Zalava

I don't know why the score is so low. I watched it today at the NIFFF and it was BRILLIANT!

Never had so much tension because of a pickle jar! The acting is great, the editing is great, the stress is real! It's not so much a horror movie as there's no horror... what's horrible is how superstition leads to stupid actions.

If you like to open your mind on foreign cinema, this is it!

.... namely non-Persians....: this movie threads its politics and nationalism very carefully. With a potential loss for the depth and intensity of the story, it does not engage Islam in any way too. The exorcist seems to have never heard of Quran: pretty surprising when compared to the ubiquitous Christian theme of priests-exorcists.

This well-written story, starting from the total denial of the demonic, slowly takes more pro-demon stance (but never decisively) by engaging the love of the main character, a gendarmerie sergeant, for a local doctor, who is a reluctant demon believer (of the kind: it does not harm to believe). Once more, Eve (Malilah) leads Adam (Massoud) astray.

In its approach to ghosts/demons, the movie reminded me about "Benedetta" by Paul Verhoeven: both films leave open the question whether demons exist or not.

Before I saw the movie, I expected it to amaze me! After watching the movie, I realized that the story line was very disappointing. The actors did not sink into their roles as they should have. No fear was instilled in the viewer from the film, what was clear was that people are immersed in superstitions too much and it affects their lives and emotions. The atmosphere and environment were in line with the theme of the movie, and I didn't see any negative points from this point of view. On the other hand, using opinions and making movies based on this makes many things clear in the eyes of people. In general, the movie failed to impress me and I gave it 5 points, ignoring some things.

There was a time when saying "Iranian cinema" meant Abbas Kiarostami's films and the countless movies with children as protagonists. I, at least, was left with that impression and that is why it was totally unexpected to find this drama about exorcism, set in the village of Zalava in the Iranian region of Kurdistan, where gypsies migrated in the 19th century, learned the customs of the region and brought with them fears that manifested themselves as demons.

The film takes place in 1978. A young sergeant is dismissed from his post in the Zalava gendarmerie, when a possessed girl (by a demon or an ancestral fear...) dies accidentally. His father was unable to do what the "exorcist protocol" required, that is, shoot her in the leg, because the sergeant confiscated the rifles with which the inhabitants were also hunting illegally. On the verge of leaving the station, the sergeant decides to stay in Zalava to solve the new case of a demon in the town.

«Zalava» is too subtle and elegant for the public that loves stuff like «The Substance.» The script and direction skillfully move between fright and culture, suspense and ethnography, and social drama and romantic melodrama, always keeping us attentive to the evolution of the characters and to the way in which the perception of the phenomena changes from one to another, until reaching the level of tragedy. The predominating point of view is the logic approach of the sergeant, a man raised in an orphanage, who was called Six Fingers. In love with the beautiful village doctor, he tells her how, after being rejected because of the superstition of what having a sixth finger meant, he learned to respect its space, to take care of it, until it disappeared alone and, from then on, he assumed everything in life from that perspective. He is a rationalist rather than a skeptic, and analyzes the facts coldly. This character is contrasted by the exorcist (Rahimi Sam), a serious man confident in his profession, who does not doubt his ability to control demons, while the doctor stays in the middle, open to all manifestations.

A day after seeing it, "Zalava" is still a film that intrigues me, that awakens curiosity and reflection on themes such as faith and the unwavering adherence to the irrational. In addition, it is visually beautiful and an admirable first film. My only complaint is the abundance of dialogue in the final confrontation, but then I think that it may be a cultural trait, related to a certain gypsy verbosity, in a well-managed framework between professional actors and natural actors. The film won the Grand Prix of the International Association of Film Critics (FIPRESCI) at the Venice Film Festival, and the awards for Best First Film, Screenplay and Supporting Actor (Pourya Rahimi Sam) at the Fajr Film Festival. Highly recommended.

My absolute highlight of the Fantasy Filmfest so far (last day today). I just love it, when a movie engages with the viewer and knows that there are people who want to be challenged. Who want to think about things, who want the option to explain things themselves. What is real, what is actually happening? Do we see what we see or is there a different explanation? You can make your own mind up, what actually happens or happened.

Also the power of certain movements. Group movements, societal angst, fear in general and what it can make you do ... power in groups and auhorities. Can everything be explained? And should we rather be on the safe side? There are no easy answers here ... especially because of the way things unfold.

And by unfold I mean ... well you'll have to see. Althought even seeing, doesn't mean that what you saw is actually what happened. Can it be a coincidence if a glass breaks that is not supposed to break? Again this is so good because you can do things in your mind with it. And the way everyone is playing their character ... can there actually be a happy end? Really loved how "simple" this is on one hand, but how complex it is in the bigger scheme - making you think about it way after you've watched it.