British Society for Middle Eastern Studies

Iranian Intellectuals and Contact with the West: The Case of Iranian Cinema Author(s): S. Zeydabadi-Nejad Source: British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 34, No. 3, Iranian Intellectuals (19972007) (Dec., 2007), pp. 375-398 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20455536 . Accessed: 16/02/2011 21:50
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and British Society for Middle Eastern Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

British Journalof Middle Eastern Studies,December 2007

34(3), 375-398

Routledge

& Francis Taylor Group

Iranian theWest:

Intellectuals The Case

and Contact of Iranian

with

Cinema

S. ZEYDABADI NEJAD*

ABSTRACT This article focuses on the international prominence of Iranian cinema inrelationtothe politicsoffilmmaking and the discoursesof identity inIran. with theIranianNew Wave of the1960s and 1970s, itanalyses Iranian Beginning commentaries about the acclaim of thefilms at thetime and shows their relevanceto theintellectual discourse aboutGharbzadegi or 'West-struckness'. It then explores variouspost-revolutionary discoursesabout the phenomenalsuccess of thecinema since the late 1980s. Examining the trajectory ofmajor Iranian filmmakers, the article concludes that the international acclaim has facilitated the cinema's with issuesof socio-politicalsignificancein thecountry. engagement

I. Introduction Since thenineteenth centurycontactwithWestern ideas has been of particular to Iranian intellectuals. interest Early on, these ideas served the intellectualsin theircritiqueof thepredicamentsof the Iranian society and politics.However, Western cultural influences were not necessarilyalways takenas benign. Many intellectuals particularlyin the late twentieth centuryself-consciously warned Westernization and advocated nativism.The 1979 revolution against superficial was itselfpartly about the rejection ofWesternization under themonarchic regime. The authorities of thenew Islamic regime have also constantly insisted on renouncing in thecountry Western influences which they oftenrefer toas 'cultural With suchbackground,it is no surprisethat invasion'. Western festivals' interest in Iranian 'artcinema' in recent years has become a topical issue in thecountry. are receiving accolade from the Why Iranian filmmakers West and how this prominence is influencing the films that they make are some of thequestions which have been asked. These questions became more significant because of the sheernumberof the awardswon by Iranian filmssince the late 1980s. For example, in the Iranian calendaryear 1382 (21/3/2003-20/3/2004) Iranianfilms had 1769 'appearances'1 andwon 103 prizes.2 internationally Among theaccolade bestowed upon Iranian
*Postdoctural Researcher, Centre for Media and Film Studies, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. 1 Each 'appearance' signifies a screening or run of an Iranian film (feature, short or documentary) at a cinematheque, cinema, film week or festival outside Iran. If a film has a run at a cinema, being screened several times a day, this counts as just one appearance. 2 Atebba'i, M. 'Negahi be hozurha-ye bayn al-melali-ye sinema-ye Iran', Mahnameh-ye sinema'i-ye film, No. 328 (2005), p. 66.

ISSN 1353-0194 print/ISSN 1469-3542 online/07/030375-24 C)2007British Societyof Middle Eastern Studies DOI: 10.1080/13530190701388382

S. ZEYDABADI-NEJAD

cinema over theyears, thereare a numberofmajor prizes such as Palm d'Or in Taste ofCherry(Kiarostami),the Golden Lion in Venice 2000 for Cannes 1997 for CrimsonGold (Panahi) and Silver Bear inBerlin 2006 for Offside (Panahi). in suchglobalmedia flows,theconsequence While there has beenmuch interest media travelling back to the local/national of news or commentary about these has been much filmsare viewed at an not of attention. Often places origin given are seen in thehome country. international These travels have festival before they consequences forthefilms'reception and perceptionin theplace of origin. Marks on theirtravelsfilms build up impressions'likea palimpsest'which suggeststhat theythen pass onto otheraudiences.3 As I discuss below, some middle class Iraniansrejectthefilms fortheir focuson thantheurban middle class withwhich theycan theurbanpoor or villagers rather At timesthefilmsare viewed fromtheeyes of a presumedorientalising identify. who would findthe livesof thecharactersin thefilms, Western 'other' and hence which are supposedly telling Iranians in general, 'backward'.Thus, some films The cinema authorities in Iranhave also demeaning storiesabout 'us' are rejected. of Iran. at timesbanned filmsfor 'dark'portrayal The implications of this phenomenonon thepoliticsof Iraniancinema deserves Farahmand claims thatfilmmakers have had to compromisewith the attention. to films'participation Iranianauthorities facilitatetheir at international festivals.4 have become apolitical. Sayyad, an exiled Iranian Hence, she argues, theirfilms who work under the restrictions in Iran have directorargues that filmmakers In order to testthevalidityof thesearguments,in compromised theirintegrity.5 thisarticle,I examine theconsequences of theinternational of Iranian prominence
cinema.

of Iran in filmare Perceptionsof what constitute appropriaterepresentations complicated by the Iranian practice of keeping a clear demarcation between 'private'and 'public', a conceptwhich extends to theboundarybetween 'inside' and 'outside' thecountry. Accordingly,what is at thecore or inside should be protected or hidden from the outsiders, and this particularlyapplies to the discussion of 'problemsat home'. Hence, defensive strategiessuch as disguise, allusion, and ritualcourtesyare employed in social interaction. of national borders is an important Iranian cinema's traversing instanceof or 'us'/'them' of Iranianidentity when the 'inside'/'outside' enunciation boundary and apprehension isbridged.Inevitablythis among phenomenoncauses sensitivity Iranians. The questionswhich I pose in thisarticle include: are the Iranian filmmakers affectedby theconsiderationsof the West? How has the international acclaim affectedthepolitics of Iraniancinema? What are theclaimsmade about art films (festivalfilms), bywhom and towhat ends?How andwhy do thereactionsto the international prominenceof Iranian filmsbefore and after the revolutiondiffer fromeach other?How are theboundaries of Iranian identity negotiated in the discourse about the films?
3 Marks, L. The Skin of theFilm: Intercultural Cinema, Embodiment and the Senses (London: Duke University Press, 2000), p. xii. 4 in R. Tapper (ed.), Farahmand, A. 'Perspectives on the Recent (International Acclaim of) Iranian Cinema', The New Iranian Cinema: Politics, Representation and Identity, (London: LB. Tauris, 2002). 5 Sayyad, P. 'The Cinema of the Islamic Republic of Iran', Iran nameh, 4(3) (1996) http://www.fis-irn.org/ cinema.htm, accessed on 9/3/2000, p. 3.

376

IRANIANINTELLECTUALSAND CONTACTWITH THEWEST

I discuss the 1960-1970s This article consists of four sections. In the first, Iranian New Wave cinemawhich was theprecursorto thepost-revolution films. This briefforayis justified inordertoexplore thecontrasting in Iran commentaries about the international prominencein the twoperiods.Next, I examine thepost revolution 'artcinema' and give a quantitative perspectiveon thephenomenon. I also analyse therelationship In the betweenartcinema and theIranianauthorities. I examine the role played by award-winning Iranian filmmakers. third, Finally, I consideraudience reactionsto thephenomenon. The articlehas resulted from my PhD fieldresearch which I carriedout in Iranin 2003-2004 during which I gathered data inrelationto qualitativeand quantitative
Iranian cinema.

II. Reactions to the 'New Wave' Films (1969-1979) While themajor award winning Iranian filmshave been made after the 1979 on the world revolution and under theIslamicRepublic, theemergenceof thefilms stage began under thePahlavi Dynasty (1926-1979). At the time thePahlavi which implemented itsagenda of Westernizationwith an ironfist, triedto regime, bolster its image throughthemedia includingfilm. The regime supportedthe of documentariesthat theadvancements of the making and exhibition highlighted filmindustry which generallyconformed country under the Pahlavis.6The feature to theregimeideology, commercialcinemaknownasfilm-farsi produced lowbrow of Indian and Egyptian thatoften included song and dance routinesin imitation cinema. In the1960s a film movementbeganwhich latercame tobe known as the New with what came earlier Wave outside thecountry. The difference of these films was not only sophisticationin filmmaking stylebut theircontent.Films like TheHouse isBlack (Farrokhzad1964),Night of the Hunchback (Ghaffari 1964), TheBrick and the Mirror (Golestan 1965), Mrs Ahou 's Husband (Mollapur 1968), Qeysar (Kimia'i 1969) and The Cow (Mehrju'i 1969) were socially conscious in theirsubtlecritiqueof thepredicaments of thecountry under thePahavis. A major New Wave film was The Cow (Mehrju'i 1969) which was filmed on location in a impoverished ofHassan, a middle village. The filmtells the story aged villager,who owns theonly cow in thevillage and is obsessed with her. Hassan and othervillagers are paranoid about theomnipotent people of thenext harm. When village, the Boluris, who often spy on thevillagers and cause them cow dies, thevillagersblame the Boluris. Hassan is unable to Hassan's pregnant of thecow. The copewith theloss,goes insaneand graduallytakeson theidentity film endswith thedeathofHassan on the way to a townas his fellowvillagers try The Cow met withmuch criticalpraise in Iranand to takehim there fortreatment. of international festivals didwell at thebox officebefore itcame to theattention was censors a film released when the twoyears later. The inserted famously only note at thebeginning of thefilmsayingthat eventsdepicted in thefilmtookplace before thePahlavi period. In itsoriginal formthefilm was contravening the1959 which would of 'backwardness' censorshipcode which prohibitedpresentation 'damage the state's national prestige'.7Obviously the film's acknowledgement
6 7 Issari, M. Cinema in Iran 1900-1979 (London: Scarecrow, 1989), pp. 164-198. Golmakani, H. 'New Times, Same Problems', Index on Censorship, 21(3) (1992), p. 20.

