cinema trust Kamiyar Mohsenin wrote in Etemad newspaper:
achievement factory
In the last three and a half years, the achievements of cultural management in the field of cinema have been mentioned many times. For example, managers have pointed to boosting box office sales in the post-corona era. It is interesting that during the Corona epidemic and the home television network, some analysts around the world and cultural managers in Iran talked about the end of cinema. This prediction was made due to three consecutive shocks to the global economy – recession, Trump’s presidency and the pandemic – which caused many small movie theaters in the world to go bankrupt. But after reopening the cinema halls, a strange thing happened. For example, in 2023, American cinema marked one of the great years of this industry with the extraordinary sales of forgettable films such as “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer”. For this reason, one year’s cinema sales cannot be considered with certainty as the result of the type of management, because this strange event has also happened in other parts of the world in the years after the home quarantine, perhaps due to the enthusiasm of the people who sought to hold collective rituals again. is Of course, it should be acknowledged that following the rise of home theater networks, the role of these companies in investment and production in the field of cinema has increased more than before, and this incident has not been noticed with the intensity and intensity that it should be in Iranian cinema.
On the other hand, according to the reports of cultural managers, the number of screenings has increased greatly. It is worth noting that this highlights a stark contradiction with official reports stating that cinema seat occupancy was only thirteen percent. In other words, at a time when most of the official products of Iranian cinema do not have the ability to attract audiences to movie theaters, most of the successful Iranian films in international forums do not have the desire or possibility to be shown in theaters inside the country, and finally, due to the embargo, there is no possibility to buy the films. There is no best-selling American, there are many problems to attract the audience. There is no doubt that the third case is beyond the authority of the cinema authorities, but the first two problems are the result of policies whose implementation has gained momentum and strength in the last three and a half years. It is obvious that investing in the project of expanding theater spaces, if faced with a huge failure and leads to a change of use of cinema halls, will cause many problems in the future of Iranian cinema. For this reason, considering the current situation, these hasty movements, even though they are good news on the surface, seem empty of the thought of development in design and practice. In this era, with today’s requirements, the main issue that needs to be resolved is the rotation of the production wheel and the display of cinematographic products. Only in this case, there may be a real need to expand exhibition spaces. When this issue is forgotten and instead, with the occupancy rate of thirteen percent of the seats in the cinema halls, the capacity of the show is increased, how can we talk about management thought? The same production problem is also evident in another place: when there is talk about the increase of subsistence and insurance assistance to cinema houses, which if the cinema industry had progressed in a natural way and the number of unemployed people in the cinema field had not faced such an increase, perhaps there would be no need These huge contributions were not felt. Maybe it is due to the fact that in the absence of real strengths, the cinematographic organization has turned into an achievement factory.
Double standards
Perhaps, in this age of forgetfulness, one of the basic problems is the use of double standards, which has occurred many times in the field of culture and art.
In a television series that has finished its production and showing, women have used a hat – while due to the fact that television reaches a wider range of audiences, the codes of this medium have always been more complex than those of home theater and cinema. In a series on the home theater network, the actress danced while sitting on the floor – knowing that the broadcasting code in this area was also more complex than in cinema, which has a smaller audience. Women have appeared in front of the camera with shaved hair in some of the products. In many movies and series, playing unauthorized songs is no longer a problem. A long animation has been shown in a certain geographical area and thus it has been called Fathi Bozor. Considering the above, it can be said that in this matter, the message conveyed by the work is not very important, and only affiliation and closeness to certain institutions gave such permission to those close to them. In other words, not conveying any message to the audience has been the hallmark of many cinema, television and home show network products that have been broadcast without any margin. On the other hand, independent filmmakers and actors who are famous for appearing in independent cinema works, if they have decided to stay and work inside the country, if they have taken a risk and have not observed any of these red lines, they will be reprimanded. have not been allowed to show their work inside the country and even in some cases, they have faced legal prosecution. Such encounters create the suspicion that maybe the whole of independent cinema inside Iran has been the target of continuous attacks.
Of course, the emergence of such double standards, first of all, shows a legal gap and a lack of management planning. It is as if those who have played both the role of policy maker and policy implementer and considered themselves the owner of the area under management, have forgotten everything and have forgotten what privileges were given to the close ones and what rights were denied to others. In the same way that they have created double standards, they have contributed to the intensification of the bipolar atmosphere in the cultural and artistic society and have imposed an angry atmosphere on this field. The existence of such an environment has led to the spread of skepticism and suspicion among the people of cinema and has made the situation more complicated day by day. In this way, as in the beginning of the sixties to the middle of the seventies, once again, the illusion of conspiracy has covered the entire cinema.
