There seemed to be three very important trends in our reading about the Arab cinema. First of all, many of the nations used documentary film in the beginning, even after narrative had become prevalent in other parts of the world. Second, many filmmakers were forced into making films while in exile, which has lead to a very unique genre. Finally, The fight against Western Ideals and imported morals has been a very controversial issue within the Arab world.
In the reading “The Arab World” and “Turkish Cinema” documentaries play a key role in the beginning of the national cinema, but it was also very important in Iranian cinema, which is where I would like to focus.
Until 1930, Iranian cinema was comprised of documentaries that were screened privately by royalty (Naficy 672). This trend continued with the development of sound, with documentary footage coming not only Iranian sources, but also foreign as well (Naficy 673). Eventually, however, the Iranian government began to give in to Western ideals, and seeing the fiscal opportunities of the countries, the American cinema entered into Iran.
Despite the fact that “ethnic and religious minorities were instrumental in developing the nascent Iranian cinema” (Naficy 673), American encouraged sponsorship wreaked havoc on the Iranian cinema. In the 1960s, as Iran’s government embraced western ideals and help from the American government, censorship grew out of control and has remained that way since, even though the reasons have changed. In the beginning it was easier for American and European films to enter Iran when indigenous films were under heavy government scrutiny, and therefore the control was encouraged by foreign influences. As time went on, however, moral objections by Iranians themselves began to encourage the censorship, so even after the American influence was gone, the censorship stayed.
During the New Wave that occurred in Iran, foreign trained filmmakers teamed with anti-government writers to produce films that “moved away from traditional genres in favour of increased realism, individual character psychology, and higher technical quality” (Naficy 674-675). Eventually, however, these films fell subject to government censorship and therefore were shown in diluted forms that only discouraged Iranian audiences from seeing domestic films, instead of questioning the boundaries being placed on expression.
After many New Wave “there has consistently been a large contingent of Iranian filmmakers in exile” (Naficy 675). As a result, the “’exhile genre’ of cinema – one concerned with the trauma and tragedy of displacement and the problematic of identity formation” (Naficy 675) has become a growing genre of Iranian film.
Abbas Kiarostami’s Close Up made in 1990 shows reflections of all of these influences. It’s documentary style can be traced back to the heavy influence of documentary on the nation’s film culture in the beginning, as well as the films that came from the collaboration of foreign trained filmmakers and anti-government writers. It’s subject matter, however, is a direct violation of the intent of the first documentaries. It is based on a real person who breaks the law and essentially gets away with it, a plot that would not have spoken well to the dignified royalty who viewed Iranian cinema in the beginning. Kiarosami’s film also ignores western influence in the way it is filmed and presented. It does not maintain a polished feel, and deals with strictly Iranian issues, avoiding all American and European conventions.
The most significant part of Close Up, however, seems to be the way it mimics the ‘exile genre’ by reflecting trauma and a confused self identity. The trauma in Kiarostami’s film is a domestic trauma, but still one that rings true. It reflects the poverty stricken in the country, a group that has developed a taste for film in Iran only recently. Close Up also brings to light the fact that some people are living such terrible lives that they day dream through the lives of others. It comments on the poor conditions of Iranians, and employs psychological points to illustrate a universal pain that has developed throughout Iran.
One last note before my word study: In “Turkish Industry” Yusuf Kaplan wrote “A nation has to develop its own cinematography, its own film language, by relying on its visual culture, narrative traditions, and capacity for artistic experiments” (661). This really struck me and made me think. American cinema is so diverse because or narrative traditions are a combination from so many different cultures, and it is polished because it is has grown from a young nation spoiled by modern luxuries with the knowledge to use them. It’s like a teen given a computer verses an adult given a computer, the teen can navigate it more naturally because it has always known the technology, whereas an adult must find way to relate the computer to other things they know, and therefore it takes longer is not as natural to them. Foreign cinema is often boring or unique because it spring from a more crude version of narrative storytelling that is completely inspired by an ancient tradition.
Word Study – Natural
At one point in the reading, Roy Armes writes that “Egyptian films came to dominate the Arab film market and impose the Egyptian dialect as the ‘natural’ language for Arab films” (663). I wanted to look at the word “natural” and see how it worked within this sentence. Selected definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language Fourth Edition:
1. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.
2.
a. Not acquired; inherent: Love of power is natural to some people.
b. Having a particular character by nature: a natural leader.
c. Biology Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: natural immunity; a natural reflex.
d. Related by blood: the natural parents of the child.
e. Born of unwed parents: a natural child.
3. Characterized by spontaneity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or inhibitions. See Synonyms at naive.
4. Not altered, treated, or disguised: natural coloring; natural produce.
5. Faithfully representing nature or life.
6. Expected and accepted: "In Willie's mind marriage remained the natural and logical sequence to love" (Duff Cooper).
7. Established by moral certainty or conviction: natural rights.
8. Being in a state regarded as primitive, uncivilized, or unregenerate.
Of these definitions there are a few that stand out significantly to me. The first being “conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature”. When discussing the process of something becoming natural, in the beginning there is nothing to conform to. Egyptian cinema set the stand for Arab films and therefore became the type of film that others conformed to.
The next subset of definitions all discuss the idea that something natural is not changed or altered and is inherent. In this situation, again, the Egyptian cinema was not inherent, it placed itself in the center of Arab cinema and set the standard.
The idea that Egyptian film was free of artificiality and inhibitions also seems out of place, because film is by its very nature a contrived story. As Kiarostami put it “film is a series of lies we string together for a greater truth” (Quotes from an interview).
The accusation that Egyptian cinema faithfully represents life in the Arab world also seems wrongful to me, because it is a cinema from one culture and cannot reflect the cultures of all countries in the Arab world.
Definition six, which suggest Egyptian cinema is natural to the Arab world in the sense that it is “expected and accepted” seems to be the one that fits the best. The Arab world evolved to expect and accept Egyptian cinema to represent it’s culture, and it has become their normal attitude.
The idea that Egyptian cinema would be primitive or uncivilized, is again an untrue accusation. Since it rose above all others to represent the cinema of the Arab world, it must depict current life in the most beautiful way, which is rarely primitive or uncivilized.
Overall, I think the world “natural” in this situation can only mean that Egyptian cinema has come to be “expected and accepted” in the Arab world as the most dominate form of cinema.
Armes, Roy. “The Arab World”. The Oxford History of world Cinema: The Definitive History of Cinema Worldwide. Ed. Geoffrey Nowell-Smith. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. 267-275. Print.
Kaplan, Yusuf. “Turkish Industry”. The Oxford History of World Cinema: The Definitive History of Cinema Worldwide. Ed. Geoffrey Nowell-Smith. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. 267-275. Print.
Naficy, Hamid. “Iranian Cinema”. The Oxford History of World Cinema: The Definitive History of Cinema Worldwide. Ed. Geoffrey Nowell-Smith. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. 267-275. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment