Movie: Border Café — Café Transit (2005)

Reyhan ran a café with her husband in the northern part of Iran near the Turkish national border that served truck drivers crossing the national border. After the death of Reyhan’s husband, her brother-in-law Nasser, in accordance with this area’s custom of the widow marrying her husband’s brother, tells Reyhan to move into his house. Reyhan refuses to move into the addition to Nasser’s house he has prepared for her, and instead decides to reopen the café with her husband’s employee, Oujan. Reyhan’s café becomes popular for its delicious food with the foreign truckers that cross back and forth over the national border, and truckers line up to be served food.

A Greek driver Zakario and Reyhan grow fond of each other, and Reyhan shelters Svieta, a Russian girl whose family was murdered in the Russian Civil War; eventually, Nasser resorts to legal means to close down the café in fear that, by allowing a woman work, his family name will be damaged. In addition, Zakario is hurt by a man sent by Nasser. The movie ends with Reyhan closing her café, and we don’t know what happens to her after that, but she certainly doesn’t live under the same roof as Nasser, and she doesn’t accept Zakario’s love. At the movie’s end, Nasser sadly mutters, “Why does Reyhan hate me? I just want to protect her,” and it is suggested that Reyhan’s fate was never what Nasser wanted.

Every year for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, a governmental organization of each country can recommend only one piece from their country to be considered for nomination. For example, in Japan, the non-profit organization, Motion Picture Producers Association of Japan—under the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry—selects one movie to represent Japan. When considering the political situation of Iran after the Islamic Revolution, I am impressed with the freedom to make movies like this one that bring up social issues in Iran, and moreover, the government endorsed this movie by entering it into the competition for the Best Foreign Language Academy Award.

However, if you look carefully, this movie is not criticizing the government. From the outside, we tend to see all problems as being the fault of that country’s government, but the core of this movie is the struggle of a strong, independent-minded woman fighting against tradition and the difficulty of being economically independent. There may be no reason for a government to ban a movie that brings up such a social issue. Because this particular custom is depicted as being unique to this local area, there is nothing that damages the Iranian government. To put simply, making a movie like this is possible as long as it doesn’t criticize the Iranian government or doesn’t depict information that shouldn’t be revealed. Nasser never treats Reyhan cruelly, and he is simply trying to take care of Reyhan with good intentions, so he doesn’t understand why Reyhan doesn’t accept his good will. Regarding the financing of movies, there seem to be many companies that are willing to invest in the making of movies that depict the current life in Iran, which is a country that is known for its very interesting and sophisticated culture. In fact, this movie is a collaboration between Iran and France.

Another thing that mustn’t be overlooked in this movie is the “refugees issue.” When Reyhan accepts the young woman who is a refugee from Russia, she states that she herself is a refugee. Where did she escape from?

It is said that throughout a long chaotic period—from the invasion of Afghanistan by the former Soviet Union in ’79, to the Gulf War, to the Iraq War—as many as 4,500,000 refugees from neighboring countries to the east and the west flowed into Iran. Many of these were Afghan refugees, but there were also refugees from Iraq. Depending on where they lived, Afghan refugees escaped to either Pakistan or Iran, but most Afghan refugees that settled in Iran had lived east or south of Tehran. Guessing based on the location of this movie, it is most likely that Reyhan is a refugee from Iraq.

It isn’t clearly stated where the Russian woman came from, but it is very likely she is a refugee escaping from the civil war that occurred from 1992 to 1997 after the Republic of Tajikistan gained independence from Russia in 1991. People from Tajikistan speak Russian as well as a language close to Persian. In this movie, Reyhan is not able to converse with Svieta, but the café employee Oujan understands Svieta’s language, and acts as a translator for Reyhan. In the Republic of Tajikistan, the majority is Tajik, but there are also Russians. It is said that most Russians left due to the civil war.

While at this café, drivers are able to communicate with each other without much difficulty, even though they are from various places including Turkey (Turkey maintains fairly good relations with Iran), Hungary (there seem to be many people from Hungary that work away from home in Turkey), and Greece (Greece is Turkey’s neighbor, and their culture is very similar). Watching this movie, I felt the robustness of Iranians (and neighboring ethnicities) who can utilize their communication skills to live in the junction between the east and the west—which is very different than Japan, an island where most people can only speak Japanese.

日本語→

Movie: Persepolis (2007)

This movie is about being a “young adult.” This is the period when people start thinking of themselves no longer as children, but aren’t yet recognized as adults by those around them; it is the period of their ego sprouting, selecting their life course, interest in the other gender, and conflict with grownups or the establishment. Similar to puberty, the period of young adulthood often includes behaviors such as becoming uncontrollable after leaving the supervision of their parents or acting without restraint in regards to violence or suicide, by obsessing over the opposite sex or drugs, or running away from home.

