CL 14/15

CL: Da, ali su i oni sami izolovani. Možda i oni sami umiru u tim svojim zatvorenim krugovima?

MM: Apsolutno. Ja sam bio četiri i po godine u zatvoru. Imali smo policajce koji su bili zaduženi da nas kontrolišu. Oni su nam govorili da ćemo mi posle pet godina izaći, a da oni tu ostaju 30 godina. Jednog dana su kod kuće, sledećeg dana nas kontrolišu. I oni su zatvorenici. Čovek koji je stvorio zatvor za druge ljude, prvo je sebe zatvorio. On kontroliše zatvor. Ali, ja sam optimista po pitanju budućnosti. Zbog mlade generacije ljudi u Iranu. Kada smo pre 33 godine dizali Islamsku revoluciju u Iranu, bilo nas je 30 miliona. Sada nas ima skoro 80 miliona. Za 33 godine nas je više nego duplo više. Oko 68 odsto iranske populacije su mladi ljudi i imaju manje godina nego što je prošlo od revolucije. Šta ta mlada generacija želi? Potrebni su joj ljubav, posao, sigurnost, sloboda, demokratija, sekularizam i veza sa svetom. To su obrazovani ljudi, nisu kao ljudi u obližnjem Avganistanu, gde nažalost 85 odsto žena tokom vladavine Talibana nije moglo da se školuje. U Iranu 900 hiljada ljudi završi studije. Možete li da zamislite koliko ima visokoobrazovanih ljudi? Otprilike polovina populacije ima pristup Internetu i satelitskim kanalima. Imamo vrlo razvijen ženski pokret, radnički pokret, umetnički pokret, demokratski pokret...Njihov veliki broj menja situaciju. Zbog toga verujem da je Iran zaslužio i spreman je za demokratiju.

CL: I vrlo su hrabri i retki umetnici koji sve to dobro što se dešava u Iranu prikazuju u inostranstvu. A snalaze se na različite načine, kao npr. Džafar Panahi koji je svoj Ovo nije film prokrijumčario u nekom kolaču, kako se priča. Kako vi objašnjavate tu vrstu vitalnosti?

MM: Srećom, Džafar Panahi je sada slobodan, ali kada je bio u zatvoru, svi iranski umetnici su tražili da bude oslobođen. Bahnam Gobadi, ja i još neki iranski reditelji su išli u Kan. Džafarovoj porodici smo rekli da još malo sačekaju, do festivala u Kanu. Biće to eksplozija pred šest hiljada novinara i vlada će videti koliko važnu ulogu film ima. Uz pomoć novinara, naravno. U samo jednom danu sve agencije su javile da je jedan umetnik u zatvoru. I ljudi koji vole iranski film želeli su da učine nešto za Džafara. Zbog toga je on i pušten iz pritvora. Mi smo tu poruku poslali iz Kana, dobili smo podršku festivala. Ne samo Džafar, mnogi drugi su bili u zatvoru takođe. Posle toga, znalo se kada je neki umetnik bio uhapšen, oni su se uplašili i pustili bi ga. Veoma je jak pokret koji podržava iranske umetnike. Zbog toga su i zabranili Džafaru da snima filmove. On ga je ipak snimio, a oni mu nisu mogli ništa. I nisu mogli ponovo da ga uhapse jer je već bio u zatvoru. Džafar je samo primer; 15000 novinara, umetnika, studenata univerziteta, profesora univerziteta, aktivista pokreta za ljudska prava je bilo uhapšeno u poslednje četiri godine. I bar jedna osoba dnevno bude osuđenja na smrtnu kaznu i biva ubijena. Meni će ovde za dva dana biti uručena nagrada MAVERICK. Ja želim tu nagradu da posvetim nekim zatvorenicima. Zamislite, jedan osamdesetogodišnjak je u zatvoru sa svojim unukom. Zbog čega? Samo zbog toga što nije Musliman.

{niftybox background=#8FBC8F, width=360px} Iranski političari svuda postavljaju granice. Iranski umetnici podižu mostove. To je neka vrsta borbe protiv sila mraka. Mi svoje kamere koristimo kao oružje koje ubija tamu dogmatskih ljudi. Ali u isto vreme to nije samo politika. To je poezija. Kao vetar koji duva. Kao što moramo da jedemo, moramo i da nahranimo svoje duše. Umetnošću, slikama, muzikom.{/niftybox}

CL: Ne ne mogu to da zamislim, zaista. Ali, drago mi je da čujem da Vas se oni plaše. Šta god mi mislili, oni se mislim ipak Vas boje. Plaše se Vaše snage, a Vi tu snagu crpite iz umetnosti, a oni svoju snagu crpe iz neke proizvoljne interpretacije religije. Jer, koliko znam, Islam je religija stvorena po meri čoveka.