377

S. ZEYDABADI-NEJAD

was embarrassing forthe of theexistenceof suchpoverty-stricken villages in Iran Pahlavi regime, which claimed tohave transformed Iran intoa modem country. none of thecommentators Unlike theauthorities, writingaboutThe Cow at the about thefilm'sdepictionof the time demonstrated any signof self-consciousness village to theoutsideworld. These commentaries published inpopularperiodicals weremainlywritten some ofwhom such of thetime by a numberof intellectuals, The same applies toA Simple were filmmakers as Farrokh Ghaffari themselves.8 Event (Shahid-Sales 1973),which was also filmedin an impoverished village and foritsfocuson thedeprived once againwas not criticizedby Iranian intellectuals lifeof villagers.9 aftertherevolution many have disapprovedof award Considering thefactthat on theurban or ruralpoor, it is surprising no similar that winning films centring could have contributed criticism was voiced before.Several factors to this.First of all, at the time Iranian intellectuals were preoccupied with gharbzadegi The self i.e.Western influencesin relation to theiridentity. (West-struckness), consciousness of Iranian middle class intellectuals was due to thedifficulty of reconcilingtheirtraditional (oftenrural)backgrounds with the modernityof their In the current social stratum.10 midst of the social changes of the 1960s and the 1970s,many Iranian intellectualsindicated theneed to findan essential Iranian Village life, and hence how it was identityto which they could return.'1 inThe Cow, seemed topossess a certainauthenticity which life in the represented newlymodernized cities lacked. Along thesame lines, many of thepopulist films of the period were about the pains of urbanization and longing to returnto of the criticism villages.12 In addition,a focuson life in a village was an implicit urbanizationandmodernizationof societyunder thePahlavis. Lastly, at thattime was quite a new phenomenonandmany people maintained a close urbanization link with theirruralplaces of origin. The Revolution and theIslamicRepublic The Shi-ite With the1978-1979 revolution,things began to change drastically. were deeply opposed topre-revolution Iranianand imported cinema, and clergy this had strong forIraniancinemaduringand aftertherevolution. The implications was a threat to thepublicmorality.This clergybelieved thatcinema at the time had mainly to do with the representation ofwomen who oftenappeared singing and dancing in thefilm-e mission to be farsi. Some of theclergyperceived their fighting back against theperceived 'moraldecadence and unseemly social filth thatfilled the streets' 13 and featuredin filmand television. During the Iranian whichwas lead by theclergy,180 out of 436 movie houseswere seton revolution, fire. In one incident in the on 10August 1978, about 300 people died inan inferno
8 For a number of reviews written at the time see Omid, J. Tarikh-e sinema-ye Iran 1900-1978 (Tehran: Entesharat-e rowzaneh, 1998), pp. 538-549. 9 Ibid, pp. 659-662. As Omid quotes, some did not like the slow pace of that film. 10 Fischer, M. 'Towards a Third World poetics: seeing through short stories and films in the Iranian culture area', and Society, 5 (1984), pp. 172. Knowledge 11 Al-e Ahmad, J.Gharb-zadegi (West-Struckness) translated by Green, J. and Alizadehm A. (Lexington: Mazda, 1982 [I960]), and Shari'ati, A. Majmu'eh-ye asar, (Tehran: Husseinieh-ye Ershad Press, 1979). 12 From Roots to Clich?s', Rohani, O. 'Introduction to an Analytical History of Iranian Cinema (1929-1978): Tavoos, (5 & 6) (Autumn 2000 & Winter 2001), pp. 286-290. 13 Abrahamian, E. Iran: Between Two Revolutions (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982), p. 474.

378

IRANIANINTELLECTUALSAND CONTACTWITH THEWEST

Rex Cinema in thecityofAbadan, and fromthen until theestablishment of the IslamicRepublic in early 1979, cinemas remainedclosed across thecountry. The post-revolution state in Iran is based on Islam as its ideology. Ayatollah Khomeini, the leaderof the revolution and its IslamicRepublic's first Supreme Leader, declared theroleof cinema tobe a toolfor 'educating the and that, people' 14 like all art, itwas to 'be put in the serviceof Islam'. 5 Therefore, cinema,which was rejectedby theclergyunder theprevious regimeas aWesternizing medium, was legitimized. Going to themovies became an acceptable activity for the Ayatollah's followers.In the first few years after the revolution,there was no an Islamic cinema and as a resultof confusion guideline as towhat constituted about weremade. whatwas acceptable,veryfew films From 1982, thecinema sectionof the MinistryofCulture and IslamicGuidance (the MCIG' s executivearm)were formed MCIG) andFarabiCinema Institute (the and a groupof religiousintellectuals were put in chargewho revived thecinema. This groupbelonged to a factionin Iranianpoliticswhich later became known as While theconservativefactioninIranian thereformists. politicshas soughtto limit on the other hand have been artisticand political expressions, the reformists generally inclinedtoopen up thecultural,social and political atmosphere. Thus, thenew cinema authorities tooknumerous measures to revitalizethefilmindustry. They subsidized the importation of filmmaking materials, lowered the tax on cinema tickets, made low interest loans forfilmmaking and created incentives for 16 technicalsophistication and innovation. of thenew changesat the Art cinemaor festivalfilms were also the beneficiaries based cinemabefore therevolution, MCIG. In amove away fromthestar thenew as of authorities much emphasison therole the director the put creativeforce behind a film. became thebest paid and the Thus, among thefilmmaking crew,directors of their role was also emphasized in the of their names on significance prominence movie posters.17 With these progressivemoves, Iranian cinema awoke from with a risingnumber of productions.For example, revolutionary hibernation 12 to40.18 between1981 and 1984 the of films number producedannuallyrose from As Table 1 (p. 396) shows,soon a trend of international prominence beganwith an increasing numberof filmsfeaturing everyyear at festivals around the world. The examinationof theTable 1 indicates that the number of international has been steadilyincreasing since thelate1980s.This appearancesof Iranianfilms iswhile thenumberof awards and jury memberswhich were steadilyincreasing until theyear2000 and have sincebeen stable.The 1990s appear tohave been the heyday,when New IranianCinema was still novel. Now (2000 onwards) this cinema is establishedon the world scene, and hence thereismore of a plateau. While inTable 1 festivals and their awardsare consideredindiscriminately, it is as one tonote that festivals areof coursenotconsidered important equally important
14 Algar, H. Islam and Revolution: Writings and Declarations of Imam Khomeini, (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985), p. 258. 15 entitled, Siyasat-ha va ravesh-ha-ye ejra'i-ye tolid, MCIG, Quoted in unpublished document obtained from the tozV va namayesh-e film-ha-ye sinema'i-ye 1375, p. 1. 16 For more details see H. Naficy, Tslamizing film culture in Iran: a post-Khatami update', in R. Tapper (ed.), The New Iranian Cinema: Politics, Representation and Identity. 17 This has had a bearing on the fact that, as I discuss below, Iranians consider films in relation to their director and their other films. 18 Talebinejad, A. Dar hozur-e sinema: tarikh-e tahlili-ye sinema-ye ba'd az enqelab (Tehran: Farabi Cinema Foundation Publications, 1998), pp. 54-55.

379

S. ZEYDABADI-NEJAD

have lauded theachievements another. On a fewoccasions, the MCIG authorities of Iranianfilmmakers atCannes Film Festivalwhile otherfestivals'awardshave not receivedequal attention. Nevertheless,that tablessuchas theabove arepublished in Mahnameh which is a major filmperiodical as well as a book published by the of thenumericaldata in Iran.2 MCIG'9 indicatesthesignificance Some characteristics are common toa largenumberof Iranianfilms which have won topawards at festivals. They aremainlymade with non-professional actors, thanin studios,containa numberof long takes, are filmed on locationrather blur and fiction, andmany of their theboundarybetween documentary are narratives ofmany such filmsthattheyappear tobe 'a slice of open ended.A main feature life', with seemingly littledramatizationor fictionalization. The stories are generallyabout theurban or ruralpoor. have often been characterized as 'humanist', while the Outside Iran,thesefilms terms 'poetic realism'which has been used in relation toFrench cinema in the which is a film movement in Italiancinema in the 1940s 1930s, and 'neorealism' and the1950s, have been employed in relationto Iraniancinema as well. I will, henceforth, referto the films which have been awarded prizes or have film festivals,and/orhave been highly featuredat a number of international filmcritics,as 'art film'or 'artcinema'. The Ministry praised by international of Culture and Islamic Guidance (MCIG) labels them as mokhatab-e khass (literallyfor 'special audiences' in contrasttomokhatab-e 'ammor for 'common audiences').While generally 'artfilm' andmokha.tab-ekhass coincide, at times I discuss thisissueusing theexample thedesignationof thetitle appears arbitrary. ofWomen's Prison below. III. State Authorities and the International Success Nation According to theIranianAuthorities The PreferredImage of the of exportingthe revolution, Gradually, along with thepolitical leaders' rhetoric to Iranian cinema the authorities abroad. Ali-Reza Shoja'nuri, began promote Affairs at the time, initially met with little Farabi' s head of International with only one percentof his letters enthusiasmfrominternational festivals, being which were sent to festivals were rejected.22In answered.2'Many of the films Naderi's The Runnerwas accepted by somemajor festivalsand 1985, however, won a numberof awards.Far fromideologicaldogma, and set in the subsequently The Runner was about the daily strugglesof a period before the revolution, determined orphanchild.The successwas followedbyKiarostami'sWhere is the about a resolutechild.These were followedby friend'shouse? (1988) anotherfilm thecriticalacclaim for LittleStranger (Beyza'i 1985, released in 1989). Bashu, the Since thenIraniancinema has never looked back.23 To a degree these filmscoincidedwith thevalues of the Islamic regime for whom the rulingelite being about the lives of mostada 'fin(the downtrodden)
19 Atebba'i, M. 25 sal sinema-ye Iran: javayez va hozur-e bayn al-melali. 20 The book which I refer to is Atebba'i, ibid. 21 'Az eftekhar ta baznegari: hozur-e bayn al-melali-ye sinema-ye novin-e Iran', San'at-e Sinema, M. Atebba'i, No. 9 (2003), p. 79. 22 in San'at-e Sinema, No. 9 (2003), p. 13. M. 'Sinema-ye ba'd az enqelab: sal shomar 1361-1380', 23 Babagoli, I discuss below the reasons for the proliferation of award winning films about children.

