Usually on movie reviews, I go with a still shot illustration, but with a review of “Persepolis”, I’m going with the trailer, because it’s important to see how the artwork of the book really is beautifully translated to the screen. This trailer barely gets at how innovative and interesting a job the artists did at really breathing life into the already strangely lively art of the comics. It’s a real shame that this movie will probably lose to “Ratatouille” for Best Animated Feature at the Oscars, because while the art in “Ratatouille” was, as usual with Pixar, gorgeous, intricate, and top-notch, in this movie it’s just inspired. The art in the comic books draws heavily on the Persian tradition, and the movie takes it a step further, blowing up the heavy blocky art mixed in with touches of swooping, graceful lines and making it really breathe. It’s hard to imagine such a stylized movie that’s mostly black and white can be so warm and human, but there it is. They really did a fantastic job of remaking the books for the big screen.
I’m guessing a lot of people are avoiding both the “Persepolis” books and the movie because the subject is so heavy—coming of age during the Iranian revolution and the subsequent war with Iraq, watching the leftist dreams of your socialist-communist family falter as Islamic fundamentalists take hold of your beloved home—but don’t be put off by the weight of it all. The movie doesn’t downplay these horrors, but Satrapi has such a great sense of humor that it pulls you through even the darkest parts. This movie is clever enough to make a joke centered around “Eye of the Tiger” work. This is no small feat.
The movie covers both books, which turns out to be an excellent choice. You see Marjane’s life in Vienna, where her parents send her, afraid that her big mouth will get her raped and killed eventually in Tehran. But she doesn’t handle the pressures of basically being an adult as a young teenager very well, and has to return home, where she doesn’t fit in anymore, though now she’s mature enough to usually understand the importance of toeing the line for your own safety. Spending a lot of time on her young adulthood in Iran works really well. In the books, she was able to show a lot of the culture of Tehran in the first book through what amounts to asides. But in a movie, that can come off as a little pedantic, so you’re stuck with a child’s eye view during the beginning. That has its own rewards, but the final act of the movie really drives home how Marjane lost something in the revolution that she wasn’t quite aware she had until she was old enough to lay claim to it. Her closeness to her grandmother is a critical element in driving this theme home without being pedantic; she radiates the commonsense entitlement to herself as a woman that reactionary elements try to quash. There’s no other way to put that, except to say that the grandmother is really a great character, and you share Marjane’s delight in her company.
It’s Satrapi’s impatience with bullshit that gets her in trouble, but also allows her to swiftly expose the cultural forces that allow religious oppression to flourish. Just like in the books, she draws out in a few, short strokes the people that give support to the theocracy, character types that are probably universal, which makes what happened to Iran very understandable. You have the toadies—disempowered people who embrace their own oppression for some pats on the head. When a schoolteacher holds forth to her classroom about how the veil is really freedom, she’s instantly recognizable to those of us who are familiar with the Ann Coulters and Concerned Women for America. The survivors, the people who mouth the words of the government because it’s the only way they can carve out a little space to carry on their lives. You have the petty authoritarians, the bullies that are drawn to police work in our country, and in this movie, they’re the moral police who run around enjoying the right to openly engage in misogynist attacks on women for having the power to turn their heads. You have the embittered, people that have been crushed economically and use religious fundamentalism as a way to lash out and get their revenge. And you have the sheeple, the people who just go with the flow and refuse to ask questions. The one-two punch of revolution and then brutal war creates a bunker mentality that entrenches the oppressive government in this movie. It’s not hard to sympathize with people grasping for answers during an 8-year war that killed a million people.
But what really propels this movie is the way that normal life reasserts itself. One of the best, and most quoted lines of the movie is when Marjane, disgusted with herself, says that she’s seen revolution and war, but it was a banal love story that nearly killed her. With the rise of religious fundamentalists in our country, I can see better how the snake oil they’re selling is this notion that if you just have enough rules, then you can escape the messy complexities of life. Women are seen as a special source of messy complexity, and so they are the special objects of control. But behind the closed doors of the Tehran of Satrapi’s imagination and memory, the veils come off and life reasserts itself, with sex, parties, books, frank language, questionable television shows, and trendy popular music. The movie is framed by her reminiscing while sitting in a Paris airport, trying to decide if she ever wants to go home. And you are left with the impression that she’s lost a home that was always right out of her grasp her whole life.
103 Responses to “Review of “Persepolis””
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
This is an opening salvo,
war propaganda against Iran.
Remember “Borat” that was war propaganda against central asia (uzbek, tajik) primarily to soften european acceptance of US presence in central asia.
The truth is the best propaganda device.
Can we attack Iran and liberate them already?
Squashed, what are you talking about? I haven’t seen the movie, but I’ve read her books, and my reaction was that they truly give insight into the Iranian people and the historical context of the Islamic Revolution … and that it’s much harder to start bombing them for being “the Other” when you have such sympathy for them. Rather than being the faceless, chanting, fanatic crowds shown during the hostage crisis, the Iranian (should I call them Persian?) people are shown as real human beings living in a very complex situation. This French-language foreign movie, written by a deeply intelligent woman who would not support the outside “liberation” of her country, isn’t propaganda.
Also, more simply, I doubt the neo-cons and Iran-bomb-lusters watch foreign movies.
Somewhat - the ‘Persians’ whom refer to themselves as such outside of Iran were usually displaced through reasons of religion or ties to the prior Shah regime. But that’s just a small inadequate definition. Maybe we’ll be blessed by someone who can write more competently on it.
I loved your review, Amanda. I saw the film here in Detroit last weekend with my partner, who left Poland with his family when he was 15, at the point when people were literally starving to death there, and another friend who left Lebanon at 16 in the middle of its civil war. They both loved the film as well, but afterwards they both expressed that they felt really depressed. The personal identifications were so strong for them (especially since Lebanon and Poland were both transformed dramatically by war/revolution) that they were overwhelmed by Marjane’s loss of the Iran she knew as a child and watched slip away from her in a bloody, protracted war. I hate to speak for them as if I can fully understand what they went through with the film, but hopefully I came somewhat close.
That’s the first conspiracy theory I’ve ever heard that features Marjane Satrapi and Sasha Baron-Cohen as top-level agents.
Reading Lolita In Tehran by Nafisi is a great companion novel to Satrapi’s graphic novels.
but the thing I remember most from the graphic novels was the portraits of her struggles with the fact that her body parts matured one at a time…right breast—bloop…some time…left breast—bleep…then left ass–boom and so on…
I still giggle from the pictures…
Making movie is extremely complex undertaking. Everybody in there is “inteligent”. Even the most banal blockbuster movie is carefully crafter logistic and financial operation. The screenplay is written by an army of writers. Movie made by big studio isn’t a college project. It’s a financial investment.
