36th Iranian Film Festival Review at the Gene Siskle Center

I took the challenge to watch a film a day for the 36th Iranian Film festival.I took several Iranian cinema classes during my bachelors, and  gained a strong appreciation of Iranian and live action cinema as a whole. It’s hard to remember notes and concepts. My hope is for people to realize what I love the most about Iranian cinema, the self reference of the genre of films as a whole., Whether that be towards the government or towards the appreciation of filmmaking in a contained way to the individual. 

    This, to me, separates Iranian cinema in comparison to several European and American experimental films, which challenge the art of filmmaking in terms of the medium rather than to the person. I’m not sure if this is a brand US filmmakers focused on or if this theme was constantly re-inspired to the next generation of filmmakers over again. Regardless, this is what I aim to explore while watching films I have and haven't seen before. These concepts of self reference of the art of filmmaking inspired a lot of my work, and I wish to look at these films again to see what I can be inspired by, and what themes could be taken away from the films. 

Close Up: 

    The film “Close Up” is directed by Abbas Kiorostami and is based on a true story. It centers around a man named Bazigar who passes himself as a famous filmmaker Mohsen Makhmalbaf to a wealthy but down on lucky family for weeks, getting minor rewards but not robbing or destituting them. The story begins with Bazigar arrested outside of the house, and  proceeds with him within the court case, using a close up. Both the audience and the court are not sure if these actions are malicious or not. 

    This was the first Iranian films I saw, at the Gene Siskel, which directly challenges what it means to act, and the beauty of it to a person in a time of economic instability. The film is self referential, the first third of the film’s runtime, characters talk on  the nature of the court case and why filming the event is important to begin with,  concluding with the main character realizing his true reasons to act after feeling aimless. 

    The film is a character study on the fictionalized Bazigar , the lengths he’ll go, and explanations he gives being questioned as valid to the court and the family. In questioning the medium of film, the themes are not what defines an actor or a medium, but who we are and the roles we play in order to become something better. In seeing similar stories of a con-man, it's hard to justify their actions or to see them as anything but slimy. “Close Up” manages to avoid characterization through connecting his actions to the role of filmmaking, through escaping not into the films but the joy of making film for others. 

    I appreciate “Close Up” in choosing these specific factors of film that are more grounded in comparison to diving into the fantastical because it keeps with the quiet and estranged society the characters live within, and how it affects everyone. While the themes of filmmaking are stated through the conversations of the reporters and police at the start, scenes like a man trying to sell a live turkey after being asked for directions, and a can rolling down the same street as the characters, give the audience a feeling of this environment being stagnant or restrictive for the people who live in it. 

    My old professor would often preach about the concept of sensory scenes over metaphor as a primary focus for  filmmaking, and how that’s more impactful because sensory feelings relate to general emotions which enhances themes. The previously mentioned scenes are not the most visually enticing or thematically rich, but they gives off the feeling of what the characters go through. Moving in an environment which allows you one pathway, with the illusion being of your accord. 

    Thus with these previous scenes established at the start of the film,  the close up from the camera of Bazigars face in the court is connected to the context of the society he lives in, along with the feelings he has living in that society. The man with the turkey and the running implies the concept of stagnation within the setting, while Bazigar emotions through the court is the reaction, and the actions he takes within the film are the consequences from the individual. 

    The first scene the audience has Bazigar talking, and  concludes with him wanting for people to see his suffering of how little he feels in his life. Meanwhile, the last scenes of the court case has him concluding, despite knowing his actions are wrong, he realizes he has potential in himself as an actor and thus feels fulfilled in realizing he does have control over his life to some degree. In the end, what makes him a compelling character over a slimy con-man is his discovery of his own choices relating to newly discovered strength from his passions, along with realizing his own regrets and morality. 

    When looking at Iranian films which focus on or mentions of filmmaking, the audience member needs to take a step back and contextualize the film, and its own satisfactory conclusion that doesn’t reach inside the narrative but instead to the outer world. Bazigar’s interest in becoming an actor exists both through the narrative camera crew recording for greater Than, and the actor Hossain Sabzian (Bazigar) arguing to the court on his ethics of acting within the script which is later released to the real world. 

    This was based on a true story, so even if dilated the essence of the Bazigar’s suffering is still shown mainly through the emotion of the actor. Overall, this story acts not only as a character study for Bazigar, but also the subtle characterization of Tehran as a whole. The majority of it is done through how Bazigar describes his actions and where he is in life, along with the tint of religion sprinkled throughout the court and characters. The story doesn’t use larger buildings or show large crowds being affected, but I wouldn’t say it's contained. Rather the film in presenting its setting shows how that setting affects the characters, and how those characters create personal actions in motivation.

Persepolis:

“Persepolis” is a series of  autobiographical graphic novels of an Iranian girl (Marji Satrapi) growing up during the Iranian revolution, Iran-Iraq War, and the years that followed until eventually moving to  Europe.  I’m partial to  “Persepolis” because  it was the first Iranian media I saw in its  graphic novel from reading the first book in highschool next my father and finding the second book alone in my freshman year of college. I knew of the film, but I was scared to watch it because I wanted to save it for a special event after hearing online that it was a shot to shot remake of the book. It still keeps the magic of the book while also exceeding it through how it uses animation.

The book’s illustrations  are somewhat cartoony which causes  the emotions of characters to be used as more of a punchline or reveal rather than a buildup, which is then accomplished in the animated piece. This causes the comic to  feel less  intimate than the film, as information portrayed is more matter-of-fact or supports broader concepts on nihilism within the society of Iran. The comic gives the information more as a fact, and the characters and readers have to deal with it and push through. 

But within the film, with the use of fades and slow deconstructions of the space to black, aside from  the characters, the more serious information of the story acts more dreadful or inescapable. Almost as if it pleads for  hope rather than a dry matter of fact. Characters talking, followed by their reactions to an event along with diegetic sounds, rather than seeing the text and characters in the same panel feels more organic in portraying these emotions. This is  especially true for the last scenes of Uncle Anoush and his eventual fate.

There is more time with Uncle Anoush in understanding his life in the comic, but the film focuses less on the specifics of his deals and more toward his and Satrapi’s reactions to those ideas. Both himself along with his arguments visually fade away as the Iranian revolution takes a darker turn. Both scenes of his final goodbye are emotional in both mediums, but the film’s version  is stronger because of how slow and smooth the animation is in hugging Satrapi as a child. It gives off the feeling of full acceptance from Anoush, thus giving it a darker voice in comparison to the reaction of Satrapi, which the book focuses on. By spending more time with Anoush in the book, I felt a stronger impact in comparison to the film storywise, but in the film I felt more emotionally vulnerable.

The part that Anoush connects to me most is when he tells a  young Satrapi to remember these stories so that they don’t die out. It's such an  impactful line because it feels like  it's the main reason why the film exists. I previously talked about  “Close Up” with its use of reflection through filmmaking to understand the world around you in a non-fantastic way, and “Persepolis” isn’t different. The main difference is while Close Up has scenes which come from the camera crew within the film and are self-referential through actor reactions, Persepolis starts the film with narration. The story has already concluded, and Satrapi sees her reletting of the story as a reflection and memories. The animation, with this rule, is transformed differently in comparison to the book.

All the images with the book are similar with the body being slightly out of proportion with body shapes to emphasize either the situation or reactions of characters. Their visual consistency in the visual style of the book. The animation makes visual changes based on how Satrapi hears or retells the story. When she is going through puberty, body proportions change based on how she describes them for comedy. When she is hearing a story, the background animation and characters reflect with a puppet-like style similar to a theatre production. 

There are rules to how the animation and visuals allows for the fantastical to happen while keeping its grounded tone throughout. But this change in animation also reflects the most important aspect of the film, its nature as an autobiography not a fictional story, and the nature of storytelling within it. This  not only applies to  the film, but rather outside it with how it restructures the story. 

One scene that  fascinated me was when Satrapi’s mother tells her of what happens to virgin girls before they get killed. In the book, the comic panel builds up the information for the reader with the focus being on Satrapi, giving off a slower pace as both the child and reader connect the dots on the horror, acting as a loss of innocence. However, in the film, the pacing is faster and the focus is on the voice and acting of the mother, and her breakdown in front of Satrapi. I think about this scene often not only because the editing and quick animation is an example of hyper-realism within animation, but also because unlike the book this was the inciting incident that makes Satrapi leave for Europe in her adolescence rather than the effects of the Iraq-Iran War. This change of events from a supposedly non-fiction source demonstrates, to myself, the nature of truth and memory in how in re-creating a work, the narrative will always change due to reflection, and thus what the piece states on their themes.

