This is Not a Film (Jafar Panahi, 2011)

[ianthemovie]

I also caught it here in Boston, where it had a one-week run at the Kendall Square Cinema (a Landmark theater). At the screening I attended, I was one of two people in the audience at the end (two others got up and walked out halfway through after talking through much of the first half). It was a weekday matinee, but still. Remarkable film, though. It engages overtly with the relationship between film form, narrative, and politics in ways that are really interesting. As far as Iranian cinema goes, I enjoyed this much more than last year's A Separation.

Oh, and about the format issue: if memory serves, the percentage of the film shot on the cell phone is very small. The majority is 35mm. (Correct me if I'm wrong...)

[lady wakasa]

I caught this at the NY Film Festival last fall, and I'm glad I did, because I've been at home the past couple of months with a broken foot.

I think that the co-director, Mojtaba Mirtahmasb, was later arrested as well.

...Although if it wasn't a film, they can't have directed it, could they?

[lilycarver]

Glad you caught it in Boston. The reviews were over the top and the audience was small. It was shown in 35mm in Boston. You would be surprised how many venues who have 35mm do NOT want to show it in 35mm. Mr. Mirtahmasb was arrested when he was on his way to present the film in Toronto last year. He was charged with being a spy for the BBC. He is currently out awaiting trial. Since the film, Mr. Panahi has exhausted all his appeals and is basically waiting to see when the authorities will take him to prison.

[lilycarver]

Oops I forgot. The majority of the film was shot on HDCAM.

[Michael Kerpan]

Alas, we just could not get across the Charles to the Kendall Sq. Theater during the film's one week stay. I felt a bit guilty about missing it.

[JMULL222]

Indeed. Unfortunately if I recall correctly we didn't even have a 'proper' press screening here in Boston, but the major papers got screeners and it did indeed get excellent reviews so it really deserved a better turnout. Also, not sure if this is really a spoiler, but

SpoilerShow

The idea that anyone thinks this film is a straight documentary - and many, many reviews seem to - is laughable. It's about as much of a documentary as CLOSE-UP is.

[otis]

SpoilerShow

The idea that anyone thinks this film is a straight documentary - and many, many reviews seem to - is laughable. It's about as much of a documentary as CLOSE-UP is.

That's what I thought when I watched it. Do you have any details about this?

[lilycarver]

Alas very few films have "proper" press screenings now. There are a few critics who do indeed want to see films on a big screen but most can't be bothered. Also to be fair, in the case of THIS IS NOT A FILM , many major critics did see it at Cannes, Toronto or New York Film Festivals.

I don't think that many critics saw it as "straight" documentary. There were a few really dumb reviews including the critic for
The New York Post who attacked Panahi for "not having enough courage" to make a "straight" documentary that just criticized the
the Iranian government, but most were not only positive but insightful. Per the NY Times quote it really is " A masterpiece in a form that does yet exits" which sadly is not the easy type of "film" to get an audience to see.

[MichaelB]

There were a few really dumb reviews including the critic for The New York Post who attacked Panahi for "not having enough courage" to make a "straight" documentary that just criticized the the Iranian government.

Here's the full review, which isn't quite as crassly ignorant as that précis makes it sound, though it seems to be a pretty classic case of expecting a completely different film that Panahi and Mirtahmasb never actually intended to make.

[lilycarver]

Actually I think the review is crass and stupid . He thinks that Panahi should have made a straight simplistic
doc attacking the Iranian government instead of a freaking masterpiece that he clearly does not get. There were a smattering of other
reviews that I feel completely missed it but none remotely as idiotic as this. The critic has a political agenda that mimics his employers right wing politics and I suspect this played a role in his desire to prefer talking heads propaganda piece against Ahmadinejad.

[otis]

So does anyone know of any intelligent writing on the film, particularly the way in which it "plays" with its status as documentary?

[jorencain]

The Filmspotting podcast had a fairly insightful, if brief, discussion about it on a recent show.

[otis]

Thanks!