Making movie is not cheap, not just any good “story” get made. Movie industry is the very center of status quo. (Go to SXSW movie showing if you don’t believe me, and see how many excellent and groundbreaking movies in there that will never go anywhere. Talk to any young film makers and you will hear “distribution” as completely monopolized.)
So, before you dimiss me as a kook. (And you actually can, since I haven’t watched the movie nor read the process) I really want to see who is paying for it, who approve the budget, How much, who is distributing. How many cuts and where each of those cuts go. Why now? Why this particular story? (There are several US-Iranian film maker that can’t get their work published.)
More importantly, who will pay for the “marketing” and who is pushing the film.
PS. do you now Carlyle Group owns Loews Cineplex Entertainment? (translation: about 80% of movie seats in metropolitan and suburbs are owned by carlyle group) Al Gore is not going to show on screen in most suburbs multiplex period. Only token metropolitan area. Freedom on the march baby.
Here is a question for everybody:
How come we never see a movie related or remotely explain Iraq war in the multiplex? That ought to be a gigantic blockbuster right? specially with 70% population is pissed at the adminstration? Despite several of indie “award winnings” documentary reaches public awareness.
Not even a cartoon or a metaphor of invasion even …
Why Iran? Why not china, russia or major african country? MUCH bigger market and far more profitable making movie about oppression/myth of freedom.
It’s an operation.
“The invisible plague”, Borat, Paradise Now, etc are all award winning books and movie. Few month later we got all sort of fun adventure in those subject/area.
woo hoo…
I am so investing in future energy.
Squashed: Go join your black helicopter friends at RonPaul.com or some such fever swamp.
“Oh, a big corporation owns movies theatres? And they’re showing a film that has brown people in it? It must be preparing us for war. I don’t even need to see the film or read the books to know it’s propaganda!”
A central theme of this wonderfully told story is the misery and destroyed lives that result when outside forces converge to crush a populace in the name of their violent delusions. The role of colonialism (the Brits) and neocolonialism (the Americans) is clear in these conflicts in the film. If you took the time to watch the damn film before you comment on it, you would realize that this film makes terrible propaganda FOR war.
Unless you’re a troll. Which you are, so I’m probably wasting my time.
Squashed: And you actually can, since I haven’t watched the movie nor read the process
Well, that’s one of the problems right here. The graphic novel, and we have no reason to believe that the screenplay will be much different given that Satrapi co-wrote and directed it, spends quite a bit of time demolishing some of the basic American mythology of Iran:
1: It shows the Shah not as a democratic pro-western reformer, but as a brutal puppet of European and American colonial interests.
2: It totally refuses to accept the American myth of Iranians blinded by Islamic fundamentalism, showing the tensions between accomodation and resistance that are central to Iranian life.
3: She presents an unflattering view of life in Vienna.
4: She shows the ways in which the Iran/Iraq war strengthened fundamentalism in Iran, while imposing severe hardship on the families affected by the war.
Squashed: How come we never see a movie related or remotely explain Iraq war in the multiplex? That ought to be a gigantic blockbuster right?
You mean like Taxi to the Dark Side?
Part of the reason for the attention this is getting is that Satrapi’s autobiography is just damn good, not only as a story about life in revolutionary Iran, but as a story about growing up. It is one of the best graphic novels of the decade and isn’t it time that segment of the genre starts getting some feature movie attention?
But, Persepolis isn’t a multiplex blockbuster. It is currently in a foreign-language art-film hell having just passed the $1 million mark this week after a month in limited release. It’s opening U.S. weekend was $136K compared to Ratatoule that grossed $47million on opening weekend, and $188million in the first month. The argument that this is mass-market propaganda can be more easily said about Rambo and Transformers.
And if there is a political moral to Persepolis it’s that the Iranian people have a right to their own politics and forms of resistance.
I am not sure why everybody is so outraged about what I say. I thought it’s pretty obvious and I took it for granted everybody here knows. (It’s basic Chomskian media analysis. I’ll find the quote if I can asap.)
1. The movie obviously works. It generates outrage among the educated elite (liberal/progressive particularly, feminists obviously.)
2. If general public see this movie, audience are not going to “read the book” or particularly care if the actual protagonist doesn’t want iran invasion. general mass is going to say “that got to change” Let’s liberate.
3. The newspaper is littered with same jibe dating back all the way to first Iraq invasion to afghanistan, iraq, and now Iran about “killing baby out of incubator, gay hanging, women oppression, terrorism, evil regime” The standard narrative is pretty constant (and more importantly ‘believable’)
4. after persuading the top 5-10%, the rest of the mass is about standard “Rambo” action movie and foxNews babbling… that should cover majority of public opinion.
so what’s the big deal?
nobody here actually believe “Sony/MGM” is in the business of human enlightenment are we?
eh hmmm.
people seriously. (i am going to find that article for ya’ll to read)
Hahahahahahahahaa Squashed. Oh man, you sure do know a lot about what you haven’t seen. The movie makes it painstakingly clear that as much as theocracy sucks, Saddam sucked even worse because he was a tool of Western imperialists exploiting this ego to attack Iran for daring overthrow the Shah.
Oh man, I’m gonna crap my pants I’m laughing so hard at how much you don’t get it.
I’m actually really sad. I was so hoping when I saw 12 comments on here, that meant 12 interesting comments by non-crazy people about this fantastic little movie that is actually, if you bother to watch it, pro-Persian.
You’re aware, black helicopter Squashed, that the movie is French, right?
Careful! Squashed uttered the secret code phrase that’s supposed to make us all stop counterarguing and genuflect!
Although I think that Chomskian media analysis requires actually having seen the media in question.
Shorter squashed: Calling a regime oppressive oppresses me.
Actually, I’d put money on some politics in the French choice to make this their foreign language entry for this year. For years, the French have been trying to drag the Iranians and the Americans to the negotiation table. So a movie which *gaps* portrays the Iranian people as not the fundamentalist boogymen of American myth is probably in the interests of the French government.
yea yea.. laugh all you want. but if in the future “they oppress women” come into play as an invasion excuse. You owe me a lunch ‘mkay?
no doubt, some of my view smell dubious. But you know the chance of not happening is not absolutely zero
these are the sophisticared general public you are faced with.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE&e
ps. still typing in the text)
But about the movie, I’d say it’s about time. The critical future of Comic Books as a medium is demonstrated Satrapi and Sfar in France, and Bechdel, Barry and Spiegelman in the U.S.. And with Tezuka’s Buddha (*) translated and in print we have a renaissance of graphic novels tackling adult subjects. It’s about time that the medium got some attention on the screen beyond Iron Man and the latest Superman. Now Iron Man reeks of propaganda. But then, it always has.