380

IRANIANINTELLECTUALSAND CONTACTWITH THEWEST

At that time the new cinema authorities insisted that claimed to represent. Iranians. should avoidmaking filmsabout affluent filmmakers of thiscinema tohave been a cause of Although one would expect thetriumph were more complicated celebration for the Iranian authorities,theirreactions head of Farabi, who is closely associated with the Beheshti, former than that. told me in an interview, reformists,
from 1989, we saw in practice that ifwe announced the internationalsuccess of Iranian would work against cinema as a whole. That iswhy we blocked cinema in thecountry,this media, itwas when itwas reported in the international news out]. [But] getting [the publicised inside the countryby Iranian journalists. The reason why we refrained from we knew itwould become a politically sensitive issue. reportingitourselves was that

consequences forcinema as a whole, to thepossible detrimental By referring motives would question the Beheshti is pointingtohis fear thattheconservatives createobstacles forthe way cinemawas awards.Theywould then behind foreign the rununder him. Of course he worried about the conservatives threatening me thatsome conservatives, of his role as a manager. Beheshti told continuation winning awards. whom he did not name, did harboursuspicionsabout the films win at a He added thattheyasked questions such as 'how could an Iranian film films?' countries have Western and other where France,Germany, Italy, festival Ebrahim Along the same lines, the (then conservative-minded)filmmaker Hatamikia,wrote at the time: '[At thefestivals]thereis a political perspectiveat would happen without the existence of such work. There is no way anything
perspectives'.24

Film Festival at the was fuelled Fajr International Such suspicion by thefactthat (FIFF), Iran's major film festivalwas (and still is) influencedby political 25 by the expert such suspicionswere reinforced considerations. Furthermore, as their cinema who use Hollywood opinion of some prominentfilmcritics, For example,Khosrow Dehqan, a critic,claimed: yardstick.
main elements main problemwith Kiarostami' swork is thatit is a strangerto the [ . . . ] the of cinema, namelymise-en-scene, camera and editing.The whole of cinema ismade up of these elements.26

nourishedby thefact were further The misgivings of theconservativeauthorities were overtly political and came close to the 'red lines' or thatsomeof thesefilms true This was particularly to in Iran. of expressionas referred of freedom thelimits Time Mohsen Makhmalbaf. For example, in 1991 twoof his films, works of of the Time ofLove told ofLove andNights ofZayandehrud,causedmuch controversy. some of amarriedwoman. Reacting to thesefilms, versionsof thelove affair three went so far as calling them 'satanic art'. Ayatollah Jannati,a conservatives said in a Friday sermon, powerfulconservativefigure,
Sometimes [cinema authorities] say proudly thatour film[s] are praised abroad and they What an achievement! Shall we be happy when those conclude thatart is revived in Iran.
24 3(2) (1991), Hatamikia, E. 'Sinemagaran-e irani va hozur-e bayn al-melali', Faslnameh-ye sinema'i-yefarabi, p. 170. 25 under the Islamic Republic S. Politics (University of London, 2007), of Cinema Zeydabadi-Nejad,. PhD thesis, p. 61. unpublished 26 in S. Mohammad-Kashi, sinema-ye Iran dar qarb', Quoted 'Barresi-ye elal va avamel-e movaffaqiyat-e sinema'i-ye farabi, 3(3) (2000), (Serial number 39), p. 64. Faslnameh-ye

381

S. ZEYDABADI-NEJAD who are responsible for the spread of [moral] corruption in theworld praise us and say bravo?27

Apart fromthe conservatives'general lack of appreciationforart cinema, their reactions. Ingeneral they politicalconcerns play amajor part inshapingtheir do not miss anyopportunity toattacktheir reformist rivalsand oftencinemahas provided an offensive. When itsuitstheir them with theexcuse for politicalagenda, they often At that mustbe at work. claim that Makhmalbaf's films conspiracies particular period, were used by theconservativesto attack Mohammad Khatami, then Minister of Cultureand Islamic Guidance.On the other of hand,as theself-appointed guardians do believe thatthe West wants toexerta publicmorality,someof theconservatives 'morallycorrupting'influencein Iran. For example, during the same period, warned against the Western 'cultural Ayatollah Khamene'i, the supreme leader, which the aggression' media, includingthesatellite TV, were allegedly launching theembattled Khatami resigned afterwards from the ministry. againstIran.28 Shortly The early 1990s saw thegradual replacementof the reformists in charge of had little cinemaby conservatives who generally of it. However, as understanding learned more about cinema, their some of thenew authorities views of itchanged. This isperhapsbest illustrated with an example:Atebba'i, a former Farabi official, told me in an interview that when Talebzadeh replacedShoja'nuri as thehead of International Affairs at Farabi in 1996, thingsseemed tobe about to change. At his first meetingwith those working underhim,Talebzadeh told themthat, which contained revolutionary fromthenon, theyhad to promote films values, He also said he would stop sending secular such as theSacred Defence films.29 filmsto festivals. Atebba'i and his colleagues triedto dissuade him by warning which stopping the films would create for the him about thenegative publicity to changeTalebzadeh's mind,Atebba'i and others IslamicRepublic. In an effort Atebba'i recalls a ministryofficial got the Ministry of ForeignAffairs involved. news agenciesKiarostami's namewas saying thatin thebulletinsof international mentioned twice as many times as the Iranian foreign minister's. Finally, the ofmiddle-ranking officialsin the intervention MinistryofForeignAffairsresulted in Talebzadeh changing his mind. After about a year at the job, in 1997, Talebzadeh revealed his reversedposition by sayinghe had recentlytold some to trytomake 'beautifulfilms likeKiarostami's' Sacred Defence filmmakers with thequalityof our films'. were concerned because 'filmfestivals have been rather easier forIranianartfilms'international Since 1997, conditions has relinquishedits exposure.The government monopoly on thepromotionand of films filmmakers toget their distribution abroad,althoughthey require permission The reformists havebeen of their films more eager priortoscreening internationally.30 to claim some creditforthe international acclaim by celebrating non-controversial films some award-winning on their andhonouring filmmakers by specialceremonies on thehumanist values of thefilms return to Iran.For example, focusing Khatami cinema is the most honourable cinema inthe claimed, 'Iranian world' .31 Nevertheless,
sinema'i-ye film, No. 108 (1991), p. 88. yek bans', Mahnameh-ye and the Islamic Republic: Cinema and Book Publication', International Journal ofMiddle East Studies, 29(4) (1997) p. 514. 29 Sacred Defence genre consists of state sponsored films about the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988). 30 sends a film of their choosing is theAcademy Awards. The only festival to which theMCIG 31 entitled Siyasat-ha va ravesh-ha-ye ejra'i-ye tolid, tozV va Unpublished document obtained from theMCIG, namayesh-e film-ha-ye sinema'i-ye 1379, p. 1. 'Cheshmandaz-e 28Anonymous, Siavoshi, S. 'Cultural Policies 27

382

IRANIANINTELLECTUALSAND CONTACTWITH THEWEST

thereformists have generallytriedtoavoid controversy by notdrawingattention to films which raisecontentious issues. For example,in2000, Mohajerani (then Minister ofCultureand IslamicGuidance) honoured Samira Makhmalbaf,BahmanGhobadi andHasan Yektapanah fortheir films which had recently won awardsatCannes Film Festival,but totally ignored Ja'far Panahi,whose controversial film The Circle had won the topprize at theprestigious Venice Film Festival (see below forfurther discussionof thefilm).32 In a chapteron the international prominenceof Iranian cinema inTapper's edited volume The New Iranian Cinema, Farahmand shows a similarattitudeto theIranianreformists inher selective focuson apolitical films(see below).33 She suggests thata connectionexists between thediplomatic concerns ofWestern countriesand thefestivalsthey host. She claims:
The growing attentiongiven to Iranian cinema in the West must also be linked to attempts in recent years to develop diplomatic ties and cultural exchanges between Iran and the

