This film was roundly praised by the filmmaking community and stories of it being smuggled out of Iran in a cake certainly helped to raise awareness of the fate of Jafar Panahi. Unlike some, I shall not pretend to be knowledgeable enough to have heard of him before this film, nor to be a fan of his work (!) as others were keen to point out – for me this was a learning experience as I never heard of him. As such the film was interesting in how it informed me about the situation and the bigger picture. However it did this by simply existing – before I'd even watched a second of it, so what would the actual film bring to the table?
Well, the main thing is to illustrate the restraint of creativity by having Panahi "story-board" some of his existing script and also talk about some moments from his previous films. These moments are pretty engaging because he has a passion and he has a vision that comes over in these scenes. Other scenes add to his story and add value in this way, however too much of the film just illustrates his time in his house – and his time stuck in the house is dull; dull for him and dull for us. In a way it is good to share this, but it doesn't engage the audience and by shooting whatever is said or happens, then it feels like there is no goal or structure to the film.
I can understand the logic and, as others have said, this is non-violent protest; Panahi has the chance to violently lash out with either direct verbal attacks or with snipe commentary and presentation, but he doesn't do this – instead he peacefully sits down in front of the camera and makes this non-film as a peaceful protest against the situation, not hurting anyone. However this passive approach doesn't engage and it is increasingly dull as it has less and less to say. I know the film was beloved of festivals and lovers of cinema and I would love to claim beauty and emotion and be able to present myself a certain way, but this was not the case for me. The value in the film is not enough for the length and I was bored of it outside of the few sections I describe. I am very glad the film exists – very glad indeed, but watching it is a very different matter.
Well, the main thing is to illustrate the restraint of creativity by having Panahi "story-board" some of his existing script and also talk about some moments from his previous films. These moments are pretty engaging because he has a passion and he has a vision that comes over in these scenes. Other scenes add to his story and add value in this way, however too much of the film just illustrates his time in his house – and his time stuck in the house is dull; dull for him and dull for us. In a way it is good to share this, but it doesn't engage the audience and by shooting whatever is said or happens, then it feels like there is no goal or structure to the film.
I can understand the logic and, as others have said, this is non-violent protest; Panahi has the chance to violently lash out with either direct verbal attacks or with snipe commentary and presentation, but he doesn't do this – instead he peacefully sits down in front of the camera and makes this non-film as a peaceful protest against the situation, not hurting anyone. However this passive approach doesn't engage and it is increasingly dull as it has less and less to say. I know the film was beloved of festivals and lovers of cinema and I would love to claim beauty and emotion and be able to present myself a certain way, but this was not the case for me. The value in the film is not enough for the length and I was bored of it outside of the few sections I describe. I am very glad the film exists – very glad indeed, but watching it is a very different matter.