In addition, I must say that I like Pixar’s craft, but I’m so frustrated with the way that 3D animation has effectively ossified into a generic look. The black and white rendering of Satrapi’s art is a breath of fresh air in the animation world.
(*) Tezuka’s Buddha is worth reading for non-Buddhists because he uses the fictionalized biography as a platform on which to tackle issues of race and class.
But, Persepolis isn’t a multiplex blockbuster. It is currently in a foreign-language art-film hell having just passed the $1 million mark this week after a month in limited release.
Which is too bad. I had the same sense I did after reading the books, which is that this should be required reading/viewing for all Americans. If we were forced to confront the fact that we were the ones who armed Saddam to shut down the new Iranian government, and we’re the ones who reinforced the solidarity behind a fundamentalist theocracy, maybe we would fucking learn to quit trying to steal the Iranian’s sovereignty.
Great review, Amanda. I read the graphic novel (novels, I guess, but the book I have combines both volumes into one physical book) a few months ago, loved it, and have been eagerly awaiting the movie. I just saw it last night. The animation is stellar–far and away more original and imaginative than that of Ratatouille (which is not to knock Ratatouille–I loved that one as well). It really is, as you said, inspired. I am a little disappointed that Persepolis is not up for Best Foreign Language Film at the Oscars, but if it gets the Best Animated Feature award, it will be well deserved.
Of course they’re going to use the “they oppress women” excuse. They used it with Afghanistan and it worked, didn’t it?
But this doesn’t infere that this movie is propaganda destinated to justify the intervention against Iran. For starters, it’s a french movie. You know, those very same french pussies who refused to participate in the war against Iraq. Then you have the little anecdote that the movie is based off a graphic novel, which became a success in its own market, but won’t ever reach the major public. I guess the same is happening with the film.
It also helps that the writer is an Iranian woman, whose views permeate the whole movie and make clear that a foreign intervention is unjustifiable.
The fact that the movie could share one or two slogans with the war hawks is as symptomatic as having Feminist 4 Life claiming they’re pursuing the freedom of women: real feminist would never engage with such bullshit. The same can be said about the creators of this movie.
That said: I would so love to go watch the movie, but I have yet to find the last volume of the graphic novel - it was released in 4 parts in my country - and I don’t want the movie to spoil me the end.
I saw a free preview before Xmas and loved it. I’ve written/published an (academic) article on these graphic novels, so I know the story pretty well, and I was surprised at the changes. If anything, I thought the movie was LESS about Marji’s self-actualization than the books, and more about the political changes in Iran. A lot more time was devoted to the story of her uncle, for example, and Marji’s “voice” as a woman growing up and finding herself came across very differently to me relative to the books.
And they wouldn’t have done only the first volume; that wouldn’t make sense in a story that is about growing up and finding your home. The French editions were published in 4 parts, not 2, anyway, so it’s not like the divisions indicate anything other than shifts, rather than endings/beginnings.
I too am slightly disappointed this was slotted into the animation category (and not because I don’t love animation; I do), rather than the French foreign language film. Either way, it deserves awards and as much publicity as those garner.
I haven’t yet seen the movie, though I read and loved the graphic novels, so I just have one silly question: Are the subtitles more legible in the film than they are in that preview? Because if they aren’t, I may wait until it’s available in a medium I can pause while I decipher the white-on-white text. The animation looks gorgeous, but would yellow subtitles have killed them?
Not sure if I’m in moderation-limbo…
I saw a free preview before Xmas and loved it. I’ve written/published an (academic) article on these graphic novels, so I know the story pretty well, and I was surprised at the changes. If anything, I thought the movie was LESS about Marji’s self-actualization than the books, and more about the political changes in Iran. A lot more time was devoted to the story of her uncle, for example, and Marji’s “voice” as a woman growing up and finding herself came across very differently to me relative to the books.
And they wouldn’t have done only the first volume; that wouldn’t make sense in a story that is about growing up and finding your home. The French editions were published in 4 parts, not 2, anyway, so it’s not like the divisions indicate anything other than shifts, rather than endings/beginnings.
I too am slightly disappointed this was slotted into the animation category (and not because I don’t love animation; I do), rather than the French foreign language film. Either way, it deserves awards and as much publicity as those garner.
In addition, I must say that I like Pixar’s craft, but I’m so frustrated with the way that 3D animation has effectively ossified into a generic look. The black and white rendering of Satrapi’s art is a breath of fresh air in the animation world.
Indeed. The animation in Persepolis is gorgeous in its own right, but particularly breathtaking after years of Pixar movies.
I had the same sense I did after reading the books, which is that this should be required reading/viewing for all Americans. If we were forced to confront the fact that we were the ones who armed Saddam to shut down the new Iranian government, and we’re the ones who reinforced the solidarity behind a fundamentalist theocracy, maybe we would fucking learn to quit trying to steal the Iranian’s sovereignty.
Agreed here as well, and not only regarding the American role in what happened in Iran. It’s easy to support meddling in the affairs of (and bombing the living daylights out of) countries whose people are faceless and just part of “the other,” “the brown people,” and so on. But if you give one person, or one family, a face and a voice and a story like this, suddenly it’s not so easy to dehumanize them. Of course, this is no great revelation to the readers here (with the possible exception of trolls), it’s just another reason that more Americans ought to read this book (or watch the movie, although the fact that it’s in French and subtitled will, I think, turn off a lot of people))
There have been other reviews, Squashed:
I am not sure why everybody is so outraged about what I say.
Can’t speak for everyone else, but the reason your comments piss me off is that you sound like you are justifying a US attack on Iran on the grounds that it will aid pro-democracy activists there. It is complete hypocritical absurdity to claim that killing thousands of innocent people is “for Democracy”. Also, if you truly believe that a US or Israeli airstrike, invasion, or nuclear strike, on Iran, will aid the cause of Democracy and human rights there, you are horribly deluded. A war between Iran and the US, which looks more likely every day, will only kill thousands of innocent people, set the Middle East ablaze, possibly start a worldwide depression, and either destroy the state of Iran, or strengthen the Iranian hardliner’s regime. That is why what you have said pisses me off.
I did see this movie, and I thought it was awesome. I liked seeing the young Marjane’s strategies for dealing with theocratic government, because we may have to learn something like that ourselves, if we are unlucky.
