Iran Drama and Cinema
Drama and cinema in contemporary Iran can be said to have some roots in
older, more traditional forms of similar cultural activities. The fi rst type of
dramatic expression, for example, was probably connected to the veneration
by ancient Iranians of the sun-god Mithra, when worshipers constructed a
public stage and wore masks to perform certain religious rituals. We also
know that after Alexander’s invasion of Iran, performances of Greek plays
were held there well into Parthian times. As discussed in an earlier chapter,
dramatized presentations of the epic stories and legends of ancient Iran were
performed by bards ( gosân s) and storytellers ( naqqâl s) in Parthian, Sasanid,
and early Islamic times, and later on the Shi‘ite passion-play ( ta‘ziyeh ) became
a well-established form of dramatic presentation. The Turks and Mongols
also brought some customs of popular drama and public performances such
as shadow-puppet plays to Iran. Iranian rulers often patronized jesters, entertainers,
and other performers for the amusement of the court elites. For
ordinary people, the bazaars and public squares were places where jugglers,
magicians, comedians, storytellers, and entertainers offered their dramatic
performances to the public.
In addition to ta‘ziyeh and naqqâli , traditional forms of dramatic
performance include those known as ruhowzi or siâh-bâzi, pardeh-dâri,
and khaymeh-shab-bâzi . Ruhowzi is a comic type of folk drama similar to
commedia dell‘arte but with rapid verbal rather than physical humor. It is
often performed at weddings and at teahouses. It is called ruhowzi or “over
the pool” because it is typically performed on a board placed over the pool
commonly found in the yard of a Persian home. Ruhowzi usually involves
several players engaging in comic dance, music, and song. The dialogue is
94 Culture and Customs of Iran
colloquial and fi lled with satirical impersonations of local people and events.
The play often involves participation by, or exchanges with, the spectators.
Pardeh-dâri is performed by a single narrator who chants a narrative, using
a screen with pictures as a prop to illustrate the story he is telling. This is
somewhat similar to naqqâli except that the subjects of the story are usually of
a religious nature. Khaymeh-shab-bâzi is basically puppet theater, performed
with glove dolls or marionettes.
EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF CINEMA
Cinema in Iran has its origins in the foibles of court entertainment in
the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. In 1900, the Qâjâr king,
Mozaffar-od-Din Shah, went to France for a state visit. While there, he
became fascinated with the camera and what it could do. He ordered his
photographer, Mirzâ Ebrâhim ‘Akkâsbâshi, to buy a cinematograph. Later,
using the newly acquired equipment, Mirzâ Ebrâhim documented the presence
of Mozaffar-od-Din Shah at a ceremony in Belgium. This documentary
is the fi rst fi lm made by an Iranian. Mirzâ Ebrâhim brought his camera
equipment back to Iran, and the king set up a demonstration for the court.
The king also had a movie made of court eunuchs playing with each other
in the palace courtyard. Film had become a part of court entertainment, and
the various fi lms made by Mirzâ Ebrâhim probably represent the fi rst ethnographic
footage taken in the history of Iranian fi lm.
Films made during the Qâjâr period may be divided into three categories:
documentation of court ceremonies, social-cultural scenes around the capital,
and scripted action fi lms. Royal and religious ceremonies were often fi lmed,
and the fi lms would later be shown at weddings of members of the elite, at
family gatherings, or at court parties. Also, a number of documentaries were
produced in this period.
In 1905, Mirzâ Ebrâhim Khan Sahhâfbâshi, an antique dealer, was the
fi rst private entrepreneur to import a fi lm projector to Iran. He converted
the backyard of his shop into an open-air theater and began public screening
of fi lms in Tehran. He showed a mostly upper class audience silent movies
imported to Iran via Russia. The fate of this courageous venture was thrown
into controversy when rumors circulated claiming that the fi lms shown there
included unveiled female characters. This led to condemnation by the religious
leader  yatollâh Fazlollah Nuri, who demanded the closure of the
theater. This, along with other political problems, resulted in the closure
of Sahhâfbâshi’s theater, confi scation of his fi nancial assets, and his exile to
India in 1907.
Drama and Cinema 95
Under the patronage of Mohammad-‘Ali Shah, a Russian-born court
photographer, Mahdi Rusi Khân, became a cinema manager and replaced
Sahhâfbâshi as a presenter of fi lms for elite viewers in Tehran. In 1909, Rusi
Khân made a fi lm of the Moharram mourning processions, but it was only
shown in Russia. With the restoration of the Constitution and the exile of
Mohammad-‘Ali Shah, Rusi Khân fell out of favor and his fi lms were con-
fi scated. Though the new theater he had opened on the second fl oor of a
printing shop in Lâlehzâr Avenue remained open for a while, he decided to
leave Iran for Paris in 1911 .
