Conversation with Simin Rouzgar

Mohammad Tangestani is a poet and journalist. He has experience working with various artistic and social publications in Iran, and is the author of books such as “Amir Zahra” and “Citizen of the World”. In the past two years, he has specialized in the field of censorship and self-censorship.

In light of the special feature of this issue of the peace line, we had a conversation with Mr. Tangestani and asked him about the success rate of Iranian cinema, the existing limitations for women, and the situation of censorship and self-censorship in it. This 34-year-old journalist believes that in Iran, the hijab of women has become a normal matter for filmmakers and in response to a question about Kianoush Ayyari’s recent approach, who has said that he will not make a film in such a situation due to excessive strictness, he says: “We have to see what struggles Mr. Ayyari is going through to achieve his goal. If Mr. Ayyari can, for example, unite a few more progressive directors with him or gain the support of female actors, then we can take this statement more seriously.”

Iranian cinema has had global successes in recent years. How successful can this cinema be considered? What successes has Iranian cinema had?

Iranian cinema has not been successful. If there has been any success and awards, it can only be attributed to two or three directors. These two or three individuals make up the minority of Iranian cinema. When we talk about the success of a country’s cinema and want to look at statistics, we cannot ignore the main body and focus on a section that is closer to our thinking or more appealing to us. In my opinion, commissioned films and conformist directors with ideological thoughts are the main body of that cinema in terms of statistics; not people like Asghar Farhadi, Abbas Kiarostami, or Jafar Panahi. With this initial definition of the main body of cinema, let us now compare films that are made and released within that main body, not with world cinema or even Bollywood; then ask this question again. See how ridiculous it is to compare Iranian cinema even with Bollywood. In a general sense, without considering exceptions, Iranian cinema is a cinema of ideological

In your opinion, how much can the issue of women’s situation, including the issue of hijab and the creation of non-realistic spaces, especially in relationships between couples or families, be considered a serious factor in the lack of success in Iranian cinema?

The veil for women has become a normal thing for filmmakers and female actors in Iranian cinema, unlike in the rest of the world, only use their vocal skills. They do not have the permission or ability to use their body or even their physical features to shape their character and performance. Due to restrictions and censorship, they cannot use their body to portray their roles. They cannot use their beauty or body. For example, a woman cannot show off her beautiful and long hair and use it for better acting. If you read interviews with female actors in Iranian cinema, you will often notice that they believe in “chastity” and acting. The word “chastity” has a religious connotation. Behind it, self-censorship is hidden. Most female actors are not even aware of this censorship. Some think that acting means chastity. This is a foolish word. Instead of studying and using their body, they are helping the censorship system.

How much percentage of female actors in Iranian cinema do you think have concerns about lack of hijab or censorship?

This topic has become a belief and habit over time and ideological pressures. It is not expected to have high expectations from such a space and cinema. After a few decades, the audience has become accustomed to seeing it in this way. It is not unusual for them to see a female actor in a bedroom with what kind of clothing.

The latest creation of Kianoush Ayari, namely the film “Kanapeh”, did not participate in the Fajr Film Festival due to the use of headscarves by its female actors, and its release status is also unknown. Mr. Ayari recently stated in an interview that he will no longer make any films in which women – whether in private or in front of relatives – wear headscarves. How much can Mr. Ayari’s action in the film Kanapeh and his approach in this regard be a breakthrough in removing such barriers in Iranian cinema, and do you think there is even a possibility for change?

This statement by Kianoush Ayari is respectable. Opposing mandatory hijab is good. Choosing one’s own clothing is the most basic right of every individual. The fact that Mr. Ayari has decided to respect the conscience of his audience and himself is without a doubt respectable. However, there is a long way to go from words to achieving a desirable result. The fact that Mr. Ayari has said that he will not make a film until he is free has been a hot topic in the media for a while; it doesn’t hurt, at least we have written a few reports and notes. But we have to see how this decision and statement will help the cinema. Whether Kianoush Ayari makes a film or not, it does not harm Iranian cinema, which is completely government-controlled. In fact, they don’t want people like Ayari, Taqvayi, and Beizaei to make films. They don’t make good films either. This

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?

In cinema, anyone who has completed an acting course and has played a few scenes or plans, is considered an actor in general. If we were to consider them all as actors, yes, there have been many migrations; but if we were to judge based on their resume and acting abilities, in the past three decades, there have only been three or four successful actors in Iranian cinema who have left the country, never returned, and found success. The most successful of them is Ms. Golshifteh Farahani. The rest have migrated for various reasons such as lack of talent in acting or not being proficient in a foreign language, and have not been successful in foreign cinema. They have turned to other jobs, with the dream of acting and a few photos as a souvenir for the audience who have recognized them through thousands of addresses and signs. This way of looking at censorship, cinema, and art is ridiculous. Anyone who has played two plans is not an actor. If we are

Aside from existing laws and regulations, can the religious beliefs and dominant culture in Iranian society also be considered as factors contributing to self-censorship in Iranian cinema by screenwriters, directors, or actors?

Without a doubt, yes. Religion is one of the most important components of censorship and self-censorship in Iranian society. This self-censorship is not related to the government. We are a nation that self-censors, a nation that becomes upset when we are too honest. This is because we lack a culture and history of criticism, and have become a cultureless and impoverished nation. Our classical literature is full of self-censorship and self-indulgence. We have proverbs that show the self-censorship of Iranians from past centuries to today. We are a religious nation, and religion is deeply rooted in our subconscious. It has become distant. Now, imagine trying to take a breath and work in a government where self-censorship is the most important component in art. In Iran, self-censorship is more important than art itself for the continuation of artistic work.

Thank you for the opportunity you have given us.