The secret plan to bring a dissident Iranian filmmaker to Australia
Only two weeks ago, dissident Iranian director Jafar Panahi was being feted at the Cannes Film Festival when his revenge thriller It Was Just An Accident won the Palme d'Or, confirming him as a great of world cinema.
But such has been the backlash against the film in Iran that Panahi did not know whether he would be allowed to leave the country again – until his flight to Australia took off this week.
'Any minute, this was a possibility,' he said through a translator in Sydney on Friday. 'When I get on a plane, I have to wait to see whether the plane is going to move or whether they are going to stop me.'
Sydney Film Festival, which is screening It Was Just An Accident in competition alongside a 10-film retrospective of his work, kept his visit secret until he appeared on opening night on Wednesday.
Panahi said that shortly after arriving back in Tehran after Cannes, 'the media that are working for the government hadn't watched the movie but they said it didn't have any value. That the only reason that it won the prize was that I'd been in jail.'
Loading
In 2010, the director of a series of acclaimed films that criticise the lack of freedoms under the Islamic Republic was sentenced to six years in jail and banned for years from making films and travelling abroad for 'creating propaganda against the system' and supporting anti-government protesters.
After serving his jail time, Panahi shot It Was Just An Accident in secret to avoid submitting a script inspired by his imprisonment to government censorship.
Despite the Cannes acclaim, the 64-year-old filmmaker accepted that he might be jailed again.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
3 hours ago
- News.com.au
Painful story behind the new Harry Potter series
In any given week there are any number of images that are likely to elicit an Edvard Munch-y Scream but this week there was one photo, shot in a green and pleasant bit of England which could have doubled as a Wind In the Willows set, that should have set your hair on fire. In the image, three tweens crouch, broadly grinning for the camera, the trio having beaten out tens of thousands of other 9-11-year-olds to nab the lead roles in the New HBO remake of Harry Potter. Ohgodisthisagoodideareallyummmm…. Dominic McLaughlin, Alastair Stout and Arabella Stanton have been cast, respectively, as the Harry and his sidekicks Ron and Hermione, guaranteeing them fortunes, fame and never having to sit through year ten modern history should they not fancy. That day, they just might be in Cannes doing a quick red carpet or in Prague shooting Darron Aronofksy's newie. Ciao darling. I'm sure that for McLaughlin, Stout and Stanton it's a dream come true. They feel like golden ticket winners, the envy of kids the world over and are about to embark on an incredible adventure. But boring adult me looks at this publicity shot and wants to do some Munch-ing. Child stardom, historically, has a helluva chequered record. The announcement of McLaughlin, Stout and Stanton as the new faces of Harry Potter feels like the most double edged of swords going outside of a Roman military museum. On one hand, what child's dream would not be to get to skive off school to pretend to be a wizard all day while earning squillions? On the other hand, youthful fame is notorious for wreaking havoc and often coming with an extraordinarily high, lifelong cost. The most obvious casualties: Drew Barrymore, Cory Haim, Cory Feldman, Edward Furlong, Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, Tatum O'Neil, Macaulay Culkin, and Amanda Bynes. We could also probably add in Justin Bieber considering he seems to really be going through something right now. Hello, stints in rehab, reality TV, and even court, with the occasional caught-by-the-paps, head-shaving breakdown thrown in there too. For decades it has been clear that childhood stardom both arrests and speeds up the normal sort of emotional, psychological and social development that you are meant to go through as you leave childhood and awkwardly galumph into adulthood. We've known all of this since Ronald Reagan was eating all the red jelly beans out of his Oval Office jar and yet every generation there are new fresh-faced enthusiastic pre-teens who don't, who can't, quite realise what they are about to sacrifice. Look no further than the original Potter stars, Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint. They have all made clear that the actual acting on the eight original movies – the larking about on sets and the creative aspect of it all – was a real joy but that tremendous, global fame that came with it deeply affected them. Radcliffe, Watson and Grint might never have to worry about mortgage payments or how they can afford that ice cream truck they always wanted (Grint) but the life-altering reverberations of being cast in Potter are clear to this day. Radcliffe has, on a number of occasions, talked about how he started drinking heavily as a teenager to cope with it all. 'The quickest way to forget about the fact that you're being watched is to get very drunk,' he told Off Camera With Sam Jones in 2019. 'I was a recluse at 20. It was pathetic,' he told Shortlist in 2012. 