West.34

toFarahmand's reasoning,theprominence Yet, contrary of Iraniancinema in the West has continuedregardlessof ups and downs in diplomatic relations. This is evidenced by a largenumberof Iranian filmsin festivalsin the USA following George Bush's denouncementof Iran as a member of the 'axis of evil'.35 Moreover, both before and after 9/11, the US immigration authorities on several occasions treatedIranian filmmakers with disrespect.Panahi was detained in chains forseveralhourswhile in transit at the New York airportandKiarostami was once refuseda visa. If there had been a genuine and concertedattemptat 'ping-pong diplomacy' using Iraniancinema as Farahmandclaims, such incidents would have been highlyunlikely.36 Farahmand explicitly,and Sadr37 implicitly, suggest that Iranian authorities used filmsabout children in order to promotea humanistvision of Iran abroad. Farahmand claims that theproliferation of children's stories in Iranian cinema 'shouldbe linked to theemergingpost-warconcern to renegotiate an image of Iranian societyand to counter the militant revolutionary of Iranians stereotypes through of children' representations .38 I argue thatratherthana conscious decision on thepartof filmmakers or the MCIG toportraysuch an image, theuse of children was necessitatedby factors suchas funding and stylistic considerations. Since the of the New Wave beginning in the 1960s, the Centre forIntellectual of Development ChildrenandAdolescents (or theCIDCA) was one of the of art cinema. Even before the major funders revolution, theyfunded Iranianfilms, many award-winning such as Kiarostami's
Makhmalbaf This was repeated in 2003 when Heydarian, the head of cinema section of the at the time, praised Samira MCIG for her success at the festival but he did not mention Ja'far Panahi who had also won an award at Cannes that year. See below about the case of Panahi's (2003) Crimson Gold. 33 Farahmand, op. cit. 34 Farahmand, op. cit., p. 94. 35 In 1381 (~ 2002) and 1382 (~ 2003) therewere 74 and 93 appearances of Iranian films in theUSA respectively 'Hozur-e bayn al-melali-ye sinema-ye, Iran dar sal-e 1381', Mahnameh-ye (Atebba'i, sinema'i-ye film, 2004, No. 312, p. 73, and 'Negahi be hozur-ha-ye bayn al-melali-ye sinema-ye Iran', Mahnameh-ye sinema'i-ye film, 2005, No. 328. p. 68). 36 Farahmand, op. cit., p. 95. 37 H. Sadr, 'Children in contemporary Iranian cinema: when we were children ... ', inR. Tapper (ed.), The new Iranian cinema, op. cit., p. 227. 38 Farahmand, op. cit., p. 105. 32

383

S. ZEYDABADI-NEJAD

The Traveller (1974), andNaderi's Harmonica (1974). In thefirst decade afterthe 1979 revolution, the CIDCA was perhaps theonly sourceof funding that was not Their financial supportwas important for controlled by government. strictly who did not have access toothergovernmental secular filmmakers sources. of thestylistic necessitiesof Apart fromthefunding issue,a close consideration Iraniancinemamade workingwith childrena logical choice for the filmmakers. of art films use non-professional Many Iraniandirectors actors,oftenchildrenor villagers,and shooton location. This is partlybecause, as Kiarostami has shown, childrenare easier tomanipulate in order to get them to 'act' realistically. For ofWhere is the example, early in the filming Friend's House, Kiarostami tooka who carried thephoto everywhere with him. Just Polaroid photoof a child, before a particularshot when thechildwas supposed tocry, Kiarostami ripped thephoto and thechildbegan to sob,creatingtherealismhe desired. Kiarostamihas also just as easily worked with adult villagerswhom he has controlledas effectively. In avoided risks of confrontation with the addition,many of these filmmakers conservatives and insteadfocusedon by stayingaway from political sensitivities childreninsteadof adults.39 Once a few films about children hadwon awards in thelate 1980s and theearly with child protagonists 1990s, a trend beganwith numerousfilms emergingfrom triedto emulate theearlier films, Iran. Understandably,filmmakers knowing that would be easy topromote internationally. such films FIFF Promotionsof Iranian Cinema at the of Iranianauthorities, The main occasion forthe involvement notably theFarabi of Iraniancinema isFajr International Film Cinema Foundation, in thepromotion Festival (FIFF). Every year since 1982, the event in Iran, has FIFF, the biggest film been held in February,coincidingwith theanniversary of the revolution. Since 1997, it is divided into twomain sections, 'Iranian cinema competition' and While in theformer all Iranianfilmsare included,in 'International competition'. which are considered likely to do well at the latteronly those Iranian films international festivals are shown. This arrangementmakes it easier for international guests of the festivals to decide which films to see. Since the introduction of the 'Intentional competition',thejuryof thiscompetitionincludes a numberof international festivalrepresentatives.40 and critics fromaround the Every year, a numberof festivalrepresentatives head of world are invitedto attendthefestival.Initiallyin 1991, Shoja'nuri, then Affairs at Farabi, claimed thatinviting International foreign guests to thefestival was forpromoting 'revolutionary elsewhere in the world. However, the thought' and criticcalled Avini doubted his sincerityin conservativessuch a filmmaker wanting to export the 'cultureof revolution'.He wrote at the time that if wanted todo so, hewould have triedtopromotethe Shoja'nuri genuinely making citizens' rather thancateringfortheelite critics.41 In of films for 'ordinary foreign of foreign warm reception festivalrepresentatives and spiteof suchobjections, the film criticsbecame more elaborate over theyears.
39 Sadr op. cit. 40 There are also foreign 'artfilms', which in the 2003 when I attended the festival, included Rabbit Proof Fence (Moore 2002). (Noyce 2002), The Son (Dardenne 2002) and Bowling for Colombine 41 Avini, M. Ayeneh-ye jadu: naqd-ha-ye sinema'i (Tehran: Nashr-e Saqi, 2002), p. 177.

384

IRANIAN

INTELLECTUALS

AND

CONTACT

WITH

THE WEST

guests stayed at one of In 2003 when I attended the festival, international watched filmsat exclusive screenings. In the Tehran's top hotels,where they evenings,a 'FilmBazaar' was organized at thehotelwhere theguestsmingled of productioncompanies. and representatives with filmmakers at of Iranianfilms has amonopoly in thepromotion AlthoughFarabi no longer position in thisregard.Farabi not festivals outside Iran, it stillhas a prominent In order tobe associatedwith onlypromotesthefilmsitproduces internationally. to which couldwin awards, itgivesminor financialincentives thesuccess of films their films Farabi distribute abroad.42 to have them to encourage thefilmmakers In spite of such promotions, apart from few exceptions discussed below, and notmoney, when filmmakers generallygain only prestige and recognition, of their filmsin Iran for films are shownabroad.They relyon theexhibition their financialreturns. ExhibitionofArt Films inIran MCIG. At the Before 1997 screeningschedules inTehranwere dictatedby the timea numberof thebettercinema halls in thecapitalwere assigned to art films among otherfilms. exhibitionthan Of particularimportance which receivedbetter most popular inTehran. Azadi was notonly ina cinemahallswas Azadi, one of the prime location, it also had up-to-datepicture and sound equipment as well as most cinema auditoriums have not been comfortable seating. In contrast, inyearsand their pictureand soundqualityare poor. SinceAzadi often refurbished of box office showed art films,it had a major impacton those films in terms a blow to artcinema Azadi burntdown, dealing takings.In 1997, in an accident, economically. Since 1997, the number of movie theatresallocated to art filmshas been reduced.Thus, being labelledmokhatab-e khass (for special audiences) by the set aside for these filmsare not in the theatres MCIG is a liability. Furthermore, Makhmalbaf told blow to artcinema. prime locations,and thishas been a further me in an interview:
Now that Azadi has burned down andAsr-e Jadid [anothercinema thatused to screen art
films] shows banal films, there is no cinema in Iran for you to show your films.43

Tehran thatshow art films, As forthefactthatit is now thecinemas indowntown most universities, insteadofAzadi andAsr-e Jadid,which were located close to he said:
of theuniversity todowntown Tehran That is like takinga book which is tobe sold in front and afterwardssay, 'look, thebook does not sellwell'. You should sell a medical book in front of the school of medicine. We have lost the cinema halls for art cinema.

of artfilms amountstoa new on screening me thatthelimitation Makhmalbaf told typeof censorshipin Iran.
42 According toAtebba'i, Farabi gives pocket money to the directors for their trips to festivals abroad (interview with the author). 43 s comment shows, he is focused on the cinema goers in Tehran, disregarding the rest of the As Makhmalbaf country. This is partly to do with the fact that often art films do not get much exposure in the rest of Iran. Even in Iran's second largest city,most art films are not screened in cinemas and are only available on video. Mashhad, Another factor is that owing to disorganization, it is difficult for filmmakers to retrieve the box office takings from outside the capital. See also n. 73 below.

385

S. ZEYDABADI-NEJAD

The labellingof films by the MCIG has notbeen consistent with how thefilms have been received internationally. For example, in spite of the international acclaim for Women's Prison (Hekmat 2002), itwas not labelled as mokhatab-e and was therefore released in a large number of cinemas.44The wide khass exposurehelped the filmtobecome a box officehit. Censorship ofArt Films Some of thefilmstheIranianauthorities have deemed unsuitableforexhibitionin Iranare popularwith International A compromise festivals. which has developed over theyears has been to censor these filmsforscreeningin Iranwhile giving with littleor no censorship. thema permit to be screenedoutside the country have been willing to allow censorshipof theirfilms, While some filmmakers in standoffs For example,when others have resisted, with theauthorities. resulting ofWomen's Prison,was facedwith thebanningof Manijeh Hekmat, thedirector her film,she allowed it to be censored in Iranwhile thecomplete versionwas overseas. screenedat festivals head of thecensorshipsectionof the Kasehsaz, former MCIG, who made the decision about thecensorshipofWomen's Prison, told me in an interview:
After I censored the film, [the conservative politicians] saw it,and said things like, 'you should have cutmore, if this filmis shown in Iran or abroad it is against the interests of the went abroad, [Iranian exiles] were saying this regime', etc. But I refused. When the film film isportrayingIranian prisons tobe much better than theyactually are. I just didmy job regardless of such claims.

