A Separation (Asghar Farhadi, 2011)

[warren oates]

...I think this is a much better film, though Farghadi doesn't have the clout that Kiarostami does.Sorry if this is a ridiculous question, clearly I'm new.

Not so much a ridiculous question as a ridiculous statement. Certified Copy couldn't be more different. Of the Kiarostami films I've seen, Close-Up may be a better point of comparison, but I'd still argue there's no point in comparing.... Though if you insist, really, tell us all how Farhadi's earnest, well-intentioned crossover hit has anything at all on a bona fide master of the medium like Kiarostami.

I was excited by the first shot in A Separation and had high hopes during the first 30-40 minutes. After that, not so much. The film just kind of devolves into an omnidirectional shouting match that fails to further illuminate the characters or their world.

[tachyonEvan]

...I think this is a much better film, though Farghadi doesn't have the clout that Kiarostami does.Sorry if this is a ridiculous question, clearly I'm new.

Not so much a ridiculous question as a ridiculous statement. Certified Copy couldn't be more different. Of the Kiarostami films I've seen, Close-Up may be a better point of comparison, but I'd still argue there's no point in comparing.... Though if you insist, really, tell us all how Farhadi's earnest, well-intentioned crossover hit has anything at all on a bona fide master of the medium like Kiarostami.

I was excited by the first shot in A Separation and had high hopes during the first 30-40 minutes. After that, not so much. The film just kind of devolves into an omnidirectional shouting match that fails to further illuminate the characters or their world.

Yeah... I'm new to this. I've seen exactly one Kiarostami film one time (Certified Copy) and am currently in pursuit of seeing others, because I did really like it. I even plan on watching Certified Copy multiple more times, because it's a really interesting movie and I'm still not entirely sure what to make of it.

I thought A Separation was tremendous, however. Every time I see it, I find my loyalties changing every five minutes and love how it ultimately - even to the film's final shot - doesn't choose sides. I liked what I heard at a panel discussion on the film I attended in March about the film's basis in "the chaos of morality." I'm relatively new to these types of films, but A Separation is already up there as one of my favorites. I can't stop thinking about this movie.

I'm sure you're going to attack me for my ignorance, but I'm just trying to chip away at discovering better movies in general. Kiarostami's on my list. I was just asking a question about a movie I really like.

[warren oates]

Well, no offense, but maybe that's why you think A Separation is so tremendous, because you haven't seen many other films that aspire to anything like it? In my estimation it's a good film -- though not as good as it might have been -- yet pretty far from a great film. For me a single viewing was more than enough. By the end I was disappointed with what the film might have been, surprised by its ultimate waywardness and bored by the way it dragged itself to a close.

I watch films from Iran because I want to learn about the country, and a cannily accurate portrait of what life is like for the middle class is the big virtue of A Separation. Occasionally, though, as with the Kiarostami films and a couple of films by Panahi (Offside, Crimson Gold), I get all the sociology I want and a whole lot more. Give Kiarostami's Close-Up a spin with strict attention to the judicial processes and tell me that all the disputation is not employed more interestingly (and to further a story beyond itself as well as to investigate layers of meaning that expand well beyond the edges of one narrative) than in A Separation. Also, if you want to see honest stories about failing relationships have a look at Bergman's Scenes From A Marriage and some of the Cassavetes films (Faces, A Woman Under The Influence).

[repeat]

No offense meant, but if you went into this expecting a story about a failing relationship, let alone a disputation about the Iranian judicial system, I'm not surprised you'd come out disappointed And call me stupid, but I really don't see what Close-Up - a masterpiece in its own right, but a very different film - has to do with this. Regarding films with similar intentions I'd sooner think of something like, say, Cantet's Time Out - I saw A Separation as an extremely well-directed psychological drama basically focused on one individual, slowly building in intensity to an almost unbearable level, and interested in examining basic questions of morality and truth by setting up seemingly impossible moral dilemmas.

I remember several crucial moments in the film where I was thinking how easy it would be to fuck the whole thing up, but for me Farhadi made the right choices every time, systematically refusing easy identification with any one party, steering clear of gratuitous melodrama (all the ingredients for which were right there), and deftly withholding and disclosing crucial information to frustrate the viewer's moral judgments - until by the last third or so he had my complete confidence, which in my view was well rewarded - your mileage may vary...