MM: Znate, sve religije su u početku stvorene kako bi pomogle i podržale čoveka. Kao što je voda na izvoru čista. Ona tokom svog puta pokupi mnogo prašine i ostalih nečistoća, pa na kraju dobijete nešto što nije ni čisto ni bistro više. Znate, moj poslednji film je upravo o tome. Baštovan. Snimio sam ga u Izraelu. To je razgovor između oca i sina koji se tiče uloge religije. Moj sin je predstavnik te mlade iranske generacije u filmu. On u jednom trenutku kaže da su sve religije uništile naš svet. Ja nastupam kao predstavnik svoje generacije, i kažem da religija, znači, ima moć da tako nešto učini. Zašto je onda ne bismo iskoristili da ponovo izgradimo taj svet. Jer, ako Talibani mogu da koriste religiju kako bi decu učinili spremnom da izvše samoubistvo u ime Boga, zašto ih mi ne bismo učili uz pomoć religije da ne izvršavaju samoubistva, da vode primeran život.

To je razgovor koji se vodi u mom filmu Baštovan koji ćete videti ako budete bili ovde.

{niftybox background=#8FBC8F, width=360px} Oni su ljudi „glupih duša" ali pametnih umova. Posle 30 godina, oni su pametniji nego što su bili ranije. Oni poznaju našu strategiju, znaju koliko nam je stalo do naše umetnosti. Ali oni nisu otvoreni. Oni su po mentalitetu kao ljudi koji žive na selu i smatraju da je to njihovo selo čitava vasiona.{/niftybox}

CL: Pomenuli ste Izrael. Kako sam pročitala, vi ste prvi iranski umetnik koji je posetio Izrael. Kako je to bilo?

MM: Bilo je neverovatno. Pre 18 godina moj film Gabe je bio prikazan u Izraelu. Zbog toga smo imali ogromnih problema u Iranu. Ispitivala me ja tajna policija i bio sam pod pritskom, novine su pisale vrlo ružno o meni, tada sam se sa njima borio i od tada govorim da smo svi mi rođeni na istoj planeti. Ko nas je podelio? Glupe političke granice. Mi nismo rođeni da budemo robovi nacije, kulture ili bilo čega drugog. Ja sam građanin filma. Film ne poznaje granice, film može svuda da odleti, a ja sam svoj film poslao u Izrael pre 18 godina. I tako prekršio tabu. Posle toga, stotine iranskih filmova je tamo prikazano, bez ikakvih problema. Ponovo, ovoga puta lično sam otišao tamo. Na festival. Bilo je dosta rasprava, napada, ali sam ja opet prekršio tabu. Iranska vlada je na moj odlazak u Iran reagovala tako što je uklonila 120 međunarodnih nagrada koje su moji i filmovi moje porodice dobili širom sveta u poslednjih 25 godina.

Prvo su cenzurisali moju prvu knjigu i moj prvi film, pa su vremenom, malo-po malo, cenzurisali i sve moje knjige i filmove. Onda su pokušali da me ubiju na severu Afganistana. Postavili su bombu na snimanju mog filma, jedna osoba je poginula, mnogi su bili teško ranjeni. Slali su teroriste u Pariz da me ubiju, obezbeđivala me je francuska policija... I danas, iako i ne pominju moje ime, u novinama pišu kako su Muzej iranskog filma očistili od prljavštine TE OSOBE I NJEGOVE PORODICE... Kažu, TE OSOBE, zamislite?

CL: A da ne pominju Vaše ime?

MM: Ne pominjući moje ime. Pre toga, pre nekoliko godina, po jednom od mojih scenarija, moj asistent je snimao film. Pogledali su film, prilično ga cenzurisali i odlučili da ga ne puste zbog mog imena. Moj asistent me je pitao šta možemo da uradimo. Rekao sam mu da moje ime ukloni. Da oslobodi taj film. I oni su ga odobrili pošto je moje ime sklonjeno. Posle toga sam uputio otvoreno pismo vladaocu Irana. Rekao sam mu da prihvatam odluku da se moje ime ukloni kako bi se film oslobodio. Zamolio sam ga da on svoje ime ukloni sa lica Irana i tako oslobodi zemlju. I sada, čak i pošto ne spominju moje ime, nisu mi produžili pasoš. Znate, ja nemam iranski pasoš jer ni jedna ambasada ne može da mi izda pasoš.