A Seperation:

A Separation is a story about two families who try to legally criminate each other after the father Nader pushed his maid Razieh and thus Razieh and her husband accused him of the death of their unborn child. Along this is the drama of Nader and his wife Simin as they try to divorce each other and convince the other of the custody of their child.

I wrote an essay based around the concepts of truth and criticism of the government through film as my final paper for my last Iranian class. Specifically, this film’s function was to demonstrate how fictional court cases could be used to demonstrate how truth is fragile due to perspective, and how the court system in the film is broken in having the character advocate for themselves while being too emotional to the events. One can only appreciate how intricate all the storylines are with each other, and thus how each event is personal to the other person and biased. The film doesn’t present a bad person, but rather all sides as being emotionally hurt, and this isn’t helped due to the court system's broken way of fixing these events. As this was my second viewing, I started to realize Nader’s fault as a person for being emotionally distanced, which shows both positives and negatives in that personality trait. The positives being his control over the court case in comparison to Razieh’s husband, but the negatives in losing his daughter to his wife by the end of the film. At least I assume he loses his custody of her, as his distance from her emotionally creates greater questioning. For all participants involved, emotion is a paradox where there isn’t an easy solution to, as everyone's life is broken both from personal events and events outside of the characters' grasp such as visas and poverty.

There is something I want to personally get into, and it's how the film portrays religion and doesn't directly criticize it. Originally, this section was going to be on a specific character who I considered my most hated character based on how the film portrays her actions and never calls her out to the degree I hope for. When rewatching it, I realized one of the reasons why I feel this way is due to my biases and that the film doesn’t acknowledge the faults of this character, ending her scenes with her acting emotional or vulnerable rather than being called out. Often, the reactions of the characters towards her is shielded through religion and thus is her actions justified since religion within this film acts self evident, at least based on the characters reactions towards her actions. The use of religion isn’t a character flaw presented in the film, and on the second viewing I realized there was a neutrality for religion outside of the court system in comparison to inside the court system. I believe the film is clear in how religious attitudes affect the legal system, with the conflict being a miscarriage considered a murder and the characters reacting to it as wrong. But outside the court system, everyone seemed as if they were on the same page religiously. Within the film, the courts are shown to have the final power in an urban environment, but it's there where that power is questioned based on the truth of the event. On this new view of the film and the specific character, I find this film now as a window to how people realize their religion towards their government, as the film argues the laws are incorrect, but not the source of those laws. 

Within my classes, this film was considered more conventional to Hollywood films rather than Tehran or Iranian films since it focuses more on the emotional drama of the character in an expressive way from the actors. In comparison to other films who focused on a more quiet kind of suffering, this film was financially popular because the drama was intensified. I don’t want to say this film stole a Western style of storytelling, but seeing how characters react to certain events as normal while others as unjust, it creates a narrative that demonstrates the nature of Tehran better than a film that directly criticizes the society, and allows the audience to decide. It reminded me of the flaws I could consider in Persepolis. 

Often I see Persepolis show American militarism, but it's often distant and the film makes clear its due to the government who makes the decision first. Multiple times, there's a constant critic of Iranian society and ignorance towards that society, but never shows any positive qualities thus making Western culture seem brighter. This doesn’t mean Persepolis is wrong in presenting its society this way, only with A Separation I realize there's an unintended bias within all these films while they also have a justified target. Both these films I see the Iranian government with their obsession as religion as a problem, but not questioning the influences outside of it.

Taxi:

Taxi by Jafar Panahi is about the director playing himself, surrounding himself with the citizens of Tehran with a taxi. There isn’t a consistent plot, but rather episodic adventures with people he does and doesn’t know, their own struggles and him trying to understand those struggles. This director I’m very fascinated by since I also wrote about his film “This is Not a Film” in which it was considered the alternative to non-fiction and fiction or a meta-narrative, as described by Pedro Garcia in consideration to censorship. Essentially, “This is Not a Film” is considered meta-narrative in how one can’t distinguish who is and isn’t acting, and through this questioning of the film’s barriers allows questioning for censorship laws on film the Iranian government does. Taxi, in my opinion, is more direct with being a fictional work over a non-fictional work, but it pertains concepts of a meta-narrative in terms of including the real life director as a character. In using this character as the anchor of questioning the narrative, the film also includes people who are connected to him such as his niece and several friends. There is inherent questioning in the personal life of Panahi, of what is the true relationship he has with these people. It’s not even sure if the people during the film are actors not connected to him before the film or not. All that is known is how there is some semblance of truth, and it's up the the audience to decide through the viewing. 

