Decadence and Downfall: The Shah of Iran's Ultimate Party

In 1971 the Shah of Iran, who has been in power for three decades, threw an extravagant party to celebrate 2500 years of the Persian Empire. No expense was spared in creating an environment fit for kings, queens, and statespeople who flocked from far and wide for the occasion. A vast tented city was created in the middle of the desert around Shiraz and the ancient site of Persepolis, with grass, trees, and even birds imported from France. Chefs were brought in to create culinary delicacies complemented by the best wines from France (once again).

The junket subsequently moved from Shiraz to Tehran, where the guests were treated to a colorful pageant with a cast of thousands and sets and costumes to match. As a celebration of Iran's illustrious history the entire event could not be bettered.

The only snag about the whole event was that, far from being patriotic, it actually revealed the Shah's excessive hubris. The self- proclaimed King of Kings, he practiced a reign of terror wherein dissidents were imprisoned and ruthlessly tortured, and any opposition was silenced. Although proclaiming himself an advocate of "modernization" and "westernization," bringing in the latest technologies and expertise to bring Iran up to the social and cultural levels characteristic of the West, he was nothing more than a despot concerned solely with his own self-image.

Hassan Amini's film prompts us to reflect critically on precisely what "westernization" signifies, and how (or whether) it can be successfully introduced into non-western contexts. Many of the Shah's critics claimed - rightly, as it turned out - that his reforms were un- Islamic insofar that they took little or no account of the people's religious sensibilities. Nor did the Shah pay much attention to the often pitiful lives led by the majority of his people. To become "westernized" was nothing more than a show designed to attract investment and thereby increase the Shah's personal wealth still further. Hence it was hardly surprising that opposition to his reign increased, culminating in the revolution of 1979, when he was overthrown and replaced as leader by Ayatollah Khomeini.

History - at least from the western perspective - has taught us to believe that the Khomeini regime was a "fundamentalist" one. This might be certainly true, but DECADENCE AND DOWNFALL suggests that, for many Iranians at least, it represented a more desirable alternative to the Shah's absolutist role, where money was spent mostly on events designed to gratify the ruler at the expense of his people.