cinema trust Mehrdad Hojjati wrote in Etemad newspaper: One year before the revolution, something happened in Tehran that shook the entire capital. What happened at the Goethe Institute. 18th to 27th Mehr 1356. With the efforts of the Iranian Writers’ Association and the cooperation of the Iran-Germany Cultural Relations Association, for ten nights, 60 Iranian writers and poets with different tendencies, of course mostly leftist, gave speeches in that place and thus broke the security atmosphere of that time in a bold way for the first time. ! Nights that became known as “Goethe’s Poetry Nights”. Writers read poems, gave speeches and were cheered by the large audience against the “suffocating atmosphere and censorship prevailing in the country”.
That was an unprecedented event. Never before, such writers had the opportunity to speak in front of a mass audience – ten thousand people. If he had a chance, it was mainly in limited environments and more limited groups. Now, however, the large crowd was a sign of a new situation. A reception that was not spoiled by the occasional rain! Like on the third night – 20th of Azar 1956 – when Bahram Bayzaei gave a speech. He pointed out the social and popular roots of censorship and said about the efforts of artists under pressure and censorship; That as a result of pressure, their art becomes “knotted” and “complex”. He said that it is not necessary for an artist to follow a place or a group, rather, he is “probably going to express the needs that the crowd doesn’t know he needs.” Baizai had finished his speech in such a way that if the government apparatus is supposed to talk about freedom and “we” too, then “I am a little suspicious about this freedom”!
That night Hoshang Golshiri was the host of the ceremony. He called Bahram Baizai behind the microphone. Baizai did not have any writing in his hand. He had not prepared any text in advance. Years later, in an interview with the monthly “Andiseh Puya” – in 2015 – he said: “It was not a ready-made article. Be happy [رییس کانون نویسندگان و از بانیان آن مراسم] I said I wanted to say something about the pressure on the show and especially the closed view of the show cities. But with the sharp attacks on the theaters and theaters of the art festival in the lectures, I saw that they are actually saying why the pressure on the show is low and why the government does not apply the censors we want! I asked myself right there, do we defend freedom or do we want freedom to censor others?
Maybe because of this, the text and voice of that speech had changed hands many times. The impact of Baizai’s words was so much that it even influenced the speakers of the following nights. On the fifth night, Baqer Momeni interpreted and explained Baizai’s words by referring to the words of that night. In fact, Bayzai “gave one of the most sober and researched speeches of ten nights”.
Mohammad Ali Sepanlu interpreted the importance of Baizai’s speech among the other speakers of those ten nights as follows: “Unlike some speakers who had an opinion different from the majority of the population, but out of respect or consideration for them, they tried to ignore the issues, this one[یعنی بیضایی] It goes straight to the heart of the matter, that is, it openly criticizes the listeners themselves. If it were not for this speech, today, years later, it would seem that no one was dissatisfied with the worship that the crowd imposed on the speakers.
But Nemat Azram considered Baizai’s words to be addressed to Saeed Sultanpour, who had severely criticized Bayzai’s Sultan Mar show a few years ago and in 1348 attacked his Sultan Mar show with a group! Ismail Khoei, like Azram, had confirmed Baizai’s opinion regarding intellectuals’ complicity with censorship. But he said that Baizai relied on another point: “What Bahram Jan Baizai relies on, and I think he is right, is the alignment of intellectuals with some common aspects of people’s lives.”
In the first months after the victory of the revolution, in July 1358, when a group of religious revolutionaries stormed the stage of Saeed Sultanpour’s “Abbas Agha Kargar Iran Nasionale” in order to dismantle it, in an interview with the Tehran Illustrated Weekly, Mohammad Ali Sepanlo – No. 23, 8 July 1358 – had said: “… suffocation is the main obstacle to the growth of literature and culture. You saw how they disrupted Mr. Sultanpour’s Abbas show. However, Sultanpour shouldn’t have protested because he himself had gathered a group of his own a few years ago and was attacking theaters and disrupting the shows. “Apparently, from the point of view of the method, Sultanpour should not protest, but in any case, the attack on the theater is wrong, either by Sultanpour or by others.”
In fact, one year before the revolution and two years before the attack on the show “Abbas Agha Kargar Iran National” written and directed by Saeed Sultanpour, Baizai had warned about the danger of “radicalism” or “revolutionaryism” of the intellectuals, that the same extremists may once again be in trouble. take the intellectuals. Baizai’s words were important in many ways. In fact, one year before the revolution, he had seen the end of the revolutionary behavior of the intellectuals. The behavior that was supposed to take their collars and make them stay at home or imprisoned. as it happened Saeed Sultanpour was one of the first artists who was arrested and imprisoned. He was detained on his wedding night with the guarantee that he would be returned safely within two hours. But he never came back. The writers’ union also got divided after some internal conflict and dispute. Mahmoud Etemadzadeh (Bahazin), Siavash Kasraei, Hoshang Ebtahaj (Sayeh), Fereydoun Tankabani and Mohammad Taghi Broumand were expelled from the Writers Club! They were expelled from the center after the letter they wrote in support of the revolutionary act of students following the line of the Imam in occupying the American embassy.