[JMULL222]

I'm not trying to instigate an argument, but I will say this: at least 80-85% of releases, as far as independent films go, are shown to critics on the big screen. Personally I don't even feel fully qualified to write about things if that isn't how I see them.

Anyhow,

SpoilerShow

Can't say I have anything "intelligent" to say about it in terms of a longform piece (though I'm working on one for whenever the disc is released) but in short I essentially see the film as an act of rebellion. He quite purposefully includes dynamic editing and other flourishes that make it clear that these scenes are staged, pre-arranged, and scripted. He doesn't rub it in your face, but it's there for the discerning viewer. What appears at first glance to be a diary of house-arrest is, in reality, far more comparable to a Godardian act of cinematic introspection. In one scene, Panahi lays out the film he intended to make - the script that earned him the punishment. One could interpret THIS IS NOT A FILM, based on his aforementioned description, as a thematic retelling of the film he intended to make. He just did it with the only resources he was left with - himself, a home, a friend, and a couple borrowed cameras.

[Lemmy Caution]

The critic has a political agenda that mimics his employers right wing politics and I suspect this played a role in his desire to prefer talking heads propaganda piece against Ahmadinejad.

Kyle Smith reminds me a whole lot of Michelle Malkin, both with a clear political agenda, and sounding as if they haven't evolved much from their high school newspaper days.
Here's his recent article attacking Krugman
He seems particularly adept at missing the point.
I especially was amused how he repeatedly criticizes Krugman for not linking to articles/work mentions and takes issue with, while Smith does the same thing throughout his linkless piece.

So Kyle Smith was bored because the film wasn't more directly political and anti-Iranian regime, and thinks the film-makers were cowardly. And he didn't manage to engage with what the film was. What can you expect from The Post.

[lilycarver]

I am not sure how you define 80-85% of critics unless you just mean The New York Times. Most releases are press screened in New York and LA but the MAJORITY of critics do not show up for those shows. Chicago and Boston do sometimes press screen
"big" releases but I really doubt it is the majority of indie films unless your definition of that is Sony Classics ( who do release great films) This is only an estimate but in New York I think well over 159 screeners were sent to local critics/media writers and national ones based in New York. I don't think more than 20 people showed up to the press screenings . However this is not the best film to judge from since I assume it was press screened at the New York Film Festival and critics had seen it at Cannes. However it genuinely unusual for small independent films to be screened for press outside of New York and LA. I pushed very hard a few years ago to get a major LA critic to go to a screening for a film that was essential to see in 35mm. It was set up for him and he did indeed go but no one else in LA was interested.

[otis]

I'm not trying to instigate an argument, but I will say this: at least 80-85% of releases, as far as independent films go, are shown to critics on the big screen. Personally I don't even feel fully qualified to write about things if that isn't how I see them.

Anyhow,

SpoilerShow

Can't say I have anything "intelligent" to say about it in terms of a longform piece (though I'm working on one for whenever the disc is released) but in short I essentially see the film as an act of rebellion. He quite purposefully includes dynamic editing and other flourishes that make it clear that these scenes are staged, pre-arranged, and scripted. He doesn't rub it in your face, but it's there for the discerning viewer. What appears at first glance to be a diary of house-arrest is, in reality, far more comparable to a Godardian act of cinematic introspection. In one scene, Panahi lays out the film he intended to make - the script that earned him the punishment. One could interpret THIS IS NOT A FILM, based on his aforementioned description, as a thematic retelling of the film he intended to make. He just did it with the only resources he was left with - himself, a home, a friend, and a couple borrowed cameras.

I saw it on the big screen last week, and I was particularly intrigued by the final section

SpoilerShow

from when Panahi starts filming Mirtahmasb with his camera phone, to him leaving the camera and taking the lift, the neighbour coming with the dog, the guy collecting the rubbish who Panahi travels down with in the lift (past the neighbour with the dog), into the basement and out into the night. Hard to believe that this all happened spontaneously in real time, but I loved that uncertainty. It struck a wonderful balance between the mundane and the magical.

