A SEPARATION written and directed by Asghar Farhadi (Iran, 2011)
It may be politically sensitive at the moment for the U.S. to acknowledge anything good coming out of Iran, but if there is better foreign language movie to deny A Separation an Oscar then I really would like to see it.
It is common for successful ‘foreign’ movies to be remade in the cinematic lingua franca of English but one of the strengths of Asghar Farhadi’s film is that, while its themes are universal, it is nevertheless imbedded in Iranian culture.
Can you imagine an American actress phoning a religious help line to find out if it is sin to change the soiled clothes of an old man suffering from Alzheimer’s? Would a Western audience be convinced that swearing upon the holy book would cause such trauma?
Equally, there are not many movies anywhere in the world that would so powerfully raise issues surrounding truth, justice, honour, sin, mercy and guilt.
Nothing in the movie suggests that the Iranian regime is any more repressive than other countries although you can fully understand why an intelligent young woman like Simin would find the theocratic system intolerable.
Women are given a hearing in the legal processes, but since the guiding principles of the law are determined by religious principles one can well imagine that the bias is still towards the male of the species.
While this film is not out to score political points or criticise religious values it does raise moral and ethical dilemmas that pose awkward questions about how social and legal problems are resolved. You are left with the feeling there is more than one truth and are shown how apparently innocent lies can have grave consequences.
One of the movie’s strengths is that none of the characters are fundamentally bad. They may be driven by self interest but there is no malevolence or cruelty behind what they do. Simin (Leila Hatami) is seeking a divorce from Nadar (Peyman Maadi) yet acknowledges that he is a “good and decent man”. Nothing of what he does calls this into question. He is dedicated to his sick father, supportive to his daughter and his act of violence towards to paid home help Razieh (Sareh Bayat) may have been reckless but is prompted by a justifiable anger at the woman’s negligence. Equally, the rage of Razieh’s husband Hodjat (Shahab Hosseini) is understandable .
Farhadi cleverly pulls the audience into the drama by hiding or obscuring crucial facts about the characters leaving us to speculate on the motives for their actions and making it difficult to judge the reliability of their version of events. In so doing he is emphasing that this is not a simple tale of right vs wrong or good vs evil.
The couple’s 11 year old daughter Termeh (played by the director’s daughter Sarina) is caught in the centre of her parent’s separation. “You said it’s not serious” she says to her father; “It got serious” he replies. The bold ending leaves her future open to question. ‘What would you do in her place’, Farhedi seems to be asking?
A brilliant movie.
A Separation should be seen as an Iranian movie made under ‘Iranian circumstances’ as Simin would have put it. So, do not be surprised if you read below how most Iranians woud interpret hidden metaphors in the movie.
In the opening scene, Nader says he does not want to leave Iran for many reasons and when challenged by Simin to name one, he mentions his father’s need for care and sympathy in the state he is in. To Simin this seems like an excuse. Nader, a man whose honesty and integrity is confirmed, should be seeking a better future for his family in the West, rather than stay behind, helping a father whose situation is hopeless because of Alzheimer’s. Then, as the argument builds up, we finally hear loud and clear the ‘Two World Views’ :
Simin (Modern, pragmatic)- Does your father any longer know you are his son?
Nader (Patriotic, principled)- But I know he is my father!
The sick father, who no longer knows him but needs his love, his care and his protection so dearly and cannot be left behind in such a state, is of course IRAN! And of course, responsibility always falls on the side who knows.
This interpretation is confirmed when Nader accuses Simin, in a later scene, that she has always been weak and tried to escape when conditions get tough, whereas one has to stand up and face the challenges ahead,………….economic sanctions or worse!
Interesting point – I wouldn’t have thought of this interpretation but it makes sense. Thanks, Baddu.
Thanks for considering my comment as helpful. It is a fact that this extraordinary movie would be best appreciated by most western viewers if we do not wrap another layer of meaning around its already complex screenplay. Nevertheless, I feel obliged to elaborate further what I have already provoked.
To be sure there is more to this metaphor. Hodjat represents the hard-liners, who zealously consider themselves the sole proprietor of religion, morality and patriotism. This ‘gives’ them the right to seek domination over others – even if this entails the use of force against anyone standing in their way, be it the traditional secular patriots (Nader), or their modern cosmopolitan counterparts (Simin) or even the silent but sincere traditional believers (Razieh). Bending morality or even religious codes (expecting Razieh to swear on the Koran against her better judgment) for material gain is allowed because God is on their side anyway, no matter what! All this, while their country deserves everyone’s concerted effort to navigate through internal as well as external obstacles.
But here comes something very important that Farhadi needs to say, and says it beautifully: that, not only Razieh and Simin, but even Nader will not hesitate to come to Hodjat’s help if he comes under serious external threat (Nader comes to hodjat’s defence when the magistrate threatens Hodjat with imprisonment). But then, this is what congressman Ron Paul has been telling his people all along, only if they would listen!