By 1912, a number of movie theaters had been built, mostly by foreignborn
Iranians, especially from Russia. The only person who was able to keep
his theater open for more than a decade was an Armenian businessman by the
name of Ardashir Khân Bâtmângariân. His theater, known as Sinemâ Jadid
(“New Cinema”), opened in 1913 in collaboration with a French company.
A unique contributor to the evolution of cinema in Iran was an elderly French
woman by the name of Mme Bernadotte. She owned a bookstore in Tehran
and sometimes showed newsreels and war documentaries in a small projection
room to her predominantly French-speaking customers. It is reported that
some of these fi lms contributed to the spirit of nationalism at the time and
generated a stir amongst the Iranian public. Some people, however, accused
her of witchcraft, claiming that she called forth Satan on the screen—accusations
which resulted in the closure of her “little cinema.” Another contribution
to the development of fi lm culture was the Iranian-British Cultural Center,
which in the 1920s screened documentaries to a select group of Iranians.
In the 1920s and 1930s, more movie houses were established. In 1925, ‘Ali
Vakili was able to build the largest movie theater at the time in the Grand
Hotel on Lâlehzâr Avenue and later published the fi rst magazine on show
business in Iran. At the beginning of Rezâ Shah’s rule, there were 8 theaters
in Tehran. By the early 1930s, there were 15 theaters in Tehran and 11 in
other provinces. The existence of such an infrastructure encouraged people
to attend movie theaters.
Movies made during this period included some documentaries by Khân
Bâbâ Khân Mo‘tazedi, who had previously worked with a fi lm studio in
France. The fi rst Iranian-made feature fi lms also began to appear. The main
pioneer in this effort was an Armenian immigrant, Hovhannes Ohanian
(Âvânes Uhâniân), who established an acting school in Iran in 1930. With
actors from this school and Mo‘tazedi as his cameraman, he made a popular
slapstick comedy, Âbi o Râbi (“Abi and Rabi”) that same year. This was
followed in 1932 by Hâji Âqâ âktor-e sinemâ (“Haji Aqa, Movie Actor”)—the
story of a woman and her fi ancé who wanted to become fi lm actors but had to
96 Culture and Customs of Iran
defuse the opposition of her religiously-minded father to their plan. The script
was written by one of the most prominent Iranian authors of the time, Sa‘id
Nafi si, and the fi lm employed an Armenian woman, Asia Ghostantin, as the
actress. The fi lm was meant to demonstrate the desirability of the new media
through the use of humor. This blend of comedy and melodrama would
remain a popular genre of Iranian fi lm into the 1970s. One of Ohanian’s
students, Ebrâhim Morâdi, established his own studio and released a fi lm in
1934 called Bu‘l-hawas (“The Lustful Man”). This fi lm contrasted the simple
and natural life in rural areas with the unexpected and often uncomfortable
aspects of city life—another durable theme in Iranian cinema. This was also
the last Iranian feature production done within Iran’s borders until the end of
the World War II. Morâdi’s efforts were very important for the new industry
in Iran. He also employed the fi rst two Iranian Muslim women to work as
actresses, namely Qodsi Partovi and Âsieh.
The fi rst Persian-language movie with sound, Dokhtar-e Lor (“The
Lor Girl”), was made in Bombay in 1933 by ‘Abd-ol-Hosayn Sepantâ, a
Zoroastrian poet and writer from Isfahan. Sepântâ wrote the script for the
fi lm and also played the role of the character Ja‘far in this movie. “The Lor
Girl” was such a success that it landed Sepantâ an offer from the Iranian
government to produce fi lms about the glory of the country’s past and
the desirability of a modern lifestyle, but this did not work out exactly as
intended. In 1935 the Ministry of Education commissioned Sepantâ to
make a fi lm about the life of the poet Abo‘l-Qâsem Ferdowsi, but parts of
his fi lm Ferdowsi were rejected and had to be redone because the shah did
not like the fi lm’s negative portrayal of Sultan Mahmud. Sepantâ continued
to produce movies inspired by classical Persian literature and Iranian
history, but mostly outside the country and without government support.
Sepantâ’s last fi lm Layli o Majnun, based on the classical love story of Layli
and Majnun, appeared in 1937. With their use of Persian dialog accompanied
by songs, music, and dance, Sepantâ’s fi lms were quite popular, but a
combination of political, fi nancial, and bureaucratic diffi culties forced him
to leave the movie industry.
