Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:57:23.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mehrjui's Social Comedy and the Representation of the Nation in the Age of Globalization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Shahab Esfandiary
Shahab Esfandiary*
Affiliation:
Tehran's University of Arts
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite being one of the pioneers of Iranian cinema's “new wave” in the 1960s, Daryush Mehrjui has maintained his position in the cinema as an influential filmmaker. He is still capable of making films which are both popular with public audiences and highly acclaimed by Iranian critics. Mehmaneh Maman (Mum's Guests), a social comedy he made in 2004, is one such film which has received little critical attention outside Iran. In this paper, the representation of “the nation” in Mum's Guests and the latter film's reception by local critics is contrasted with that of Ejareh Neshinha (The Lodgers, 1986); another popular social comedy which Mehrjui made almost two decades earlier. This comparison aims to examine the differences between the two films in the light of theories of postmodernism and globalization. It is argued that Mehrjui's representation of the nation in Mum's Guests demonstrates a more conscious acknowledgment of differences based on class, gender, ethnicity and religion; and a more inclusive approach to marginalized sections of Iranian society. The collapse of boundaries between “the local” and “the global,” as well as that of “high-art” and “low-art” are other key elements of Mehrjui's more recent film. The two films also differ in terms of their portrayal of themes such as happiness and solidarity, political/ideological conflict, and science and consumerism, which are explained with reference to the impact and consequences of globalization.

Type
Articles
Information
Iranian Studies , Volume 44 , Issue 3: Beyond the Iranian Frame: From Visual Representation to Socio-Political Drama , May 2011 , pp. 341 - 358
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 The International Society for Iranian Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 In 1971, for the first time in the history of Iranian cinema, Gav (The Cow), a full length feature film from Iran, was screened in a major international film festival. Despite being banned in Iran a copy of Mehrjui's film was smuggled to the Venice Film Festival where it won the Critics' Award.

2 Hasani-Nasab, N., “Behtarin aasaare cinemaye mellie seh dahe” [Best Works of National Cinema in Three Decades], Film Monthly, 26, no. 383 (2008): 26–31Google Scholar.

3 Robertson, Roland, Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture (London, 1992), 8Google Scholar.

4 Donmez-Colin, Gonul, Cinemas of the Other (Bristol, 2006), 78Google Scholar.

5 Azimi, S., “In Adamhaye ashena” [These Familiar People], Film Monthly, 26, no. 382 (2008): 32Google Scholar.

6 Haji Agha Mohammad, J., “Majmooeye pichidehee az ravabet va bavar ha” [A Complex Set of Relations and Beliefs], Film Monthly, 5, no. 51 (1987): 58Google Scholar.

7 “Az kotak-kari be eesar, az khashm be mehrabani, az gerye be khande” [From Fighting to Altruism, from Rage to Compassion, from Weeping to Laughter], in Daryush Mehrjui, Naghde Aasar: Az Banu Ta Mehmane Maman (Critique of Daryush Mehrjui's Works: From Banu to Mum's Guests), ed. Gharehsheikhloo, A. and Vafaei, M. (Tehran, 2006), 209.Google Scholar

8 “Az kotak-kari be eesar,” 302.

9 S. Mousavi, “Gozareshi az jalaseye naghd va barresi ‘Ejareh Neshinha’ dar Hozeh Honary” [A Report on the Seminar for Review and Critique of The Lodgers held in Hozeh Honari], Gol-Agha Online, http://www.golagha.ir/news/2006/Aug/13/528.php (accessed 23 September 2007).

10 Khoshkhoo, A., “Chera jangal ra nadidim?” [Why Did We Miss the Forest?], Shargh Newspaper, 10 Mordad 1386 (1 August 2007)Google Scholar.

11 This happened at a time when Makhmalbaf was a high-profile filmmaker with five feature films to his name. It is said that the letter caused Mehrjui to go into hiding for quite a while. The letter was revealed nearly two decades later in a book by Jamal Omid, a leading Iranian film historian who worked with the Farabi Foundation. Makhmalbaf's letter and the diplomatic response of Farabi's chief were both published in Shargh Newspaper on 10 Mordad 1386 (1 August 2007).

12 While most of Mehrjui's films in the 1980s were either male dominated or had central male characters, he significantly shifted his focus to women in the 1990s. Not only were women the central characters of many of his more recent films, but the films' titles were usually the name of the central character. These films include: Banu (1991), Sara (1992), Pari (1994), Leila (1996) and Bemani (2001).

