out of the circle, out of the square
by Douglas Messerli
Asghar Farhadi (screenwriter and director) جدایی نادر
از سیمین Jodaí-e Nadér az Simín (A Separation) / 2011
Asghar Farhadi’s 2011 film, A Separation has so very much on its
mind that it’s somewhat difficult to know where to begin in describing it. In
many respects it is a cultural statement of the oppositions and strains of
contemporary Iranian life.
After all, the central conceit of the film is that a forward-looking
wife Simin (Leila Hatami), displeased with the situation in Iran, wants to
immigrate with her daughter, Termah (Sarina Farhadi) and husband Nader (Peyman
Moaadi) in order to escape the increasingly harsh
Yet, since Nader refuses, the Iranian judge cannot allow her to gain
custody over her daughter, which negates even her logic for the separation. In
short, the inequality of the sexes in this culture reifies her desires quite
early in this film.
Nader’s reason for his inability to leave is, outwardly, a seemingly
logical one: his father (played by Ali-Asghar Shahbazi) has advanced
Alzheimer’s desire, and he refuses to abandon him.
Although Farhadi makes it quite apparent that
Nader is totally devoted to his father, however, it is also a rather false
excuse, since he works all day and is seldom there to actually care for the man
to whom he is so devoted.
Indeed, once Simin leaves Nader to move in with her mother—when the
separation is actually effected—the couple are forced to hire a worker to care
for the elderly man. The woman they choose, Razieh (Sareh Bayat), who must
travel a long distance each day from a poor suburb, could
At
one point, Razieh enters his room to discover that he has escaped the apartment
and is forced to run after him in the streets, almost—or perhaps actually
being—hit by a passing automobile.
The
very first day of her service as a nurse, after her patient has pissed his
pants, Razieh must call a phone hot-line just to determine whether it is
permissible for her to clean him up. We see, accordingly, exactly why Simin
wants to remove herself and daughter from such an environment without her
having to say a word. When a culture is not even allowed to fulfill their
duties, to help others in great need, and to live out their desires, we
recognize that something is terribly amiss. Who wouldn’t want to escape such a
world?
We
don’t truly see whether he pushes her literally out the door as he fires her; Farhadi
is too subtle a director to show the actual actions; yet that is what Hodjat
and his lawyers claim has caused his wife’s miscarriage. Did Nadet not know of
her pregnancy?
No
one in this drama gets spared from the cruelties of the draconian system. If
found guilty Nader will be imprisoned for years. Even the absent Simin,
separated from the events, must return to protect her husband, whom it appears
did know that Razieh was expecting (he admits as much to his daughter), but who
also rightfully questions whether his hired nurse might have been abused by her
husband. She even hints that perhaps the automobile incident might have been
the cause of her miscarriage. In this society blame is heaped upon nearly
everyone involved. It was Simin, we later perceive, who took the money to help
pay moving expenses, not Nader’s new hire.
In
such a patriarchal world, perhaps a “separation” is the only choice women can
make, and ultimately Termah, the couple’s daughter is asked to make the same
choice: does she wish to go with her father or mother? We never hear her final
decision. She asks that both her parents leave the courtroom so that she might
reveal her choice to the judge alone. And, given her father’s confessions, we
cannot be sure whether or not she will be able to choose rightly. Both of her
parents have selected intractable routes, which lead in entirely opposite
directions.
Yet, Farhadi does reveal a truly essential fact: as difficult as it is,
Simin has chosen to move ahead into the future, while Nader has preferred to
turn to the past to care for a man who no longer even knows his name or who he
is. At the expense of his current family, Nader has clung to the memory of his
childhood to care of the incognizant man who nurtured and cared for him. No
one, of course, should be forced to decide between these alternatives. Yet, we
can be sure, that these impossible choices are not limited to Iran. In this
film, the director simply heightens the tensions and pulls that many
individuals and couples around the world are subject to. And that, in turn,
helps to lift this wonderful film out of a cultural battle of religious beliefs
in Iran to a film of universal value.
As
I grow into role of an elderly man—without having any of the family protections
that even Nader’s father had—I fear, obviously, what might happen to me if I
might fall into dementia or Alzheimer’s. Both my mother and her sister
suffered, in the end, these diseases. But I can assure you that I would hope no
young person should have to choose to alter their lives, their movement forward
or away, in order to nurse me. As painful as it is to say this: Nader and Simin
should have simply moved off—particularly in the world in which they were
entrapped—to leave the unknowing old man behind to die. Perhaps this entire
society (I do not mean simply the Iranian world) that has entrenched itself in
the past for far too long in order to allow its younger participants room to breathe. I can only hope that Termah
suddenly comes to perceive that her mother’s choice was the only viable one.
Los Angeles, April 13, 2019
Reprinted from World Cinema Review (April 2019).
No comments:
Post a Comment