Septembers of Shiraz

Didn't think too much of it at first. But then I read some of the few reviews in here and elsewhere, and everything started to sound fishy. It ain't _that_ bad. Sure you can tell stories about the impact of religious mass hysterical envy on an entire country, suffered by decent people just because they dare to have made a bit of money under the old regime. So the Shah wasn't a bloody angel either, but you don't fight fire by pissing gasoline on the fire. In fact you should tell such stories, as this flick clearly shows. Not that I didn't already know that Ayatollah Iran is no different in hysteria from a communist regime, but this one confirms it again.

This flick suddenly became important tell just on that alone. Somebody here isn't from Estonia. Or from Bulgaria. I guess some people just aren't accustomed to their selfish oppression of decent folk having a better life than themselves being called out in international movies. It's a bitch being on the wrong side of history too, innit, fana? (Lot of that going 'round in the world these days.)

Greetings again from the darkness. It's 1979 in Tehran, and the Shah of Iran has recently been overthrown in favor of Ayatollah Khomeini and the shift to fundamentalist Islam. Director Wayne Blair informs us that the Hanna Weg script from Dalia Sofer's bestselling novel is "based on true events". As soon as we realize the story is about a wealthy Jewish family, we are prepared for the sure to be unpleasantness.

Adrien Brody plays Isaac, a self-made man whose jewelry business has profited through his dealings with the previous regime. His wife Farnez is played by Salma Hayek, and their beautiful home is the setting for the going-away party for their son who is headed to the United States to continue his education, leaving behind his parents and younger sister.

Ignoring his own warnings that things are getting bad, Isaac is soon arrested by the Revolutionary Guard. As Farnez tries to see him, while also keeping things together at home, Isaac is being interrogated and later tortured as he is held captive.

As in many revolutions, it comes down to rich versus poor, and those who had power versus those who now wield the big stick. Isaac and Farnez are presented as good people who have helped others … including their housekeeper played by the always interesting Shohreh Aghdashloo (House of Sand and Fog). Her loyalties begin to waver even as her son joins forces with the Guards. Why should she clean toilets while Farnez lives the high life? The scenes with Ms. Hayek and Ms. Aghdashloo are the film's best, but even those aren't strong enough given the material.

The film tries to maintain a neutral stance on religion and politics, though it's clear where the sympathies fall. The ending dedication to "all victims of persecution" gives some idea of the lack of focus here. The over-acting from Adrian Brody does distract some from the manner in which the story ends. The lesson seems to be that one is never free when focused on material things, and yet revolutions always seem to be about the power that comes with money … rather than the issues initially proclaimed. In book form, this is a terrific and personal story about the impact of the revolution. Unfortunately, on the screen, it comes across as all too familiar and lacking in danger and suspense … none of which lessens the true hardships faced by this family.

"Septembers of Shiraz" is a well made and very well acted film...but I cannot see many people wanting to see it for several obvious reasons. First, it's about the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and a lot of people just don't find this a 'sexy' subject for films. Second, no matter how how do such a film, people will find fault in how the Revolution is handled. Third, and most importantly, the film is incredibly unpleasant with scenes of torture...and a lot of folks don't want to watch someone being tortured. All these conspire to make this a difficult film to say the least.

The film begins as the Revolution is beginning. No context whatsoever is given to the viewer--nothing about the previous brutal regime of the Shah nor about the ideology of the Ayatollah and his followers. All you really learn is that the Shah was awful and the people who followed were awful. I know more about it because I am a retired history teacher...but the average viewer, particularly younger ones, will feel a bit confused. I think the reason they did this related to the second problem above...and so they apparently tried to make the film as apolitical and a personal film as they could instead.

The story is about a Jewish family and their particular experiences during this time. The husband, Isaac (Adrien Brody), is arrested...though you never learn exactly why. It seems as if he was arrested simply because he was rich and he undergoes both mental and physical torture from the new Republican Guard. During this time, his wife (Salma Hayek) waits and waits and watches everything they owned get stolen from thieves...all in the name of the Revolution. Will the husband be released and what of the family?

I noticed some folks complained about this film because the look wasn't just right--such as the wrong sorts of cars being shown in Iranian roads. Well...considering it was NOT filmed in Iran, and I STRONGLY DOUBT the government would have allowed this, this sort of complaint seems bizarre at best. The film was made in Bulgaria...and I guess they tried their best. I'll say no more about this.

Overall, the film is very well made and compelling...and unpleasant. Because it is a story about a real family, however, I cannot just dismiss it. It's worth seeing IF you are up to the task.

It's a bad time for Brody to be Jewish in Iran - and when he's abducted by those taking power, he's gotta fight to survive.

It's the 1970's & the Iranian revolution is well underway - look out those who prospered under the old regime as the 'new' is coming after you. This is the time writer Dalia Sofer is documenting - the need to escape at all costs. Many good performances bring this powerful recreation to life but, it's obvious from the mixed reviews not many people cared much for the story being told in this screenplay. Is it the fault of the screenplay or other? It's certainly a graphic image of a tumultuous time.

It's difficult to understand why the producer's of this quite major work, opted for the chosen style. If you have a dramatic real-life story to convey and a top cast to carry it, then why treat it to such a cheap photographic style? Australian director Wayne Blair, along with Australian cinematographer Warwick Thornton, have approached this project as if it were a low budget backyard movie. It features some of the worst hand-held camera work I've seen - at one stage it looked as if they were shooting during an earth tremor. At our screening, someone actually said the unstable images were making them nauseous. I'm wondering if this reflects on the Australian Film and Television School's idiom of over-the-top Political Correctness - as in the 'Identity Politics' currently being played out, that foolishly causes 'them and us' separationist type rifts? IE: 'here we have two aboriginals taking courses, must give them top marks for the world to see our ethos'. But, seems perhaps the rest of the world may not have shared our 'enthusiasm'.

Whatever it was/is this movie did not deserve to do so badly on the world stage. It offers a harsh reflection of the state of life at this challenging time – and, as it sadly remains! Mark Isham's music is effective and the use of a 2 Cellos track is well chosen. Overall, it's not as bad as some others have claimed – but with what seems like some 'tacked-on' scenes, should have been better.