CL: I kako se osećate? Šta ste vi sada?

MM: Oni pokušavaju... Ponosan sam na svoju zemlju, stvarno ponosan na nju, trudim se da svojoj kulturi podarim dobar identitet u inostranstvu, a oni su zarobili moj pasoš kao moj identitet. Rekli su da više nisam neko ko se rodio u Iranu. Možete li da zamislite koliko su oni slabi i koliko im je potrebna naša pomoć da odrastu. Ja ne želim da ih mrzim. Ja nikoga ne mrzim. Ja verujem da su i oni ljudska bića, ali oni su toliko nezreli, kao deca.

CL: Dopada mi se taj vaš stav da oni samo treba da odrastu.

MM: Da, samo treba da odrastu. Zbog toga moramo da pravimo filmove.

CL: I umetnička dela uopšte, zato što je glupost ratovanja i zatvaranja ljudi u zatvore....

MM: Imam ja jedan film koji se zove Bio jednom jedan bioskop, ne znam da li ga znate?

CL: Da, da, čula sam...

MM: To je priča o kralju koji je cenzurisao filmove. Ali, zaljubio se u glumicu iz filma i odrekao se svih svojih privilegija kako bi bio na filmu. Kako bi se stvarno zaljubio. Morali bismo da snimamo više filmova o njima.

CL: I da ih naterate da se zaljube.

MM: Da, da, apsolutno...

Nevena Matović

Alfred Hitchcock has been the subject of two recent films, released only a few months apart: Julian Jarrold's television project The Girl (2012) and Sacha Gervasi's Hitchcock (2012). This kind of "synchronized" interest in the "master of suspense", in the very year when Vertigo (1958) finally dethroned Citizen Kane (1941) from the top of the most influential lists of movies of all time, ran by the British monthly Sight and Sound, must be significant. In academic and serious film criticism, the author of Notorious (1946), Rear Window (1954) and Psycho (1960) is unrivalled when it comes to the hermeneutic focus and interpretational concentration that have been lavished even on the minute details of film text. While on some historically relevant directors (Murnau, Rossellini, von Sternberg) there are only a few English language publications available, Hitchock is the subject of at least couple of books every year, a tendency that is unlikely to be disrupted in the foreseeable future.

However, when it comes to general public, Hitchcock is far from the status of the most famous and recognizable world director that he enjoyed during the 1950s, in good part thanks to the television series Alfred Hitchcock Presents (1955). As Thomas Leitch pointed out in his essay "Hitchcock and Company", if we take Google search as a parameter of popularity and presence in the mainstream, Hitchcock lags behind Quentin Tarantino, Peter Jackson and Steven Spielberg. Does that mean that the new generations of film audiences still need some kind of fictional stimulant in order to pay attention to the legendary author, because his "case" contains elements (besides implied cinephile nostalgia) which could be, if for completely wrong reasons, intriguing to the prevailing esthetical and political tastes of today?

{niftybox background=#8FBC8F, width=360px} With its rhetoric thus established, Hitchcock is able to engage in a play with quotations, apocryphal stories and (un)verified legends from the Psycho set, to such an extent that even the less informed viewer would hardly believe that Hitchcock spied on actresses through a wall as Norman Bates did, or whirled the knife at Janet Leigh (a spectacularly precise performance by Scarlett Johansson!) and even less that he was in a telepathic relationship with Ed Gein.{/niftybox}

Both The Girl and Hitchcock deal with the great director during what was creatively and personally one of the most turbulent period of his life, and which reflected strongly in the three films where his auteur poetics culminates: Psycho, The Birds (1963) and Marnie (1964). But, Jarrold's and Gervasi's approach is symptomatically disparate, in terms of the aesthetic-personal axis: it is the very quality of the said reflection – how and how much of biography features in his film – that essentially determines The Girl and Hitchcock as projects that operate on completely different levels, even though both films very liberally, not to say irresponsibly and unprofessionally, take over and interpret "facts" from Hitchcock's life.

It should be said upfront that both films – each based on a book, Spellbound by Beauty: Alfred Hitchcock and His Leading Ladies by Donald Spoto and Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of "Psycho" by Stephen Rebello – openly forge and distort data and testimonials, but their intentions are different: while The Girl shamelessly adds and exaggerates certain allegations, Hitchcock rather boldly invents and projects something that ultimately never happened, that is, it couldn't have happened in such a way. Although both films are far from a plausible description or insight in the mystery of Hitchcock, why is then The Girl only a revolting pasquinade, and Hitchcock most certainly clumsy, but at least interesting attempt to "bring closer" the notoriously reclusive and reserved director? Why is The Girl nothing but an unreconstructed, sorely tendentious defamation, profiteering at the time of great sensitivity when it comes to issues of abuse of women (in and by the film industry), and Hitchcock – an ultimately flawed project – is an almost ludicrous "reconstruction" of Hitchcockian aesthetic points and moments, even though the quantity of misinformation, wrong interpretation and unfettered falsehood is immeasurably greater in this film?