[warren oates]

No offense meant, but if you went into this expecting a story about a failing relationship, let alone a disputation about the Iranian judicial system, I'm not surprised you'd come out disappointed And call me stupid, but I really don't see what Close-Up - a masterpiece in its own right, but a very different film - has to do with this. Regarding films with similar intentions I'd sooner think of something like, say, Cantet's Time Out - I saw A Separation as an extremely well-directed psychological drama basically focused on one individual, slowly building in intensity to an almost unbearable level, and interested in examining basic questions of morality and truth by setting up seemingly impossible moral dilemmas.

I remember several crucial moments in the film where I was thinking how easy it would be to fuck the whole thing up, but for me Farhadi made the right choices every time, systematically refusing easy identification with any one party, steering clear of gratuitous melodrama (all the ingredients for which were right there), and deftly withholding and disclosing crucial information to frustrate the viewer's moral judgments - until by the last third or so he had my complete confidence, which in my view was well rewarded - your mileage may vary...

Yeah, it did vary. I was with the film for the set-up. The pay off, not so much. It did seem to descend into melodrama (all of the shouting and repeated hammering home of the same exact disagreements works better for me in Cassavetes). I'm not on board with the giant moral genius of this film or the deft psychology. You make it sound like one of Atom Egoyan's best films or something. And Time Out is more left field than any of my references. I love that film and its utterly sui generis "thriller of everyday life" vibe and A Separation's got nothing on it.

The Kiarostami connection was brought up by a previous poster. I'm just playing with it. But again, if we're going to go there, I find Kiarostami's work infinitely more moving, complex and rewatchable.

[ianthemovie]

I feel that the comparison/contrast with Kiarostami is warranted, if for no other reason than both Close-Up (to take a representative Kiarostami film) and A Separation are some of the most significant films to come out of Iran in the past several decades, and they are rooted in similar milieux and informed by similar contexts. Speaking very generally, the elusiveness of truth and reality is also a theme that seems to unite A Separation and Close-Up. The difference for me seems to be that Kiarostami is interested in going much deeper with this theme and is playing with it on the level of form itself (having real people play "themselves," re-enact events, etc.), which adds a dizzying extra layer to the material, whereas A Separation explores its themes via (and no disrespect intended when I use these words) a more straight-forward drama. It may be an issue of personal preference, but I find Kiarostami's approach a much more interesting and thought-provoking example of how New Iranian cinema has addressed these issues. Like warren oates, I felt that A Separation had an interesting first act but devolved into scenes of people repeating the same points over and over again. By the end I had completely lost interest. I can recognize that it was well-made but frankly I did not understand the love for this film.

[repeat]

Well, to each their own I guess, and on the other hand I don't feel I can defend the film much further without a critical second viewing, as it certainly wouldn't be the first time I'd have overrated something on first impression!

I'm definitely not saying it's as good as Close-Up or Time Out, just that I think it stands on its own merits. Time Out just spontaneously came to mind (while watching) as something with vaguely similar intentions. Both Nader and Vincent create their respective impossible situations from the desire to keep their families together, and both films concentrate on the mounting personal psychological stress resulting from those decisions; whereas Sabzian, in a way, has maybe less at stake, and Kiarostami is less interested in his psychological predicament than the larger philosophical ramifications of his actions - his film resultingly being much more layered than either of the other two, but whether that makes it more rewatchable is probably a matter of personal taste.

As to the comparisons with other Iranian films - I too actually went to see the film out of a budding interest in the cinema of Iran (initially sparked by, unsurprisingly, Close-Up), but once it got going I dropped all such expectations, and during the film and afterwards I didn't feel any need to relate it to other Iranian films. Apart from some minor motivating points (Simin's desire to emigrate, Razieh's religious qualms - both of which could occur in a number of other cultures) I didn't feel there was anything specifically Iranian about the story - it could be set anywhere, which is probably a factor in the film's crossover success. I guess in the best possible case its fact of being from Iran might have the positive effect of attracting more attention to Iranian film, and the plight of Panahi and Rasoulof et al.

[tachyonEvan]

Well, no offense, but maybe that's why you think A Separation is so tremendous, because you haven't seen many other films that aspire to anything like it?

Perhaps, and no offense taken!

