Cinema Trust “One of the important topics we have faced in recent years, both in the field of documentary and in the films, is the works that are made about the famous and important characters in history,” Tina Jalali wrote in the newspaper Etemad. Films that are either not either right or have poor quality, and more importantly, these types of films are mostly made by filmmakers who either have no understanding of the position of their main character or do not know the filmmaking basis or do the job hasty. The screening of “Hundreds” directed by Pedram Pourmiri, who is on the cinema these days, gave a good opportunity to discuss this important issue with his young director and seek his opinion on it. Noting that Pedram Poramiri is one of the talented directors in the field of social cinema and has had a good track record in this field; Johndar (the writer of the director), the outlaw and the swimming of the butterfly (author) and so on.
Mr. Puramiri! If you agree to start the discussion. In recent years, some young filmmakers have been turning to sensitive political subjects, while they themselves have not understood the position and time of the subject and cannot handle it. Sometimes they even cause the subject to become a pity and disappear, but sometimes, like the documentary “Standing in the Dust”, Mohammad Hossein Mahdavian attracts critics. Considering that Saddam is also an important subject for your film, what do you think about this?
There is also the point you mentioned in world cinema, that is, internal, or regional subjects, their adventurous and popular people, whether positive or negative, like Hitler, and all over the world, it is customary to document these characters. We had events in all areas, and we had history and hated or influential people, but my point is why shouldn’t these subjects work? Why shouldn’t these subjects go? Why should talk about these people remain silent?
The question was that filmmakers who did not understand that era are more likely to go to these sensitive themes, why?
For example, if a young filmmaker from anywhere in the world wants to make a film about the event, because he has not understood his pre -decades, shouldn’t he make a film about these issues? The fact that the filmmaker necessarily understands the film he wants to make about the film is more monopoly, and perhaps the few filmmakers in the world who want to portray and understand that era. As I saw and understood as a filmmaker, the consequences of post -war and later events, all the events were rejected in front of my eyes, and we went to research and research and with a series of stories, both in space and in the mood of those days.
That a young filmmaker goes to an era that has not understood it is not negligible, but the main question is whether they should not be made with sensitivity and planning such films. Consider this, Saddam is different from many politicians around the world, you may make a film about political figures like Stalin, but when you want to talk about a person who has many crimes in our country, shouldn’t this be more obsessed? How sensitive you were you?
Yes, I agree with you, as you say, it is an important subject and we had to come up with a collective and calculated senses, and if I showed Saddam in parts of this film, I had put on the documentation that this gentleman himself has said at the beginning of the war and that they are documented and there is one of Iran’s fake war. It says something that does not come up with, Saddam is landing for 30 days in Khorramshahr. Why? Because Iranian and Iranian zeal does not allow this gentleman to come to his words. I also laugh at him as the next generation.
Tell us about the risk and worry about making this film.
Certainly there was a concern for the subject of the film, and we had to take a step that we had to do so that God forbid, my tongue did not go to those who fought on the battlefield for eight years, but as you know, our film is about the beginning of the war and the early days of the Iran -Iraq war, which is not the story of the film. Moments of the film I talked about Saddam, which is documentary and his videos, I only rebuilt those images, and there is no comedy at these moments, and Saddam’s true character, and no one else can joke about the real scenes of the film, no one else, unless the film is. One thing to say that my film is not a documentary, both a romantic and hero -centered story, the hero of my film shows how Iranians stand up and even give a heavy consequence and lose half of his life for his zeal.
When I saw your film, the question that engaged my mind was that you narrate the story as a comedy. Isn’t your comedy narrative of Saddam’s story, reducing the war and the crimes of this man? Isn’t it difficult to reduce the terrible atmosphere of that time? Of course, if the story was narrated in the form of a drama, what is your analysis?
You see, Saddam’s criminal is a criminal, as it is mentioned at the beginning of the film, Saddam is saying that he is very ridiculous, because he knows neither Iranian nor Iranian zeal, Reza Attaran has no sympathy for Saddam in this film, what is his behavior to pursue Saddam’s goals? That is, my approach to the filmmaker is that as a filmmaker, I wouldn’t be with Saddam anywhere, and by the way, I am with the loved ones who fought and became a martyr. The film’s champion does not want Saddam’s order, but it is forced to take action under one compulsion and hostage.
It also makes it.
