kandahar_film

Kandahar, A film review
By Rana Bahar

December 2, 2001

The long awaited film by Mohsen Makhmalbaf, namely Kandahar, has now been opened in selected cinemas in London and across Uk and has been met by unanymous acclaim, applause and praise of British review writers and broadcasters in the UK.

It is a very good film, like all other Mosen Makhmalbaf's films, one can see insight and profound statements made by the this magnanimous and sigular Iranian film maker; yet, having said that, this Iranian film too, like
almost all other Iranian films, have substantial shortcomings which relate to the nationality of the person of film maker. That is, Makhmalbaf too, as an Iranian director, suffers from superficialism and absense of factual
knowledge that is needed in order to make good and convincing films that will stand up to reason and common sense. In Iran no good, factual and substantive books have ever been published in order to enable an Iranian
film maker or artist of any genre or category to research his topic thoroughly so as to be able to make movies or art works which are up to the usual standards. Makhmalbaf like many other Iranian Iranian film makers and
artists claim to have researched his topic, i.e. Afghanestan, and its history before embarking on the business of making his latest film Kandahar. But due to problems such as lack of enough good books available on the
shelves of book sellers inside Iran his beautifully made, and symbolic and appealing movie suffers from many problems and shortcoming and does not show or prove that the maker of it has done any research work at all around the theme of his movie.

For instance in interviews and press conference with the Western, particularly English media he speaks of opinum trafficking, the fall of Budha's statue out of shame in the hands of the idol wreckers (the Taliban)
and exteme poverty of Afghan people, but none of these are expressed in the actual film which is Kandahar, which is a symbolic film set in the middle of no where in the deserts of Afghanestan. We never visit the actual city of Kandahar. The heroine Nafas (breath of life) who is young beautiful Canadian-Afghani woman going to rescue her sister from certain death in Kandahar, never actually reaches that city. We, the audience, are
keptwaiting for over 90 minutes toget to Kandahar and see with our own eyes what is going there and how Taliban are sucking the blood of its people; and the film ends only to make us realise that we have been waiting to no avail. The whole film is studio-produced, with the this minor difference that the studio is the vast desert of which is hundreds of miles from the city of Kandahar and very close to Iranian border and the city of Herat which some 120 years ago was merely another city in the province of Khorasan, nort east of Iran.

Makhmalbaf claims to have researched his topic for over six months, but he does not appear to have done so thoroughly and meticulously; certainly he has not done any reading on the history of Afghanestan which until 120 years ago was merely another ustaan or province in the north east of Iran, inside Iranian territories. Being so ignorant of Afghanestan history, he inevitably informs us and the unknowing Western journalists and review
writers that some 250 years ago Afghanestan was a part of Iran: Is there anything wrong with making such numerical mistakes about the past of one's own country? Would Makhmalbaf make the same mistake respecting the dates or periods during which Naser Uddin Shah, heroe of one of his much acclaimed films on the inception of the art of film in Iran? Or perhaps Makhmalbaf thinks Naser Uddin Shah lived and ruled over Iran in the mid 18th Century? Or perhaps he does not know Naser Uddin Shah was the king of Iran which allowed himself and his name to be dragged in mud and disrepute by the English who ruled India and were busy annihilating freedom fighters inside India (in mid 19th century) and forced him to kiss Afghanestan good-bye so as to ensure his own place on the throne of Persia.

Makhmalbaf knows so little about the history of Afghanestan that he makes no reference to the fact that the mess Afghanestan is / was in until ten days ago was due to the fact that Iranian govt immediately after the Islamic Revolution of 1979 joined forces with the forces of infedils, i.e USA and Britain and declared war against the govt of Afghanestan which was then under the influence of USSR and backed by Soviet Union. At that time women of Afghanestan received high quality education from the USSR backed govt of Afghanestan which also provided for all the well-being and welfare of Afghan people. Islamic Republic of Iran along with CIA and MI5 agents took up arms against that welfare state and spoiled it all for the people of Afghanestan for whom Makhmalbaf now is now shedding ashk-e-temsaah. The same Western people for whom this film is made, during the ten years that the war with USSR backed govt of Afghanestan lasted, followed by another ten years of civil war stole all archeological treasures of Afghanestan and brought it to the West and sold it off for handsome sums of money to private collectors via reputable and well-established auctioniars in London, New York and Paris, without Makhmalbaf or any native and local people knowing anything about this day-light robbery by Western millioners.

One of the most pothetic aspect of this film is the fact that all the lead actors and actresses are foreigners from the USA and Western Europe and so do not speak the naitive language of Afghanestan which is Farsy. Exactly
like his other film about Afghan people, the Cyclist (1988) in which he used only Iranian actors and actresses who played Afghan characters.

Here is what Makhmalbaf has to say about why he embarked on yet another Black Board (which was/is about Kuds of Iraq on the Iranian side of their border,) only this time it is about Afghan people living on the edge of
their own country, near its borders with Iran, as strangers who do not know where they have come from, nor where they are going to:

"Some documentaries have been made on the Pakistan side of Afghanestan, and some on the Afghans under Ahmad Shah Massaud ... I myself made the first film about Afghans in 1988, namely The Cyclist, which was a fiction about an Afghan living in exile in Iran, on the border of our country. You see, 250 years (where did you get this figure, my dear Mohsen?) ago Afghanestan belonged to Iran. Due to the war with the Soviet Union (no metion of IR as one of the perpetrators who helped destroy people and country of Afghanestan) in the 1980s and subsequent coming to power of Taliban, six million Afghans fled the country; two and half million of them took refuge in Iran. We come into contact with them in our day-to-day life in Iran. They are workers and labourers who do most of the menial jobs in Iran ... One day a young Afghan woman who had taken refuge in Canada came to see me when I was attending a film festival in Canada. She had just received a desparate
letter from her friend who wanted to commit suicide because of the harsh conditions in Kandahar. She wanted to go back (to Afghanestan) and help her friend at all cost. This young woman asked me to go with her to Afghanestan and film her journey."

