Iranian cinema has often been about revolt and protest. The national films of Iran regularly comment on the Iranian government, their motives and their authoritarian style of leadership. This has led to the filmmakers fleeing to Europe to escape persecution. It is not just films that are recording protest, however, but also as The Seed of the Sacred Fig shows, protest through social media. On the world stage, the Iranian people have sought acknowledgement of their protests, for instance in the 2022 Qatar World Cup, where the Iranian players refused to sing the national anthem in a bone-chilling moment. The Seed of the Sacred Fig then follows this discourse. Made in dangerous conditions, the film was finished in Hamburg after the director, Mohammad Rasoulof, fled Iran. The film has gone on to receive a Special Jury Prize at Cannes as well as an Oscar nomination.
The film follows Iman, a tenacious and honest lawyer, who lives with his wife and two daughters. At the start of the film, Iman is promoted to an investigating judge in a Revolutionary Court in Tehran – a much-earned pay rise, which comes with the prospect of economic security. However, Iman discovers he was actually hired to approve judgements without evidence, including death sentences, wire-tapped to make sure he stays in line. Meanwhile, his daughters are seeing the unrest on the streets and want to aid the uprising against the state. However, their mother attempts to put them in their place, warning them to remain low-key to protect their father. After all, protest comes with the highest price.
There is a palpable tension that comes off the screen of Rasoulof’s film. Both from the distressing themes it portrays, but also the stressful and dangerous energy and aesthetic it has in the edit, that feels like a reaction to Rasoulof’s experience fleeing the country. It is a piece which feels as if any moment the fragile house of cards could collapse. But it is also the characters testing the boundaries, how much are they able to protest against without toppling their safety.
For a Western audience, the film highlights many layers of injustice that we take for granted. The daughters are told they must watch their attitude and their clothes and are not allowed to dye their hair. There are scenes which contrast the fraught media and what people are filming on social media. The national broadcaster stating the riots are disturbing peace and that the rioters are responsible for damaging property, whilst on social media there is filming of police brutality. B-roll footage, which is taken from real-life events.
However, these injustices are also layered. The father has to put aside the morality of what he is doing to protect his family. The mother has to act as a protector, a divider between her husband and her daughters. Indeed, the most compelling part of the film is this family drama. How a state tears a family apart, acting as a metonym for the wider national mood. Whilst you may resent the father at times, he is also controlled by the state through brutish fear.
The film does feel like it is juggling a little too much, and the family drama would do enough on its own to land a powerful punch. Nevertheless provides a compelling, frightening and powerful depiction of an authoritarian state, creating a landscape where trust does not exist. Leaving us with a final image showing the cost of this form of rule.
Comentarios