Aware of how filmsare often interpreted by the Iranian exiled opposition, the is the main concern reactions inside thecountry, where only thecensored censors' versionof the filmis supposed to be seen.Nevertheless,uncensoredversionsof make itto thelocal video stores. For example, in2003 when Iwas many such films in Iran, while thecensored version ofWomen's Prison was being shown in the version in itsentirety was readilyavailable on video. cinemas, a subtitled In spiteof theadvantagesof compromising with thecensors, some filmmakers have resistedcensorshipaltogether. Panahi senthis films The Circle (2000) and without Crimson Gold (2003) to theVenice and Cannes festivalsrespectively, a permitfromthe MCIG. This was of course notwithout adverse consequences my discussion of Crimson Gold). At times filmmakers (See below for seeking international have had their films confiscated MCIG. For example, permits by the Toronto and otherfestivals Jalili's where ithad Abjad (2003) was withheld from alreadybeen advertised. The adventof digital filmmaking has contributed toa lessening of thecontrol of the MCIG' s censorship on filmmaking. The low cost of digital films has resultedin a highernumberbeingmade by young filmmakers, many of which takepart in festivals abroad.According toTahmasebi, the Centre for Research manager of the and Study ofCinema at the produced in MCIG, thesheernumberof digital films Iranposes a challenge forthecensors in terms ofmonitoring what is sentabroad. 'The MCIG just cannot enforcecensorship',he saidwith a smile on his face.
44 ('Hozur-e bayn al-melali-ye sinema-ye Iran dar sal-e 1381', p. 72) of the films exhibited According toAtebba'i outside Iran in 2002, Women's Prison ranked second with 28 international appearances while the first had 30 appearances. The film also won two awards.

386

IRANIANINTELLECTUALSAND CONTACTWITH THE WEST

IV. Art Cinema Filmmakers In the 1990s, filmsby Kiarostami andMakhmalbaf came to exemplifyIranian who followedhis style,generally cinema abroad.Kiarostami, andmany others with philosophical implications. or villagers, in stories about children made films Films byMohsen Makhmalbaf, however, generally remainedengagedwith the of the war, povertyand grim social realitiesof urban Iran,such as theaftermath gender inequality. The screeningof the filmsabroad was often accompanied by commentaries and Q and A sessions,which were translated in interviews fromthe filmmakers and published in Iran.On thoseoccasions,Makhmalbaf was outspoken in his of expression in his native country.In contrast, of the lack of freedom criticism Kiarostami tried to avoid contentious issues, as he had done in his films.For hewould oftenjustifyit,forexample censorship, thancriticizing example, rather he would make the same films.In one saying thatevenwithout such restrictions which gets make a film he explained, 'Iwill notbe proud and pleased to interview, and the socio-political banned. I have to use my knowledge of thegovernment blade. I don'twant thecut-uppieces ofmy situationtopass under thecensorship 45 film be takenout of a box years later'. ofKiarostami's avoidanceof a clashwith thecensorsis instance An often-quoted of the circumspect ending of his filmTaste of Cherry.The filmtells the story outskirts ofTehranand is looking Mr. Badi'i who has dug a graveby a dirtroadon the He approachesa when (and if)he commitssuicide. forsomeone toburyhim there none of whom agrees to do so. In theend,Baqeri, a middle-aged few strangers, Badi'i that he toohad decided tocommit but tells taxidermist, agrees tohis request, he had a tree, when he had goneup tohanghimselffrom suicideas a young man, but made himchangehismind.He of thefruit eatenamulberry and thesimplesweetness Badi'i askshim to of cherry. Badi'i of suchsimple pleasuressuchas thetaste reminds morning to thegrave,whereBadi'i will be lyingfromthenight go thefollowing make sure he isnot simply burying asleepbefore that before. He insists Baqeri should which is occasionally litup by Badi'i lies in thegraveundera sky him.That night Kiarostami. to scenes footage,including long shotsofBadi'i talking forthe criticized thefilmmaker film has critic, a well-known Hamid Reza Sadr, the film. While the end of the penultimate inclusionof handycam footage at man killinghimself,toSadr the with thegrimprospectof the sequence is imbued mood (i.e.what action appears to lightenthe added footageof behind-the-scenes you just saw was a filmafterall) making the ending ambiguous. In spite of Sadr believes that the scene was a Kiarostami's insistenceon the contrary, man commitssuicidewould have led to Because to suggestthatthe compromise. ban, given thestate's religiousview about suicide.46 perhaps a permanent Along the same lines, as mentioned earlier,Farahmand condemns 'political escapism' in Iraniancinema,claiming that,inorder tobe allowed togo to foreign have refrainedfrompolitically successful filmmakers festivals,internationally have in return According to her, the Iranian authorities contentious issues.47
45 S. 'Goftagui ba Abbas Kiarostami: hargez film-e siyasi nakhaham sakht', Mahnameh-ye Tabe'-Mohammadi, No. 245 (2000), p. 44. sinema'i-ye film, 46 sinema'i-ye film, No. 236 (1999), p. 13. Sadr, H. 'Hich herfeh'i mesl-e herfeh-ye namayesh nist',Mahnameh-ye 47 Farahmand, op. cit.

lightning. The

final sequence

of the film, shot on a handycam,

shows behind-the

387

S. ZEYDABADI-NEJAD

Farahmand' s argument facilitated thefilms'attendanceat festivals. echoes that of the earliermentioned claim by Sayyad,48who asserts that working under the in Iran compromises the filmmakers'integrity. restrictions While filmmaking toFarahmandand Sayyad's claim thatthefilm'sdo not (and thereis certaintruth in theIslamic republic,itis infactcannotpossibly) challenge thebasis of authority inaccurateto claim thattheart filmsare all apolitical. Farahmand ignores many filmsthat have been politicallyengaged, suchas those Milani and Panahi. Furthermore, ofMakhmalbaf, Bani-Etemad, pointingout the difficulties that Kiarostami beforeand aftersendinghis Taste ofCherry (1997) to Cannes Film Festival,Devictor demonstratesthattheconservativesin Iranhave not been particularly favourabletoKiarostami either.49 Rather than have become becoming apolitical,over theyears many filmmakers more engagedwith thepolitical situation. Kiarostami's 10 (2002), forexample, deals with a numberof contentiousissues todo withwomen's rights. 10 (2002), Recentmoves byKiarostami,such as the making of thecontroversial of his javanmardi,an Iranianideal type are takenas an indication denoting shojd 'at In or bravery and sekhavat or generosity.50 May 2000,Abbas Kiarostamiwas given achievement in the San FranciscoFilmFestival'sAkiraKurosawa award forlifetime called a veteran exiled Iranianactor, BehruzVosuqi, to the cinema.Kiarostami then at stageandhandedhim theaward to loudapplauseby theIranian expatriates present theceremony. To help revive Kiarostami said, 'thisis an award Vosuqi's career,51 forall theyearshe's worked in thecinema in Iran,and all theyearshe's awaited to thecinema'.52 Iraj And I look forward to his return work here in thiscountry. me that who is a friend ofKiarostami's, told toIran uponhis return Karimi, a director after the festival, Kiarostami noticed a change in theway he was treatedby his neighboursand some otherswho used to ignorehim previouslydespite his him with respect, fame.Now, theyall treated international praisinghim forhis gesture to an actorwho had acted as a javanmard inmany filmsbefore the of revolution. A renowned critic Ahmad Talebinejad told me that anotherinstance was that whereverhe was a festivaljudge he Kiarostami's sekhavator generosity won awards.53In 2003, when Kiarostami's 10 would make sure thatIranianfilms at a public event time he spokeout againstcensorship was banned inIran,forthefirst inTehran andwas applauded by theaudience,who were taken by surprise by the who previously justifiedcensorship.54 This showed his courage or filmmaker as Kiarostami's demonstration of javanmardi. shojd 'at.Such acts are interpreted Another courageous move byKiarostamiwas writingthescriptfor CrimsonGold Panahi. made by his controversial (2003), a banned film protegeJa'far his career Panahi too started about children, but hasmoved on to making films of lifeinurban Iran. His The Circle (2000) was about films about the harshrealities
48 49 Sayyad, op. cit. 'Classic Tools, Original Goals: Cinema and Public Policy in the Islamic Republic of Iran Devictor, A. in R. Tapper (ed.), The New Iranian Cinema: Politics, Representation and Identity (London: LB. (1979-97)',

Tauris, 2002), p.74. 50 in Iran, 4, pp. 6-7. Adelkhah, F. Being Modern 51 most acclaimed Iranian actor by the critics and among Iranian cinema goers, left Iran after Vosuqi, who was the the revolution and settled in theUSA. In spite of having been acknowledged for his talent internationally before the revolution, his career has not picked up outside Iran since his departure. 52 Avila, R. 'The Unvanquished' (2001) http://www.sfbg.com/AandE/sffilm/filma.html, accessed on 25.4.2005. 53 This, however, is not true. For example, in Cannes 2005 where he was the head of the jury for Camera d'Or, One Night (Karimi 2005), the only Iranian film in competition, did not win. 54 My interview with Hamed Sarrafzadeh, a film critic.