That to me is what Panahi succeeds at. Questioning the method of film all throughout his work both outside and inside the film itself. Especially with his niece, there is a constant questioning of how to make a film, what constitutes a film which questions the status quo, and why that questioning of the status quo is important. The rest of the film, as for his other work, focuses on societal and governmental issues that were recently plaguing Tehran such as executions, laws of inheritance, and restrictions on the media. In terms of enjoyment these all vary, but a particular scene which spoke the most dialogue wise was when Panahi talks to his friend about a traumatic event, and his friend not contacting the authorities in fear of what might happen to his assailants. Throughout the film, the main issue I had storywise is Panahi himself in how he portrayed himself as being too neutral with no character flaws or no major reactions to the events around him after the fact. I could see an argument that the emotional neutrality is natural for the role of a taxi driver, who deals with these all the time. But for myself his acting hinders the choice of seeing this work as non-fiction, which I think are crucial for his films. That is until we get to his friend explaining his traumatic experience, not only the explanation feels profound but also the acting of Panahi taking this with the gravitas the event needed for the concern of his friend. The scene also works as a loss of innocence as the niece is in and out of the scene, unaware of the trauma her uncle understood and his friend forgave.

These episodic stories are tied together by the visual framing device, which is the most special aspect of the film. This is not a Film that came out four years before Taxi, and I saw advancements in trying to commit to a non-fiction or found footage style. The film when needing musical quotes, would use the diegetic sounds of phones or radio, and push the concept of questioning reality further than This in Not a Film did in presenting low video quality in the episodic story needed, along with the quality of sound being uncertain in connection to either production or post production. The framing device is the strongest hook, and due to the subject matter of the script fits perfectly in expanding the themes of censorship. I talked previously about the niece and how she represents an innocence in understanding the world, but my favorite scene that solidifies her need in the story is when Pannahi leaves for a moment. With the director leaving, the sequence of events feels like a fixed narrative, and this acts almost like magical realism in terms of events feeling as purposeful yet coincidental. The series of events, which the niece records with her camera, not only fits the themes of censorship mixed with the ideals of child, but is also visual interesting as the audience can see the screen recording of the niece’s camera within the security camera, to the point where the niece’s recording has a better angle than the security recording. This scene is magical to me in how it defines perspective and the manufacturing of a story to define a specific truth, but also in how Pannahi isn’t here to observe it and give comment. Through him not being there, it makes the moment hidden, and feels like a pleasant memory which only the audience and the actors experience in an informal way.

Starless Dreams:

    Starless Dreams is a documentary of a correctional facility for young girls and seeing their daily lives, along with seeing what reasons these girls are there. There isn’t a “plot” but more obituaries of the main seven girls trying to move a day at a time.Starless Dreams is the first film I don’t have any association with before watching, and as such it was a shock in terms of the subject matter. Visually there isn’t any association with what the girls talk about in terms of their experiences. The film is very strict in keeping inside the facility  and it feels almost like a bubble. I actually consider giving more gravatas to the stories of these girls and with some of their worries. The subject matter is dark and the main worry is the uncertainty of their families accepting them or being easy to live with. In keeping the camera only in the facility which is rigged and brutalist yet surrounded by comforting objects for young girls, does the outside is positioned as the unknown void rather than a complex city or society. Negative aspect could exist, but you're not sure what.

Although the subject matter is purposely dark, my main issue is there isn’t a strong exploration of these topics. This relates to the space, where the camera strictly stays either at the facility or looking from inside. But for the most part, the stories of each of the girls are similar in how they talk about drugs and family abuse. The camera crew doesn’t ask what might be the cause of these events to the girls, or showcase where these problems can originate from. An exception to this was when a priest came in and the girls criticized him pointing out how the legal problems are a reflection of the religious problems. But the scene doesn’t show a back and forth to reveal something deeper, instead this confrontation is edited to have the priest, and in extension the Iranian government, be called out.