13 Khoshchehreh, M., “Kiarostami dar khala', zamine mohkam zire paye Mehrjui” [Kiarostami in the Abyss, Mehrjui on Solid Ground], Shahrvand, no. 927 (2004)Google Scholar, http://www.shahrvandpublications.com/fa/Default.asp?IS=927&Content=NW&CD=CM&NID=3#3 (accessed 15 October 2007).

14 “Az kotak-kari be eesar,” 206.

15 Regardless of the fact that in Iran, as in some other countries, working for television has generally been considered inferior to working for cinema, another factor that contributed to many filmmakers' reluctance to work with television in the late 1990s was the political disputes and clashes between the “Reformist” government, which was strongly supported by artists and filmmakers, and the “Conservatives” who controlled the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting Organization (IRIB). By 2003, when Mehrjui became involved in making Mum's Guests, however, the IRIB had to some extent recovered from the damage to its reputation in the aftermath of the 1997 presidential election. The IRIB managed to improve its popularity through initiating new developments in television and radio channels and adopting more inclusive and moderate policies in terms of programming.

16 Directed by Kamal Tabrizi, aired on Iranian television in 2001 and 2002.

17 Directed by Homayun As‘adian, aired on Iranian television in 2003 and 2004.

18 Directed by Ghasem Jafari, aired on Iranian television in 2004.

19 Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings by Michel Foucalt, 1972–1977, ed. Gordon, C. (New York, 1980), 60.Google Scholar

20 Haji Agha Mohammad, “Majmooeye,” 58.

21 Pourmohammad, M., “Do Film Ba Yek Belit!” [Two Films for One Ticket!], Film Monthly, 5, no. 53 (1987): 85Google Scholar.

22 Film Monthly, 21, no. 313 (2004): 70–75.

23 Film Monthly, 22, no. 319 (2004): 76–111.

24 Hasani-Nasab, N., “Hads bezan che kasi baraye sham miayad?” [Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?], Film Monthly, 22, no. 319 (2004): 77–79Google Scholar.

25 This scornful term was introduced by the Iranian film critic Hushang Kavusi in the 1960s to describe popular Iranian cinema of the time. Since many of these films imitated the plots and forms of foreign genre films (mainly Indian cinema and Hollywood), and in Kavousi's view did not represent anything about “Iranian culture” and “national identity,” apart from language (i.e. Farsi), they were labelled as Film-Farsi. The term is still used by film critics to pour scorn onto poor quality, or even popular mainstream films.

26 Lyotard, Jean-Francois, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (Manchester, 1984)Google Scholar.

27 Donmez-Colin, Cinemas of the Other, 81.

28 Robertson, Globalization.

29 Featherstone, Mike, Undoing Culture: Globalization, Postmodernism and Identity (London, 1995)Google Scholar.

30 Higson, A., “The concept of national cinema”, in Film and Nationalism, ed. Williams, A. (New Brunswick, NJ, 2002), 52–67Google Scholar.

31 Clearly we should not neglect the crucial role of translation and dubbing in familiarizing “the foreign” for local audiences and facilitating such inter-cultural understandings. The “art” of dubbing in Iran has a rich history and is considered a highly creative procedure that includes not only reading (decoding) the foreign script and translating it into Farsi, but also using local expressions, proverbs, slang and even dialects of Farsi language as substitutes for the original dialogues of the film and the actor's discourse.

32 Dabashi, Hamid, Iran: A People Interrupted (New York, 2007), 108Google Scholar.

33 Robertson, Globalization.

34 Hamid Naficy provides an insightful personal account of the impact of US government-sponsored “educational documentaries” in constructing and disseminating such an image of “Science” in Iran in the 1950s. See Naficy, H., “Theorizing ‘Third World’ Film Spectatorship: The Case of Iran and Iranian Cinema,” in Rethinking Third Cinema, ed. Gunteratne, A. R. and Dissanayake, W. (New York, 2003), 183–201Google Scholar.

35 Mehrjui even makes fun of the widely assumed clear divide between different social classes through the character of Yusef. He is the only son of a rich upper class family in north Tehran, but has abandoned them after falling in love with a working class girl from south Tehran, to whom he is now married. Despite his father's invitation for him to return, Yusef insists that he feels more comfortable in the small place where he lives, and that he is also proud of his job, which is peeling and selling walnuts.