Trust cinema Abolfazl Najib wrote in Etemad newspaper:
In the last four decades, those concerned with the field of culture and especially cinema had a continuous presence in the cinema and had an influence on the setting of cinema policies. Their impact and presence in the field often played a different role depending on the position of their dominant and defeated side and whether they were visible or in the shadows. This continuous presence appeared and appeared in different ways at every stage and in accordance with the space and cinematographic productions; From the rejection of the script to the non-issuance of the production license to the non-granting of the screening license and censorship in the early stages to the prevention of the screening even of the films with a screening license to the making of bulletins and secret files and attacking the cinemas and breaking the glass of the cinemas showing the films on the screen and pulling down the curtains in the cinema. And putting all kinds of stigmas and accusations on filmmakers, producers, and actors, up to life threats to the producers of films that were often among the best and most valuable films in Iranian cinema.
Also, organizing demonstrations against the screening of a movie and leading to Friday prayer sermons and summoning production agents, etc., for these people who are concerned about culture and cinema, it didn’t matter what genre these movies were, what kind of themes and messages they were, whether it was a novel social comedy of a snowman. Be it a lizard that created the greatest attraction and effect for the revival and protection of the dignity of the clergy and the clothes of the clergy. From social works such as Banu and Ali Santouri to works of Bibidili such as Basho Gharibeh Koch and most of the works of Bahram Beizai and up to the totality of social films that deal with issues related to the challenges of the young generation and the middle class. Even the social realist films that you made under the pretext of slandering me and all kinds of interpretations were always in the crosshairs of attacks by cultural worriers. These worriers could not even tolerate religious films such as House on the Water and sacred defense such as democracy in broad daylight.
In the days when they could not prevent valuable films from appearing in international festivals, even at the cost of questioning the credibility of Iranian cinematographers, cultural enthusiasts interpreted the awards of such works as conspiracy and silent cultural invasion, unaware that an important part The political credibility of the Islamic Republic was undoubtedly owed to this cinema, which must suffer the sting of cultural anxiety from within.
These activists, whose field type was always supported through the written media and at the head of them since the time of Shariatmadari’s tenure on Kehan and some quasi-cinematic weekly newspapers, went so far as to narrow the field for the activities of some with dogmatic policies, such as Naderi and Baizai and many They were forced to migrate, or like Kimiaei, Farmanara, Mehrjooi, and Pourahmad, they chose seclusion. The suspicious deaths of Pourahmad and Mehrjooi, as well as the natural, but sometimes unbelievable deaths of cinematographers, can be considered part of the consequences and impact of these cultural concerns.
Those who apparently were either worried about blackening the society, or worried about showing the concerns of society and the wandering young generation, or worried about de-stereotyping and breaking the taboo of what they interpreted as sacred in the definition of war cinema. Let’s not forget that these concerned people always put their concerns and concerns about what was always interpreted as vulgarity, vulgarity, breaking norms, and the spread of evil and corruption on the cinema screen. The result of all these accusations and worries is finally the suspicion about the richness of a piece of music or the suspicion of performing rhythmic movements and also the exchange of one or two dialogues which were interpreted as lewdness and vulgarity. The cultural invasion and the uproar of losing Islamic values, unrestrainedness, and cultural vulgarism were interpreted and interpreted. The Hadith of our generation about the presence and role of these cultural enthusiasts. The Hadith of several generations of cinematographers and serious movie audiences were and still are, who were happy with the cinema that expressed the pain of the people and was the pride and credit of the cinema culture of this country. Until we reached a unified government of values, the minister of guidance, from the very first media appearance, put his sword on his head and began to destroy the past with the slogan of reviving value and religious cinema, and impliedly announced that from now on, whoever is not with us is on us. But what happened in reality does not need to be said, but what should be remembered is the silence of the street and media worriers and of course the so-called value critics towards the existing situation.
For the productions, each of them, perhaps as much as all the films that swelled the veins of the religious zeal of the concerned, left behind everything that was interpreted and interpreted as vulgarity and red line.
From the rhythmic movements of six and eight to barak and chacha and exchanging the simplest dialogues to passing all that was interpreted as veiling and modesty, adultery of words and eyes, etc. During the last few years, what we saw from the valuable products of these cultural enthusiasts in the field of cinema was all vulgarity and vulgarity, and what we did not see was the slightest concern of the people who in the past were boiling towards the objective side of their blood, who not only did not even open their mouths to complain, but somehow turned into They became what they called Tarab staff.
In these years of the rule of vulgarity on cinema, not even a critical note from critics. Don’t be afraid of one Faghan and by Islam from all these attacks on the sanctity of the cinema and the audience. Refrain from a public prosecutor’s lawsuit, which many times has a claim on behalf of Khalqullah to defend religious values and demand rights from those who make vulgarities. These complaints do not mean why the cultural worriers did not follow those illegal practices in these years, it is just a reminder to those who in the past were even silent and oblivious to those who did not reflect and understand what was happening around them. How did they spend their intelligence on those who did not care about religion, but all their pain was to gain power by clinging to religious values and under the mask of fighting against cultural invasion, corruption, vulgarity and cultural vulgarism. If this group claimed that they really had religious zeal and religious zeal, it was enough for them to judge a few of the productions of these years with the eyes of fairness to see how many dozen of the productions of these years would suffer the fate of snowmen, lizards, etc. This is the question of many of my kind of cinematographer generation, along with hundreds of social and cultural questions and concerns, and certainly the question of many professional cinematographers who either left this country or retired, this is, where are those culturally concerned people who are worried about the handkerchief They burned Caesarea.