SOCIOLOGICAL CHALLENGES OF INTRODUCING FILM TO A
TRADITIONAL SOCIETY
The introduction of modern fi lm to a traditional Iran was not without its
sociological problems. As mentioned earlier, cinema started as a court entertainment
and remained available only to the cultural and political elite for
over a decade. When the government began to encourage this industry, it still
had to confront the opposition of the ‘olamâ and a public unprepared and
Drama and Cinema 97
unwilling to do away with traditional modes of entertainment. Theaters were
declared by the ‘olamâ to be centers for all kinds of vices. They were labeled
“houses of Satan” and subjected to mob attack or forced closure. The public
perception marked people attending theaters as “immoral people engaged in
sinful activity.” In light of these criticisms, theater owners and others involved
in this industry, along with government offi cials, took great pains to promote
the theater as a respectable place that the police prevented “loose women,
depraved youngsters and hecklers” from entering. On one occasion during
Rezâ Shah’s reign, the opposition to the establishment of the fi rst theater in
the southern part of Tehran, which was and still is very traditional, was so
strong that police had to force people to go to this theater.
At a more practical level, in the early years the government had to make
special efforts to keep the cost of attending movie theaters low enough to
attract nonelite segments of the society. This was a problem for theater owners
as well. As the number of movie theaters increased, theater owners had to
compete for viewers. They tried to attract viewers by offering free tickets, ice
creams, nuts, and other food items. Some owners even hired musicians to
play music, interpreters to walk around the hall and explain the scenes in a
loud voice, and Armenian female employees with heavy makeup in order to
attract viewers.
A second problem had to do with the translation and presentation of foreign
fi lms. Since fi lms shown in the early days were in their original language,
there had to be brief pauses for live translation. Every 10 minutes or so, the
fi lm would be interrupted by a Persian caption explaining previous or forthcoming
events. Some theaters hired story tellers to convey what was involved
in the fi lms so they did not have to stop the show intermittently. It also took
a while for the Iranian viewers, unaccustomed to the new technology, to
know how to adjust their feelings and behaviors to the realities of this new
phenomenon. Some cinemas had to hire policemen to control the viewers’
behavior during the show. On one occasion, when a lion jumped in a scene
of a Tarzan fi lm, a policeman attending the theater shot at the screen in an
attempt to subdue the lion!
The third problem confronting the development of a fi lm culture was the
presence of women both in the fi lm and in the theater. By 1920, Iranian
fi lm viewers were used to seeing unveiled women in foreign movies. However,
showing Iranian women in fi lm was a new challenge for fi lmmakers and
theater owners. Since the fi rst Iranian fi lms involved Armenian women of
Iranian origin, there was not much public objection. However, when fi lms
with sound were produced, the participation of Muslim women in fi lmmaking
became a major controversial issue. The fi rst actresses were subjected
to ridicule, harassment, and social isolation. These were courageous women
98 Culture and Customs of Iran
whose passion for the art and profession surpassed their need for income or
a costly fame. The perseverance of these actresses and their fi lm producers
paved the way for breaking a social taboo and easing modern media into
Iranian society.
A related problem was how to allow women to visit the theater because it
was not possible to allow men and women to attend the theater at the same
time. Theaters experimented with having dedicated hours for each sex. This
did not work well. Later, they tried to designate some theaters as exclusively
for women. Mo‘tazedi founded two such theaters for women in 1925, and
three years later, Vakili created a female-only theater in a Zoroastrian school
hall. This did not work well for attracting women to the theater either. Also,
it was fi nancially ineffi cient. Then, they tried to allow both sexes in the same
theater, but with women seated in the balcony. This did not last long either.
Finally, they tried having women and men sit in separate parts of the theater.
This worked until 1936, when women were freed from wearing the veil by the
order of Rezâ Shah and wives could sit next to their husbands in the theater.
A fi nal problem had to do with the spread of cinema beyond the capital,
especially in areas with a heavy concentration of ethnic population. Since
not all ethnic groups spoke or even understood the Persian language, showing
fi lms to non-Persian speaking audiences posed a serious challenge. For
instance, Sinemâ Khorshid in the city of Abâdân, then heavily populated by
Arabs, could not stay open more than three nights a week because of the lack
of an audience, even with free admission.
CINEMA DURING THE REIGN OF REZÂ SHAH
With the establishment of the Pahlavi dynasty, the secularized state became
a social and cultural force to encourage the spread of new ideas through new
modes of communication. Rezâ Shah was a strong leader determined to push
modernization of Iran against any opposition, even from the religious quarters.
He supported the fi lm industry as long as the fi lmmakers produced newsreels
documenting the rapid development of the country’s infrastructure. His
attitude paved the way for the growth of contemporary art forms, particularly
cinema in Iran. While the industry was in its infancy and in need of support,
Rezâ Shah’s rule was also new and in need of means to demonstrate its power.
Rezâ Shah saw cameras as tools to show the country as he wanted it to be
seen. No one could even own a camera without authorization from a court.
He hired Khân Bâbâ Mo‘tazedi to fi lm various ceremonies at the palace, the
parliament, and the opening ceremonies of the trans-Iranian railway system,
the National Bank of Iran, and the Pahlavi communication center. These
newsreels were shown at court, in army barracks, and at some theaters.