388

IRANIANINTELLECTUALSAND CONTACTWITH THEWEST

from prison.The women women on furlough theplightof a numberof underclass seem to be released froma smaller jail into a bigger one inwhich theyare attemptsto avoid going back to jail, the victimized. In spiteof their continually was bannedby the The film up at theend at a police station. women are all rounded MCIG.55 Panahi toldme thatbecause he was worried about The Circle being and hid themin andmutilated', hemade multiple copies of his film 'confiscated different places in Iran.Later he sent a copy of the filmabroad before seeking was already in MCIG. Knowing thata copy of Panahi's film permissionfromthe at thefestival. MCIG gave him a permitjustdays prior to itsscreening Venice, the MCIG is notwithout its withoutpermissionfromthe Sending filmsto festivals Panahi in Tehran threedays before the premiere of his risks. I interviewed permit' CrimsonGold (2003) atCannes. He was stillhoping foran 'international with the MCIG several timesa day MCIG and he said hewas incontact fromthe buthe TheMCIG had asked him tocut some sequencesout of thefilm, about that. of his career ifhe he was worried about the future me that Panahi told refused. when the Nevertheless, showed his filmatCannes without thenecessarypermit. permitdid not arrive,he still showed his filmat thefestival. likeKiarostami and Panahi The question toask here iswhy Iranianfilmmakers an his refusalto give in is setting have become more daring.Panahi claims that to follow,as well as making itpossible for example for theyoungerfilmmakers as he explained tome: themto continuefilming,
we know what positionwe are in. We are recognised When people likeme do these things, around theworld and so [the authorities] cannot pressure us too much. If something happens to us, itwill be reported everywhere and even here [in Iran].We have to risk off.Those who aremaking theirfirst pushing the limitsfor thosekids who are just starting mutilate theirfilms. filmsare forced todo whatever theyare told; theyallow thecensors to Ifwe do not standup to thecensors theconditionswill be worse for theyoung filmmakers. This would mean that this cinema would not continue; itwould be suppressed and end with the few people who make filmsnow. A cinema can survive if ithas new filmmakers andmakes new films. Ifwe don't resist, thepath will be blocked for thenew filmmakers and therefore in the eyes of the next generation we will be responsible. There is no otherway.

show in defianceof censorship is major Iranian filmmakers The confidencethe Since the enhancedby nothaving todepend on Iraniansources financially. further using have been involvedin co-productions, mid 1990s, some Iranianfilmmakers most cases, Canada and Italy.In funds from countriessuch as France,Switzerland, take 100 in a film,theforeigninvestors in return 50 percent investment fortheir of the countries and 50 in their returns of box office percent respective percent in Iranbelong ticket sales elsewhere in the world,while 100 percentof thereturns Such fundingis of course not easily available. to the filmmaker.56
toldme thathe banned the film because he feared that MCIG, Seyfollah Dad, the head of cinema section of the the already embattled Minister of itwould be used by the conservatives to launch another attack on Mohajerani, Culture and Islamic Guidance. Dad said that since he wanted tomake sure he was making the right decision in and about 30 reformistMPs. According toDad, apart from banning the film, he showed the film toMohajerani Behruz Afghani, who is also a filmmaker, everyone including Mohajerani agreed that the film should be censored or banned for political expediency. When he approached Panahi to agree to the censoring of his film, particularly a long sequence at the end of the film showing a prostitute, Panahi flatly declined. 56 an ex-Farabi These figures, which were confirmed by theMCIG's Tahmasebi, were provided by Atebba'i, official who has since worked on co-productions including Panahi's The Circle. 55

389

S. ZEYDABADI-NEJAD

Iran's best-knownfilmmakers, such asMakhmalbaf and Kiarostami, finance their own films and subsequently sell theinternational distribution toforeign rights companies for between 300,000 and 750,000 US dollars.57 Iranian films are screenedat arthouse cinemas across the world,with some films such as TheWhite Balloon and Kandahar doing well at the box office.58 As a result of this transnationalinvestmentin art cinema in Iran, some directorshave become independent of Iranian financialsupportand hence, to a degree, of thepolitical controlof theIslamicRepublic. Film-e Sefareshi (Film toOrder) andNationalism Aspiring to theheightsof top Iraniandirectors, many hopeful filmmakers have attemptedtomake filmsaimed at international festivals. This has led to a large number of films that emulate elements of Kiarostami's cinema. In Iran, disparaginglabels suchasfilm-esefareshi(Film to Order) have been used forsuch films. Some claim that at timesfestivals have 'ordered'a certaintype of filmtobe made in Iran.For example, the filmmaker Hatamikia told me:
Once when I was editing a film,a filmmaker [whose name he asked me to omit] was editing his documentary in the room next door. Then he took his documentary toCannes and he was told to go back and remake it as a mostianad-e dastani (literally narrative documentary). He came back, remade his film and took it to the festival to receive an award. Itworries me to see how a foreign festivaldecides what a filmmakershouldmake.

During the course of my research,others toldme storiesof festivalshaving influenced thetype of filmssome filmmakers made. However, it ishighlyunlikely thatfilms aremade toorderexactly in thefashion Hatamikia claims.Nevertheless, since some filmmakerssuch as Majid Majidi, who are respected even in
conservative

a filmmaker. usually takenas compromising I broughtup the issue of pandering to festivaltastes in my interview with the directorJa'farPanahi,who told me:
When I am making a filmno one matters tome, neither Iranians nor non-Iranians. I don't care what thepoliticians will say either. When you are not dependent on thegovernment, thenyou can say exactly what you want. I have one viewer and that ismy conscience.

circles,

have worked

with

foreign funding, such

funding

is not

Iranianfilmmaker, Shahbazi, another whose Deep Breath featured award-winning atCannes 2003, also denied that his films were solely aimed at festivals, arguing thatthey were meant primarilyforeducated Iranians:
There aremany things in Iranian films which are difficult to fathom for the non-Iranian viewer and are best understood by Iranians, particularly the better educated ones. For example, there is a scene inmy film where thegirl says to theboy thatshe likes classical and blues music and asks the boy about his favouritemusic. The boy simply answers, 'Dariush!'; end of conversation.59For us,Dariush's music means a lotof thingsbut for the non-Iranian that is just an unfamiliar name.
57 Estimates fromAtebba'i and confirmed by Tahmasebi. They did not have the exact figures, which they said would be kept secret by the filmmakers for taxation purposes. 58 Interviews with the directors Panahi and Makhmalbaf. 59Dariush is a very popular singer who migrated after the revolution to the USA where he has continued his

career.

390

IRANIANINTELLECTUALSAND CONTACTWITH THEWEST

Indeed, as Shahbazi suggests,there are a numberof elements in all such Iranian films more educated Iranians. which aremuch easier tounderstand forthe At the same time, thisdoes not diminish festivals' interestin Iranian films. Lack of on thepart of viewersmay be (mis-)interpreted as 'ambiguity in understanding art',whichmay increasea film'sappeal. Making films with festivalaudiences inmind is not exclusive to Iranian art cinema; it is common among filmmakers who want to transcend the limitedlocal market fortheir This has at timesled filmmakers product. to forgothepossibility of domesticpublic release by includingthemesand storiesthatthey know tobe I of highlyunlikely tobe shown in their country origin.60 Although do not have I do not any positive evidence of this practice among Iranian filmmakers, discount itspossibility. This is because filmmakers are aware of theextentof the blackmarket in Iran and know thattheirfilm will reach thedomestic market on bootleg videos and eventuallybe seen. Panahi andMakhmalbaf talked tome with obvious pleasure about how theirbanned filmshave been seen by many Iranians. The circulationof banned filmson illegal video CDs (orVCDs) defies state controland hence remainsoutside thechannelsof distribution controlled by the stateor commercial interests. These illegal videos,which are easily available in Iran for less thantheprice of a cinema ticket, vary inquality fromshaky images shoton handheldcameras toalmostperfect copies. There is considerabletolerance of theoftenlowpictureor soundqualityof the bootleg discs.VCDs can be played on basic PCs, which are quite common inurbanhouses in Iranand therefore this unregulated economyplays an important of films. part in thecirculation The unofficial blackmarket in VCDs is not regulated by thestateand of course does not benefit the filmmakerseither. Because filmmakers like Panahi, Makhmalbaf andKiarostami do not relyon thedomesticbox officereturns, they can affordto be less concerned about the reactionsof the Iranian censors and hence bemore daring in their films. These films do getdistributed in Iran thanks to theblackmarket. One of the allegations against these films is that theyshow 'backwardness, povertyand negative imagesof Iraniansociety'which conformto thestereotype of the country,and that is why they are popular at festivals.For example, speakingabout theban on The Circle, Pezeshk, thehead of cinema sectionof the MCIG (2001-2003), said he would not allow thescreening of thefilm because it 61Endorsing the same has 'such a completelydark and humiliating perspective'. Hatamikia told make a film judgment,thedirector me, 'when [these filmmakers] in cities, they have a verydark and negativeperspective like that of the [exiled] Hatamikia' s claim is rather because there opposition to theregime'. exaggerated, aremany award-winning films made in the cities, such as Children ofHeaven (Majidi 1997) and May Lady (Bani-Etemad 1997), that do not fit his descriptions. thedomestic reaction to these filmsshows that their makers are Furthermore,
60 Regarding post-Tiananmen era Chinese cinema see Lu, S. 'National Cinema, Cultural Critique, Transnational in S. Lu and Yeh, E. (eds.), Chinese-language Film: Historiography, Capital: The Films of Zhang Yimou', Poetics, Politics (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2004), p. 131. 61 Quoted inHeydarzadeh, A. 'Janjal-ha-ye namayesh-e film dar sal-e 80: nimeh-ye penhan-e bacheh-ha-ye bad e sinema-ye 1380', Mahnameh-ye sinema'i-ye film, No. 296 (2003) (sup, Bahman 1381), p. 75. Banning films on such an excuse is not unique to Iran. In China for example, Beijing Bicycle (Xioshuai 2001) was banned for portraying theChinese capital as a 'grey, dirty and disorderly place' (X. Lin, 'New Chinese cinema of the 'Sixth Generation' a distant cry of forsaken children', Third Text, 16(3) (2002), p. 261.

391

S. ZEYDABADI-NEJAD

attunedto Iranian tastesas well. Many of these films have also been considered important in Iran.For example, Iranian cinema guilds chose The Circle as the best filmat their annual award ceremony in 2001.62 When I asked Panahi about thealleged 'dark images' in his films, he said:
My latest filmCrimson Gold is filmed mainly in a penthouse, in an apartment tower in a posh suburbof Tehran.Why aren't [theauthorities] allowing this filmthen? Whenever the filmdoes not comply with what they want, they stick labels to it in order to push away those filmmakers who are independent and to create restrictionsfor their work.

This view is not however sharedby all. A director who asked not to be named explained:
Talking about Iranian problems abroad is like talking about your family problems to someone outside your family.As you would not discuss your family problems outside, you should not discuss your country's problems abroad either.

