European Film Institutions call for the Freedom of Incarcerated Iranian Dissident Mohammad Rasoulof

Mohammad Rasoulof, director of the recent There Is No Evil, who was recently incarcerated in Iran, has gained international attention from many filmmakers and institutions since his Iranian jail sentence. Institutions such as European Film Academy (EFA), the Deutsche Filmakademie, Accademia del cinema Italiano-Premi David di Donatello, the Cannes Film Festival, the International Film Festival Rotterdam (IFFR) and many others have all issued statements expressing their deepest concerns.

Rasoulof was recently imprisoned for one-year according to his lawyer, for allegedly “attacking the security of the state” following the “propaganda” content in There Is No Evil. The sentence also demanded he stop making films for two years. However, it is time for more filmmakers and directors to stand up against the Iranian government’s blatant censorship and punishment of dissident art. 

Rasoulof was unable to attend the February Berlin International Film Festival ceremony to collect his prize for There Is No Evil, a film connecting four stories about involvement in the death penalty in Iran. Executive producer Kaveh Farnam claims that the wave of political executions in 1988 was what ultimately inspired the film. Rasoulof’s own experience of lack of freedom of expression has also been noted in the film’s message of freedom and humanity under despotic regimes. 

Indeed, There Is No Evil is openly critical of the Iranian justice system and its use of the death penalty. Iran has been described by international human rights scholar Javaid Rehman in his 2018 UN General Assembly address as having “one of the highest death penalty rates in the world”. According to Amnesty International, it is still behind China as the world’s leading state executioner and leads the way in terms of the execution of minors. Homosexuality is still considered an offence punishable by death in Iran. 

The stakes were extremely high for Mohammad Rasoulof and crew, and all involved knew the risk that they were taking in defying the authoritarian regime. The film was made under complete secrecy and producer Farzad Pak thanked “the amazing cast and crew who put their lives in danger to be on this film”. The creative ways in which Rasoulof clandestinely defied the regime are astounding: with Rasoulof giving direction to scenes shot in an airport through an assistant, not having his name appear on any official documentation and shooting many scenes in remote regions of Iran. 

However, in a recent statement, Rasoulof wanted the outcry to not only affect successful directors such as himself and Panahi but also to extend to the younger independent filmmaking generation who have not got the same resources to circumvent Iran’s intrusive activities. Farnam claims that many independent filmmakers have even turned to work on the Iranian government’s own film projects due to the lack of funds at their disposal. The resourcing gap is evident: the Iranian government have the helicopters and unlimited logistical and financial systems to shut down a whole street, as opposed to independent filmmakers where this is purely “impossible”.  

This is not the first time that Iran has used its authoritarian powers to ban film directors from creating dissident films. In November 2019, action from over 200 Iranian film industry members came when Kianoush Ayari’s film The Paternal House was banned a week after its opening weekend in Iran. Well known Iranian director Jafar Panahi back in 2011 was also convicted of making “propaganda films” and sentenced to 20 years film-free.  

Rasoulof and other Iranian directors continue to make films under increasingly unfair sanctions. In his powerful Berlinale Skype speech broadcasted to the world from his daughter’s phone, he highlights that everyone “can actually say no, and that’s their strength.” It is imperative not to forget about Rasoulof’s and others’ crucial films which lobby unfair regimes across the world. We must join the outspoken film institutions in support of these oppressed directors who rightfully express their freedom of expression through art.

Image Credit: Screen Daily

Spoiler Alert! Are Spoilers the Filmmakers Best Kept Secret?

Growing up, I was never too fond of the traditional spoiler. When it appears essential to the plot, for example: in The Film That We Do Not Talk AboutThe Usual Suspects and Shawshank Redemption, it can be downright annoying when your friend reveals that all-important ending or crucial plot development. I knew the twist to Fight Club before watching it and this undeniably affected my viewing experience and I came away from the final scene feeling as though I hadn’t properly sat through it. However, spoilers have always held mystical appeal to some. But does just knowing there’s a spoiler or twist in a film, count as ruinous to the watching experience itself? With our current stream-centric media consumption occurring at a whizzing pace, can we ever avoid them? How long is long enough before discussing plot points? It appears spoilers leave you with more questions than answers. 