Drama and Cinema 99
After viewing an impressive documentary about the Anglo-Persian Oil
Company in Khuzestân, Rezâ Shah ordered the construction of new movie
theaters in Tehran. Lâlehzâr, a street in what was then the north of Tehran, but
is now in the middle of the city, was where the theaters were built, along with
European-style hotels. Lâlehzâr became an attractive location in Tehran for
movie houses and was viewed as a venue for lovers, pleasure seekers, and those
seeking amusement. Rezâ Shah’s program thus found a receptive audience
among the country’s elite and the relatively small middle class. Since all the
movie theaters were located in the northern part of Tehran, the government
provided aid to build a theater in the southern part of Tehran in a poor
neighborhood. Sinemâ Tamaddon (“Civilization Cinema”) was built there
as a symbol of the shah’s determination to educate the Iranian population to
modern ways of life.
Once attendance by the so-called lower classes increased, a new hierarchy
emerged among theater halls: elite and popular theaters. The former showed
high-quality fi lms of the time and were attended by educated people who were
familiar with the Western literature from which those fi lms were adopted.
The latter showed foreign, comic, and action and adventure fi lms and were
attended by the less sophisticated public. Interestingly, the music played in
these theaters was also geared to this hierarchy: whereas the elite theaters played
Western music, the popular theaters played popular Persian music.
Unfortunately, most fi lms shown during Rezâ Shah’s reign were imported
fi lms from Europe, the United States, and Russia. His cultural policies fostered
a favorable environment for the infl ux of Western fi lms. During 1928–
1930, over 1,000 foreign fi lms were imported into Iran, nearly half of them
from the U.S. and the rest from France, Germany, Russia, and other countries.
As Rezâ Shah’s sympathy to Germany increased, so did the number of
German fi lms shown in Iran. This was also helped by the absence of security
prerequisites on foreign exchange to purchase German fi lms.
Not surprisingly, Rezâ Shah’s cultural policies fostered an environment
openly conducive to the infl ux of Western fi lms. American fi lms fl ooded Iranian
market during the 1920s, and German fi lms gained a signifi cant market
share towards the turn of the decade and well into the 1930s. The success
of the later was not unrelated to Germany’s increased cultural and technical
presence in Iran following World War I. While this fl ood of American
and German fi lms into the country enabled the expansion of a foreign fi lm
market in Iran, it inhibited the development of the local fi lm industry. With
Rezâ Shah’s departure in 1941, German fi lms rapidly disappeared from the
landscape of Iranian cinema, as was the case with most French productions
as well. The result was an increase in American fi lms, rising from 60 percent
in 1940 to 70–80 percent by 1943. In the 1930s, signifi cantly more theatre
100 Culture and Customs of Iran
halls opened. The young Iranian fi lm industry also demonstrated its capacity
for local production, no matter how limited.
DOMINANCE OF FOREIGN FILMS AND THE GROWTH OF
THE DUBBING INDUSTRY
From 1937 till 1947, foreign fi lms continued their dominance, and Iran
did not produce any fi lms locally. During the 1940s, numerous restrictions
were imposed on Iranian cinema resulting in the stagnation of local production.
World War II also caused serious political and economic diffi culties
for the country and brought the fragile Iranian motion picture industry to a
virtual standstill. Yet, as mentioned before, foreign movies poured into the
Iranian market and a sizable portion of the growing Iranian working class
and the emerging middle class was attracted to fi lm as a form of legitimate
entertainment. This was not lost on investors in the motion picture industry.
To satisfy the newly-developed appetite, more movie theaters were built, and
the industry found dubbing of foreign fi lms into Persian as both an improvement
in the quality of services provided to viewers and a profi table venture.
A number of producers began dubbing foreign movies outside of Iran and
then importing them to Iran for competition with Hollywood movies. One
of these was a young Iranian, Esmâ‘il Kushân, who dubbed two foreign fi lms
in Turkey and imported them to Tehran for show in 1946 with spectacular
success. Soon, local dubbing studios were set up, creating competition for
foreign operations.
As early as 1943, the fi rst dubbing studio, called Iran-Now Film, was
established in Tehran. By 1961, dubbing foreign fi lms into Persian in
Europe ended, and almost all foreign fi lms were dubbed in Iran. Utilizing the
availability of improved technical facilities as well as comparatively more costeffective
local dubbers and actors, the local studios were able to create products
superior in quality to fi lms dubbed in Italy. Some of these studios later engaged
in fi lm production as well. Dubbing was challenging, but the industry was
able to overcome most of its early diffi culties. Interestingly, dubbing provided
Iranians with both an opportunity for creativity and censorship. In the case of
creativity, Iranian dubbers adjusted dialogues, and even music, to Iranian taste
by utilizing Persian idioms close to the foreign expression used in the original
dialogue. For instance, a song by Jerry Lewis in the movie Patsy was replaced
with an Indian song in order to fi t the Iranian taste, which was much closer to
Indian culture than to American. In terms of censorship, “morally unacceptable
words” were replaced by sanitized Persian equivalents. In turn, dubbed
movies came to stifl e Iranian originality by getting Iranian viewers so much
used to their plots and dialogues that Iranian producers began to dub local
Drama and Cinema 101
production and actors emulated their foreign counterparts’ use of infl ection
and tone. For instance, Mohammad-‘Ali Fardin’s voice in Gedâyân-e Tehrân
(“The Beggars of Tehran”) was a direct imitation of Peter Falk’s voice in A
Pocketful of Miracles. Also, the majority of fi lms were shot on location without
sound—sound was introduced later into the fi lm through dubbing in studios.
