Niloufar Beydai, a playwright and theater director, was born in Tehran on January 15, 1967. In 1985, she was forced to leave the country and moved to Germany. She studied German literature, theater, cinema, and television, and education in this country. After completing her studies in 1994, she founded the theater group “Darycheh” in Frankfurt and has since had about two hundred performances in various cities in Germany and around the world.

The theme of most of Niloufar’s performances is identity seeking, the confinement of women, exile, abandonment between two cultures, and marginalized individuals. Except for two plays in German, all of her works are in Persian.

In addition to theater and cinema, political, social, and women’s issues are also among the favorite topics of Ms. Beizaei, whom she researches and writes about.

The subject of this special issue of Khat-e-Solh became an excuse to have a conversation with this artist in exile about Iranian cinema and the role of women in it.

Considering the position of Iranian cinema in the world, how successful can this cinema be considered? Apart from other factors, in your opinion, how much can the issue of women’s situation, including the issue of hijab and creating non-realistic spaces, especially in relationships between couples or families, be considered a serious factor in the lack of success of Iranian cinema?

It depends on what criteria we consider for a work to be successful. If winning awards is a criterion, then it must be said that Iranian cinema, from an outside perspective, has been successful after the Islamic Revolution. It could be said that Abbas Kiarostami opened the way with his minimalist cinema. This type of cinema has many supporters in the West and among critics, especially because it reflected a part of local life and had a humanistic perspective. However, it should be added that the role of women in most of his films was secondary, and in his most successful films, there was either no woman present or if there was, she was on the sidelines. But in recent years, it has become clear to us that most film awards are not given solely based on artistic aesthetics, but political reasons also play a role. Iranian cinema, as a whole, is a state cinema; meaning it cannot exist without the approval of decision-making bodies. Even films made without government funding cannot be shown

The reality of our cinema from an internal perspective is that most of the films being made in Iran today are extremely superficial and intolerable in terms of form and content. Despite not living in Iran, I watch a lot of Iranian films. The percentage of films that have artistic value and a relatively thoughtful perspective may not even reach one percent. The subjects of most of these films are similar to those of pre-revolutionary Iranian films, and the other subjects that have been added, such as polygamy and a middle-aged man’s love for a young woman, also confirm the dominant perspective with vulgar portrayals.

Your question about the role of women in such films has a clear answer. In addition to restrictions such as hijab and physical contact, the rebellious mentality of women is evident in the eyes of many filmmakers in such films. In most of these mass productions, women’s disobedience is ridiculed and “chastity” is seen as a positive form of obedience. What has turned Iran into one of the most immoral lands is absent in most films due to the prohibition of normal relationships between the two genders. A cinema that is unable to portray the reality of more than half of its society can never be successful. Therefore, it is expected from a few thoughtful filmmakers to be able to shed light on the dark and eliminated areas.

It is said that in recent years, the migration of Iranian female actors has increased compared to a decade or two ago, as well as men. Considering that the situation of censorship and the position of women in cinema has not changed much in these decades, what do you think is the reason for this increase in migration?

Undoubtedly, the reasons for these migrations can be traced back to the unfortunate state of Iranian cinema today. Cinema is an art that, when controlled by a single voice and gaze, and when all its material resources are controlled by the same voice, turns into a mafia organization. The closed and opaque structure of this cinema drives talents to waste and turns the untalented into filmmakers. This does not mean that all migrant filmmakers are talented, but it is a testament to the fact that this space has become unbearable for many. In such a mafia-like environment, some of the least talented and least knowledgeable individuals become overnight stars, while many talented individuals go unrecognized.

Apart from existing laws and regulations, can the religious beliefs and culture prevailing in Iranian society also be considered as a factor that has led to self-censorship in Iranian cinema by screenwriters, directors, or actors?

As I mentioned in the previous question, when the doors are only open to those who conform to the dominant ideology in some way or even support it, there are filmmakers who emerge that would have been shunned in a normal situation with their first film. Of course, there are a few who work well in these conditions, but they are few and far between.

As a final question, in your opinion and with a summary of the situation of women in Iranian cinema and the policies that have been put in place to improve this situation or resist any changes, is it possible to hope for a professional cinema in Iran without a change in the position of women in the industry?

Unfortunately, no.

Thank you for the opportunity you have given us.

“I am learning English”

من در حال یادگیری زبان انگلیسی هستم

“I am learning English”