
Karim Lakzadeh: The only way for cinema to join our recent protests is through suicide/ Ali Naseri
“Examining Iran’s Protest Cinema in Conversation with Karim Lakzadeh, Film Director”
Karim Lakzadeh believes that in Iranian cinema, films have always been made that appear to be protest films, but in reality, they have only been used by opportunists to advance the filmmaker’s goals and gain international recognition.
Given that these days, the art of protest has become more prevalent in society and various media outlets by unknown artists, the scarce presence of well-known faces in this field can be a phenomenon worth examining.
On the other hand, it seems that the lack of recognition for protest art has prevented it from taking shape in our country, and perhaps the works that are being created these days are the beginning of the formation of an art movement. In any case, it is necessary to carefully analyze and examine the anatomy of protest art, especially in the form of cinema (as the most popular and widely viewed art of the modern era), and discover the factors that have caused its scarcity in recent times.
As an excuse, we had a conversation with Karim Lakzadeh, a film director, which you can read below:
What are the characteristics of protest art and how can we discover it in our country?
When art becomes a reaction, quality is not prioritized as the essence of art. Imagine a short film made in protest of current conditions. At that time, my perspective as a viewer and the analysis I have, does not focus on how much the structure of cinema as a historical identity is present in this work; in protest art, content becomes more important and often protest art lacks a bit of content, but this lack of content is not a flaw and is considered part of the work; meaning that prioritizing content over form in protest art is acceptable for the viewer and can be accepted.
But protest art, especially in Iran (and especially during this time), has a very complex layer, which, for example, in cinema, is strengthened under the banner of social cinema by the ruling system and presents itself as protest cinema; while this is just a facade for these films to become popular in foreign and domestic festivals; so we must be careful that in the current situation, protest art has two types for us; one is pretentious and deceitful, which is very opportunistic and selfish, and the other is completely born from the mind and concerns of the artist, who tries to create the desired art within it and speak their truth.
Today, which type of protest art can be considered more vibrant in our cinema?
In the past years, the layer of protesting actors has been very successful and people believed that certain films spoke to our hearts and showed the lower class of society, with their hero coming from within the community. These works are meaningful, but they also have artistic claims.
About our society today, we have not yet seen any non-protest and non-confrontational effects, but the good thing that has happened is that the identity of those protesters in those films has been revealed and no one else is affected by them. These films are practically meaningless; because society knows how superficial their protests were and even the artists who created those works, their protests were fake. Society has understood this and that is why these days there is no news of those seemingly protesting filmmakers.
This attitude is not only prevalent in cinema, we all know that rap music has a fundamentally rebellious nature. When a rapper remains silent or invites people to calm down in a pretentious manner, it is clear that their previous protests were completely false and self-serving. The good thing about this is that, besides cinema, there is no news of any of these pretentious works, and if there is, the audience cannot accept their words; therefore, even the artist themselves have lost their credibility.
Considering that the formation of underground cinema is more difficult compared to other arts, can we expect a film to be made without any pretense and completely rebellious in the official Iranian cinema?
In our country, in addition to obtaining a screening license, filmmakers must also obtain a production license before starting filming, and there is now stricter enforcement on the necessity of obtaining a production permit for filming in the new government. Therefore, practically, this is not possible and in fact, your system encourages you to make fake films.
The current conditions have become much more difficult. A few months ago, the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance announced that films that have received production permits must also obtain a permit for participation in foreign festivals, and if they do not obtain this permit, they will be subject to legal action; meaning that even if you obtain a permit for your film and do not submit the final product to the Ministry of Culture and participate in a foreign festival, you are still considered a criminal. In this situation, how can we expect a system that promotes pretense to produce a film that is critical and non-conformist?
Therefore, with strict monitoring of the content, which period can be considered a shining era in contemporary history for protest art?
In the 1940s, we witnessed the emergence of artists who were protesting the social conditions of their time. Ibrahim Golestan and several documentary filmmakers can be mentioned as they created great works during that time. In narrative cinema as well, protest films were made and the protest was placed in the second layer of the film.