Yes, because it is caught in the predicament, but it goes to every door so that it doesn’t happen. All of these moments become comedy because the hero of his thinking film is that Saddam wants to be inappropriate.
Now, why did you choose a comedy narrative?
Because in my opinion, this story responds better based on its characters and situations and characters in the comedy context and can better bring the audience with them and express his or her words more honestly, and even more honestly deal with Saddam’s words, even more directly to the new generation? It was because of the story of the story and the story that we chose comedy for the film. It is not a comedy film to make something ridiculed, because there is no trace of comedy in Saddam’s behavior in the film, but our hero stays and fights until the end of the film.
I raised this question because in the past years, especially one, two years, the volume of comedy films has increased so much that there is nothing but vulgarity. That is, any important issue if narrated in the context of comedy is not taken seriously and is remembered with a stunning look. What do you think?
As a honest journalist, I would like to talk about what you saw and deduced in cinema.
I saw the film in one of the Cyrus Campus Halls, and the audience in the hall was in contact with the film and laughed at its moments, and the hall was full.
Now tell you my service I have been working in social cinema for many years, and thanks to God, I was able to grow in cinema through social cinema. I believe that in every area of cinema we need a variety of genres and markets, and the food must be supplied. Cinema cannot be divided into two genres, to say that cinema is just comedy or social cinema. It is completely wrong. However
The issue of vulgarity is overwhelming, so many filmmakers are afraid of making such films. Now consider you and many social filmmakers made a comedy film under such circumstances.
I do not deny your words, just as there are criticisms of the social sphere about comedy. The pathology must be done correctly. But I talk about myself, I don’t want to say that the comedy genre is bad, and it’s not like I want to make a comedy film. I say the conditions and the world of the story and the story of the story were asking me. Many asked me why did you make a comedy movie after a few social films? And they asked me to make a comedy again? I said I don’t know. Maybe. My point is that the filmmaker has to see in which genre of his story is less stuttering. Because I believe that if we choose the style and model of our screenplays a little cleverly with the audience, we can create a more immediate connection with the audience. We may have stories that are better defined in the comedy genre and are more effective. It is wrong to say that a story must be narrated by drama or war or comedy.
Your film is sensitive, they give sensitive things to certain people. For example, it was said that if the organization of such a documentary political personality would not have been allowed to build the private sector about that political personality, would it apply to you that it would support your special look?
No. I worked hard to make the film, I wrote the script, the script in the private sector, I was bothered to make a license, the film has private sector investors.
Because many are not willing to work on this character. For example, Shahab Hosseini said in a note that he was not willing to play Saddam’s character.
I also did not choose a famous actor for Saddam, while the main character of our film is not a moment to Saddam. I work with the people and the people who left their lives for the country.
What was Reza Attaran’s opinion about Saddam’s personality? Because your consultant is in the movie.
Reza Attaran was very obsessive and sensitive, for example, to say that the opening sequence of the film, which announces the beginning of the Iran -Iraq war, we wanted to use Saddam’s replacement, Mr. Attar refused to play this sequence and said you should change the sequence. You don’t see a moment in the film for Mr. Attaran to play instead of the main character and Saddam. Those who write the wrong criticisms of our film, did not see the film, not watching the film, or not watching our film, or for other reasons, if we look at the film’s criticism through the film itself, they have no place of Arabs, as if they would like to insult the noble Iranian nation.
What did Parrinz think?
We talked to him a lot, and Prinaz had his own sensitivity.
How much is Saddam’s film being born and how much is it based on the reality of the narrative?
I tell my story in the hundredth film, that is, such an event has never happened in history, there is no documentary about this story. As a writer, I used my imagination, and the comedy moments of the film start from my mind, but there are no comedy documentation about Saddam.
But the comedy burden of the movie is so great that your word is hidden and hidden in the comedy moments.
Look again, the comedy subject of my film starts from where the story is not real at all, my documentary is where Saddam said I was in Iran for another 7 days but couldn’t do it.
Interestingly, moments in the film you also tend to melodrama.
Yes, it was deliberate, I tell the story of drama and romance on the comedy context Saddam is a romantic comedy that has trailer strains.
And the final talk?
When filmmaking makes a film, it exposes itself to judge and faces all sorts of comments. There is no problem, but our job as a filmmaker is to respect the audience’s mind to satisfy the audience, because the Iranian people deserve the best.