Inside Iranian Cinema (Part 3/3)

In part 3, we meet one of the religious leaders who rebuilt Iranian cinema after the 1979 Revolution.

Watch parts 1 & 2 here
Part 1: http://bit.ly/Iranian-Cinema-1
Part 2: http://bit.ly/Iranian-Cinema-2

Between their Nuclear programs and president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's disdain for diplomacy, Iran posses a legitimate threat to the rest of the world. Despite all this, or perhaps because of it, Iranian filmmakers are among most prolific and influential in the world today. Their government's influence over the film industry is unlike any other. In 1978, cinemas were burned to the ground after images of American decadence were shown on screen. The medium itself was outlawed until the Ayatollah Khamenei saw a film he liked, the cinemas were reopened, and the industry grew again.

Today, this revitalized passion for film has Iran making a major impact on the world. The country's cultural, national, and individual diversity is on view, in celluloid. In this episode, watch Shane Smith travel to Iran for the 3rd Annual Urban Film Festival in Tehran. We take you to film sets and sound stages where we meet Iran's top directors, actors, and clerics.

Check out the Best of VICE here: http://bit.ly/VICE-Best-Of

Subscribe to VICE here! http://bit.ly/Subscribe-to-VICE
Check out our full video catalog: http://bit.ly/VICE-Videos
Videos, daily editorial and more: http://vice.com
Like VICE on Facebook: http://fb.com/vice
Follow VICE on Twitter: http://twitter.com/vice
Read our tumblr: http://vicemag.tumblr.com

• Category

  Entertainment

[Ammar Alasadi]

Great gob vice.. You really represent the true media..

[Francisco Sanchez]

After watching this as a mexican I really would love to go to Iran as a tourist...... We have to stop believing US media on "how evil is Iran" that bullshit.

[TejasM14]

wow, you have no idea about world history do you? The constant intervention by western powers for oil was what lead to the rise of democracy in Iran. And then the CIA overthrew the democratically elected prime minister by means of a Coup d'état. That later lead to the reinstatement of the western favored Shah, who became increasingly oppressive at dissenters. Finally the people worked up a revolution which lead to the Iran of today. No intervention of the west, and there would be no theocracy.

[sanju61822]

In some cultures it is an insult because in some cultures, gay people are rejected by society and they live in their own community, these people dress like women and harass general public in groups. Thats why in some cultures it is an insult to be called a gay.

[TejasM14]

Why would that be an insult? For example, I am straight. Calling me gay would certainly be factually incorrect. But an insult, I don't think so. Being gay isn't any disease, it is a psychological bent of mind.

[sanju61822]

It is an insult to straight people.

[TejasM14]

Contd...not everything is black or white. Iran is definitely not the brutal regime as the western powers paint it to be. But neither is it a completely democratic society, where freedoms and rights are valued as much as in scandivanian countries. It is a democratic theocracy, and in many ways each of those terms contradicts the others. Watch the PBS documentary by Rick Steves: "Iran, Yesterday and Today." It is a great documentary that throws light into iran's complex socio-economic nature

[TejasM14]

No, as someone who has a few iranian friends, he portrayed them in the correct manner. The Iranian educated are in a way silent dissenters. They dissent through means of media, movies and music, pushing the boundaries every so little. The majority of the educated Iranians have answered in silent polls that they would prefer a greater degree of personal freedom. Take blogging for example, to which the iranian young resort to so often. contd..

[TejasM14]

Why is it that you seem to think that being called gay is some sort of an insult? Maybe this guy felt that the imam's body language suggested that he was gay.

[TejasM14]

Contd...Hate mongering is a great way of garnering support from your base for politicians. Ahmadinejad does that in Iran, Bush did that in America, Musharraf did that in Pakistan, Hitler did that in Nazi Germany, Netanyahu does that in Israel, Gaddafi did that in Libya, the list is nearly endless. Painting your disputant as the evil, barbaric opposition, makes it so easy to garner support for engaging in war. I suggest you read the book 'Manufacturing Consent' by Noam Chomsky.

[TejasM14]

How can you be so naive? Politicians do that purely to pander to the poor and uneducated, AKA a majority of Iran's rural people. The only war iran was ever part of was in defending itself against western funded Iraq. Besides how different is it from George Bush or Dick Cheney wanting to bomb and drone the so called axis of evil. The words might be a little subtle perhaps, but the propaganda they are spreading is the same. contd...

[TejasM14]

you entirely missed and misconstrued his point. He DID NOT call for a regime change. But rather he was cognizant of the people's disapproval of the theocratic government. Through media, movies and music, the iranians push the boundaries ever so slightly engaging in social dialogue. The iranians don't need the interference of western powers, but their dissent is slowly gaining momentum and power. This kind of silent disapproval can only cause change for the better, and that is what he hopes for.