Persepolis is the film adaptation of the autobiographical graphic novel that depicts the period of young adulthood of Iranian graphic novelist Marjane Satrapi. Becoming an adult is quite difficult, but because her time of growth coincided completely with the Islamic Revolution of Iran, the Iran-Iraq War, and the subsequent cultural oppression, Persepolis is tinged with a considerable political flavor, though Marjane Satrapi is not a political person. She herself said this interesting comment: “I am not interested in politics. Politics is interested in ME!”

Marjane Satrapi was born in Tehran, Iran in 1969. She is the great grandchild of Ahmad Shah, the last shah of the former Qajar dynasty. Her grandfather and uncle were imprisoned for opposing the policies of Pahlavi Shah who succeeded Ahmad Shah. Her father also possessed progressive thoughts and he spearheaded a resistance movement with the majority of the nation against Pahlavi Shah who suppressed freedom. The joy of Pahlavi Shah fleeing the country in January of 1979 was short-lived; in April, Iran established the Islamic Republic based on a national referendum, Grand Ayatollah Khomeini took power, and oppression in Iran worsened beyond that under Pahlavi Shah’s reign. In addition, their neighbor Iraq, having had disputes at the national border for many years and fearing the influence of the Iranian Revolution, invaded Iran and the Iran-Iraq War began in 1980. Rumors of young soldiers being put in the frontline of the battlefield as a “bullet shield” circulated and many parents who had sons of drafting age fled the country.

In 1983, Marjane Satrapi’s parents arranged for her to move to Austria’s capital Vienna by herself to study abroad. It was not to avoid the war, but rather her parents feared their daughter might become a victim of legal rape; the minimum age for women to get married was reduced to 9 years old in the new Muslim regime and any sexual abuse after a young girl was forced to marry would no longer be considered a crime. However, she was not able to adapt to life in Austria. In those days, the international image of Iranians was a cruel savage, and she wondered if others saw her this way. In addition, she struggled with how her looks and body were different than European girls at an age when she was self-conscious about her appearance; she lived a depraved life without the supervision of her parents, fought with the people providing her housing, and, in the end, slept in the streets without a house to live in and spent her days digging through dumpsters. Suffering from pneumonia and homesick from such a lifestyle, she finally returned to Iran.

After returning home, she became depressed and she almost died from overdosing on drugs. However, with the encouraging words of her family–“Study at a university and become an independent woman”—she entered university. After the failure of a brief marriage with a young Iranian man, the movie ends with her moving to France in 1994 at the suggestion of her parents—“You can’t live your potential in present-day Iran.”

Her uncle was executed under the Islamic Republic alongside other liberals and socialists. A friend that went to war returned without limbs. A friend who lived next door was hit by a missile from Iraq and died. Parties were illegal under the Islamic Republic, but she dared to participate and a friend was chased by the police and died. She was arrested for behavior unsuitable for an Islamic woman and was told, “A fine or a beating?”; she was released after paying a large sum of money. The university she entered with high expectations was governed by Islamic principle, so she had no joy. She had thought Pahlavi Shah was a bad person, but his regime imprisoned her uncle while the regime of the Muslim Khomeini executed her uncle. Nothing in society had improved.

Even though this movie depicts her terrible youth, it does not lose its peculiar cheerfulness. One reason for its cheerfulness is that it is animated and not performed by real actors. Her drawings render a strange, humorous style. However, the brightness flowing through the bottom of this movie will come from the love of family. Marjane Satrapi’s parents were progressive people, but unlike her grandfather and uncle that were executed, they acquired worldly wisdom in order to find a way to survive under political and religious oppression. However, at the same time, they taught their daughter to do the right thing in life, to skillfully find happiness, and to believe in and pursue her own talents. They made up their minds to protect their child from danger by any means and unconditionally forgave and supported her completely if she made a mistake because of immaturity.

With the genuine support from her parents and grandmother, Marjane Satrapi grew up to be a real adult. She was a child who had strong curiosity, was outspoken with her thoughts—which made people around her worry—and became depressed from her difficulties to the point where she may not have been able to recover; but she was also surprisingly acute enough to see opportunities and was able to size up her surroundings with a watchful eye in order to survive. As soon as she was determined to not lose sleep over what was already past, she became a strong person who was amazingly able to live facing forward. Though she was a loser in Austria, she blossomed in a big way in France. Was there a difference in Austria and France? Or is the reason that she became a real adult in France?

日本語→

Movie: A Separation (2011)

After watching this movie, I was left speechless with a heavy feeling in my stomach. This kind of feeling doesn’t happen often.

This movie begins with the divorce trial of a middleclass Iranian couple. The wife Simin, thinking about the future prospects of her 11-year-old Termeh, wishes to leave the country after finally getting a visa with great difficulty. However, the husband Nader can’t leave his father who has Alzheimer’s behind, so the couple decides to file for a divorce. The couple fights over who gets custody of their daughter and during this time, Simin returns to her parents’ home.