Except for those actors who had the benefi t of stage experience, most actors
in the fi lm industry lacked appropriate vocal abilities—their voices would be
replaced by dubbers who accentuated aural effects and otherwise compensated
for these actors’ shortcomings.
A number of business organizations, jointly fi nanced by both Americans
and Iranians, were set up exclusively to produce fi lms. These centers facilitated
the transfer of technical know-how and related information to Iranians,
particularly in the art of producing newsreels and documentary fi lms. The
American presence in Iran during World War II also contributed to this
expansion. The United States Information Service (USIS) in Iran began to
distribute documentary and news fi lms, dubbed into Persian, throughout the
country. The Iranian government used 40 mobile cinema units to show these
fi lms to villagers and town people. In 1951, 60 fi lms and 38 strips “on technical
and instructional themes” were produced and distributed. Between 1951
and 1953, a number of magazines dealing specifi cally with acting and cinema
appeared: ‘Âlam-e Honar, Sinemâ va Teâtr, Setâreh-e Sinemâ, and Payk-e
Sinemâ. After the overthrow of Mosaddeq’s government in 1953, the shah’s
new cultural policy of favoring Western products, especially American fi lms,
contributed to an increase in screening of foreign fi lms in local cinemas. The
number of foreign fi lms shown in Iran increased from 100 in 1953 to close
to 400 in 1961. This was due to a general lack of support for domestic fi lms
by the government, an increase in taxation on local fi lms, and a reduction in
duty on imports of foreign fi lms.
THE EMERGENCE AND DOMINANCE OF FILM FÂRSI
Following World War II, a breakthrough for Iranian cinema came when
Esmâ‘il Kushân channeled his profi ts from dubbing foreign fi lms into the
production of fi lms with sound in Iran. In 1947, he established a fi lm studio,
Mitrâ Film, followed by the production of Iran’s fi rst feature-length sound fi lm
in 1948, Tufân-e zendegi (“The Tempest of Life”), directed by Mohammad-
‘Ali Daryâbaygi. Despite the magnitude of its achievement, the movie did
generate any enthusiasm and resulted in a fi nancial loss, thus forcing some
of Kushân’s colleagues to abandon him. Despite serious diffi culties, Kushan
opened Pârs Film studio, under which his fi rst venture was Zendâni-e amir
(“The Prince’s Prisoner,” 1948), followed by his independently produced
102 Culture and Customs of Iran
musical comedy the next year, called Vâryeteh-ye bahâr (“The Spring Festival”) .
Hushang Kâvosi, producer of Yusuf o Zolaykhâ (“Joseph and Zolaykha”) , was
one of the fi rst directors working at Pârs Film. Kushân’s efforts were followed
by Farrokh Ghaffâri’s introduction of Iranians to alternative and artistic
foreign fi lms. Ghaffâri founded the National Iranian Film Society at the Irân
Bâstân Museum in 1947, and directed his fi rst successful fi lm, Janub-e shahr
(“Downtown”).
Though Kushân’s earlier fi lms received somewhat lukewarm reactions, the
release of his new fi lm, Sharmsâr (“Disgraced”) , was signifi cant due to his
employment of a heavy dose of songs and music—an imitation of Indian
movies that remained very popular in post–World War II Iran. An Iranian
ballet group that had successfully performed in Europe was in this movie
about a rural girl who is seduced by an urban boy and then become a successful
performer in a cabaret in the city. The impact of “Disgraced” extended into
promoting the career of the female singer, Delkash, who sang eight songs for
the fi lm. Delkesh became the fi rst popular singer involved with the cinema.
The success of “Disgraced” laid the foundation for commercial fi lmmaking
in Iran, encouraging investors, producers, and directors to view fi lm
production as a potentially lucrative venture. Kushan’s success opened up
a different avenue for fi lmgoers who were no longer interested in subtitled
fi lms— Persian-language fi lms featuring renowned Iranian singers and dancers
became a real and attractive alternative. Furthermore, “Disgraced” also added
another layer to the popular themes which were to dominate Iranian cinema
for decades: simplicity of rural life versus corrupted city life, innocence of
rural girls versus deceptive city men, and rich versus poor lovers whose parents
opposed their union—themes that came to defi ne what scholars later called
Film Fârsi. These were dreamlike melodramas imitating Indian movies. The
happy endings offered an optimistic view of the society and changed viewers’
taste for movies. Much of their content were copied from stage productions—
stories which, in turn, were drawn from classical Persian literature.
A period of urban expansion and rural-urban migration in the 1950s and
1960s saw the expansion of a cinematic culture in the country, an increase in
commercial fi lm production, and growth in the number of cinemas all over
the country. Most fi lms produced in this period were adaptations of novels,
plays, and Western fi lms. While high in quantity (over 1,000), the quality
of these fi lms was not very good because production companies focused
mainly on profi t and pandered to the common tastes of the public for love
stories, sex, violence, and horror. Sâmuel Khâchikiân was a major director
involved in production of such fi lms. Others included Majid Mohseni ( Lât-e
javânmard, “The Gentleman Vagabond,” based on Sâdeq Hedâyat’s short
story, “Dâsh Âkol”); Bolbol-e mazra‘eh , “The Nightingale of the Farm,”
Drama and Cinema 103
1957; and Parastu-hâ be-lâneh barmigardan , “Swallows Come Back to the
Nest,” 1963); ‘Atâollah Zâhed ( Chashm be-râh , “In Waiting,” 1958), and
Farrokh Ghaffâri, whose “Downtown” (1958) was banned by authorities
after fi ve days of showing. Mohseni’s “The Gentleman Vagabond” was the
fi rst fi lm in Iranian cinema to focus on the prototype of the jâhel (a kind of
good-hearted hooligan), thus setting the tone for over 200 similar productions
during the 1960s. Films in this period, fi lled with music and dance and
focused on melodramatic themes of traditional hooliganism ( jâheli ), love,
and simple contrasts of rural purity and innocence versus urban corruption
and decadence or good guys (lower class and poor) versus bad guys (emerging
upper middle class and rich), were to be characterized in the 1970s with
the negative label of Film Fârsi.
The number of fi lms produced in this decade ushered Iranian cinema
into what many would consider a phase of professional development during
which an overwhelming majority of productions were grounded in Film Fârsi.
Several important actors associated with this genre of fi lms were Taqi Zohuri,
Esmâ‘il Arhâm Sadr, Nosratollâh Vahdat, Mohammad-‘Ali Fardin, and Nâser
Malakmoti‘i. Some actresses in this category included Puribanâi, Foruzân, and
Jamileh. In 1965, a “poor boy meets rich girl” tale used by Siâmak Yâsami’s
Ganj-e Qârun (“Qârun’s Treasure”) became a box offi ce hit. This was a combination
of love and family melodrama with a heavy dose of comedy and musical.
As such, it was a sequenced imitation of fantasized Hollywood productions
whose revenue surpassed any fi lm ever produced in Iran up to that time. It also
became a model for many fi lms to be produced in the coming decade. This fi lm,
and the others subsequently made in imitation of it, generated enough support
for Iranian domestic production to withstand the onslaught of foreign fi lms.
NEW WAVE CINEMA
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, young critics and new fi lmmakers, who
had studied fi lm in Western universities, returned home. They were familiar
with modern techniques and sensitive towards artistic quality and technical
standards in the fi lm. Their views refreshed the movie scene with new ideas
different from common tradition. They viewed Iranian fi lms produced in the
1950s and 60s as “inferior,” both technically and artistically. They certainly
had a cultural bias as well: those fi lms glorifi ed the working class, peasants,
and artisans as well as their culture.
Towards the late 1950s and into the early 1960s, while commercial fi lms
gradually gained a foothold in Iranian cinema, the new fi lmmakers challenged
the Film Fârsi establishment not only by criticism but also by making their
own fi lms. Some of these fi lms included Forugh Farrokhzâd’s documentary
104 Culture and Customs of Iran
about people affl icted with leprosy, Khâneh siâh ast (“The House is Black”) in
1962, Ebrâhim Golestân’s Kesht o âyeneh (“Mudbrick and Mirror”) in 1965,
and Shâhrokh Ghaffâri’s Shab-e quzi (“The Night of the Hunchback”) in
1964. These fi lms were works meant to be categorized as “art fi lms” or “intellectual”
or “progressive.” Siâvosh dar Takht-e Jamshid (“ Siavosh at Persepolis ”)
was produced by the poet, Fereydun Rahnemâ, in 1967. In the same year,
Dâvud Mo‘lâpur produced Showhar-e Âhu Khânom (“Mrs. Ahu’s Husband”)
based on a popular novel of the same name by ‘Ali-Mohammad Afghâni.