I watch films from Iran because I want to learn about the country, and a cannily accurate portrait of what life is like for the middle class is the big virtue of A Separation. Occasionally, though, as with the Kiarostami films and a couple of films by Panahi (Offside, Crimson Gold), I get all the sociology I want and a whole lot more. Give Kiarostami's Close-Up a spin with strict attention to the judicial processes and tell me that all the disputation is not employed more interestingly (and to further a story beyond itself as well as to investigate layers of meaning that expand well beyond the edges of one narrative) than in A Separation. Also, if you want to see honest stories about failing relationships have a look at Bergman's Scenes From A Marriage and some of the Cassavetes films (Faces, A Woman Under The Influence).

Thanks for the recs, all are on my list now. I'm especially interested in Iranian films for the same reason, and what felt so interesting about A Separation was about how universal it felt. Some may see that as a flaw, but I thought it was brilliant, and pretty much exactly what an American cinemagoer needs to see coming out of Iran right now.

I saw A Separation as an extremely well-directed psychological drama basically focused on one individual, slowly building in intensity to an almost unbearable level, and interested in examining basic questions of morality and truth by setting up seemingly impossible moral dilemmas.

I remember several crucial moments in the film where I was thinking how easy it would be to fuck the whole thing up, but for me Farhadi made the right choices every time, systematically refusing easy identification with any one party, steering clear of gratuitous melodrama (all the ingredients for which were right there), and deftly withholding and disclosing crucial information to frustrate the viewer's moral judgments - until by the last third or so he had my complete confidence, which in my view was well rewarded - your mileage may vary...

As to the comparisons with other Iranian films - I too actually went to see the film out of a budding interest in the cinema of Iran (initially sparked by, unsurprisingly, Close-Up), but once it got going I dropped all such expectations, and during the film and afterwards I didn't feel any need to relate it to other Iranian films. Apart from some minor motivating points (Simin's desire to emigrate, Razieh's religious qualms - both of which could occur in a number of other cultures) I didn't feel there was anything specifically Iranian about the story - it could be set anywhere, which is probably a factor in the film's crossover success. I guess in the best possible case its fact of being from Iran might have the positive effect of attracting more attention to Iranian film, and the plight of Panahi and Rasoulof et al.

Basically, this. This is what I loved about this movie, and what continues to hold up every time I watch it.

[zedz]

I'm sort of with Warren Oates on this. A Separation was, I thought, a fine drama, but it certainly didn't get into the higher dimensions of the best Iranian films. For those exploring further, there are a lot of contemporary Iranian social dramas made over the past thirty years that deal with similar issues as A Separation. Maybe not in the same specific combination, but in variously interesting ways, and they're well worth seeking out.

Then there are films and filmmakers (most prominent among them Kiarostami and Makhmalbaf, but also Panahi and Ghobadi and Rasoulof) who take the same material and extended into much more ambitious personal, political, metaphysical and self-reflexive areas. And the greatest of the Iranian films - which are among the greatest films ever made - manage to somehow, miraculously do all of those things at once. Films like A Moment of Innocence or And Life Goes on are the sort of one-of-a-kind masterpieces that deserve to be considered alongside Night of the Hunter or Au hasard, Balthazar, and yet they mysteriously manage to retain a wonderfully casual, almost tossed-off and improvisatory feel. But it's worth acquainting yourself with the whole gamut of contemporary Iranian cinema, both to better appreciate the context for the truly extraordinary work and to enjoy one of the most consistently dynamic and ambitious national cinemas of the past few decades.

[HistoryProf]

Finally got a chance to see this via home video and was blown away. easily the best film i've seen this year. I was captivated from the very beginning and held in anxious suspense until the final frame. Simply a masterpiece of filmmaking, from the script to the cinematography to the direction and acting.