[JMULL222]

I am not sure how you define 80-85% of critics unless you just mean The New York Times. Most releases are press screened in New York and LA but the MAJORITY of critics do not show up for those shows. Chicago and Boston do sometimes press screen
"big" releases but I really doubt it is the majority of indie films unless your definition of that is Sony Classics ( who do release great films) This is only an estimate but in New York I think well over 159 screeners were sent to local critics/media writers and national ones based in New York. I don't think more than 20 people showed up to the press screenings . However this is not the best film to judge from since I assume it was press screened at the New York Film Festival and critics had seen it at Cannes. However it genuinely unusual for small independent films to be screened for press outside of New York and LA. I pushed very hard a few years ago to get a major LA critic to go to a screening for a film that was essential to see in 35mm. It was set up for him and he did indeed go but no one else in LA was interested.

Again, I don't want to hijack the thread for this incredible movie with useless blabbering about critical practices, so I'm merely clarifying my point, not arguing/even responding. I am a reviewer in Boston, so that's all I can speak for - I know nothing about practices in NY/LA, which get far more indies than us, obviously. All I know is this: if you were to tabulate all the films that open at our art houses, them being the Kendall Square theater, the Coolidge corner theater, and occasional special engagements at places like the MFA, HFA, or Brattle, I would estimate at least 75% of those releases are played on the big screen for critics prior to release. Yes, this number is including limited releases from places like Searchlight or SPC, but we also see minor releases from places like Paladin, O-Scope, Magnolia, and many others. And as for our (major) critics around here, I don't know that any of them willfully review things on a screener as opposed to a big screen - people from the Globe, Herald, Phoenix (full disclosure: one of my outlets) and elsewhere are present for just about everything. So I will say I think you're underestimating critics when it comes to their dedication to see things in the best possible environment. Or maybe critics just don't give as much of a fuck in NYC. Who knows.

[Sonmi451]

I was finally able to catch this film on DVD last night, and I was touched by its subversiveness and creativity. Is this a masterpiece? Upon reflection, it is fairly obvious that this film is something of a revolutionary act. But does it being a revolutionary act - and an incredibly clever one at that - ipso facto make it a masterpiece, or are there other factors at play?

If we are indeed to call this film a masterpiece, we must ask ourselves the question: would it be considered a masterpiece if it was filmed in another overtly repressive state instead, say Saudi Arabia, or Eritrea (both far more repressive domestically than Iran)? Could the demonization of Iran have anything to do with the West falling in love with this film? I'm not saying it does; simply raising the question. Clearly, if a revolutionary act is - by definition - considered a masterpiece, then it must be based on the nature of the act itself, not where the act takes place.

Here in the U.S., for instance, if I secretly filmed the inner workings and pathologies of our prisons, our courts, our schools, our halls of government and business, or especially our foreign military invasions, and

SpoilerShow

pretended to simply create a personal document (in what could hardly even be called a "film" - if any suspicion arose), while secretly staging much of it, and interspersing actors, and cleverly and thematically telling a larger, more subversive story about imprisonment and repression,

would it be considered a masterpiece? Would people even get it? Would it even be considered a revolutionary act? Or would they simply laugh as I was arrested for obviously breaking about a dozen laws, and say "How could he be so stupid? What did he think was gonna happen?"?

Perhaps we could learn something from Panahi here, for if we view this as a critique of Iran only, it would be tragically ironic, seeing how we in the states have more than twice the incarceration rate (a large majority of which are non-violent offenders who would perceive themselves in much the same position as Panahi). Of course, in an international context, it is not even debatable that the U.S. is vastly more repressive in its foreign policy than Iran.

This may sound like a defense of Iran, it isn't. I abhor much of their domestic policy, and I applaud Panahi for his courage and creativity. These are just some of my initial thoughts upon viewing this film and some of the critical response, as I think it calls for a much more introspective and philosophical analysis than it has largely been given.