contemplative disposition. This poetic cinema is neither mystical nor mythic, neither forgiving nor forgetful. It is a cinematic realism of a very particular and definitive character—reaching for a reality stripped of all its distracting particulars and thus revelatory by virtue of its minimalist take on reality."

"Makhmalbafs cinema is scarred, just like his body and the soul of his nation. Makhmalbafs realism is virtual, because the full reality it wishes to convey and contest is too traumatic to bear. He has neither the panache nor the patience of Kiarostami to witness the actuality of reality (hidden under its overburdened symbolism), nor the steely eyes of Naderi to look reality straight in the eye without submitting it to any metaphysics. Makhmalbaf once told me of an idea he had for a film about a boy who was told never to look at evil, and whenever he ran into something evil or ugly to turn away. That boy ultimately became Khorshid in his film Silence, and Makhmalbaf made him completely blind. Have you ever wondered what happened to that boy? Makhmalbaf found nothing for him to look at that was not evil or ugly, except in his own mind, and thus he had to be completely blind. That boy is Makhmalbaf himself, having made his eyes blind to imagine a world inside his own head—one that is virtually beautiful. That's why Silence is so beautifully shot and beautiful to look Mohsen Makhmalbaf A Moment of Innocence at, because it is shot from inside Khorshid's (Makhmalbafs) mind's eye."


In his film, A Time to Love, he quotes from Rumi: "The truth was a mirror that fell to the ground and shattered. Each one picked up a piece and, seeing his own image reflected in it, thought he possessed the whole truth." This is a quote which he also repeatedly quotes in interviews, and which has seemingly come to be an indelible part of his own philosophy.



Minor motif: disembodied hands (e.g. at end of A Moment of Innocence in the famous final freeze-frame) but also women out of closed doors. Samira Makhmalbaf may have partly inherited this trait, see e.g. the hands holding out an apple in The Apple and so on. Often the hands are of a woman, perhaps hinting at their suppressed identities and roles in Iranian society.