Based on a script by Gholâm-Hosayn Sa‘edi, Daryush Mehrjui made the
celebrated fi lm Gâv (“The Cow”) in 1968. Other fi lms included: Moghol-hâ
(“The Mongols”) by Parviz Kimiâvi in 1973; Cheshmeh (“The Spring”) by
Ârbi Âvânesiân in 1970; an adaptation of Sâdeq Chubak’s novel Tangsir by
Amir Nâderi in 1973;, Yek ettefâq-e sâdeh (“A Simple Incident”) by Sohrâb
Shahid-Sâles in 1973, Qeysar in 1967 and Khâk (“The Earth”) in 1973 by
Mas‘ud Kimiâi; Toqi by ‘Ali Hâtami in 1969; and Gharibeh va meh (“The
Stranger and the Fog”) by Bahrâm Bayzâi in 1974.
These new fi lms questioned the old cinematic tradition in content, form, and
even technique and offered Iranian viewers an alternative cinema. They came
to be known as the “New Wave” ( mowj-e now ). The New Wave represented
“committed art” which demanded refl ection and social responsibility, rather
than escapist entertainment where the viewer remains passive and receptive.
As was to be expected, their thematic content attracted substantial disfavor
from the Iranian censors. What proved controversial was the stark realities
they portrayed, often highlighting issues which until that point had been
hidden from the public eye. Mo‘lâpur’s “Mrs. Ahu’s Husband,” for instance,
concerned itself with the issue and implications of polygamy in Iranian
society. Some other fi lms which sparked controversy, particularly with the
censorship authorities, were Ghaffâri’s “The Night of the Hunchback” and
Farrokhzâd’s “The House is Black.” Films categorized in this genre were
much less optimistic about the direction of society and often symbolically
criticized prevailing cultural norms and policies. They were also considered
subversive to the dominant political system and viewed as antiestablishment
for challenging, either overtly or covertly, the status quo.
Another feature of some of the New Wave fi lms was their focus on universal
issues surpassing national considerations. These fi lms strived to deal with
basic human questions and conditions that transcended the Iranian context.
That is why some of these fi lms traveled outside of the country, won international
awards, and gained international fame for Iranian cinema. Two such
fi lms were Mehrjui’s “The Cow” and Shahid-Sales’ Tabi‘at-e bi-jân (“Still
Life”), made in 1974. Both won prestigious international prizes and became
the symbols of New Wave Iranian cinema.
Drama and Cinema 105
In general, the New Wave movies were regarded as elitist and some had
diffi culty attracting average Iranians as viewers. Some of these fi lms showed
only one or two nights in Tehran, never making it to provincial towns. They
attracted many intellectuals and provided fodder for critical commentaries
in newspapers but remained fi nancially unsustainable and too culturally
sophisticated for the general public. The disparity between the intellectual
and lower classes in Iran denied these young fi lmmakers commercial success
and pitted them against critics who viewed them as elitists. Yet, some of them
did receive considerable attention in foreign countries. Rahnemâ’s “Siâvosh
at Persepolis” was one such fi lm. The fi nancial failure of these fi lms discouraged
their producers, in turn putting pressure on fi lmmakers to make fi lms
which were more viable fi nancially. In fact, a number of fi lms made in this
period combined elements of both artistic and commercial considerations
such as Yârân (“Comrades”) in 1974 and Mâhi-hâ dar khâk mimirand (“Fish
Die on Ground” ) in 1976, both by Farzân Delju. By and large, these fi lms
were successful in shifting public interests from violence and sex to a more
refi ned and constructive taste. Starting in 1968, public interest in Film Fârsi
began to decline and some of the new intellectual fi lms began to attract public
attention. For instance, Mas‘ud Kimiâi’s Qeysar made a dynamic breakthrough
into the domestic fi lm industry by winning both critics’ and viewer’s
attention. Other fi lms which caught the interest of both critics and the public
were Âqâ-ye Hâlu (“Mr.Simpleton,” 1970) Dâsh Âkol (1971), and Gavazn-hâ
(“The Deer,” 1974).
The cultural policy adopted by the Pahlavi regime with the onset of the
White Revolution in 1963 assumed somewhat of a greater intensity in the late
sixties and early seventies. The policy attempted to enforce a homogenization
of diverse Iranian ethnic cultures, to depict the monarchy as the best form of
government, and to give a positive picture of modern Iran to the international
community. Aware of the widespread accessibility to and infl uence of the many
forms of Iranian media, the government encouraged the expansion of cultural
centers. By 1965, Tehran had 72 movie theaters, while other provinces had
192. The government also exerted more control over older establishments like
the Ministry of Information and the Ministry of Culture and Arts. National
Iranian Television (NIT) was transformed to National Iranian Radio and
Television (NIRT), expanding its infl uence into other cultural domains. A
large budget was allocated to feature-fi lmmaking, predominantly in the public
sector, with full government control. The NIRT established the College
of Television along with a powerful production company named Telefi lm.
The latter was responsible for training young Iranians in the art of fi lmmaking
and fi nding common ground between the stage theater and fi lm. Tehran
University housed the Faculty of Dramatic Arts and the Faculty of Fine Arts.