The Girl is dealing with the "tumultuous" relationship between Hitchcock and his last great movie star and blonde, Tippi Hedren, the heroine of The Birds and Marnie. Yet, Jarrold and screenwriter Gwyneth Hughes do not even try to offer a compelling description that would show at least a part of ambivalent, mixed feelings between the famous director and the actress, who was preparing to become a definite Hitchcockian model blonde. The Girl embarrassingly, one-sidedly and idiotically tendentiously builds an image of Hitchcock as a pervert predator whose obsession towards Hedren exceeds the limits of understandable behavior of a man in love. According to a number of plausible reports, Hitchcock was indeed somewhat overly obsessed with Hedren, occasionally engaging in something that today might be called sexual harassment, but in that relationship, physical aggression never existed.

However, for Jarrold and Hughes the thing by itself is not condemning, and with nothing to support it, they aggravate the situation and promote excess where there was only a vague suggestion. We find the most evident example in the painful scene in which Hitchcock (a pathetically unconvincing Toby Jones) attacks Hedren (Sienna Miller, who neither looks nor talks as the famous actress).

Evidently, it wasn't enough for the authors of this travesty that they have based the film on Spoto's book (which was by the way, the most controversial overview of Hitchcock's career), without consulting other resources, they have passionately decided to go a step further: in Spellbound by Beauty, Hedren herself will say of the whole situation that it was just a "violent embrace", while in The Girl we have a direct attempt of rape. With this kind of a grotesque misstatement of facts, the aim is not only to place Hedren as an absolute victim (which she was, but not in such drastic measures), but primarily to present Hitchcock as a genuine sexual monster. Thus, The Girl reaches the perverse paradox that, out of all possible exemplars of sexual abuse in film industry, one almost virginal director is chosen as a paradigm of Hollywood exploitation. Certainly, the film, even biographical, doesn't always have to meet with the standards of objectivity and true-to-lifeness, it is understood that certain amount of "imaginary" material must be manifested in any artistic setting, but all interventions done by The Girl – even towards the source which the incriminating information is derived from – have no other goal but entirely shameless denunciation, subsequent slander of the famous director. As such, The Girl is nothing but a worthless piece of garbage.

On the other hand, in Hitchcock the falsehood is obvious, stretched half-truths and a number of correct anecdotes still brought closer to the wider cinephilie and metapoetic purpose. The results are, undoubtedly, problematic, but Gervasi's method to try – even in a simplified way – to read Hitchcock's life from his films, to reduce and translate the auteur cinematic opus, has a specific relevance, given that with it, the fictional intonation is immediately emphasized, unlike the supposed "mimesis" which the The Girl impudently propagates. Hence, when we see Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins) in the film for the first time it is not in a realistic setting, but in his famous role as an announcer – all followed with the Gounod's musical theme "Funeral March for a Marionette" – from Alfred Hitchcock Presents. We are, that is, facing a public persona, a jovial and ironic figure that was in fact Hitchcock's construction and creation, a mask that was effectively hiding an intimate side of a genius.

With its rhetoric thus established, Hitchcock is able to engage in a play with quotations, apocryphal stories and (un)verified legends from the Psycho set, to such an extent that even the less informed viewer would hardly believe that Hitchcock spied on actresses through a wall as Norman Bates did, or whirled the knife at Janet Leigh (a spectacularly precise performance by Scarlett Johansson!) and even less that he was in a telepathic relationship with Ed Gein.

What is at work in Hitchock is an aggressive and sometimes meaningless need to subordinate all aspects of the film to a rather literal cinematic contextualization and motivation, which some times generates results that are in poor taste, but at least there is no appetite for intentional affront. Veracity of the event is valorized only through their amenability to the rapid cinematic (mis)use, in order to create a coherent image where (non)diegetic details from Hitchcock's life and his films coincide and overlap. For example, when Anthony Perkins (James D'Arcy) – at the time still in closet – is interviewed by Hitchcock for the role of Norman Bates, he predictably glorifies Rope (1948) and Strangers on a Train (1951), the Master's films about homosexuals. Based on the director's famous statement from the interview with Truffaut, "Psycho has a very interesting construction and that game with the audience was fascinating. I was directing the viewers. You might say I was playing them, like an organ", Gervasi "makes it literal", so Hitchcock conducts – with Herrmann's screaming violins – the audience which is terrorized during the famous scene in the shower. That would, in a nutshell, be the symbolic economy of Hitchcock: a hope that even invented or absurd situations and episodes still reveal and illustrate some "deeper" truth about the director himself.