Simin hires her friend’s little sister Razieh, a working-class woman, as a helper, but Razieh ties Nader’s father to his bed and goes out. When Nader discovers his father, he is enraged and forcibly throws Razieh out of his house. Later that night, he finds out that Razieh has a miscarriage. Hodjat—Razieh’s husband who was released from prison, has a short temper, and is violent—accuses Nader of murder and threatens Nader’s family and the female teacher who testifies for Nader in court.

Two stories are developed throughout this movie—one between Simin and Nader fighting over custody in the divorce courtroom, and the other between two couples of different social class and religious intensity. This movie has a splendid story and you can’t even take a short break as the suspense captures you from the beginning until the end. To say it briefly, this story is one that could happen to anybody, but the mystery solving component is very well made. While Turkish director Nuri Bilge Ceylan has perfect cinematography, experienced Iranian movie screenwriter Asghar Farhadi is a perfect storyteller. However, the true splendor of this movie is the profound message hidden in the plot.

Asghar Farhadi’s style, in short, places a certain amount of trust in the audience. A lot of Hollywood movies have an obvious “good guy” and “bad guy” and the plot just ends with a happy ending. The director here doesn’t spoon-feed the viewer exactly what to think in this movie. It is unclear to the viewer whether Nader settles out of court with Hodjat or is sent to prison, or what truly caused the miscarriage. The choice of parental authority comes down to Termeh, but we don’t know what she chooses. Also, we aren’t given the whole explanation of whether Razieh truly tried to steal Nader’s money, why Razieh ties down Nader’s father, who opened Nader’s father’s oxygen tank to a dangerous level, or the region Simin is trying to emigrate to. The director’s design is not to give explanations to these matters, but rather to leave it up to the viewer’s interpretation.

Asghar Farhadi answered in an interview, “A doctor has determined that one of his patients has one month left to live. An Iranian doctor would not tell the patient he is going to die and will tell the truth only to the relatives of the patient. However, a Swedish doctor will tell the patient honestly that they have one month to live to help them prepare mentally. You cannot say which doctor is right. The important thing is that you as a patient can choose which doctor to have.” He wishes for the audience to feel something by telling a story where any possible conclusion is valid. He doesn’t care if viewers reach a different conclusion than one he had envisioned. Each viewer thinks and feels with their own heart.

But what is the message he wishes to convey within the plot? I believe that he wishes to criticize how society confines women in the name of Islamic fundamentalism. Razieh is a very religious woman. When she discovers that Nader’s father is incontinent, she calls a religious authority to see if she is allowed to touch and clean the body of this old man. The movie didn’t tell how the authority answered. Perhaps the authority said no, but Razieh couldn’t leave the man as he was. Razieh’s child who is 4 years old reassures her mother, “It’s okay. I won’t tell daddy.” Razieh claimed that Nader caused the miscarriage even though she does not know 100% whether it was his fault because she fears being beaten to death by her husband. However, in the end, she tells the truth even though it could put her own life in danger because she feared that if she accepted the large amount of money from Nader to settle, God would punish her daughter for her lie. Simin also fears that her own daughter will die in obscurity in Iran so she wishes to get out of Iran, even if that means leaving behind all her assets. This movie depicts the difficult decision a mother with a girl must make. Asghar Farhadi’s daughter plays Termeh, Nader and Simin’s daughter, in this movie. This young girl won Best Actress in the Berlin Film Festival. Asghar Farhadi also wishes for the best for his daughter’s future, but I think he is not 100% sure that is possible within the current system of Iran.

People in the movie industry that criticize the present regime of Iran must take refuge outside of Iran or could end up in prison. Asghar Farhadi had in the past advocated for an artist who, with the Green Movement, opposed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s reelection in the 2009 presidential election, and Farhadi was temporarily banned from making movies. After that, he was determined to stay within the country and make movies, but has succeeded in making movies while evading government oppression. First of all, he does not explicitly criticize religion and the characters do not physically touch each other. The criticism of the system is implied through the protagonist Simin, who is depicted as a slightly selfish woman of the intellectual rank. “I do not want to raise my child in this environment!” she states boldly in front of the judge, but it is left to the interpretation of the audience whether the environment means with her stubborn husband or within Iran’s society. It is then lamented and murmured over and over again, “If Simin hadn’t the ambition to emigrate, such a case wouldn’t have happened.” However, in this movie, Simin and Razieh are two young mothers who act for their child. Simin is very intelligent and puts others’ happiness before hers, sacrificing herself as many women do. Even while Nader’s father is suffering from dementia, there is a scene where he still remembers Simin’s kindness.

This movie was nominated for and won Best Foreign Film in the 84th Academy Awards, winning over the other nominations including Footnote, a film from Israel. The people of Iran were very excited for their victory over their longtime enemy Israel. This award will make it easier for Asghar Farhadi to make movies within the system of Iran, but I hope he doesn’t become too arrogant from this award. From the splendid speech that he gave when he won his Oscar, though, I do not believe that he is this kind of person.

日本語→