I can't really add to the other posts praising the major thematic elements, but I do think Mr. Oates was unnecessarily combative above. There's nothing I hate more than attacking someone for not having seen enough movies....give the guy a break. This second page is way to Armondy with the comparative obsession with Kiarostami and the need to declare one or the other superior. Why not let this one stand on its own merits - or lack thereof? But more than anything, I hate seeing haughty dismissals disguised as "lessons" for neophytes here. it's the one thing this board is generally best at avoiding that makes it such a lovely place to discuss films. Who cares if this is someone's first Iranian film? That's a good thing...encourage them to see others and move on. [/rant]

[Black Hat]

I watch films from Iran because I want to learn about the country

As an American born son of Iranian immigrants, I have always had a great deal of difficulty accepting, at times even tolerating Iranian cinema. Reason being that I find them depressing as they all too often represent a sadness, a melancholy if you will of the culture that is somewhat inaccurate but, cheered on by Western audiences as in my view it fits with the preconceived narrative they have about the country, or 'how it must be like' based on 'what we think we know'. In truth, the sensitive, depressed Persian is indeed a huge part of the culture's identity but, there is also a side of passion, one of carefree irreverence that Iranian cinema has failed to capture.

For example, when a few years ago at Lincoln Center I saw Bahman Ghobadi's, No One Knows The Truth About Persian Cats, I was elated as for the first time I was watching something that really showed Iran in a different light and then that ending. Oh that ending. At the Q&A with Ghobadi I got into a bit of an argument with him over it. He got angry, condescendingly pulling the 'I have no idea what life in Iran is like card' (total nonsense). Despite sensing audience hostility from both the Upper West Side 'intellectuals' and the Iranians who live in Neverneverland for me daring to question the man, I replied that he has no idea what it's like to grow up in America as an Iranian and it would be nice that if just once, an Iranian film left everybody feeling good, as opposed to people walking out saying, 'Shit, that's one fucked up place. I feel sorry for them.' I left out the part about how life in Iran can't be all that terrible if your ass is sitting here in Lincoln Center alongside your new hot girlfriend, Roxana Saberi (Iranian American journalist who was detained for a few months), with people fawning over you but, I digress. However, I knew I had hit on something as afterwards many sought me out to thank me for what I said.

Where Ghobadi, Kiarostami and the others have failed is where Farhadi here has triumphed. A Separation tells a story not out of Iran or what life is like for them but, rather of people. People just like you and I, whether from New York, London, Shanghai or Cape Town it doesn't matter. People aren't ready to learn about a so called mysterious people from a so called mysterious place until enough people shine a light reflecting how Iranians mirror the rest of us. Even with that said, Farhadi's genius and the reason why it is far and away the best cinema Iran has ever produced was that while relating Iranians to other earthlings he still managed to keep the distinct flavors and contradictions of Iranian identity, character. To illuminate this one step further, more than a few friends came back to me after watching it saying how much they felt they understood me better, this certainly never happened with other Iranian films and I believe speaks to something special about A Separation.

To be clear I'm not trashing Kiarostami, Panahi or the rest, they all certainly have their place. What I'm saying is that Iranians are an enigmatic people and for whatever reason Iranian directors have been all too focused with one side of that enigma until Farhadi's A Separation.

[bdsweeney]

Finally got a chance to see this via home video and was blown away. easily the best film i've seen this year. I was captivated from the very beginning and held in anxious suspense until the final frame. Simply a masterpiece of filmmaking, from the script to the cinematography to the direction and acting.

I can't really add to the other posts praising the major thematic elements, but I do think Mr. Oates was unnecessarily combative above. There's nothing I hate more than attacking someone for not having seen enough movies....give the guy a break. This second page is way to Armondy with the comparative obsession with Kiarostami and the need to declare one or the other superior. Why not let this one stand on its own merits - or lack thereof? But more than anything, I hate seeing haughty dismissals disguised as "lessons" for neophytes here. it's the one thing this board is generally best at avoiding that makes it such a lovely place to discuss films. Who cares if this is someone's first Iranian film? That's a good thing...encourage them to see others and move on. [/rant]

Can we add a 'Like' option for posts? 8-[

[whaleallright]

Yeah the obsessive need to compare/contrast this with other Western-distributed Iranian films strikes me as parochial. For one thing, most of us (assuming we're not from Iran) have only seen a small slice of what the Iranian cinema has on offer. For all I know there's a tradition of domestic melodrama in Iran of which A Separation is a superior example; certainly it doesn't partake of the sort of reflexivity that made some of Makhmalbaf's and especially Kiraostami's films seem so novel (and yet, seem to fit so comfortably into modernist critical tropes). In any case, Farhadi's own frames of cinematic reference go far beyond the Iranian cinema, as his Sight & Sound ballot demonstrates.