I think the best way to influence the human mind is by presenting evidence and argument, by persuasion and by explanation. These are the most effective techniques for influencing the human mind. (pp.121, language and politics)
Rather what we are seeing, in this stage of industrial society, is that the technical and scientific intellegensia [galbraith’s educational and scientific estate] are able to perform very significant service for those who really do own and manage the central institutions of society. In fact, they are able to provide them with the result of scientific and technology to legitimize authoritarian control of wealth and institutions by masking this control in the aura of science. … if the intelligensia can make it appear that authoritarian control by the privilaged and allegedly the talented is a necessary condition of modern life, then they will have succeeded in legitimating precisely that kind of privilage.(121)
There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instinct …
This is naturally less true of better-educated and “more sophisticated” (that is, more effectively indoctrinated) group who are both the agents and often most deluded victims of the propaganda system. (369)
It has been recognized for many years that “the manufacture of consent” is a major task in societies where obedience cannot be ensued by violence. Whether they are aware of it or not, a substantial part of the intellegensia commit themselves to this task. The result is a system of indoctrination that is often remarkable in its effectiveness. (362)
———-
“Amanda Marcotte February 9, 2008 at 1:44 pm
… as theocracy sucks, Saddam sucked even worse because he was a tool of Western imperialists exploiting this ego to attack Iran for daring overthrow the Shah. …”
And that would change the narrative of freedom how? minor details. You might as well say the movie is in cartoon, therefore it’s just a kid story.
Auguste February 9, 2008 at 1:47 pm
“Squashed uttered the secret code phrase that’s supposed to make us all stop counterarguing and genuflect! ”
gufaw…. I said I am going to type in some of the more interesting text. I can only type so fast. I hate IM.
elgie February 9, 2008 at 2:20 pm
“it’s a french movie. You know, those very same french pussies who refused to participate in the war against Iraq.”
It ain’t french movie. It’s Sony/MGM. Second precisely that what makes the movie so appealing as untainted evidence to ‘liberal crowd’. (ie. it couldn’t possibly be related to Bush Iran gambit)
but like I say, this all smell dubious.
It would be very interesting if Pandagon can ask for an interview. (I mean, is not like anybody here can talk about Iran/woman in Iran with any degree of authority. Anybody is equally good at google Kung-Fu and blogging BS.)
So let’s go to first source. much more interesting.
This looks fantastic. I’ll be watching and reading. Thanks for the review, Amanda.
Squashed, do you in fact belive that a US attack on Iran would aid the cause of Democracy in that nation?
Amanda Marcotte February 9, 2008 at 2:39 pm
There have been other reviews, Squashed:
“So, what are you saying? That there is no larger media effort during the run up of Iraq war through news and entertainment channel to sell the war?”
note: that I didn’t say the movie actual subject matter is not true. But in fact the truth itself is what is possibly being used to form public opinion.
I didn’t say. “don’t go see the movie” either.
But I am definitely saying “dude, we got precedence. And under current situation the propaganda context is very relevant question to keep in the back of mind. Like I say, nobody here with sober mind can say, the chance of such scheme happening is absolutely zero. Because it happens before.”
We got “curve ball” and story about Iranian expats reporting Iran WMD for gawdsake.
The feeling of Deja vu is too strong.
Squashed, Hugo Chavez is just forced to disagree. Are you going to go against The Hugo?
Admitting complexity is very imperialist, I must say.
atheist February 9, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Squashed, do you in fact believe that a US attack on Iran would aid the cause of Democracy in that nation?”
nope. It’s generally understood, the US middle east policy is about energy supply. (hence why we support Monarchy (saudi, kuwait, UAE) dictatorship (egypt)
not a single democratic country except maybe egypt. In fact Iran is the only one with parliamentary election with limited women role. Well maybe Turkey.
Between Iran vs Yemen or Kuwait (major ally). I would say Iran isn’t as nasty.
so that alone should be enough to debunk all that “freedom/women oppression” jibe. This doesn’t make Iran less an eff up country. But sufficient to question our intention (propaganda scheme)
Amanda Marcotte February 9, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Squashed, Hugo Chavez is just forced to disagree. Are you going to go against The Hugo?
Admitting complexity is very imperialist, I must say.”
whaaaa…t?
I understand you try to use joke as a put down.. but on serious not…what is it? I don’t get it. (that all Chomskian arguments must be a joke because chavez use it. Or that media analysis is invalid, or that you don’t have anything but random image…)
again, I didn’t say women life in Iran isn’t sucky. But I am asking the nature of that movie in context what Bush has done. We don’t live in innocent time where we can accept thing naively. To me, that movie smells like a media job.
nope. It’s generally understood, the US middle east policy is about energy supply. (hence why we support Monarchy (saudi, kuwait, UAE) dictatorship (egypt)
I see. Then, in that case, let me just ask what kind of movie a propagandist who wished to help start a war between the US and Iran would use, as their vehicle. Would they use (A) a major, big-budget action movie that will be seen by hundreds of millions of all kinds of people worldwide, such as “Rambo”, or “Die Hard”, or another such movie? Or would they decide on (B) an animated art movie, with a limited release, that would be seen by perhaps ten thousand skeptical, highly educated people?
In my opinion, the answer is clear.
atheist February 9, 2008 at 3:37 pm ”
depending on target audience. Is it truth wraps in lies or lies warp in truth. The medium is a device.
but like I say, this is highly controversial. I myself wouldn’t go this far without seeing the inner working and process of that movie making. I particularly want to hear director and the person being portrait. (naturally they won’t support a war. My guess. But they should be able to give aesthetic and cultural context of that movie.)
This movie is released during controversial time. And my line of thought is some of the more obvious one given what has happened.
Ahahaha
Oh yeah, this movie is going to be really effective pro-war propaganda, with its (actually anti-war) message being distributed to the foreign-language-movie-watching, educated hipster leftists like myself who go to see it. Really reaching the masses.
OK, but how can you be so sure of the supposed propagandistic nature of a movie that you have never actually seen?
I mean, OK, whatever you want. I saw it, and it looked like someone’s memoir to me, not like someone’s attempt to propagandize.
Can somebody put the damned movie on torrent already … gawd.
(it’s playing in..what? 4 theaters nationwide? )
nm. It’s there already. maybe I’ll watch it tonite.
Squashed, quit imperializing me. You have to make a cartoon movie defending my right to exist first.
I read the graphic novel fairly recently and loved it. And it didn’t really strike me as heavy or difficult reading — Satrapi is a great storyteller, and the book moves along at a good, entertaining clip.
It’s certainly anti-theocracy, but it’s very strongly pro-Iranian people and pro-intellectualism. The book just cannot be used to justify invading Iran for any reason at all.
Haven’t seen the movie yet — don’t think it’s made it down here yet, but I’m looking forward to seeing it eventually, either in a theater or on DVD…
Not a French movie?