Question from an unknown journalist: Did you go with her?

Answer: "No. But later (after I read a book by Behjat Reza'ee titled The Hidden Face) I secretly entered Afghanestan and I saw for myself the dramatic state and life conditions of the country's inhabitants. That's when I started doing research. I dissected the thousands of pages of official documents about the economic, political and military situation (no mention of the book by Behjat Reza'ee where most of these documents are available.) Likewise I read some literary works and watched docmentaries (on Afghanestan.) But this Afghan woman's journey to Kandahar still remains the basis for my screenplay. I did draw inspiration from another book by Behjat Reza'ee called LIKE THE MOON. Obviously, I added my own imagination and any other information I could gather and lay my hands on. In my film the friend became a little sister and the urgency of situation becomes manifest by the fact that this little sister has made up her mind to commit suicide before
the eclips of the Summer of 1999.

Question: Are there any real characters or are all fictitious?

Virtually all the characters exist in real life. For example, the American Muslim militant who starts having doubts about the legitimacy of Talibans is a real life character. So is the Canadian Afghani young woman who dares to
challenge the Taliban and visit her home country at all costs.

Question from the floor: What does Nafas, the lead character, represent for you?

Answer: She symbolizes Afghan women who have discovered a better life in Canada. She wants to go home but does not feel like the average Afghan woman who is merely a harem member to men. Nafas means "respiration" and is an Afghan name for women. The burka prevents women from breathing and from
being free and flying .... This film is like a travel guide. Its form came to me whilst writing the screenplay and evolved whilst filming. For example, the wedding scene was made up on the spot. When you look at these
women, wrapped in their bukhas, there is an esthetic harmony on the outside, but on the inside of the burkha, under every burkha, there is suffocation. It is a strange contradiction. As they do not have the right to show their physical beauty they use the beauty of their clothing. (In other words Makhmalbaf does not believe that colours are part of natural daily life of women of Afghanestan. Women wore colourful burkhas simply because they want to appear beautiful to the outside world/observers. This very statement was made by Bahram Beyzai in his film Baashu, The Little Stranger in which he argued against the compulsory requirement of wearing black veil, by showing that native women of villages and far flung cities and towns of Iran dress in beautiful bright colours as if it is in their nature to do so; Makhmalbaf has been obviously inspired by Beyzai and women of Afghanestan in this subject, but is reluctant to make any positive remarks or credible value judgement about Afghan women. And yet he is so keen to appear to be a supporter of women's rights in Iran in Shahay-e-Zayandeh Rude and Nobat-e- Asheghi!)

The music of the film had reminded the press corpse of works by Pasolini; Makhmalbaf himself thought the songs sung by women at the wedding party were very sad and pleasing to the ears. But the opening and closing song of the film is a religious chanting (rouzeh khony) by Hindoos of India, which is very often heard by devotees of Sai Baba of Puttaparti; a Hindoo of south India who has many followers and devotees in Iran. Shall we say / think Mosen Makhmalbaf is a devotee of Sai Baba of Puttaparti? How can he dare to use Hindoo religious music / chanting for a film about an Islamic nation who only a few months ago chose to destroy Budha's statue on grounds of it being offensive to Islamic sensibilities of Afghan people. Does this alone not
show that Makhmalbaf is not a sensitive and caring and attentive person when it comes to the feelings and sentiments of people about whom he makes movies?

Here is some more insensitive remarks made by Makhmalbaf about Afghanestan: "The Afghan people have got stuck in their ancientness (ancient civilization,) just like Reza Shah of Iran and Ataturk of Turkey. One could
say this country (Afghanestan) has been vaccinated against modern civilization. I conducted an in-depth study on this subject which I am going to publish under the title of "Afghanestan, a Country without Image."
At the beginning of 21st Century, Afghans have a problem with images (as if Iranians do not share the same problem!) There is no cinema, no television; newspapers do not print any images (in the film Arousy-e- Khoubaan (1986), Makhmalbaf complains that Iranian newspapers and magazines are not interested in printing images and pictures.) Taking photographs and doing painting of people and all jaan-daaran is forbidden and not allowed. Music is not allowed ...."

Although the picture painted by Makhmalbaf, both in words and in his film, is a very grim and hopeless one, Kandahar, as a film is very spectacular and beautiful and once more shows a master of the art film producing yet another very good moving pictures. It is indeed a lyrical and often humorous film, particularly when it comes to portraying a little boy at a Taliban-run school. The body does not understand Arabic and therefore cannot read Koran, but feels obliged to chant the Arabic words so as to keep his place at school and by doing so ensuring his own and his family's daily livelihood. It reminds you of Iran of the early 1980s when we all had to pretend to be
elaborate and knowledgeable in Islam and Arabic and therefore Konanic virtues and words. See it by all means, if you can. It is far more poetic and watchable than Black Board Rana BaharThe long awaited film by Mohsen Makhmalbaf, namely Kandahar, has now been opened in selected cinemas in London and across Uk and has been met by unanymous acclaim, applause and praise of British review writers and broadcasters in the UK.

Back to emails Index