{niftybox background=#8FBC8F, width=360px} The Girl is dealing with the "tumultuous" relationship between Hitchcock and his last great movie star and blonde, Tippi Hedren, the heroine of The Birds and Marnie. Yet, Jarrold and screenwriter Gwyneth Hughes do not even try to offer a compelling description that would show at least a part of ambivalent, mixed feelings between the famous director and the actress, who was preparing to become a definite Hitchcockian model blonde.{/niftybox}

This is especially evident in the treatment of Alma Reville (Helen Mirren), Hitchcock's wife. Her love affair with Whitfield Cook (Danny Huston), at least according to the claims of Patrick McGilligan in Alfred Hitchcock: A Life in Darkness and Light, happened in the late 1940s not in the late 1950s, and her influence on the Psycho script, as all Hitchcock's biographies testify, as well as the recently published book on the director's relation with screenwriters, Scripting Hitchcock: "Psycho", "The Birds", and "Marnie" by Walter Raubicheck and Walter Srebnick, was minimal. But, for Gervasi, this exaggeration in emotional and artistic sense has a dramaturgic function through condensation, with which, yet again, the metafilmic perspective is emphasized.

Finally, if The Girl has no other but a repulsive tabloid agenda, then Hitchcock – in the scope of its rhetoric – wants to "normalize" the image of the director (even though his sadistic, neurotic and dark dimension is indicated), exactly in the way of classical Hollywood cinematography, that is, by (re)constituting diegetic couple through a romantic view (which is, by the way, an aesthetical procedure that gained its most consequential Oedipal realization in North by Northwest (1959), the film that followed Psycho). How a couple is formed, inside the forces of destined arbitrariness and suspense, is actually Hitchcock's obsessional subject, and Hitchcock essentially is – with a "relaxed" approach to facts and happy ending in marriage – primarily a sort of a comedy of remarriage. That is why Gervasi and screenwriter John J. McLaughlin should have taken it to the end: the film – based on the image of director's only screwball comedy and at the same time his weakest American film – should have been more precisely called: Mr. and Mrs. Hitchcock.

Aleksandar Bečanović
translated by Marko Jusič

Mosen Makhmalbaf je iranski reditelj, romanopisac, scenarista, montažer, producent, borac za ljudska prava, čovek koji iskreno veruje da film može da promeni svet. On je bio gost 16. Motovun filmskog festivala, gde mu je uručena tradicionalna nagrada MAVERICK. Njegova životna priča liči na filmsku: sa 17 godina je učestvujući u demonstracijama protiv šaha Reze Pahlavija, nožem ranio policajca, bio osuđen na smrt steljanjem, ali je kaznu izbegao zbog svoje mladosti. U zatvoru je proveo pet godina i kako kaže pročitao 2000 knjiga, ne govoreći o mučenju od koga se godinama oporavljao i posle koga je prohodao tek nakon višestrukih operacija. Režirao je 26 filmova i napisao 27 knjiga, a njegov opus zabranjen je u Iranu. U filmu Trenutak nevinosti, iransko - francuskoj koprodukciji iz 1996. godine, reditelj opisuje godine koje je proveo u tamnici. Na pitanje kako je zadovoljan projekcijom koja je upriličena u okviru njegove retrospektive u Motovunu, Makhmalbaf mi je odgovorio:

„Dugo nisam gledao ovaj film, bilo mi je teško i mnogo sam plakao". I nije bio jedini, većina gledalaca u sali je plakala, a mnogi su komentarisali da je to jedan od najlepših filmova koje su u životu gledali. Čitava Mosenova porodica se bavi filmom i svi su uspešni u svom poslu. Povodom nagrade Maverik koju je dobio na MFF, Mosen Makhmalbaf je rekao da se nada da će ona otvoriti vrata kulturoloških i političkih zatvora širom sveta. Nagradu je posvetio osamdesetogodišnjem čoveku koji provodi poslednju godinu dvadesetogodišnje robije i svim političkim zatvorenicima u Iranu.

CL: Šteta je što svaki put kada se sretnem sa nekim iranskim rediteljem, iako želim da razgovaram o umetnosti i svemu što uz to ide, politika uvek bude ono o čemu počinjemo razgovor?