What the hell is Squashed talking about? Satrapi lives in France, writes in French, wrote the screenplay in French, with a French co-director, using French actors.
Yes, an American studio picked it up after the fact, and supposedly dubbed in into english (although when I saw it, it was in French with subtitles). Doesn’t make it not-french.
Great post, Amanda. It was a stunning film, and your review is really thought-provoking.
In all honesty, I seriously think these books and movie would be very effective at making people realize how much Western imperialism created the theocracy in Iran. I was impressed at how the movie told that story without getting pedantic about it.
Just for the sake of blogwhoring, here’s my own review of Satrapi’s graphic novel…
I am so getting that lunch.
(and this movie better be good to. I am actually cleaning up my HD for space and putting a proxy.)
don’t have imperial oppression flick.
how about a stick figure?
Numa Numa Yay - Stick Figure Style
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFUBen35wzo
Hey, come on, email/interview the movie director + marjane already. I think your blog is legit enough to pull that off.
This “Squashed” troll has really confirmed a lot of the misogyny I’ve suspected among the RonPaul.com/911truth/Chomsky-cannibalizing fringe in that he assumes Marjane Satrapi is a hapless fembot tool of the Illuminati or something.
How about the fact that almost all the good guys in the movie are outspoken Communists, and the narrator regularly puts Marx and God in the same pantheon? Or that the Shah’s torture techniques are played as being the result of CIA manipulation?
Squashed - is it possible for someone to make a movie that’s anything besides glowingly utopian about Iran without being a conspiracy by the war department?
I’m not sure that Squashed is male, though. Maybe mixing up Satrapi with Ayaan Hirshi Ali? I’m trying to imagine a right-winger trying to embrace a book/movie where communists are heroes and the revolution against the U.S.-backed Shah is treated as absolutely necessary.
Yuri K.February 9, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Squashed - is it possible for someone to make a movie that’s anything besides glowingly utopian about Iran without being a conspiracy by the war department?”
release that movie through independent channel and provide unlimited director interview access. I might then change my mind.
Sony/MGM? you got to be kidding. Two of the biggest assholes in the industry. What’s next? Disneyland is utopia?
Squashed: I think that part of the reaction you’re seeing here is due to the seeming cognitive disconnect between the purpose of the book/graphic novel/film (humanizing and explaining the nature of the political and social changes that Iran has undergone in recent years through the eyes of a single participant who was there) and the fact that you seem to feel that they are propaganda encouraging the invasion of Iran.
It’s been a few years since I read the graphic novel, but my recollection is that the point was very much “no one from outside has done us a lick of good. No matter how well meaning, each outside attempt was a failure that compounded the previous failures into a giant ball of oppression and conservatism”.
That sounds pretty “pro invade Iran” to me…
Or are you suggesting that mentioning the issues *actually at work* in Iran within their appropriate historical context AT ALL is defacto propaganda?
So, I imagine profit is right out - you have to prostrate yourself before you can be taken seriously.
Squashed,
I recommend you look for the version from NewArtRiot, found at The Pirate Bay. There are some fakes out there but I attest this one is good. You may need VLC to play the separate subtitle file.
The graphic novels are out there as PDF too. They will probably make the movie more enjoyable for you.
Marjane Satrapi was interviewed on The Colbert Report recently. You can find that easily on the web, I’m sure.
When you come back later, I hope the first words off your fingers are “shit, my usually prescient paranoia has misfired this time”, yeah?
Wrecker, you’re erroneously assuming the Squashed has any actual contact with the book. He/she seems to be mixing up Satrapi with someone else. My guess is that he/she figures that all Muslim expatriates living in Europe can be assumed to be tools? Which is not at all racist, but very, very anti-imperialist, like so anti-imperialist it’s the black hole of anti-imperialism that turns around and becomes imperialism all over again.
Yuri, if you aren’t starving, you can’t be taken seriously. Your message also becomes truer the fewer people hear it.
Juno; someone made a fortune off of Little Miss Sunshine. It doesn’t cost a lot to distribute a quirky little art-house movie, and when you hit a cultural nerve, the return on your smallish investment can be pretty massive.So my Montana Militia currency is really worth something?
Wow. My comment got eaten. I just said that I thought Disney probably didn’t have any hidden agenda. Their decision to distribute the movie can be put down to their non-hidden agenda, which is making money.
Penguin Pantaloons, when you squeeze Noam Chomsky and Ron Paul into the same breath, you just demonstrate that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Wrecker Of Plans February 9, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Or are you suggesting that mentioning the issues *actually at work* in Iran within their appropriate historical context AT ALL is defacto propaganda?”
context. So far, my knee jerk answer is yes. Because this is not a work that is done outside the media machine.
if this exact work is release under just slightly different parameter and time frame. I might think differently. But it is not. (note. I haven’t watched the movie yet.)
movie is highly controlled medium. The financing, the access to studio, the distribution, etc.
I personally am interested how this work will affect global political discourse when it come to Iran. My suspicion a) It probably has nearly zero impact or b) it will be used as an excuse to invade Iran somehow, somewhere.
Squashed, I will give you $100 if a right winger says, “We should invade Iran because they were insufficiently pro-communist, according to this movie.”
Amanda: I am aware that Squashed hasn’t had any meaningful contact with the media. I guess I was trying (badly) to capture the tone of the text so Squashed could see why they were seen as making no sense.
Naturally, ever individual of a given religion would have fled from their geographically disparate locations for the same reasons and would, in actuality, be the same person for all intents and purposes. >_
I have to wonder where hard right winger Dinesh D’Souza’s body of work arguing that we should become more like Muslim fundamentalist theocracies fits into this theory that anti-theocracy=imperialism.
Should we elect Huckabee as a sign of leftist commitment? What would Chomsky say about a Huckabee government?
Amanda, I also think trying to get an interview with Satrapi would be cool. I’d like to read that here at Pandagon.
Squashed, in the interest of informed discourse, could you maybe not stir up a frothing mess of speculative comments until you have seen the movie?
Squashed:
I have no idea what to say to that. You are suggesting that conversations cannot be had via widely available media sources on any remotely sensitive topic at such time when conversation is most needed.
I am the *very* last person to defend the present monopolization of our media, nationally or globally, but even I do not presume that *everything* bigger media has touched is tainted. Some of it, certainly. Maybe even a lot… But most certainly not *all* of it. That’s just silly. And paranoid.
Squashed: It ain’t french movie. It’s Sony/MGM.
Um, wrong. Sony Pictures Classics is just the distributor in the U.S. and Argentina, and it seems they are doing a very good job of keeping this one in as limited release as possible.
Sony/MGM is nowhere to be seen among the production credits.
Squashed: To me, that movie smells like a media job.
You know, your local library is almost certain to have a copy of the graphic novel, and if not, you can get it from an online retailer. You can actually read the source material, and come up with a page by page critique.
But fuck this:
Straight from the horse’s mouth.
Squashed: release that movie through independent channel and provide unlimited director interview access. I might then change my mind.
A brief google search for interviews reveals that Satrapi does give them, but doesn’t like giving them. But there are plenty of interviews:
And in regards to creative control:
Amanda: Squashed, I will give you $100 if a right winger says, “We should invade Iran because they were insufficiently pro-communist, according to this movie.”
Blessed disco ball, I forgot about this aspect. The hero of the second chapter, the uncle young Marjane looks up to, is an unapologetic communist.
I know that was a comical aside, but here’s your answer. Nothing too surprising.
Wrecker of Plans: I am the *very* last person to defend the present monopolization of our media, nationally or globally, but even I do not presume that *everything* bigger media has touched is tainted. Some of it, certainly. Maybe even a lot… But most certainly not *all* of it. That’s just silly. And paranoid.
Well, it’s a Catch-22 here because there really isn’t much of an independent import media distributor. If a film is going to get any mainstream movie distribution, it is going to go through something like Miramax or Sony Pictures Classics. But I’ll make a strong argument that Sony Pictures Classics is keeping this film in the closet. In spite of nearly universal critical buzz and multiple international awards it’s on a very limited number of screens and has only made $1mill in U.S. distribution.
Clearly, Chomsky is trying to get us to invade Iran.
CBrachyrhynchos:
That’s kind of my point: There’s no other way to get this stuff out there right now.
And it’s totally probable that Sony is doing just as you say—not that this would have any tainting effect on the film as Squashed is claiming. It merely inhibits distribution and audience exposure.
Wrecker Of Plans February 9, 2008 at 5:53 pm
I have no idea what to say to that. You are suggesting that conversations cannot be had via widely available media sources on any remotely sensitive topic at such time when conversation is most needed.”
Movie medium as a channel is highly controlled. It is also a one way channel, top to bottom. There is no “conversation” in it. As if somebody can go make another movie to counter argue a movie as a form of discussion.
Not any schmo with good movie can get financing or distribution. Sure as hell not anybody who challenges dominant class. It is not “widely available” at all. What can be said in a movie is fairly restricted. (meta talk alert, not the actual movie or what the movie maker is thinking.)
nobody here actually believe “Sony/MGM” is in the business of human enlightenment are we?
You really have no idea how the movie business works, do you? You may want to do some basic research on the difference between “producing” a movie and “distributing” a movie before you make an even bigger fool of yourself. (Hint: it has to do with who pays up front and who pays after it’s complete and being shown at festivals.)
I saw it, I loved it, and I did not have an overwhelming urge to invade Iran, oddly enough. In fact, it made me kinda hate war altogether and think we should stay out at all costs. Because that’s the message of the fucking movie.
Let’s get the facts straight here. Sony Pictures Classics picked up North American distribution rights after the film was well into production. The primary production companies involved were the American Kennedy/Marshal Company, and the France 3 public television network ( http://www.indiewire.com/ots/2006/05/cannes_06_marke_6.html ).
Shorter me: saying that Persepolis is pro-war propaganda is like saying that the purple Teletubby is promoting gay rights.
Face it, Sony/MGM wants to distract us from the feminist paradise that is Iran in order to convince us to invade it so they can build a Dollyworld in Tehran. “Schindler’s List” was imperialist propaganda, too. If you believe that the Holocaust happened, you’re a toady to the imperialists who want to use Israel as a foothold in the Middle East.
mnemosyne: Well, I have a post in moderation hell which quotes directly from the horse’s mouth in this regard.
But, I’m not certain that’s a good analogy because the teletubies are saying nonsense that has nothing at all to do with gay rights. In contrast, Satrapi explicitly blames Western government interventions for the historic events she documents. There is no sugar coating around this.
And blessed disco ball, The Complete Persepolis can be had legally for less than two tickets and popcorn. I’ll bet you $5 Squashed could get it for free from a library. Heck, get thee to a bookstore and leaf through it on the shelf.
Squashed, it’s probably best to give up, now. You got caught having a knee-jerk lefter-than-thou reaction and got smoked out because you don’t know what you’re talking about. Casting suspicion on someone else’s right to benefit financially from their own hard work just because that work is creative or humanist in nature is a tired trick. It’s so tired that otherwise automatic pro-corporate right wing hacks suddenly reach for Big Pharma paranoia when arguing for forced pregnancy or trying to argue that because abortion providers have to be compensated for their work like everyone else, they’re clearly evil. (That delivery room doctors are also compensated doesn’t factor into that equation, it’s worth noting.)
Considering that Satrapi lost beloved relatives who wouldn’t renounce communism, Squashed, your lefter-than-thou reaction is not only stupid and made in bad faith, but it’s also a slap at people who actually put their money and lives where their mouths were. It’s shameful and disrespectful from that perspective.
Here are scans of Satrapi’s version of how the Shah was created. There is also a scan of p. 142 which is one of the most powerful anti-war statements in the medium.
And actually, p. 142 really sums up why I think there is a lot of passion around Persepolis. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of comic artists that have brought tears to my eye: Art Spiegelman, Lynda Barry, Osamu Tezuka, and Marjane Satrapi. And I’ve been a comics fan going on 30 years now. Most of her spreads are not outstanding, but you turn the page and find yourself discovering the perfect collection of frames that captures a pivotal moment of her life and delivers actual empathy. I’m not kidding when I say that Persepolis is among the best of the artform, a work that rises above the history of comics as an inside joke for fanboys. I bought coupies for my two family members who were comic book fans, and then copies for the rest who were not. It’s that good.
So, politics aside, it’s really frustrating that the movie is in foreign-language art-film distribution hell because it is so fucking rare that an artist in one medium gets a hand in making her own movie. I want to drag the family members who won’t read the graphic novel to it. Persepolis is the work that shows that Maus was not a fluke, a literary flash in the pan. Pesepolis the movie is the gateway drug I want to use to get people into other literary comics like Fun Home, and The Rabbi’s Cat.
Conspiracy theorists are soooooooooo tiresome.
It’s too bad “conspiracy theory” gets such a bad name. There really are rich people meeting in private rooms to discuss how to control the rest of us. But they do this openly, and they report their goals and plans in the business section of the newspaper.
Seriously, this movie deserves a good review so much more than it deserves FLAMEWAR. It’s wonderfully realized, especially some of the transition sequences between big-historical-moments and heartfelt illustrations of Satrapi’s life. It seamlessly blends the first volume with the second. And it does with black and white line art some things that are really, really rare. Eat it, Michael Bay.