When I asked him aboutwhat sort were OK toshow in films, of social problems he responded, 'only those which we share withmodem societies'. s attitudeisconsistent The above filmmaker' with theIranian nationalist concern to appear modem. The Pahlavi regime's drive tomodernize Iran has left a sediment on themiddle class's collective common sense. In spite of the at reversalof culturaltrendssetunder thePahlavis, conservativeforces' attempt mission. The middle class thathas theyhave not had much success in their emergedunder theIslamic republicacknowledge theplace of an Iranian identity in the convergence point of three cultures: 'Islam, [pre-Islamic] Iran and modernity'.63 Modernity is no longerperceived as thealienating formof aping consumerist Western ways, which was rejected by intellectualsbefore the revolutionas gharbzadegi (West-struckness). Rather, it is understood as the adaptationof theprinciplesof democratic society as well as equal respect for 4 Western intellectualism. With theacceptability of Western ideas forthereformists and thepopularity of their or just throwing worldview, now theuse ofWestern terms, English words intoone's speech, is seen as a signof sophistication. While this would have been subject to ridicule in the1970s and the1980s, now theuse of English words has become normalized even on theconservativecontrollednationalTV, and italso happens in films. In addition, social changes such as theIslamizationof public post-revolutionary of authenticity incontrastto thecities. spaces,villages are no longertherepository unlike the1960s and the1970s, nowadays the urban lifestyle is taken Furthermore, for granted, with littlenostalgia for life in the villages. In this context, it is understandablethat middle class urban Iranians want toprojectamodern image to therestof the world. Self-consciousness as a result of 'negative' representationsby one's compatriotsis not unique to Iranians.Frommy own experienceof living in the
Because at the annual award ceremony at the Khaneh-ye Sinema (House of of pressure from theMCIG, Cinema) thewinner of the best film category was not announced. Panahi, who was present at the ceremony, had to wait until after the ceremony to receive his award (A. Heydarzadeh, op. cit., p. 75). 63 Sorush undated in F. Rajaee, Conflict and Compromise 1999. 'A Thermidor of "Islamic Yuppies"?: in Iran's Polities', Middle East Journal, 53(2), p. 224. See also M. Makhmalbaf, Zendegi rang ast, (Tehran: Nashr-e nay, 1997), p. 83. 64 and Modernity Irfani, S. 'New Discourses Sciences, 13(1) (1996), pp. 13-27. in Post-revolutionary Iran', The American Journal of Islamic Social

392

IRANIANINTELLECTUALSAND CONTACTWITH THEWEST

countrieshave indicated their West, a number of my friendsfromdifferent embarrassment because of the depiction of theircountriesor countrymenin Since there are few films comingoutof their films.65 countries, they worry thatthe films'representations might be takenas a true countries. depictionof life in their This is a concern that people from countries with a large filmexport market may not share, since unflattering portrayalsin some filmsare off-set by other films. Furthermore, unlike themore easily accessible parts of theworld, travel to countriessuch as Iran is, or is perceived to be, difficult, and hence people rely for information about them.This makes generally on media representations Iranians,both expatriates and those living in Iran, sensitive to such media representations. Aware of such sensitivities, thedirector Bahman Farmanaraexplained away the Water (2002) in the interview lack of international acclaim forhisHouse on the with a reformist newspaper by appealing to modernist national sentiments. He claimed that most of theIranianfilms whichwin awards abroad show Iranas a did notwin any awards sincewas about an affluent miserable place, and his film In an interview Iraniandoctor.66 withme, Farmanararepeatedthesame argument. I then asked him about the success of his previous film,Smell of Camphor, He said: Fragrance of Jasmine(2000) at Western festivals.
the reason was that that film is very intellectual since it discusses the issue of the restriction of artistic has a new kind of structure. work. Also the film There is an honesty in the main character as well thatyou sense on the screen.

Although Farmanara did not mention, his Smell of Camphor, Fragrance of was also about thelifeof awealthy Iranian. Jasmine he did not think Furthermore, itnecessary toexplainwhy 'theforeigners', i.e. Westerners,who are allegedly so interestedin our misery, are also interestedin our intellectuals. Obviously, Farmanara understandsthenationalistsentimentsin the countryand wishes to appeal to it. Anotherallegationagainstartcinema is that Iranianfilms are 'primitive instyle' and show Iran as 'an exotic other'which allegedly non-Iraniansenjoy to see. Hatamikia explains:
The problem is that the festivals force you to see things froma certain perspective. The Western person who is sick of technology and loves theprimitivewants me, theEastern work. Ifyou show them thecity, theysay, 'we don't want to see person, to create primitive that. What we want happens in thevillages'. They aremore comfortablewith thisversion of the orient.

to Hatamikia' s claim that an elementof exoticismhas Although thereis some truth helped the cinema's internationalexposure,67 the reasons for Hatamikia' s rejectionof thatsortof filmaremainly aesthetic. Hatamikia, likemany other mainstreamIraniandirectors, ofHollywood. aspires to thetechnicalsophistication
65 Some examples are Jam?n, Jam?n (Spain), And Your Mother Too (Mexico) and City of God (Brazil). With the first two films,my friends insisted that the portrayal of their countrymen was not typical of how things actually are in their respective countries. In the case of the thirdfilm, another friend toldme that such films reinforce Brazil's West as a violent society. already existing reputation in the 66 'Bahman-e Farmanara: "khaneh-i ruye ab tasviri az jame'eh-ra neshan mi-dahad'", No. 905 Anonymous, (2003), p. 12. 67 Laura Mulvey ('Afterword', inR. Tapper (ed.), The New Iranian Cinema, p. 257) agrees with this point adding that 'this exoticism was there for, say, a British audience encountering Antonioni or Godard in the 1960s, and is certainly not exclusive to "third cinema'".

393

S. ZEYDABADI-NEJAD

Unlike other internationally who spendmuch time at prominent filmmakers festivals, Hatamikia had not been exposed to filmsfromthe restof theworld are not theonly oneswhich do not conformto enough to realize thatIranianfilms Hollywood standards. hostile reactionsto theinternational Another reason for of Iranianart reputation films is that some filmmakers who are critically acclaimed in Iran have not attracted much international attention. isBahram Beyza'i.68 One such filmmaker A veteranof the 1960s New Wave, Beyza'i is partof the Writers' Guild whose members have often been persecuted by hardliner conservatives since the revolution. Between 1979 and 1997,Beyza'i filmmaking career was hamperedby but since 1997 therestrictions theconservatives, on him and otherpre-revolution filmmakers have been lifted and his films are popular,particularly among Iranian Ahmad Talebinejad, a prominentfilmcritic,told me in an interviewthat critics. Beyza'i's filmswere not popular at festivalsbecause they are about 'Iran's glorioushistoryand notmisery'. Farahmand claims thatthe Iranian regimehas prevented Beyza'i's eminence throughits contacts in festivals.69 However, there is evidence that some of are in factnotpopularwith thefestivalrepresentatives. A director Beyza'i's films who did not wish to be named toldme thatat the FIFF screeningsof both Beyza'i's filmsThe Travellers (1992) and Killing Rabids (2001) many of the festivals walked out of thehall afterthe first of international few representatives minutes of thescreenings. were not considered 'highart' so far Perhaps,his films as those were concerned. An Iraniancritic, Mohammad mainly European critics Kashi, suggests thatfilmsby Beyza'i andMehrju'i (anotherfilmmaker who is details about criticallyacclaimed in Iran),whose filmshave 'more interesting Iranian thoughtand civilisation', are not easy for non-Iranian audiences to comprehendbecause theydo not have any knowledge of 'the thoughtsand Iranian life-style'and thuscannot understandthese 'morecomplex films'. She 70 can easily understand 'thesimplerfilms'. suggests that, by contrast, foreigners Although I agree thatthereare some details inBeyza'i and Mehrju'i's filmsthat for are perhaps impenetrable Western audiences, the same applies to many films Mohammad-Kashi considers 'simple'.7 by Makhmalbaf or Kiarostami that in order to become prominentin theart cinema circuits,a certain Furthermore, degree of cinematic freshnessis requiredfor the filmtobe a 'discovery'and the Makhmalbaf and Panahi phenomenalprominenceofmany films by Kiarostami, has more to do with thisfactor. V. Audiences and Art Cinema Before 1997, two filmmakers who were successfulboth at thebox officeand on wereMakhmalbaf and Bani-Etemad.During theperiod, these thefestivalcircuit with social commentaries, twoconsistently made films which, as Tables 2 and 3 were also generallypopular at thebox office. (p. 397) below demonstrate,
68 to have been received well critically outside Iran has been Bashu, the The only post-revolution film by Beyza'i Little Stranger (1985). 69 Farahmand, 2002. 70 Mohammad-Kashi, p. 55. 71 One should note that among theworks of both Mehrju'i and Beyza'i there are films such as The Cow (Mehrju'i 1978) and Bashu, the Little Stranger (Beyza'i 1985) which 1969), Bernard (Mehrju'i 2002), The Crow (Beyza'i have been lauded in European film circuits. Both directors' works feature regularly at film events in theUSA.