MM: Znate, to je zbog toga što je stvarni život iranskog naroda povezan sa kulturom, poezijom, ali je pod pritiskom politike, posebno u poslednje 33 godine posle revolucije, Islamske revolucije. Takođe, u našim filmovima možete pronaći različite slojeve, ljudski, umetnički i politički. Naročito u mojim filmovima. Mada ja govorim o umetnosti i nečemu što je tako daleko od politike, u njima ima politike zbog toga što svi naši filmovi imaju polazište u realnosti, a naša je realnost pod pritiskom politike.

CL: Da, ali vaša realnost počiva i na nečemu vrlo čvrstom i jakom; vi ste, da tako kažem, narod koji je pisao početke ljudske istorije. Ona je počela od vas. Mora da je vrlo teško kada se realnost vašeg življenja meša sa tim jakim kulturnim nasleđem?

MM: Da. Na primer, u filmu Gabe, pokušao sam da prikažem stvarni život nomadskog iranskog naroda; koliko je on povezan sa prirodom, koliko na njega utiče priroda, boje prirode, duša prirode... I koliko je on, zapravo, daleko od društva koje je toliko zabrazdilo u politiku. Ali je i taj film bio politički film zbog toga što je, dok smo mi u Iranu bili obučeni u crnu ili belu odeću, kolorističan film kao što je Gabe, bio neka vrsta revolucije u gradovima. Milionska publika je (a u Iranu su taj film videli miloni ljudi) kada je izlazila iz bioskopa bila šokirana. Shvatila je i pitala se zbog čaga je obučena i crnu ili belu odeću, kada naša tradicionalna kultura nalaže drugačiji način odevanja. Sve je u našoj umetnosti postalo povezano sa politikom.

{niftybox background=#8FBC8F, width=360px} Kada kažete da mrzite diktatore, zapravo govorite o tome da vam je potrebna demokratija, kada kažete da vam je potrebna ljubav, da vam je potrebna boja, sve te te izjave postaju političke izjave u našoj zemlji. Zbog toga što nemamo nikakva prava.{/niftybox}

Takođe i kada snimate film van Irana, ja sam snimio film Kandahar koji govori o Talibanima, o fundamentalistima u Afganistanu, taj film je u Iranu imao drugačije značenje. Publika je mogla da pomisli: „ O, Mosen sigurno govori o iranskoj vladi", zbog toga što su oni potpuno isti. Kada kažete da mrzite diktatore, zapravo govorite o tome da vam je potrebna demokratija, kada kažete da vam je potrebna ljubav, da vam je potrebna boja, sve te te izjave postaju političke izjave u našoj zemlji. Zbog toga što nemamo nikakva prava...

CL: Možda je to zbog tog što političari i nisu toliko glupi kao što mislimo. I to ima neke veze sa tim kulturnim nasleđem?

MM: Oni su ljudi „glupih duša" ali pametnih umova. Posle 30 godina, oni su pametniji nego što su bili ranije. Oni poznaju našu strategiju, znaju koliko nam je stalo do naše umetnosti. Ali oni nisu otvoreni. Oni su po mentalitetu kao ljudi koji žive na selu i smatraju da je to njihovo selo čitava vasiona. A uticaj Islama je na žalost veliki. Naš narod je izgubio mnoga prava. Ne želim da kažem da je uzrok svih jada Islam, jer šta je Islam? Svaki će vam musliman reći da je Islam drugačiji. Da, vlada Irana i Islam u njihovim glavama je nešto vrlo zatvoreno, usko i previše ograničavajuće za običnog čoveka. Daću vam primer. Različite manjine su pod pritiskom tog režima: Sufi, Bahaisti, Jevreji, Hrišćani, žene, mlade generacije, umetnici, deca... Svi oni su izgubili svoja prava. Na primer, Bahaisti. Oni čine jedan odsto iranske populacije, 700 hiljada ljudi. Oni nisu mogli da se upisuju na univerzitete! Možete li to da zamislite? Nisu mogli da pohađaju univerzitete zbog toga što nisu Muslimani! Mnogi od njih su u zatvorima ili su osuđeni na smrt samo zato što nisu Muslimani. To je naša realnost. Zbog toga naši filmovi uvek imaju političku konotaciju. U mojoj zemlji, devetogodišnja devojčica mora da bude odrasla, jer je vlada te zemlje rekla da desetogodišnja devojčica više nije dete! I mogu da je kazne jer ona mora da pokrije glavu. Ako urade nešto što ne treba, decu hapse, mogu da ih muče... Možete li da zamislite koliko glupih pravila oni kontrolišu. Zbog toga naši filmovi imaju političke konotacije.