Oh, and apparently there’s something about “Persia” involved? Search me.
Squashed, you are painfully, PAINFULLY stupid. Almost as stupid as Chomsky himself, but with worse spelling.
I just got back from a showing of Michael Clayton, complete with trailer for Stop Loss, which makes the above statement even more hilarious.
Telling the truth about Iraq is part of a secret plan to hide the truth in plain sight. Chomsky said so, except that he didn’t.
Where are all these strange trolls coming from anyway?
And I really do not understand your point, Squished. You haven’t seen the movie or read the books, yet you just know that they’re propaganda. Propaganda, apparently, that involves an anti-war message, given the comments from people who have actually seen the movie or read the book or both. (I haven’t seen it either, but will tomorrow.)
I mean, I know that there are a lot of people in America that are stupid, but generally to conflate an anti-war message with a pro-war message would require twists of thought that only wingnuts would be able to undertake. And I’m betting that they’re not the type of people to see this movie. And given the cynicism that most people have now towards the type of “humanitarianism” that Bush/GOP presents, I doubt that argument would work again.
Which is why they’re trying to fabricate evidence through military channels that we need to bomb Iran. Propaganda? Look no further than than the US Military.
But, I’m not certain that’s a good analogy because the teletubies are saying nonsense that has nothing at all to do with gay rights.
Yeah, I wasn’t happy with it as soon as I hit Blaspheme! I’ll try again:
Calling Persepolis propaganda in favor of war against Iran is like calling Casablanca pro-Nazi propaganda.
Since somebody asked way up there, the subtitles are actually not hard to read — they did that thing where the outline them very slightly in dark gray or black so you can still read them against the background.
And the grandmother was voiced by Danielle Darrieux, the star of one of my favorite movies of all time, The Earrings of Madame D… Why won’t they put it on DVD?!?!? Why!??!?!
Hey Amanda - could you start another thread about Persepolis? I think a lot of us want to talk about the movie, rather than about Squashed - although I’m completely guilty of getting distracted by him/her.
I really only came in here to comment that yes, I’m tired of the Best Animated Feature Oscar being the “Annual Pixar Ass-Kissing Award”. Other than that, I’ve never seen this movie, so yeah, carry on.
It isn’t the Irani angle that draws me to this movie, although I have worked with refugees from that revolution who had families split and family still there. What draws me is the more universal story of how societies go so far wrong so quickly and why that happens.
The story repeats itself across hundreds of wars and millions of people and hundreds of years. Kind of like an “It Did Happen Here”.
Chomsky said so, except that he didn’t.
Why am I thinking Annie Hall here?
Sporkey February 9, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Squished. You haven’t seen the movie or read the books, yet you just know that they’re propaganda. Propaganda, apparently, that involves an anti-war message, given the comments from people who have actually seen the movie or read the book or both.”
————-
‘mkay. I’ve watched the movie. It’s a good movie. I like the dark moody texture and the music is great in some section. It is well drawn. I would vote for 3.5/5. Definitely recommend it.
About the story itself/comment above. I was wrong, concluding from the clip and review.
It turns out the movie itself is not at all a political movie in a sense that the protagonist has to make a choice to change a regime (political movie) or by telling a story. That’s what I was thinking. (from the review talking about revolution etc.) Iranian politics is a backdrop, a very bleak one that she has to deal with. But it is a typical modern life story. (the role of CIA and British are old story, just about anybody knows it. And it still goes on.)
Instead the movie is about self discovery. A triumphant one at it too. Her parents obviously has enough resource, well connected and able to send her to a HighSchool in France. She can travel in and out of Iran and not exactly on government blacklist or an active target. (student movement during a revolution.)
by the time she returned to Iran, the war was over and the revolution has to deal with massive lost of energy and was essentially bankrupt. She was able to get in a university. She stayed out of trouble in term of larger Iranian politics until she immigrated.
Strangely enough, her past story could happen in a lot of part of the world through out the 60-80’s. Pick any colonial country and one gets similar story. Tho’ obviously Iran is some of the later wave. France has huge Iranian expats, btw.
My hero in this genre (self discovery amid backdrop of revolution) is Marguerite Duras. (Lovers) And Ballard (empire of the sun).
Move another spot with harder politics, she could be Benazir Bhutto or Indira Gandhi and probably shot dead.
PS. Uhm, and yeah everybody was a commie back then. It’s the only tool available to fight colonialism. The Iranian revolution essentially is a socialist revolution with religious language. Think of it like “Liberation Theology” (the closest Christian counterpart, I would imagine)
Exact form of what emancipated man/woman according to the revolution isn’t unique. China in the 50’s for eg. (and of course current rightwing talk) Even feminism has it’s form.
Amanda Marcotte February 9, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Considering that Satrapi lost beloved relatives who wouldn’t renounce communism, Squashed, your lefter-than-thou reaction is not only stupid and made in bad faith, but it’s also a slap at people who actually put their money and lives where their mouths were. It’s shameful and disrespectful from that perspective.”
well, obviously we have different idea what political movie is. I was thinking something different. From which my opinion is derived. But hey…whatever. I deserve being called stupid for that. Mental note: actually WATCH the movie first instead of reading review then comment.
PS. if I am that far left. I wouldn’t be here typing and actually breathing…. but hey…
Sporkey February 9, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Squished. You haven’t seen the movie or read the books, yet you just know that they’re propaganda. Propaganda, apparently, that involves an anti-war message, given the comments from people who have actually seen the movie or read the book or both.”
————-
‘mkay. I’ve watched the movie. It’s a good movie. I like the dark moody texture and the music is great in some section. It is well drawn. I would vote for 3.5/5. Definitely recommend it.
About the story itself/comment above. I was wrong, concluding from the clip and review.
It turns out the movie itself is not at all a political movie in a sense that the protagonist has to make a choice to change a regime (political movie) or by telling a story. That’s what I was thinking. (from the review talking about revolution etc.) Iranian politics is a backdrop, a very bleak one that she has to deal with. But it is a typical modern life story. (the role of CIA and British are old story, just about anybody knows it. And it still goes on.)
Instead the movie is about self discovery. A triumphant one at it too. Her parents obviously has enough resource, well connected and able to send her to a HighSchool in France. She can travel in and out of Iran and not exactly on government blacklist or an active target. (student movement during a revolution.)
by the time she returned to Iran, the war was over and the revolution has to deal with massive lost of energy and was essentially bankrupt. She was able to get in a university. She stayed out of trouble in term of larger Iranian politics until she immigrated.
