For this reason, in a conversation with this documentary maker, “Roznameh Javan” investigated the various aspects of this documentary and some of the criticisms raised against it.
What was the main motivation and reason for producing the anti-hero documentary?
We sought to convey this part of history to the new generation, on the other hand, due to the existence of various events, we cannot have a flat and one-dimensional view of those days. Let’s make another documentary about the first two years of the revolution, there are still unsaid parts.
What is the name of the documentary and how did you come up with this name?
My work routine is always such that when I want to create a work, in the heart of the research work I do, I come across some basic highlights, now it can be a fact or a behavior or a quote. One of the very important events that happened to me during the research of this work was the issue of slogans that were said against Martyr Beheshti. Of course, I already knew about Shahid Beheshti’s disagreement with Bani Sadr because of other works, but I had never entered the story from this angle and with such minute details. It was here that I realized that other people were also involved in these differences.
In the heart of this story, I came to a concept and that is that there was a group in a period of time whose hero was Mr. Khalkhali. In fact, Mr. Khalkhali was a symbol of that way of thinking and movement (I don’t mean the political movement), but at the same time, there was an opposite point that was against this movement to the extent that they chanted against Shahid Beheshti, this is the concept that we called the documentary. Of course, I believe that anti-heroes still exist.
The
Can we say that this documentary is based on the actions of the late Khalkhali and is somehow considered the central sign of this work?
ankleism; After all, Mr. Khalkhali was popular at that time, but whether they were the minority or the majority is another matter, but we wanted to say that Mr. Khalkhali was a hero in one period and the anti-heroes were those like Shahid Beheshti and Shahid Qudousi, but over time The same hero becomes an anti-hero. In this documentary, we narrated the thought that Khalkhali symbolized. We show two thoughts in some special situations so that the audience can judge them, in which atmosphere, what decisions were made and what effect these decisions had on the society. As a documentary maker, I narrated and examined the story of a thought whose symbol was the late Khalkhali.
Some critics consider the anti-hero documentary to be a one-sided work because of its sides and the narrators’ one-sided narration of the main subject. What is your answer to this issue?
We set two conditions for those whom we approach during the production of historical and documentary works, the first condition is that in the history we want to narrate, that person must be the main person, and our second condition is that that person is a living witness of be that event. The selections are basically made on this basis. I did not seek to hold a political debate between individuals, but rather to make a documentary about a specific period of time from the beginning of the revolution. In addition to the fact that I challenge the narrator based on the research I do before the work and that the narrator is not my documentary subject, in addition, I compare the narrator’s words with my own research sources and verify them at the same moment of the interview. In fact, I have to deal with whether or not the narration of the narrators is documented that this has been done.
Considering the criticisms raised about this work, do you think that this documentary will have an evolutionary side and a second or third part to answer its ambiguities?
I think this documentary has a second or even a third part that should be made.
One of the challenging parts of this documentary is the discussion of the punishment of Hoyda, the Prime Minister of the years leading to the victory of the Islamic Revolution. What were the reactions to your payment to Hoyda? You probably did not face the criticism that you were trying to purify this character?
In the documentary, we have three different cases and three different encounters, and basically I am not trying to make people white or black. I am neither a judge nor an analyst; I am a filmmaker. In this film, I show you that we have three different characters; One of them was the Minister of Health, the other was the Prime Minister, and the third was a senior official of the military-security apparatus of the Pahlavi government. Everything is different. All three were imprisoned during the Pahlavi regime and not during the revolution. Living witnesses and the first people of the narrative want to say that the foundation of the revolution was not to act like Mr. Khalkhali’s thinking. They want to talk about the disadvantages of that kind of behavior and the missed opportunities. They talk about the threats that came to us from that kind of treatment. Everything is obvious. Mr. Rafiqdoost himself narrates that Hoyda personally called and requested to provide us with the information. After all, Hoyda is one of the senior and high-ranking people of the Pahlavi government. It is not right to give a verdict today and punish him tomorrow morning. What logic does this fit with? Or to produce hours of television programs and print numerous books from their words, like the action that happened in the case of Fardost, and his memoirs are a reliable source for the next generations of the revolution to know what happened in the Pahlavi regime.