the river's end

i almost forgot to report back on last night which was anything but a disappointment. at least not in terms of “the river’s end” . it was a fantastic experience and quite refreshing given the artistic risk taking that i think definitely paid off... iranian cinema has produced quite a few gems in recent years, many of which have been recognized and honored in the international arena. and this one was no exception. filled with beautiful images of esfahan, a beautiful city in central iran and formally the capital of the persian empire, the innovative camera shots and continuous narrative made for a truly unique movie experience.

the movie was a poignant tale of a son “haunted” by dreams of his father… and i think the director’s choice of shooting the movie solely from the main protagonists perspective added to the audience’s general reaction. a number of people voiced their unease at the end of the movie and seemed to write it off because it did not have much action or a specific story. they had paid good money for entertainment and felt short-changed when they had to watch an artistic tale that had no clear conclusion (they were obviously not the art house crowd or in the mood to do any serious thinking about the movie). but i think the audience was more profoundly affected by the subject matter and the images than they were willing to admit. i think for many it presented the kinds of life altering questions that we often dare not ask for fear that the answers we find will have to be acted upon... for the kind of community stuck in a non-existent world of nostalgia, i guess being reminded of our own everyday problems can be a painful experience.

for me that’s what made the movie so beautiful. a movie’s ability to provoke emotions and thoughts that we would otherwise refuse to think about is a magical power… pain is a part of life that at times needs to be embraced (i’m not advocating self-harm here or anything, but just supporting the idea that pain is not necessarily a bad thing).

all that said, there was a comment made last night that i find very difficult to comprehend. the river in the movie is the zayandehrood, a river that meanders through the city of esfahan and ends by disappearing in a marsh (hence the name of the movie). at the end of the movie one of the commentators drew an analogy between the movie’s stagnant marshland and current iranian society. i guess that can be one take on things but if the society is really as dead and stagnating as such commentators choose to believe then how is it possible for such amazing works of art to emerge? similarly, following the previous movie (shah-re ziba) one of the commentators casually claimed that love is dead in iran. how is that possible? we had just finished watching a movie about love – how does it make sense to say that “love is dead” in a society that is able to produce such an exquisite work??