Strangely enough, her past story could happen in a lot of part of the world through out the 60-80’s. Pick any colonial country and one gets similar story. Tho’ obviously Iran is some of the later wave. France has huge Iranian expats, btw.
My hero in this genre (self discovery amid backdrop of revolution) is Marguerite Duras. (Lovers) And Ballard (empire of the sun).
Move another spot with harder politics, she could be Benazir Bhutto or Indira Gandhi and probably shot dead.
PS. Uhm, and yeah everybody was a commie back then. It’s the only tool available to fight colonialism. The Iranian revolution essentially is a socialist revolution with religious language. Think of it like “Liberation Theology” (the closest Christian counterpart, I would imagine)
Exact form of what emancipated man/woman according to the revolution isn’t unique. China in the 50’s for eg. (and of course current rightwing talk) Even feminism has it’s form.
I loved the scenes where Marjane imagines Karl Marx sitting alongside God as a ruler of the universe.
It reminded me of the opening to Hector Tobar’s “Translation Nation,” where he talks about growing up thinking of Che Guevara in the same way that other kids thought about Santa Claus.
I wish I had been that badass as a child.
Sorry for going on with the partly off-topic stuff, but:
Move another spot with harder politics, she could be Benazir Bhutto or Indira Gandhi and probably shot dead.
Um, you don’t think Iran has “hard politics”? And those two were political leaders, not cartoonists. Nevertheless, the Iranian gov has already protested the movie.
Iran/persia is very old place. The political game usually is very complex in place like that. I am sure there are many, but I was thinking some obvious popular example similar to her story, at the same time more political. (political leaders, political writers, movement leaders, etc)
Most political movement in totalitarian states are invisible. There is no names, no list, people, or organization that outsider can track. Otherwise everybody would be dead when one guy gets captured and tortured.
Iranian student movement is fairly secretive since they are fighting against state organs. This goes all the way back several cycle. Even the Islamic revolution started out as student movement in France. Their mass movement and lesson learned are then transfered to groups in southern lebanon and gaza. etc. So, in term of Iran, there are US and british intels, the Shah, Revolutionary Guards, Savak, etc The usual dark forces in young nation.
so it’s a little hard trying to name women politician actively engaging popular politics. Public in the west are not going to know. I am fairly certain the underground political life in Iran is very rich and complex considering what has happened and who is playing in each wave of upheaval.
There is Shirin Ebadi of course.
spot on, CBrachyrhynchos.
Finally got a chance to watch the movie this weekend. EXCELLENT. It’s about time we had media representation of what it meant to live through all of these changes.
Of course, I laughed and cried (for the most part), throughout the movie. I’ve been dying to see it since winter break, when I saw the trailer before watching “Control”.
Best movie I’ve seen in a very long time. Anyway, had to skip down after some trolliing comments: at practicum, need to be constructing therapeutic lesson plans (Yee-Hah!). Oh, and maybe reading for classes tonight, in between. All on “daytime” cold medicine, mind you.
oh, god, Mnem. I really don’t want to scroll to look to see who called this “pro-war” propoganda. So, so, soooo ridiculous. Maybe I’ll have to take a gander at this tonight, and see who the culprit was.
If anything, it showed the harsh realities of living in a war-zone. I might just have to go look… there was NOTHING pro-war in this movie.
p.s.: I really appreciated the pointing out that America had aided both Iraq and Iran in their struggles with one another. Showed our government to be what it truly is.
I’m actually surprised (because Satrapi brings this truth up) that the film made it to American movie houses.
let’s not let conservative war-supporters in on this, okay?
actually, if war supporters thought about this truth- well they may start to see our government what it truly is.
gah, I’ll try to make it up … maybe
interviews:
FR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVNr_kwQRW8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_HQnN4u2vk
EN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMwfzqEqVLk
She has a blog at NYTimes. (behind account)
http://satrapi.blogs.nytimes.com/
this entry however is must read. (give insight to her world politics. She needs to use computer already. She has no public email or web page. )
http://www.nytimes.com/images/section/opinion/20051128/marjane.frame.3.jpg
part of interview:
http://www.powells.com/authors/satrapi.html
Dave: In Persepolis 2, you talk about the Iranian government filling up citizens’ brains with worries about Is my veil in place? or Are my trousers long enough?? In the United States right now, we’re witnessing a political campaign where the actual issues are hardly discussed at all. Instead, we hear about decades-old military records and we’re handed toothless generalizations that entirely gloss over policy distinctions and their consequences. It’s the same distractions.
Satrapi: Absolutely. It’s brainwashing and distraction. The only difference is that we knew we were living under a dictatorship so we never believed in what they said. We knew that our leaders were dictators. Here, people believe that they live in a democracy, which is an illusion.
It’s manipulation. Last week, I read in the news that people who vote for the Democrats will make America insecure, and if there is an attack it will be the fault of the people who voted for the Democrat. Why isn’t a journalist writing, “Hey, Mr. Cheney, 9/11 happened when you were in the government. You were even aware that something could happen, and you were powerless to stop it. Why are you spitting on the Democrats? Why are you giving bad conscience to the people?”
What’s happening—and it has a lot to do with this chapter in the book —really has a lot to do with this notion of fear. It’s very like the time when McCarthy was around, creating a paranoia of these mad communists. People said, “Never will we let this happen again.” Well, it’s happening again. People are paranoid.
The real war is not between the West and the East. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people. There is much more in common between George Bush and the fanatics in my country than between me and the fanatics of my country. There is much more common ground between me and normal people here in America who don’t want that. As an Iranian, I feel much closer to an American who thinks like me than to the bearded guy of my country.
————
Note: she is clearly aware of the possibility of her work being used against Iran.
Rare Iran screening for controversial film ‘Persepolis’
2 hours ago
TEHRAN (AFP) — Iran this week held rare screenings to small but fascinated audiences of the Oscar-nominated film “Persepolis,” which has annoyed the authorities for its critical portrayal of the Islamic revolution.
Around 70 people crammed into a small hall in a Tehran cultural centre on Thursday to watch the animated film in a rare chance for Iranians to see the film legally and in public, AFP correspondents witnessed.
A similar screening of the film, which graphically shows its young heroine’s brushes with the authorities in the early days of the Islamic revolution in the 1980s, also took place at the Rasaneh Cultural Centre in Tehran on Tuesday.
“The aim of this screening is to end the delusions surrounding the film which have been created by the media,” said the centre’s public relations chief, Mahmoud Babareza.
“When a film is not shown people make all sorts of misconceptions. Cinema is cinema, after all, and it should not be put into a limited political context,” he told AFP.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j42rPk2BytF_nzJMitnhfe-sP4hw