At that time, even short protest films were made and during that era we witnessed the emergence of rebellious works that, in addition to their artistic nature, protested against the societal conditions and spoke out against the immense suffering imposed on the people. I believe that in the 1940s, a better exploration of protest cinema could have been achieved.
What happened that the cinema of protest gradually disappeared after the 1940s and was replaced by the cinema of demonstration?
It wasn’t just this cinema that was destroyed; even the audience disappeared. After the revolution, we witnessed the emergence of a meaningful cinema, and perhaps some good films were created within it, but the overall trend was not beneficial for cinema and the audience.
To understand the event that happened, I will use Dariush Mehrjui as an example; in my opinion, in Iranian cinema, we cannot find a film that is both more rebellious and artistic than “The Cycle of Minā”. This film was released in April 1978; a film that boldly protests against the society’s conditions and speaks about the phenomenon of selling blood, but this same rebellious filmmaker turns towards philosophy and a kind of passive introversion after the revolution.
The filmmaker has no choice but to go in this direction, because those who do not make meaningful films will gradually lose their position as filmmakers. In any case, the relationship between art and power has always been a top-down relationship, and for this reason, it is easy to guess how this gradual decline has first occurred in artistic works and then in the audience; to the point that if a good film is made today, there is no longer an audience for it; in fact, in addition to repairing art, we need time to create an audience that can appreciate films like “The Circle” or even “Hamoon”. I think many of the good films made in the past years would not have had an audience today; because the audience has been conditioned to be convinced by fake social films that exploit poverty and lower classes of society for profit.
After the revolution, an underground cinema movement emerged, which happens to have a strong rebellious aspect. How successful do you think this movement has been in achieving its goal, which may be expressing social and political protests?
With the emergence of lighter video and video cameras, the possibility of filmmaking with smaller groups was provided and underground films were created. The first generation of these filmmakers truly created interesting works and even if they were not just protests, they had artistic value and pursued hidden concerns, but even those works were gradually neutralized and with the rise of this cinema, a movement known as art and experience took shape, which was a plot to gradually neutralize this formed cinema of small and independent groups.
The underground cinema movement was formed by individuals who had no financial interest in cinema, did not want to follow cinema formalities, and were not seeking a license that would impose thoughts and ideas on them. However, the formation of the art group and the experience of these films placed them in different circumstances, where they went towards being neutral with limited and small screenings. In fact, the underground cinema was like a balloon full of wind that could explode and create a terrifying sound, but with the needle of art and experience, it became less windy and smaller.
But these same films are successful in winning awards at prestigious international festivals and many believe that Iranian protest cinema is alive and well in underground cinema, and their success is solely due to their protest stance.
When we talk about a work of art, it is not enough to just focus on its rebellious aspect, but if the artist is solely driven towards protest, we should not blame foreign festivals.
When silence reigns and an artist is under intense pressure to create and present their work, naturally their work becomes a personal defense. If this artist wants to continue their artistic activity in this society, the system automatically turns them into a protesting filmmaker. In the midst of this, foreign festivals also support these filmmakers with any selfish or artistic perspective, and it is impossible to object to it.
In my opinion, this system has created a different type of filmmaker who is a protester. These individuals did not initially want to be protesters, but their circumstances have forced them to react and protest in a certain way. Someone like Abdolreza Kahani, who is now known as a political protester, does not have any evidence of making political films in his filmography. He was mostly a social and comedic filmmaker, but the system turned him into a political and protesting filmmaker. Some filmmakers who have never shown any political protest, sometimes take on a protesting and political persona through a single event. A recent example is Bahram Radan, who was banned from leaving the country and then protested against this event, easily transforming into an apparently protesting artist. However, these individuals are not truly protesters and are not associated with those who are actually protesting, which is their right. In the end, it is possible that well-known individuals may seek refuge in another country using their status, while we remain in
Does it mean that in your opinion there is a movement that creates fake protest cinema and fake protesting artists?
Unfortunately, we are moving towards degradation. How can we accept that our protesting filmmaker receives an award from both an international festival and a domestic one? This is a form of degradation and, in continuation, a form of degradationism.
For example, a few years ago a film was made that was directly funded by the producer and owes its professional life to the current conditions. This film was recognized as a protest and critical work, and won nine Simorgh awards at the Fajr Film Festival. It then gained attention from international festivals and won multiple awards. How can we trust a film that was made under these conditions and still achieved success, and not consider it deceitful?
Perhaps foreign festivals are lured by the glitz and glamour of seemingly rebellious films and support them, but we ourselves know that what is being portrayed in these films is not our protest.
If a film like “Eternity and a Day” claims to be a protest, we know that this film has no connection to the south of the city and is simply a fake postcard of the south. The south of the city is never this glamorous and emotional; in fact, it is in the south of the city and in poverty that the dream finds its identity.
Creating socially activist works and staging fake protests cannot be a source of pride, and it only reinforces the idea in the audience’s mind that this filmmaker is a fake and opportunistic protester in Iran.
In recent days, with the current conditions of the country, art has found a new form of protest. Can we hope for the growth and dynamism of art despite the lack of cultural infrastructure and numerous limitations?
Individual arts have always been more accessible for protest. The reason is quite clear; the cost of creating a work for a songwriter, graphic designer, painter, or singer is much less than filmmaking. A graphic designer can design a protest poster in their room with a computer.
In addition to production costs, filmmaking is a collaborative effort. If I am planning to create a protest film as a filmmaker, I may put a group in difficult situations and have to convince many people to collaborate. And of course, if I am a true protester, I will take on all the responsibility of producing a protest work.
In the end, I must say that today, leaving the room and protesting requires more ability and filmmaking is not possible in a room. In my opinion, the only thing that cinema can do to protest these days is to die. In my opinion, cinema can protest through suicide these days. By not being present on the scene, not participating in any festivals, and not having any activity, cinema can protest. Sometimes, not being present is a rebellious act in itself. Today, we cannot expect anything more from cinema. The high cost of producing a film and accompanying a film crew in current conditions is an impossible event, and even if a film is made in any way, its presentation and distribution are complicated and problematic. Today, society is involved in much more important issues than cinema, and since cinema cannot support, it is better not to do anything at all.
One of the important events during the revolution was the fire at the Abadan Rex Cinema, where the film “Gozanha” was being screened, which was considered a protest film. Why did the protest cinema have a more active presence at that time, despite having limited access to production tools compared to the present time?
Those films are not the product of a fifty-day protest. The cinema of protest has a rich and strong history; it started with names like Ebrahim Golestan and Sohrab Shahid Saless and continued with a new wave of dissent that included filmmakers who were both part of the mainstream and popular cinema and also had a critical view of society.
In fact, a powerful wave has been created and Masoud Kimiaei’s “Gazelles” are a part of this wave. Protest films such as “Mina’s Circle” and “Gazelles” are from one family and follow two different artistic perspectives. When time is given to think about humans, different parties can discuss and create a space for conversation in society, and cinema can also grow. In the same film “Gazelles”, we see the character Faramarz Gharebian who had the opportunity to have political activities for several years, then becomes restless, escapes and is pursued. “Gazelles” is a film that protests against two issues of “poverty and addiction” and “political restlessness”. Expressing these protests in this film is at least the result of a ten-year artistic movement. I cannot believe in today’s cinema, which is created by a system that occasionally protests against itself, and is not comparable to that new wave at all
The result of all these years has only been pretense and a growth of cinema, which seeks personal gain through its protests.
Thank you for the opportunity you have given us to be part of the peace process.
Tags
7 Peace Line 1397 Ali Naseri Artist Artistic commitment Cinema Karim Lakzadeh Mahsa Amini Nationwide protests Protest art Protest cinema Sound and Vision Suicide Woman, freedom of life