These days it is pop-culture mega-hits such as Star Wars, Marvel and the recently wrapped Game of Thrones that have been at the helm of spoiler-avoidance. Film secrets are a Marvel speciality – given that they have included post-credit scenes in the majority of their films since Iron Man in 2008. This drives buzz as fans are itching to get their hands on what is coming up in the MCU and to tell friends who haven’t yet seen the film. Secrecy and mystery propel sales and the end scenes seem to drive excitement for the next one… and the next one… It changes the cinema-going experience as well; many a time I have sat and actually watched all the credits (something which shamefully we just don’t do a lot of), making friends wait for the post-post-end credits scene. 

For some dedicated fans, scouring the internet for clandestine clues about new character involvement or obscure plot points is intoxicating. It would seem die-hard Star Wars fans can’t wait to unearth plot details about the potential reappearance of Emperor Palpatine in The Rise of Skywalker with the latest TV spot End becoming the latest hunting ground for clues until the next teaser. Both the TV spot and the trailer have developed enough speculation that it is almost certain that he will appear. Is this not seeking out a spoiler, or does this add anything overall to the enjoyment of the film? It could be argued either way. 

According to Amazon TV, when it comes to netiquette, with great power comes great responsibility. Back when they planned a release of a Lord of the Rings spin-off, the PR team developed a top-secret bunker to hide the drama’s crucial information – compared to Soviet state security by the host of The Watch, Chris Ryan. It was also seen as unnecessary by even top fans of the books as they argued that the Aragorn origin story inspired by the original Tolkien books cannot be kept as a mystery. 

Luckily, despite what seems like an overwhelming presence of spoiler coverage on the web and both the film and TV industry, there are ways in which you can keep the clues confidential. With The Guardian’s Now You’ve Seen It, it is now possible to direct your spoiler inducing friends away to discuss the hush-hush elements of shows and film’s in a spoiler-safe environment, even if they are breaking the first rule of Fight Club in the process. 

Image Credit: The Odyssey Online 

Is Ageism Still a Problem in the Film Industry?

With the release of the most recent Bond film title: No Time To Die, I thought it’d be a good idea to take a look at the recent fear of ageism in the film industry. Given the franchise’s history of casting older men in the leading role and the infamous young attractive Bond girl (Honey Ryder and Pussy Galore are probably the most comical ones that come to mind), there is an obvious preference towards older men staying in roles over women who can just be replaced each time by another younger actress. Roger Moore, portrayed Bond into what one could argue was far too old an age for an action star. This isn’t just an issue confined to the Bond franchise. In recent years, prominent young actresses such as Anne Hathaway, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Zoe Saldana have all condemned high up executives for enabling ageism. 

So what exactly is the issue nowadays in Hollywood? It appears older male roles are abundant with ageing stars such as Clint Eastwood and Robert De Niro never short of a job in Hollywood. Most recently De Niro appears to reprise his role as the King of Comedy in Joker and Clint Eastwood has starred in a whole host of films. It also appears that Hollywood has no shortage of jobs for stars from the 80s as well, remaking both Terminator and Indiana Jones films with their male stars securing substantial paychecks. Even Marlon Brando was able to breathe new life into his career in Apocalypse Now (a great film by the way) despite being overweight and in need of a few dimly lit shots.

Most recently, Kelly McGillis was left out of the ‘Top Gun: Maverick’ sequel despite Tom Cruise returning for his role. Yet again, Tom Cruise has been paired with different young female co-star continually proving that Mission Impossible films often lack a recurring female star except for Michelle Monaghan who plays Julia, Ethan Hunt’s wife. In 2010, Helen Mirren’s made a comment explaining that she resented having “witnessed… the survival of some very mediocre male actors and the professional demise of some very brilliant female ones”, a tale that still resonates with many of the high up decisions made in Hollywood today.

Despite this, there have been a few recent box office successes which have appeared to revitalise the film industry’s interest in casting older female stars in leading roles. The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel grossed $130 million worldwide upon its release and starred Judi Dench and Maggie Smith, both 77 at the time. 2017 also saw Glenn Close in her early 70s shine as another great example of success when nominated for Best Actress at the Oscars for her role as Joan Castleman. When the opportunities are presented to women over a certain age (which is not often enough), they are clearly ready to take them and excel. A counterpoint to this argument could be the frequent use of de-ageing technology in films to manipulate the appearance of male actors. When you take one look at Patrick Stewart in X-Men: The Last Stand, it makes you shudder. With CGI de-ageing technology being used and sometimes abused since 2006, it appears that Hollywood has yet another weapon to eliminate old age, while casting aside perfectly suited actors in the process, and continues to pursue its search for the fountain of youth in the ever-increasingly digitised age of cinema.

Image Credit: LA Times