Some folks I know have objected to the very thing that I thought made this such a strong film: its careful narrative design. All of the characters are given complexly mixed motives, each action has a somewhat ambiguous motivation. Certain facts and scenes are strategically elided to (I think) strong effect. And there are lots of intertwining motifs that became evident to me only on reflection:

Spoiler

for instance how the miscarried fetus and the infirm father echo each other, each one alternately beloved/sanctified and dismissed as less-than-human.

It's remarkable that such issues--essentially, the very meaning of "life" and the value we associate with it--come up in this context. While they aren't mulled over with philosophical rigor, they aren't treated patly either: if we're attentive, the film makes us think about what aspects of "life" we value and why. It also concerns the way these things come up in a legal context, an issue that is relevant far beyond the particularities of the Iranian legal system (though for this American those particularities held an added fascination). This is one of those films for whom the icky phrase "it raises lots of questions" really applies.

This is the rare instance where the Academy, audiences, and critics all got it right.

[Black Hat]

Some folks I know have objected to the very thing that I thought made this such a strong film: its careful narrative design. All of the characters are given complexly mixed motives, each action has a somewhat ambiguous motivation.

This may be less a result of an intentional narrative design than a very accurate portrayal of Iranians. It's the main reason why I felt that it still managed to keep an Iranian identity while at the same time relating, on a deeper emotional level to a much wider audience.

[MichaelB]

Yeah the obsessive need to compare/contrast this with other Western-distributed Iranian films strikes me as parochial. For one thing, most of us (assuming we're not from Iran) have only seen a small slice of what the Iranian cinema has on offer. For all I know there's a tradition of domestic melodrama in Iran of which A Separation is a superior example; certainly it doesn't partake of the sort of reflexivity that made some of Makhmalbaf's and especially Kiraostami's films seem so novel (and yet, seem to fit so comfortably into modernist critical tropes). In any case, Farhadi's own frames of cinematic reference go far beyond the Iranian cinema, as his Sight & Sound ballot demonstrates.

The thing about A Separation is that it's an exceptionally well-crafted humanist drama. I don't understand the need to compare it with Makhmalbaf and Kiarostami any more than I'd understand attempts to compare, say, a Rohmer conte moral with Rivette or post-1968 Godard: all they really have in common is their nationality and a certain amount of international acclaim.

[repeat]

I don't understand the need to compare it with Makhmalbaf and Kiarostami any more than I'd understand attempts to compare, say, a Rohmer conte moral with Rivette or post-1968 Godard: all they really have in common is their nationality

In all fairness, the issue was originally brought up by the poster who wondered why Kiarostami is in the CC and Farhadi isn't, and pursued by another who watches Iranian films to learn about the country (admittedly a less ridiculous suggestion than reading novels in order to learn about the countries they're set in - after all with films you get to see actual sights, but to learn about the people? I think Black Hat just summed up why that seems a rather dubious endeavour)

Not that certain national/local trends, such as the current Romanian "new wave" or the Berliner Schule (although the homogeneity of both can be questioned) don't exist, but at least I find it difficult to see how Farhadi and Kiarostami could be said to represent any shared school of cinema. (Actually, if anything, I thought A Separation came closer to some of the current Romanian dramas)

[whaleallright]

This may be less a result of an intentional narrative design than a very accurate portrayal of Iranians. It's the main reason why I felt that it still managed to keep an Iranian identity while at the same time relating, on a deeper emotional level to a much wider audience.

The mixed and contradictory motives of all of the characters is very much a deliberate aspect of the film's narrative design. Things like complex characters do not simply enter into a film by cultural osmosis; a screenwriter has to create them (and then actors give them flesh, etc.).

[Black Hat]

To disregard the latent but, strong influence of 'what you know' aspects of life in writing or for that matter, any art, being unconsciously represented in favor of proclamations about what is or isn't intended or as in this instance you put it, 'deliberate', is a bit of not seeing the forest for the trees. In this case the beauty of the film was that the characters were indeed remarkably simple, their conflicted, contradictory actions that of regular people, what was complex was the situation these folks found themselves in. That to piggy back off of what Michael B said is what gave it a humanist feel.