Cinema in exile
Being away from this dusty atmosphere has given those Iranian cinematographers who have left Iran voluntarily or by force, this time, with proper organization, to produce and broadcast films that focus on hot news and sensitive issues. , without going through the Haft Khan of the cinema organization, they have often had more suitable facilities to attend international gatherings. In this entry, without the intention of valuing the products that are produced under the title of independent cinema, both inside and outside, it is mentioned about the capacities that such works can have in attracting an effective part of the cinema audience and in some cases Cases, in different countries, in the normal process of screening, go to the screen and become, for example, either the most famous art film or the film selected for introduction to the Oscars in a country that owns cinema. What happened this year in Germany shows that Iranian cinematographers have the necessary ability to make films that can easily succeed in the commercial market after a successful cultural release and turn the wheels of the cinema industry, even in a country Help others. The main issue is getting rid of the restrictions that the filmmaker needs as an artist and not a craftsman to prove his abilities on a global level.
In this way, cinematographers who were strangers in their homeland and now have the opportunity to work in another foreign land are optimistic about the future, but looking at the history of cinema can always cause many worries about the future. During the First and Second World War, when European cinematographers migrated to other parts of the world, the directors of the former Prussian territory were able to play an essential role in the development of cinema in another language and culture, and the French and Spanish, among them perhaps more well-known directors. They failed to adapt to the new environment and language. During the Cold War, when Central and Eastern European cinematographers immigrated to the West, except for a significant number of Poles and a few Czechs, others mostly did not reach the expected point and subsequently, could not perform the expected role well. do So adapting to the language, culture and social, political, economic structures and of course the relations of film production has played an important role in preventing cinemagoers in foreign countries. Even the leading figures of Iranian cinema, who were famous for the visual aspects of their works, in a bygone era, in the time of realistic work in a new language and geography, have not been able to continue their way with that previous power – just like some Iranian filmmakers who grew up abroad. and they had developed, when they returned to Iran, they could not show their capabilities effectively. So, if one day there are no funds needed to make a Farsi-language film abroad, the continuation of this movement may face serious challenges. Now the main question is that, for example, if Iran moves away from being constantly at the top of international media news, will there be prospects for the continuation of this group of cinematographers in the field of non-Persian language cinema abroad? Maybe some Iranian filmmakers who have extraordinary adaptability can succeed in new conditions, but there will undoubtedly be a group that will not be able to have a significant activity in this field.
The next point is the continuation of making films about Iran abroad. Of course, realistic cinema requires having a realistic view of the Iranian subject and finally, turning it into a cinematic subject. In case of continuing distance, not touching events closely and alienation from living and current culture and language, such subjects may lose their effectiveness and become recognizable fakes. Especially, in a society with many ups and downs in every short period of time, maybe this lack of constant contact becomes a problem for the realist cinematographer and makes his analysis of the individual and society less effective. In this case, the cinematographer must measure his ability to advance another form of cinema and see how far he can distance himself from reality and experience different types of cinema in the world. There is no doubt that this has always been predictable for cinematographers inside Iran who are separated from society and work in the ivory tower.
In addition, in today’s dusty atmosphere, hypotheses are constantly being raised about the efforts of some people in the cinema community abroad to create a barrier against the international supply of domestically produced films. It is clear that the approach based on the elimination and ultimately, the hostage-taking of the cinema as a whole, is the same approach that, on the opposite front, cultural managers have pursued with more force in the last three and a half years. If such an approach is adopted, the result of the filmmakers’ work may not be the same as they had in mind.
The last point is that following the internal crises, at the current stage, the problems of funding and financial clarification for independent projects that do not have a foreign producer and are produced only with the presence of a domestic producer have become acute. Films with foreign producers naturally avoid such problems and can easily benefit from international support funds. Therefore, foreign films, in addition to more freedom in projecting hot news and sensitive issues, have fewer problems in securing funding and, in general, do not need to file a case for domestic filmmakers in the competitive cinema stream.
Obviously, in the field of cinema management, some cultural managers should try not to consider Iranian cinematographers active abroad as well as independent filmmakers inside the country as living and decisive forces in the general picture they draw, but if a program based on present an incomplete picture of Iranian cinema, once again, they face the tragedy that happened in the last three and a half years and mark the end of cinema in the country. Having said that, it seems that getting out of this deadlock will make sense only in one way: all the people of cinema, who have remained strangers in their homeland, think together about the renewal of the cinema structure and forget the needs of the future cinema. don’t do