106 Culture and Customs of Iran
Expansion of outlets for developing interest and professional expertise in the
cinematic arts continued with government initiatives like The Free Cinema
of Iran , various festivals featuring fi lms like the annual Shiraz Art Festival, the
Educational Festival (1967 onwards), the International Festival of Films for
Children and Young Adults (1967), the Free Cinema Film Festival (1970), the
National Film Festival (1970), the Tehran International Film Festival (1972)
and the Asian Young Film Festival (1974). In 1969, the Center for the Intellectual
Development of Children and Young Adults, along with UNESCO,
helped with making fi lms for children. A signifi cantly large number of young
fi lmmakers branched away from the established fi lm industry to form an
independent collective, called “the New Film Group,” while the government
actively censored and/or prohibited several Telefi lm-NFG productions.
These developments, along with increased activities of New Wave
fi lmmakers led to a historical revival of the country’s domestic fi lmmaking
industry—encouraging fi lm critics to speak variously of sinemâ-ye now (New
Cinema), sinemâ-ye javân (Young Cinema), mowj-e-now (New Wave), or even
sinemâ-ye demokrâtik (Democratic Cinema). The foundation of what would
emerge later in the postrevolutionary period was put down in this period.
IRANIAN CINEMA AFTER THE REVOLUTION
On August 10, 1978, three men set fi re to the Rex Theater in the city of
Abâdân, killing 300 people who were trapped inside. At the time, this was
widely blamed on agents of the shah’s secret police (SAVAK). However, as
the country went through the revolutionary turmoil, theater-burning became
a common act by Islamic activists for protesting the shah’s regime. These
incidents set the mood for the national attitude toward cinema in the years
following the revolution. During the revolutionary period, close to 200
cinema houses were burned, demolished, or shut down by the revolutionaries
who viewed them as “centers of corruption.” Immediately after the
revolution, the entire fi lm industry virtually came to a complete halt and
cinematic development in the country was once again disturbed. The Islamic
Revolution aimed to change dramatically the direction of Iranian culture as
it had evolved during the Pahlavi period. The impact of a new theocratic
government was highly visible on the fi lm industry—an industry so closely
tied to Western and modern cultural products. This put the whole industry
in jeopardy.
From when the Islamic republic was fi rst established in 1979 until 1982,
funds were cut off to the fi lm industry and the government imposed a ban
on the screening of new or existing fi lms in the country. During 1980–1983,
Drama and Cinema 107
very few new fi lms were produced in the country because fi lmmakers were
unable to work in an environment of hostility, arbitrary rules, and no fi nancial
support. Filmmakers and entertainers were associated with the infl uences of
western culture and corruption of society marked by the shah’s government.
Many were threatened with legal charges, others were imprisoned, some even
executed. With almost no production of new fi lms in the country, the government
began to encourage the screening of older fi lms with more traditional values
and imported foreign fi lms with morally and politically acceptable themes,
namely the struggle of oppressed peoples against colonialism and imperialism.
Religious leaders’ initial reaction to cinema and theater was, and continues to
remain as of this date, ambiguous: some wished to forbid them entirely, some
to allow them with tight supervision, and some to use them to the advantage
of the new state. Apparently the government saw the potential usefulness of
cinema as a tool and, rather than banning the art form altogether, decided to
use it as a means of promoting good Islamic values and helping usher in an
Islamic culture. Thus, the Islamic Republic set about its mission of creating
a strictly ideological cinema. Films, as the new religious leaders viewed them,
were a good tool for educating people, especially about moral values. The government
encouraged local production by discouraging and reducing the number
of fi lms imported. The reduction of municipal taxes on local fi lms was also
accompanied by generous long-term bank loans to producers and availability
of foreign exchange funds for importing equipment and supplies.
In 1982, the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance was in charge of
supervising the fi lm industry. It issued a set of new regulations which would
dictate the distribution of exhibition permits needed by fi lms before they
could be screened legally. The review involved examination of script, issuance
of production and fi nal exhibition permits, and the fi nal assessment of the
completed production. New guidelines disallowed portrayal of women without
the hejâb (veil). They were to be portrayed as modest and chaste women,
good mothers, and God-fearing Muslims. Films were to be devoid of sexual
scenes, violence, any negative portrayal of Islam or the Islamic government,
and any dialogue or interaction deemed “immoral.” A fi lm could be refused a
permit if it contained any of the following violations: insult to Islam or other
recognized religions; insult to the Islamic Republic; encouragement of prostitution,
drug addiction or other bad behavior; negation of equality whether
based on color, language, or belief; and the depiction of violence or torture.
In the early 1980s, fi lms were made for propagandistic purposes, and nearly
no Iranian citizen was interested in seeing them. Yet, as time passed, new rules
took effect, and early purges of Iranian actors and actresses ended, the industry