It’s hard for me to critique something with a dark subject matter as dark as this. But where the lives of these girls are purposely contained within a space, it makes one realize that some subjects for films could be better spent for less time. The purpose of the film is to show a community built around similar trauma, but the film doesn’t focus on aspects such as hobbies or delve into specific friends built around the space. They do show a welcoming community, but the film doesn’t explain why this environment is more welcoming than the families talked about previously. With this lack of exploration and the film being direct in the first 20 minutes on why these traits are negative, I wonder why there was an exploration of many participants as many didn’t receive resolution. Perhaps that was the point, but regardless if that is the point why there was a whole film existent when it could have been more than 40 or 30 minutes.

When watching the film, I was reminded of The House is Black, a historical film by one of the first female Iranian filmmakers, Forugh Farrokhzad which focused on a leper community. After consideration, I believe The House is a better film in form in comparison to Starless Dream in where its not only shorter, but also uses literary poem structures to structure the editing and sound design of the film, giving it a feeling of a mysticism which relates to the history of leprosy disease. Starless Dreams is impactful because of the content, but it doesn’t engage me after the half way. It did get more interesting when it introduces the children of the victims, and brings a sense of hope in this dark setting. But at the end there is no exploration when the children do come in. 

‘ If there is something that caught my attention, it is how it uses the word ‘bother’ in how that is used for a deeper meaning. When it happened the first time I was somewhat confused with that wording, but as time went on I became horrified by the deeper meaning. I wonder if this was a form of censorship, but I actually enjoyed it as a viewer because it's a quiet way to understand the situation based on the emotions of the victims.

Hit the Road:

Hit the Road by Panah Panahi is about a family traveling to the Turkish border, and eventually bonding with each other as tragedy will eventually strike. To me, this entire film feels like a buildup and suspense, the characters trying to process their emotions as you cannot tell if these emotions are from how they normally react or the change in their lives that is going to happen. The film tries to hide what is happening to the brother, so both the audience alongside the family feels this suspence. Through this, the family reminds me about my own, and I became caring of them just through their minor actions, such as when the mother watches her older son sleep, and tries to cut his hair. 

But in general, the quirks of the family is what ties the film together. It's hard for myself to describe what types of comedy there are, but for this film I could imagine “situational” comedy that comes from the relationship between all the characters. The most compelling to me is the father figure Khosrow who is the husband of the mother and his relationship to the older brother. How they have to adjust to each other's quirks, but put each other in high regard while adjusting to see each other as close as they act distant in their own ways. They both start as seemingly reserved people, although overtime it's clear they're only reserved to everyone except for the people they truly care about. The mother and the younger brother are on the opposite side, and act as the optimists. The mother is more reflective of her optimism, and to myself was the most relatable character in deciding if she should act this way in a dire situation. She acts as the emotional core of the film, and herself trying to not break down in front of her family, even with them knowing and feeling the same pain, is something I was deeply connected to.

The younger brother represents a trope I mentioned previously in my reviews and is something which you do not see often in US counterparts, or at the very least based on my own personal viewings of all the Iranian films. That being of the innocence of child characters within darker situations. The filmmaker Panah Panahi is the son of Fraud Panahi, and both use children to constantly criticize aspects of life through how the child follows the rules of the society, as the adults cannot truly explain why these rules should be rejected. It's an interesting dilemma that I mainly see within Iranian films, and in my personal life reflects a child's tendency to follow the status quo out of innocence while the older adults follow it due to darker aspects of life. But in terms of Hit the Road, these rules of society are not direct to the younger brother through education in our daily life. Rather, the younger brother feels like he is within a bubble while the family makes up reasons why the older brother is leaving. Yet, with the use of the family’s dog dying, there is a constant reminder that hiding the child from emotional devastation is temporary. I found the last scene interesting as the emotions of the child and of the adults are parallel, but still end in the same place which allows the suffering of all the characters to be fully realized. This use of the trope, rather than having the child character in full bliss of a system, gives a stronger impact and tragedy for Hit The Road because there is a feeling of emotional instability rather than systemic. Although the dog dying and the brother aren’t technically connected, the events surrounding the two makes it seem as if they were the causes of each other, if not feeling like the aftermath.

What builds this film besides the characters is the setting and cinematography. There aren’t any distractions from the family, only this open everlasting plains and desert which they have to drive from. With that, the film settings act almost like a purgatory, in which nothing can continue in that space. Yet when the audience sees the grasses and trees, it feels as the reflection of hope within the characters, that something better is to come. Through this use of uncertain hope, the characters feel large enough to exist with the setting, based on where the camera is placed.