*some potential spoilers below*
This film raised a lot of questions for me...including
Where was this filmed? It seems in Iran for much of it.
Why does Nargess not board the bus at once? Would she still have been subject to the official search that we see from above later? When she purchased that shirt was that to tie her back to the "flirtation" with the man who earlier was seen decorating the wedding car?
Are Iranian doors really so narrow? I'm specifically referring to Pari's house, also was it obvious to other viewers that the men that stormed that place after Nargess visits were Pari's brothers??
Was that orange soda an Iranian product placement?
Okay, that last question is not in earnest. I'll take the scourge of crass commercialization over invisible imprisonment (but it would be estimable to avoid both as a society ultimately.)
However my first question stands. For this film to be made (partially?) in Iran suggests to me a less draconian presence of persecution. Did the actresses (and non-actresses) all have proper ID cards and clearance themselves? Are the various inquisitors too busy stopping women, to peruse the dailies?
I have no desire to defend a country wherein clerics get to decide who can and cannot run for office. But in another film, I would almost like to see some attempt to show complex characters who do defend the need for ID cards and chaperones and women living in the shadows of their chadors.
When I interview Firoozeh Dumas regarding her universally enjoyable book "Funny in Farsi" I made the mistake of thinking that returning to Iran was prohibitive for her and her Iranian-American family. She corrected me on that. And I recall Western attitudes about Russia in the 1980's that proved to be misguided (or perhaps very truly guided towards misinformation.)
While I had questions, I do think director Panahi is one who invites open questions to this film. His avoidance of back histories to the women featured here helps us to feel as if we are on the lam with them. The hand-held camera (its shakiness on the large screen I think would pose some trouble for folks like my wife) also helped the audience to share the worried nature of the characters.
The approach to this film struck me as the approach of an auteur. Thus, this film is more likely to stand aside Eisenstein than Weinstein...more likely to be shown at the Pacific Film Archives than the "arty, upscale" multiplex. I do think this will prove to be a favorite in classrooms, I get the feeling that Panahi achieved a lot with very little to start with.
Women are often shot behind bars, cleverly so. At a cinema ticket booth, through a hospital window screen, outside by a gate. The film starts with a woman screaming in agony, and I did not know *right* away that it was a woman giving birth. It did become clear pretty quickly, but as I reflect back it could be that the pain for women is not just confined to labor. The camera travels like a virus from one woman, one story, at a time. As one other reviewer mentioned this reminded me of "Slacker" (I've not seen "La Ronde.")
I referred to the chadors above, while I still don't know a chador from a burkha...there seemed to be different ones worn by different women throughout. I suspect some sort of significance. The all-white one of Elham really stood out for me.
The contrast of that, and her apparent success in getting out of the societal prison she was stuck in versus the strife her circle of sisters still must endure was stark. As stark as the white versus black garments, as stark as the wedding procession that runs blithely through the film and as stark as the footage provided here.
I'm glad I saw this...and suspect you will be as well. I look forward to watching more of Panahi's films and hope there will be more artistic exchanges between the U.S. and Iran. Indeed the film I probably want to see, would be the one that *both* governments would like to ban. Has our Attorney General Ashcroft seen any Iranian films that disturbed him recently??
7/10
This film raised a lot of questions for me...including
Where was this filmed? It seems in Iran for much of it.
Why does Nargess not board the bus at once? Would she still have been subject to the official search that we see from above later? When she purchased that shirt was that to tie her back to the "flirtation" with the man who earlier was seen decorating the wedding car?
Are Iranian doors really so narrow? I'm specifically referring to Pari's house, also was it obvious to other viewers that the men that stormed that place after Nargess visits were Pari's brothers??
Was that orange soda an Iranian product placement?
Okay, that last question is not in earnest. I'll take the scourge of crass commercialization over invisible imprisonment (but it would be estimable to avoid both as a society ultimately.)
However my first question stands. For this film to be made (partially?) in Iran suggests to me a less draconian presence of persecution. Did the actresses (and non-actresses) all have proper ID cards and clearance themselves? Are the various inquisitors too busy stopping women, to peruse the dailies?
I have no desire to defend a country wherein clerics get to decide who can and cannot run for office. But in another film, I would almost like to see some attempt to show complex characters who do defend the need for ID cards and chaperones and women living in the shadows of their chadors.
When I interview Firoozeh Dumas regarding her universally enjoyable book "Funny in Farsi" I made the mistake of thinking that returning to Iran was prohibitive for her and her Iranian-American family. She corrected me on that. And I recall Western attitudes about Russia in the 1980's that proved to be misguided (or perhaps very truly guided towards misinformation.)
While I had questions, I do think director Panahi is one who invites open questions to this film. His avoidance of back histories to the women featured here helps us to feel as if we are on the lam with them. The hand-held camera (its shakiness on the large screen I think would pose some trouble for folks like my wife) also helped the audience to share the worried nature of the characters.
The approach to this film struck me as the approach of an auteur. Thus, this film is more likely to stand aside Eisenstein than Weinstein...more likely to be shown at the Pacific Film Archives than the "arty, upscale" multiplex. I do think this will prove to be a favorite in classrooms, I get the feeling that Panahi achieved a lot with very little to start with.
Women are often shot behind bars, cleverly so. At a cinema ticket booth, through a hospital window screen, outside by a gate. The film starts with a woman screaming in agony, and I did not know *right* away that it was a woman giving birth. It did become clear pretty quickly, but as I reflect back it could be that the pain for women is not just confined to labor. The camera travels like a virus from one woman, one story, at a time. As one other reviewer mentioned this reminded me of "Slacker" (I've not seen "La Ronde.")
I referred to the chadors above, while I still don't know a chador from a burkha...there seemed to be different ones worn by different women throughout. I suspect some sort of significance. The all-white one of Elham really stood out for me.
The contrast of that, and her apparent success in getting out of the societal prison she was stuck in versus the strife her circle of sisters still must endure was stark. As stark as the white versus black garments, as stark as the wedding procession that runs blithely through the film and as stark as the footage provided here.
I'm glad I saw this...and suspect you will be as well. I look forward to watching more of Panahi's films and hope there will be more artistic exchanges between the U.S. and Iran. Indeed the film I probably want to see, would be the one that *both* governments would like to ban. Has our Attorney General Ashcroft seen any Iranian films that disturbed him recently??
7/10