394

IRANIAN

INTELLECTUALS

AND

CONTACT

WITH

THE WEST

internationally successful filmsby As Table 4 (p. 397) below demonstrates, Kiarostami and Panahi,which were shown in thesame period,did not do well at thebox officein Iran. prominencealone does not enticepeople These tablessuggestthatinternational experience,forany individualfilm in Iran to see thefilms. Frommy own fieldwork of most people eitherare unawareof theawards ithaswon abroad or do not think This is particularlythe case nowadays,when thenumberof thatas important. films is so large thatthe success of Iranian filmsat festivals is award-winning almost takenfor granted.In thelate1980s and theearly1990swhen I lived in Iran, a such success was still a novelty.Even then,as the tables above demonstrate, film's international acclaim did not necessarilycause people to flockto see it. In of Table 4, those inTables 2 and 3 which contrastto thegenerallyapolitical films did betterin Iran. were socially engaged films In recent many art years, thanksto theaformentioned bootlegVCD economy, films which have eitherbeen censored or banned are widely cirtulatingin the suchas The Circle (Panahi2000), 10 (Kiarostami2002) and Banned films country. theuncensoredversionofWomen's Prison (Hekmat2002) are readilyavailable in Iran.While the bootleg economy rendersgovernmentcontrol ineffective,it audience access to films. facilitates VI. Conclusion to theoutsideworld as in Instancesof self-representation by Iranian intellectuals been entangled in the discourses of the case of Iranian filmshave inevitably has been considerableself-conscious reactionto the Since the1990s there identity. prominenceof Iranianfilms.Iraniansdo notwish tobe seen as 'the international which standincontrast with other' to the West. These reactions, modern primitive can partlybe attributed to social change since theperiod before the revolution, of a modern aspect to the revolutionand to the reformists' acknowledgement Iranian contemporary identity. festivalprominencepresentsan As thecase of Iraniancinema demonstrates, who were opportunityfor political engagement. Some Iranian filmmakers previously lesswilling to engagewith Iranian social issues have become bolder An example par excellence isAbbas in theirfilmsand their public statements. aboutchildren, who has gone from Kiarostami, making politicallyinnocuousfilms of 10 (2002). suchasWhere is the Friend'sHouse?, to the outspokensocial critique While theopeningof thepolitical atmospheresince 1997 has played a part in this aswell as thefilmmakers' profile funding risinginternational change, transnational As thefilmmakers have become globallyprominent, have been instrumental. they which matters to Iranian have been able to engage in social/politicalcriticism audiences. in the with social realities in Iran situates filmmakers Critical engagement 'national' space. Although an 'imagined reality', 'the nation' is particularly because as Anderson puts it, it is 'themost universally legitimate important at the value in thepolitical lifeof our time'.72 Arguing for political commitment
72 Anderson, 1983), p. 3. B. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread ofNationalism (London: Verso,

395

S. ZEYDABADI-NEJAD

national level, Fanon suggests thatnot to do so and instead to identify with -)73 cosmopolitan humanism is 'intellectual laziness' and 'spiritual penury'. Although I do not believe that itwould be justified to expect filmmakers to limittheir creativity to thenational space, it is certainlytruethatin making films which only appeal to thehumanistvalues of thecosmopolitanelite, filmmakers drift apartfromseriouspolitics at thenational level.At thesame time, many films which have critically of urban Iranhave attracted engagedwith thesocial realities Iraniancinema-goers to themselves while they have also been successfulat the international filmfestivalcircuits. Undoubtedly, thephenomenonal international prominencehas contributedto raising theprofileof Iraniancinema inside the country. Cinema has become a of particularsignificance aroundwhich theboundaries social/politicalinstitution of culturalidentity are negotiated.
Table 1. The International Appearance of IranianCinema inFigures74 YEAR IRANIAN (GREGORIAN) 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 (-1979) (- 1980) (-1981) (-1982) (--1983) (--1984) (--1985) (- 1986) (--1987) (- 1988) (--1989) (--1990) (--1991) (-1992) (--1993) (--1994) (--1995) (--1996) (--1997) (--1998) (--1999) (-2000) (-2001) (-2002) (--2003) NUMBER OF PRESENCES 38 43 65 36 43 30 51 52 47 94 174 540 390 313 519 514 753 687 766 749 770 1155 1184 1462 1769 NUMBER OF AWARDS 3 2 9 1 3 3 4 2 5 19 22 27 23 40 21 43 27 49 70 74 114 123 110 103 NUMBER OF IRANIAN JURYMEMBERS AT FESTIVALS

1 1 2 1 5 4 12 7 9 13 15 30 24 31 35

73 74

bonyad-e sinema'i-ye farabi, 2004), p. 337, and M. Atebba'i, 'Negahi be hozur-ha-ye bayn al-melali-ye sinema ye Iran', Mahnameh-ye sinema'i-ye film, No. 328 (2005), pp. 67-68. Figures for the years after 2003 were not available at the time of writing this article.

Fanon, F. The Wretched of theEarth, translated by C. Farrington (London: Penguin, 2001 [1963]), p.149, 200. Figures fromM. Atebba'i, 25 sal sinema-ye Iran: javayez va hozur-e bayn al-melali (Tehran: Entesharat-e

396

IRANIANINTELLECTUALSAND CONTACTWITH THEWEST Table 2.Mohsen Makhmalbaf's Films Released between 1989 and 199775 FILM The Cyclist Blessed Marriage of the Once upon a Time Cinema TheActor Salam Cinema Gabbeh YEAR OF RELEASE 1989 1989 1992 1993 1995 1996 BOX OFFICE RANKING IN THE YEAR OF RELEASE IN TEHRAN76 5 8 7 1 3 5

Table 3. Rakhshan Bani-Etemad's Films between 1989 and 199777 FILM Canary Yellow ForeignMoney Narges The Blue Veiled YEAR OF RELEASE 1989 1990 1992 1995 BOX OFFICE RANKING IN THE YEAR OF RELEASE IN TEHRAN 9 30 9 2

Table 4. Abbas Kiarostami and Panahi's Films Released between 1989 and 199778 YEAR OF RELEASE 1989 1990 1990 1992 1994 1995 BOX OFFICE RANKING IN THE YEAR OF RELEASE IN TEHRAN 30 31 45 41 21 34

FILM Friend's House? Where is the Homework Close-up Life and NothingMore Olive Trees Under the TheWhite Balloon

FILMMAKER Kiarostami Kiarostami Kiarostami Kiarostami Kiarostami Panahi

Filmography
And Your Mother Bashu,
75

Abjad (Abolfazl Jalili,2003, Iran/France)

Tool Y tumam? the Little Stranger IBashu,

1988, Iran)

tambi?n (Alfonso Cuaron, 2001, Mexico) Kuchak (Bahrain Beyza'i, Gharibeh-ye

tarikh-e sinema-ye Iran: Tir-e 1279- shahrivar-e 1379 (Tehran: Nashr-e Qatreh, Javedani, H. Sal-shomar-e 2002), pp. 204-268. 76 While less than 20 percent of the population live in Tehran, ticket sales in Tehran account for almost half the MCIG's national box office receipts. In addition, the plans for the development of cinema have been based almost MCIG, entirely on Tehran at the expense of the rest of the country. Dad, the former head of cinema section of the tried to address this issue, but had little success according to himself. Tahmasebi says thatnow othermajor urban Isfahan and Shiraz, are taken into account to a degree. The screening of the FIFF films centres, such as Mashhad, is taking steps to implement such a MCIG in these cities at the same time as Tehran since 2004 is a sign that the

change. 77 success at the box office has continued after 1997 and has been Bani-Etemad's Javedani, op. cit., 204-258 aided by the fact that some of her films such as Under the Skin of the City (2001) have received wider release in Iran as mokh?\ab-e '?mm films in spite of their international acclaim. 78 Javedani, op. cit., 195-259.

397

S. ZEYDABADI-NEJAD

Bemani

Beijing Bicycle/Shiqisui de dan che (Xioshuai Wang, 2001, Taiwan/China)

(Dariush Mehrju'i, the Mirror, 2002, Iran) ThelKhest-va

Brick and Children Circle,

Bowlingfor Colombine (MichaelMoore, 2002, USA)

aseman (Majid Majidi, 1997, Iran) ofHeaven/Bachehha-ye (Ja'far Panahi, 2000, Iran/Switzerland/Italy) The/Dayereh Ayeneh (Ebrahim Golestan, 1965, Iran)

Jam?n, Jam?n (Bigas Luna, 1992, Spain) the Legend of Omar Khayam, The (Kayvan Mashayekh, 2005, USA). Keeper: Koshi (Bahrain Beyza'i, 2001, Iran/France) Killing RabidslSag khuban (Mohsen Makhmalbaf, 1989, Iran) Marriage of the BlessedlArusi-ye ordibehesht (Rakhshan Bani-Etemad, 1997, Iran) May LadylBanu-ye Mrs Ahou's Husband/Shohar-e Ahu Khanum 1968, Iran), (Davud Mollapur,

Crimson GoldlTala-ye sorkh (Ja'far Panahi, 2003, Iran) Crow, ThelKalagh 1978, Iran) (Bahrain Beyza'i, is Black, ThelKhaneh Siah Ast (Farough Farrokhzad, House on theWater/Khaneh'i House ru-ye ab (Bahman Farmanara,

City of GodlCidade de Deus Brazil/France/USA)

Meirelles and Katia Lund, 2002, (Fernando

1963, Iran) 2002, Iran)

Hunchback/Shab-equzi (Farrokh Ghaffari, 1964, Iran) Night of the Panahi 2006, Iran) Offside!Afsaid(Ja'far Rabbit Proof Fence (Phillip Noyce, 2002, Australia)
Qeysar (Mas'ud Kimia'i, 1969, Iran)

Runner, The/Davandeh 1985, Iran) (Amir Naderi, Simple Event, A/Yek Ettefaq-e Sadeh (Sohrab Shahid Saless, 1973, Iran) Smell of Camphor, Fragrance of Jasminelbu-ye kafur atr-e yas (Bahman Farmanara, 2000, Iran) Son, ThelLe Fils (Jean-Pierre Dardenne, 2002, Belgium/France) Taste of CherryITaym-e Gilas (Abbas Kiarostami, 1997, Iran/France)

The Cow (Mehrju'i 1969)

Travellers, The/Mosaferan 1992, Iran) (Bahrain Beyza'i, Where Is the Friend's House?IKhaneh-ye dust kojast? (Abbas 1987, Iran) Women's Prison/Zedan-e zanan (Manijeh Hekmat, 2001, Iran)

Kiarostami,

398