'I'd stay in my apartment for days and drink alone.' During a Newsweek interview in 2022 he was clear: 'I wouldn't want fame for my kid.' Speaking to The Times in 2021, Grint said: 'I found it hard to deal with the fame side of things. If I ever do see Dan [Radcliffe] or Emma [Watson], fame is the one thing we never talk about.' Wade into the myriad of interviews Radcliffe, Watson and Grint have given over the years and the words they use to describe becoming global megastars so young are ones like 'scary', 'dehumanising', 'surreal and odd', 'weird' and 'vulnerable'. They have talked about feeling 'detached' from other teenagers. Grint said in 2018, when he would go back to his old school and see his peers, 'We had very little in common, which is quite isolating in a way.' Radcliffe, Watson and Grint won their roles in 2000 and yet here we are, 25 years later, and their careers and public identities are still indelibly shaped by a movie they started shooting a full year before 9/11 even happened. Smartphones didn't exist yet. Instagram had barely been invented when the final Potter movie came out. So, what will the future be like for McLaughlin, Stout and Stanton? They are about to embark on a project that will make them some of the most instantly recognisable teenagers in a world saturated by social media. How will they get through this unscathed? I'm sure their parents, HBO and every producer involved will do absolutely everything in their power to look after them; that they will all take every precaution and hire every child psychologist and adolescent specialist and on-set advocate to try and protect McLaughlin, Stout and Stanton as much as possible. But surely there is only so far a well-meaning studio and the most thoughtful and best of parents can go to shield them from real world consequences of their roles. Just think about what lies ahead. McLaughlin, Stout and Stanton will have to go through the profound, innate awkwardness of adolescence – the hormones, the physical and emotional changes – with People keeping a around-the-clock watch. Their faces will be on screens the world over. For a new generation, they will be Harry, Hermione and Ron. They will become immutable parts of the cultural furniture and nothing can ever change that. There will be no going back. They are making what could be a lifelong choice at 11. There will be at least one season per book, with the first out in 2026 meaning that, assuming there is one series per year, the final one could be screening in 2034. McLaughlin as the titular Harry will be 19-years-old by then. How will they be on the other side of this? I hope that what lies ahead for McLaughlin, Stout and Stanton is all the joy and fun and magic of bringing these characters to life. I hope against hope that they can somehow dodge having to walk the tough path that many other child stars have over the years. I hope. I so very dearly hope. And if all else fails, they can buy themselves an ice cream van I suppose.
Sky News AU
11 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Israel intensifies assault on Lebanon with new wave of strikes
Israel is increasing its attacks on Lebanon with a fresh round of airstrikes carried out on the southern suburbs of Beirut. Tel Aviv claims it was targeting Hezbollah's drone production, which they say is being funded by Iranian terrorists. Lebanon's Prime Minister is condemning the attack.
The Age
13 hours ago
- The Age
From prison to the Palme d'Or: Jafar Panahi's defiant message to the world
When Jafar Panahi attended the Cannes Film Festival with his latest film, It Was Just an Accident, it was the first time the renowned director had been allowed to leave Iran in 15 years. Even after years of prosecutions, house arrest and two spells in prison, he said the most exciting thing about this sudden rush of liberty was being able to see one of his films, which are all banned in his home country, in a cinema. 'Watching the film with other people and telling myself, 'Oh wow, you were able to watch one of your films with other people!' And, of course, seeing the audience finding a rapport.' An intense rapport, as it turned out: on the closing night of the festival, Panahi was presented with the top prize, the Palme d'Or, by specially invited Cate Blanchett. Introducing the award, jury president Juliette Binoche said cinema and art are 'provocative' and mobilise 'a force that transforms darkness into forgiveness, hope and new life', which was why the jury had chosen Panahi's film. Predictably, Panahi's persecutors back in Iran didn't see it quite that way; the state television station condemned It Was Just An Accident as 'lies and smearing', while the victory caused a small but fiery diplomatic spat between Iran and France. 'I am not an art expert,' sneered foreign ministry representative Esmaeil Baqaei, 'but we believe that artistic events and art in general should not be exploited to pursue political objectives'. Like all the films Panahi has made in his years as persona non grata, It Was Just an Accident was shot and edited in secret, without the required official permits. 'I had to work in total secrecy, with only my very close crew being aware of the subject of the film and of the content of the script.' There was no point, he says, in applying for clearance to make what is perhaps his angriest film yet – and his strangest, in that it is a comedy caper about torturers and the tortured. It follows a garage mechanic, Vahid (Vahid Mobasser), who hears in the garage the uneven footsteps of his former torturer, whom he never saw through his blindfold but whom he knew had an artificial leg. He could never forget the sound of that dragging foot. Vahid becomes judge and jury. What punishment could fit this man's crimes? If, indeed, it was this man. Having kidnapped him, intending to bury him alive in the desert, Vahid starts to have doubts. Bundling his catch into his van, he goes to consult his friend and mentor, a scholarly bookshop owner, who asks him with some asperity whether he is really up for burying someone alive. But he doesn't want to decide anything; for that, he should ask the photographer who was raped by this man, who turns out to be doing a wedding shoot that day with a couple of other torture victims. Did any of them see their interrogator? No. Bride, groom and photographer join his posse, with a firm ID still no closer. It Was Just an Accident walks a knife-edge between horror and humour, which Panahi says is a very Iranian approach to the world. 