Ali, sa druge strane, život iranskog naroda, istinski život u prirodi, u našim domovima je sasvim drugačiji. Mogao bih da kažem da iranski narod ima dva života; život u svojim domovima i život na ulici.

CL: Ali, sve tako funkcioniše i na zapadu. Svi mi živimo po nekim pravilima u javnosti, ali se kod svojih kuća ponašamo malo dugačije...

MM: Da ali je razlika ogromna. Iranski narod se zaljubljuje međusobno na partijima. Na tim partijima oni piju, igraju, ne pokrivaju svoju kosu, jedni sa drugima vrlo otvoreno razgovaraju, o religiji, o politici... Ali kada su na ulici, moraju da se pokriju, moraju da vode računa o tome kako su obučeni, moraju da paze šta pričaju. Sve zbog tajne policije. Kao što je nakada bilo u zemljama sa komunističkim uređenjem.

{niftybox background=#8FBC8F, width=360px} Na pitanje kako je zadovoljan projekcijom koja je upriličena u okviru njegove retrospektive u Motovunu, Makhmalbaf mi je odgovorio: „Dugo nisam gledao ovaj film, bilo mi je teško i mnogo sam plakao".{/niftybox}

CL: Da li ta situacija može i da inspiriše ili samo čini da ih kritikujete?

MM: I jedno i drugo. Konflikt vam pomaže da razgovarate o konfliktnoj situaciji. A šta je kreativnost? Na neki način traganje za putem slobode. Na različite načine i ne kroz politiku. Zbog toga što je svaki čovek veći od Univerzuma. Jer, koliko god da je veliki, Univerzum je jos uvek manji od duše i želje koju ima ljudsko biće. Mi našom kreativnošću pokušavamo da taj Univerzum još više razvijemo. Umetnost, to su prozori na zidu za koji bismo voleli da ne postoji. Nekada on npostoji zbog političkih granica, nekada on postoji zbog toga što Univerzum nije dovoljno veliki za naše želje.

CL: Zbog toga što ste vi umetnik. A i kada napustite tu svoju zemlju i dalje vam nije prijatno, iako bi trebalo. Zbog toga što želite da živite u svojoj zemlji, onako kako biste želeli, a i volite tu svoju zemlju, što vidimo i iz vaših filmova. Šta je onda to što muči te vaše političare? Kad god gledam iranski film ja vidim da ga je stvarao neko ko voli svoju zemlju i ne razumem zašto je to problem?

MM: Znate, nas ima sada već oko 80 miliona. I svi smo mi ljudska bića. Svi mi živimo na istoj planeti. Ali, mnoge nas stvari razdvajaju. Prva stvar su političke granice. Druga stvar su religijske granice i ograničenja. Treća stvar su različiti mentaliteti i ponekad, poremećaji ličnosti. Sve to razdvaja nacije. Vlada je religiozna, nije sekularna. Nije liberalna. I nije demokratska. Oni misle da Bog pripada njima. Oni misle da je Bog nameravao da stvori nih, ali je greškom stvorio i Univerzum i druge zemlje. Zbog toga oni žele da „premontiraju" božije delo. Oni kažu: „ O, kako je Univerzum veliki, to nama nije potrebno. Hajde da ga skratimo. Vidi koliko ima zemalja na svetu. Bogu sve te zemlje nisu potrebne. Hajde da ih uništimo. Vidi koliko ima različitih kultura i jezika. Univerzumu to nije potrebno. Hajde da skratimo sve to." Oni žele da sažmu Univerzum i učine ga kraćim i manjim. Da ga prilagode svojim kapacitetima. U tome je problem. Ali, iranski umetnik je u stanju da vizualizuje nevidljive stvari, da promeni svet koji nije baš udoban ljudskim bićima. Iranski političari svuda postavljaju granice. Iranski umetnici podižu mostove. To je neka vrsta borbe protiv sila mraka. Mi svoje kamere koristimo kao oružje koje ubija tamu dogmatskih ljudi. Ali u isto vreme to nije samo politika. To je poezija. Kao vetar koji duva. Kao što moramo da jedemo, moramo i da nahranimo svoje duše. Umetnošću, slikama, muzikom... Možete li da zamislite jedan dan u kome niste u mogućnosti da slušate muziku. Šta se deava sa vašom dušom? Ili da u jednom danu, iznenada, niste u stanju da registrujete ni jednu sliku koja se javila u vašoj glavi? Da niste u kontaktu sa ostalim svetom? Šta bi se desilo sa vašim mozgom? Bili biste izolovani. Iranski političari pokušavaju da izoluju naciju. Umetnici pokušavaju da se razviju i povežu sa ostalim delovima Univerzuma.