Regarding the behavior of the former head of the center – Mahmoud Etemadzadeh (Behazin) – after the occupation of the American embassy by the hands of the students, Mohammad Baqer Parham said: “We saw Mr. Behazin in the company of Mr. Siavash Kasraei, Hoshang Ebtahaj, Fereydon Tankabani and Broumand – who four The latter usually moved one step behind Behazin – they suddenly entered the center and addressed Behazin. He shouted at us five members of the faculty who had convened and were engaged in their work and said: “Are you sitting here?” We kept asking where should we sit, Mr. Behazin? And in response, he would point his finger towards the American embassy and say: “There, the American embassy.” Is the creation there and you are sitting here?”
Baqer Parham was referring to himself and four others, Ahmad Shamlou, Gholamhossein Saedi, Mohsen Yelfani and Ismail Khoei, who had voted to fire Azin and four others. Of course, together with the same four people, he had supported their revolutionary action in a separate letter addressed to the students occupying the embassy (students following the line of the Imam)!
Maybe Bahram Baizaei had not predicted the details of the future events on that night of the 20th of Mehr 56. But he revealed the nature of common and narrow-minded behavior among intellectuals. He ended his speech that night like this: “Probably we don’t ask the writer to tell the truth either. We are also interested in the author saying what is expedient, but our expediency is of course different. In this way, we determine the author in a way. Both of these are incorrect. This is determined by the government and the monitoring system and what we determine as a reaction. It’s not right that we want the writer to say what we want, it’s right that we let the writer say what he thinks and we ourselves personally create a space where we can say what we think. Probably, the thoughts that are equal in the context are the same, but the way of expression, independence of thought, or perhaps being ahead or personal insight are different. You don’t want an artist coming up behind the band. He is probably going to move on. He is probably going to tell the needs that he doesn’t know he needs. It is probably not right that we want a writer to say what we wanted. It is not enough. The author should say something more than we wanted. He must say something that we don’t know we want. Well, then I think I’m of that mindset. I think that if this washing has to happen in space, it should happen in us as well. We have to feel that the words, the criteria, the terms that we use are especially a little worn out since everyone used them. A word that is used by everyone from the government apparatus to contemporary intellectuals, give me the right to be a little suspicious about those words. If the government agencies are supposed to be responsible and we are also supposed to be responsible, I am a little suspicious of that responsibility. If he is going to talk about freedom and we too, I am a little suspicious about this freedom. Thank you.”
It is worth pondering that the intellectuals, sometimes by falling into the abyss of emotions, also suffer from demagoguery. A point that can be seen in the first days and months of the revolution. They were excited with every commotion. They went up and down with every turbulence and fluctuated with a wave. History says that one of the sources of the revolution was “Ten Nights”. “Ten Nights of Goethe” which gathers a large crowd every night. He excited them with exciting speeches and then sent them to the street just as excited. Yervand Abrahamian in his book History of Modern Iran says: “Following the organization of ten nights of poetry by the recently revived Iranian Writers’ Center and the Goethe Institute in Mehr 1356, the writers, who were all well-known opponents, criticized the regime and finally on the last night of this program The participants all poured into the street and clashed with the police. In this demonstration, one student was killed, 70 people were injured and more than 100 people were arrested. Protests continued in Tehran during the following months, especially on 16 Azar. The people arrested in these protests were handed over to civilian courts, where they were either released or received light sentences. This action was actually a clear message to others, including the students of Qom seminary.”
The intellectuals had ignited the flames of the revolution a year before the revolution. The flames that were supposed to catch their own lap a few years later. Did the intellectuals – writers and poets – have the right to limit the thought of others? Appear in the role of a censor and censor the thoughts of others? What happened a few years ago at the Shiraz Art Festival and a group of intellectuals lined up in front of other intellectuals and ridiculed them with the accusation that they create works favored by the government and demanded that their mistakes be corrected by other artists. ! The same behavior that happened years later, in the 60s and 70s, in a different way, and the artist – or in other words, pseudo-artist – stood up to the artist and made a mistake and boycotted him. A group close to and in favor of the government and a group criticizing the government. Before government censorship confronted the intellectuals and artists, the intellectuals and artists themselves had confronted themselves! Pseudo-intellectuals and pseudo-artists who talked to artists about the place of art and thought and pushed them to the corner one by one! What a strange time! Baizai had seen that day before. The same night on the 20th of Mehr 56.