'Iranians really are that way. You will be having a very serious argument about something very difficult and 10 minutes later you're having a joke about it,' he says. 'No political entity has ever been able to rid us of it and, of course, when it is included in a film, it makes the film more real.' The Islamic Republic has tried to stamp out festivals and fun of all kinds, without ever managing it. 'Just like, despite imposing the mandatory headscarf time and again, they haven't been able to stop our very progressive, courageous women.' Nothing has stopped Panahi, either. Back in 2010, he was sentenced to six years in jail for supporting anti-government protesters and creating 'propaganda against the system'. He served only two months, but he was banned from travelling outside Iran and from making films. His response was to make This Is Not a Film, a polemic on the nature of film-making shot entirely in his home on his iPhone, which made it to international festivals on a USB stick baked into a cake. Tehran Taxi (2015) was shot surreptitiously inside a moving car. It went on, in Panahi's very conspicuous absence, to win the Golden Bear at the Berlin Film Festival. In 2022, he was arrested again when he asked awkward questions about the fate of two other imprisoned filmmakers and, as a consequence, was ordered to serve the rest of his 2010 sentence. He was in prison for seven months, undergoing repeated interrogation sessions, but was released in February 2023, his sentence considered served and the previous travel and work bans lifted. He then set about turning his experience – and the stories he heard from his fellow prisoners, some of whom had been incarcerated for 15 years – into It Was Just an Accident. Other Iranian filmmakers have seized opportunities such as Cannes to get out of the country for good. Panahi, however, immediately made it clear that he would never leave Iran and was heading back as soon as the festival was over. 'I have no ability to adapt to a new country, a new culture,' he said. 'Many of those outside Iran did not leave of their own volition; they are in an imposed exile. I don't see myself as capable of living outside Iran or courageous enough to do so.' The day after he collected his Palme, Instagram showed his return to Tehran, where a small crowd of well-wishers – including many bare-headed women – were waiting at the airport with a garland of flowers ready to put over his shoulders. He was home. Somewhat disingenuously, Panahi insists on defining his films as 'social' rather than political. To call them political is a misnomer that is itself politically motivated, he says. 'I think a political film has a very clear attachment to a party, a very specific stance and pursues a specific political agenda, but you will never see an entirely positive or entirely negative character in any of my films,' he says. 'The real problem is the superstructure, the government that turns people into something they are not. What I do in my films is show people the way they are and highlight the circumstances that might have led them to be the way they are.' This is, for example, the first of his films to show women with their hair uncovered, which he says reflects the fact that when he was released from prison, what struck him was the number of women in public without headscarves. The characters in the film reflect different stances – one who speaks in slogans, another who is more conciliatory – reflecting the real-life characters he met in prison. 'I even allowed an interrogator to speak for himself, and explain his ideology, his aims.' The Iranian authorities, needless to say, take a different view. Panahi started his film-making career making television and as an assistant director to Abbas Kiarostami. His first film as a director, The White Balloon, was a gentle story of slum children that won the Camera d'Or in Cannes in 1995. The Iranian film authority duly nominated The White Balloon as the country's Oscar entry, then decided it was critical of the regime and banned Panahi from travelling to the United States or speaking to the press. By the time he came to make The Circle, a round of interlocking stories about Iranian women that won the Golden Lion in Venice in 2000, he was officially on the outer. The Circle, along with all his subsequent films, was banned in Iran. Loading The experience of interrogation, remembered by various characters in It Was Just an Accident, echoes his own. During his months of imprisonment, he was questioned for hours every day as to why he would make the films he does. He imitates their tirades. ''You're selling out! You're giving your country a bad reputation! You are a traitor!'' A lot of discussion, he says with irony. Like the people in his film, he is haunted by that disembodied voice. 'When the interrogator has sat you very close to the wall, blindfolded you in such a way that you can only see enough from the corner of your eye to write on a piece of paper and is standing behind you, you do wonder: who is this? What does he look like, how old is he, what does he believe?' Loading In theory, Panahi's suspended sentence is now officially served, and he should be free to apply for permission to make films legitimately. 'I think I just did what my sentence required, which was that I was banned from film-making for 20 years,' he says. 'I did 16 years of it; I think they could not renew this sentence as it came to an end.' But that doesn't mean he has been given more latitude. He will continue to film in secret; as he said in an interview with Variety during the festival, the authorities make up laws as they go. Will he be arrested again? Or confined to home? Nothing is certain, except that Jafar Panahi will continue, one way or another, to make films.