Part 1
Synopsis:

Harry Caulis a paranoid eavesdropping expert who runs his own company in San Francisco and he is highly respected by the colleagues within his profession. Saul is obsessed with his own privacy ; his apartment is behind its triple-locked door, he uses a payphone to make calls and claims that he doesn't have a home telephone and his office is enclosed in a corner of a much larger warehouse. He is utterly professional at work, but it is extremely difficult for him to make personal contacts. Dense crowd makes him uncomfortable and he is repulsive and taciturn in intimate social situations; he is also taciturn and mysterious with his colleagues. Although his clothing style is neutral, he tends to wear a translucent gray plastic raincoat almost everywhere he goes, even when it is not raining. Although he insists that he is not responsible for the actual content of the conversations he records or for the use his clients will make of it, he feels tortured by guilt over the recent wiretap job which has resulted in the murder of three people. This feeling of guilt is even more pronounced because of his Catholic upbringing. His only hobby is playing a saxophone to his favorite jazz tunes in the privacy of his home.

a/Opening sequence, Union Square, San Francisco Parallel editing (cross- cutting)

The concept applied in this sequence is the first one in the series of similar ones during the flow of the dramatic plot. Though it is complex, it has two basic types of materials - documentary, filmed with tele-lens, which is equivalent to the audio content, and shots within the interior of the van with the actors. The third parallel flow is exterior shots of the sound recorders on the surrounding buildings, as well as several subjective views. The sound matrix on the border of intelligibility, (due to the nature of the work of the main protagonist), progressively reveals cause-effect relationships that link Harry Caul and the content of the conversation on the street between two young people. Some segments of this conversation multiply and play a key role in defining the plot and Caul's character traits, cutting deep into the subconscious sphere. Within this parallel editing there are several audio-visual levels at which the position of our hero is perceived depending on the choice of our perspective, plan and angles of view, in one moment in the exterior plane with the surroundings, and in another interiorized bordering on a private and not just a professional interest in the job. Several complementary shots of Caul's associates define his position as master of the situation. At the beginning, he does not "invest" emotionally in its denouement, doing his job very professionally. However, this sequence seems to be the indication of Caul's ambivalence.

b/Passages / Condensed sequence
1.

In a number of passages in which Harry performs his everyday activities, such as crossing the street, riding the subway, arriving to the mistress – the actors' spiritual state is revealed trough the counterpoint in which picture and sound are placed.

Almost "Satie-like" musical passages evoke a state of loneliness, which is the product of an inversion which moves Harry from the domain of reality and brings into the sphere of introspective judgement and opens the space for the dilemma that prompts him to the conflict with the employer. Therefore, he increasingly doubts the postulate of the strict professionalism and begins to "emotionally invest " in business.

{niftybox background=#8FBC8F, width=360px} In terms of editing, all described passages are dense sequences; in the dramaturgical terms they are an indication of the transformation of personality doing the job that is in collision with his true character and by entropy principle takes over its energy potential. Their tempo, in this sense , prepares the audience for the changes that will appear in the narration's character. They are also in the causal connection with the loss of self-control in a series of retrospective and oneiric sequences – Harry Caul is, in fact, yet another one of the film protagonists, who (as in the movie The Killers by Don Siegel (1964.), John Flynn's The Outfit (1973.) or in the complete oeuvre of Quentin Tarantino.) abandons highly pronounced professional code, while aiming the action toward the "inside" exposing the employer. This event in a dramatic turn shows another change that completely devastates a personality with a strong value system.{/niftybox}

2.

Another type of passages that is encountered within the narrative is openly explicit and speaks of dualism of Harry's personality and the nature of a latent paranoid. One example is the motif of returning home, visualized trough his entry into the empty spaces where absolute silence prevails. The minimalism of his living space suggests the kind of professionalism that consumes all his daily time and a paranoid fear of a possible inversion in a professional sense – from the omnipotent "ear number one" on the West coast of the USA, he slowly turns into a potential victim.

3.

A special playback in which Harry plays the saxophone to the jazz matrix in the moments of meditation introduces a new motive for analysis. According to the psychoanalytic vocabulary, it is the situation of an "ear membrane entanglement", where he isolates himself yet exposed to the multi-layered resonance of everyday work. In these passages,he is in the soundless state within which is completely free. This is his natural state and he is coming back to it after the final sequence of destruction of his own environment and nervous breakdown.