[whaleallright]

"The situation these folks found themselves in" is one devised by the screenwriter. If the film seems to accurately represent a range of "realistic" reactions to that situation (in your words, a "very accurate portrayal of Iranians"), that's a credit to the screenwriter as well. By saying that I don't mean to suggest that the film is not "realistic," or that those who made the movie weren't inspired by their observations of Iranian society--simply that such realism (or humanism) is an effect of a shrewd and talented screenwriter/director.

I'll stop here, since otherwise I'll just be repeating myself.

[zedz]

Agreed. "Realism" is an aesthetic contrivance that's devilishly hard to pull off. See: 99.99% of films ever made anywhere.

[Mr Sausage]

I find people often mistake realism for disinterested observation. And it's not. Realism, when done right, is a shrewd, conscious manipulation, and one all the shrewder for taking often delicately contrived, invented scenarios and convincing people that these scenarios are a part of real life, indeed more a part of our mutual lived world than other equally contrived scenarios. Skillfully executed realism is quite able to convince a lot of people that certain fake or invented phenomena are more a part of the lived world than stuff that actually does happen. And as an odd reverse irony, I'll sometimes find people criticizing a pretty accurate representation of something in a movie as being unrealistic, which they don't seem to realize means 'not following the conventions of realist aesthetics' rather than 'not accurately representing lived experience.'

[knives]

A good distinction of that, just to add to you great point, is The Informant! which stayed nearly 100% true to reality with only the combining of people being the only 'lie' and yet it is far less 'realistic' and styled even in story toward the absurd than something like this.

[Mr Sausage]

Yeah. Real life is absurd and strange and full of inexplicable and incoherent things. Realism as a formal method does not widely use absurdity, or incoherence, or the uncanny. In fact realism often favours banality, the commonplace, and things that are usual or widespread. Singular or outrageous events tend not to be thought of as realistic, and when they are treated using realism, it's the everyday quality or the widely identifiable aspects that are brought out in order to give the audience the sense that what they are seeing is real, or anyway more real than anything not using realist forms. There is what happens, and then there is what people will accept as 'what happens' in a movie. And it's the latter that a shrewd realist filmmaker will focus on, sometimes even if it violates the former.

A good example is the bar fight in Peckinpah's Junior Bonnar, which is routinely criticized for going on too long to be realistic (implying that the rest of the movie is, despite all the formal experimentation). Except a lot of people who live in the milieu represented in the movie say that Peckinpah's bar fight is an accurate depiction of how those things tend to go. And the point here is that there are parts of life which are themselves exaggerated and overblown, even to the point of absurdity. And realism, as opposed to reality, tends not to use exaggerated or overblown things even if life frequently is both.

One final (and somewhat famous) example I'll use is Herman Melville's comment about his first totally fictional narrative, Mardi. He says that since his first two auto-biographical 'novels' were repeatedly called unrealistic, despite being a record of real events, he hopes that by writing a totally made-up story all the critics will find his new novel realistic. He was being tongue in cheek, but it reveals the principle that it's not about what's true, but what an audience will accept. And good realist filmmakers know this.

[whaleallright]

I'll add that there are different "realisms," which are neither mutually exclusive nor imply one another: you might name ontological realism, psychological realism, social realism, etc.

And "realism" itself is of course not a fixed quality. Indeed, Roman Jakobson (and other folks ascribing to/informed by formalist criticism) argued that realism is precisely an effect of deviation from a conventionalized representation--meaning realism and artifice are always engaged in a kind of cat-and-mouse game. That's a purposeful simplification, of course-- "realisms" can be as institutionalized and rote as any self-conscious "style"--but I think it has a lot of truth. Just think of how the films by the "5th generation" of Chinese directors were initially greeted, and then how those of the "6th generation" were then counterposed to those of the "5th generation," and on and on.

[Zot!]

Wow, I was floored by this one. Those who dismiss this as workmanlike and obvious should really reconsider. The possibility of making something so profound and artistic without having to resort to ambiguous enigmatic or poetic content is a major achievement. I really feel this is something I've never seen before. Just terrific. There were a lot of comparisons being thrown around, but I actually thought it was not disimilar from Haneke's Code Unknown, Cache era work in terms of style, acting, and rigid disciplined filmmaking.

For the Iranian looking for non-melancholy Iranian fare, I thought Panahi's Offside was pretty fun and had a celebratory ending.