Solving Problems Is Not Only the Public's Job / Don't Watch Documentaries the Way We Watch Stories

A screening and critique session of the documentary “Kabuk,” directed by Jafar Sadeghi, was held Sunday afternoon, 19 Mehr, as part of the “A Day with a Documentary” program, with the director present at Charsou Cinema Complex.

According to the Arya Heritage report, Ramtin Shahbazi, the expert host of the screening and review session of the documentary "Kabok" at the beginning of the conversation pointed out the different aspects of this documentary and said: "Kabok is an interesting film because first, you see the audience involved and watching an environmental film or so-called, an ecocinema film, but at the same time, we are always faced with a mythological and archetypal look in the film. The film has a very mythological reading, and my advice to the director is to definitely show the film to mythologist friends who work on mythological readings of the text. They can certainly have a mythological reading of the film.

Shahbazi continued: In a film that is about eighty-eight minutes long, the first 40 minutes could have been shorter. The duration of this section seems to be a bit long. In the second 40 minutes, the rhythm of events becomes faster and the story progresses. It is true that we first want to see how the damage is done. This is understandable; We want to see the daily life of Musa al-Reza's character and especially to find out what injuries are likely to be inflicted on him. However, this section could have been shorter. My criticism of the duration of the film happens to be based on the structure of the film "kabuk", otherwise films with a much longer duration have been made and the duration of those works has not been criticized. In the second half of the film, the director has put together a series of events that create a conflict with the first half of the film. So if we are going to wait and give the movie a chance, why does this patience decrease in the second half?

Jafar Sadeghi, the director of this film, started his speech by explaining the name of the film and said: "Kabuk" means bird's nest and is considered an ancient word in the Persian language, and I wanted this word to be brought up again under the pretext of this film. Mythology and archetypes are among the things that, in my opinion, we should pay attention to if we are going to tell a story. We usually encounter different types of narration rooted in archetypes in traditional literature and then in fictional cinema. This issue can be seen in many places in this movie; including the relationship between nature and man, compromise in some situations, conflict of interests and the mythological view of the father. In fact, these items are present throughout the story. In my opinion, we can rarely make a film that has a story, but is not a subset of these. However, when I was editing, I was thinking about this look and that I should be aware of it and adjust the rhythm of the story according to it, and not only in this film but in every film I make, the discussion of archetypes is in the back of my mind.

He said about the timing of his film: With the utmost respect to all opinions, we humans have become a little bored and cyber space is one of the reasons. Our average use of virtual space is much higher than the global average, and this issue is damaging to the psyche of us Iranians, and if we don't stop it, we will face more problems. This work was the fifth film that I made in Iran, and for example, the film "Shaghard" that I had made before faced such criticism in Iran, while it did not face such criticism outside the country.

Sadeghi added: "If we were to watch a feature film in the same way we watch a story, in my opinion, this film could be completed in 20 minutes." But if we are to respect cinema as cinema, we must allow the viewer to receive more than just information; Rather, he must also receive the feeling and for this he must identify. The audience needs time to communicate with Musa Al-Reza. When a movie tries to show the strain that a family puts on over the course of a year, I as a viewer have to be patient and touch it for 10 minutes. Therefore, in my opinion, if an experience is to be conveyed, i.e., what humans experience and feel in the conflict of their interests with nature, I should also convey that weakness to the viewer. In my opinion, when a story begins, we should allow the characters to connect with me the viewer first. I cannot start from the first minute the rhythm and tempo that I have from the fortieth minute onwards. This kind of filmmaking is my signature filmmaking. I let the viewer connect with the characters first. It is true that the number of events increases from the second half of the film, but this is a conscious choice by the director and editor. Because I want to allow the audience to watch the movement of these birds. Once watched, I don't need to show it again from minute forty onwards. I also feel that the viewer would like to see how this bird rises, heads up and returns. I like the audience to see and experience the silence and peace that exists in that part of nature.

The director of the "Kabuk" documentary went on to say: The main challenge of this family was that the father believed that these birds were God's mercy and he should protect them. Because the father and elder of the family had such a belief. The other brothers also decided to do this out of respect and in support of their father. But Musa al-Reza suffered the most damage because the birds were mostly sitting on his trees. In the middle of the film, we also see that he says: "Sir, you are not going to bear these costs, but I am going to bear these costs." On the other hand, you have income from other places, but I don't have any." In fact, the only person who lost from this situation was Musa al-Reza; However, out of respect for the opinion of his father and brothers and according to their beliefs, he prevented the birds from flying. But why the birds came there is discussed in several parts of the movie. Even at the beginning of the film, Musa al-Reza says that he does not know why even one of these birds does not go to the neighbor's garden. We couldn't really verify and determine why they were there. Even the ornithologist who came to the garden talked about this in one of the sequences and said that it was very strange and he wondered why these birds chose this place. As much as this issue was ambiguous for the audience, it was also ambiguous for me. We could not understand why they chose that spot and we don't know if they will choose the same place next year or move to another spot.

He added: I am at the beginning of the documentary filmmaking journey and with every step I take, I gain more experience. Watching the movie today, I felt like I got it wrong in several parts. In other parts, I felt that if I was at the editing table, I would have finished this part sooner. These are part of the cinema process. As we go along, we try to go back to the film we made, look at it and learn from it. This is the nature of filmmaking and I try to be the most important critic of my own films. But I want to draw a line between two issues. There are a series of principles in the history of cinema, which Mr. Dr. Shahbazi also mentioned, but the recognition and application of these principles is another matter. As a director, I am experimenting and trying to see how I can implement these principles in my own work. I'd have to be very crude to claim, in my third or fourth film, that I've reached the end of cinema, that I know everything and that I'm doing something so extraordinary. Therefore, my explanations do not mean that what I say is necessarily true; Rather, I just want to explain the path I have taken and the impression I had in mind, and finally, considering the feedback I get from the audience, I must try to increase my success rate in communicating with the audience. Basically, this is not going to become a discussion to prove my point of view right or wrong.

Sadeghi went on to say: When I encountered the incident that happened in this garden, I did not intend to bring it up in a symbolic way or make a symbolic meaning for it; But I think it is possible to establish a connection between this story and the bigger issues of society. We are facing a similar problem in the country, on a larger scale. In the movie, when the brothers propose to share the expenses from then on, Musa al-Reza calms down and says that it is a good proposal. But until then, no one had made such a proposal. We have the same problem in our country. If birds invade a small community like this garden, or if there is economic, political, or cultural pressure on people in the country, when people feel this pressure on all of them, their resilience increases. But if we are supposed to sit in a corner and the loss and pressure is on the shoulder of another person, while we only pretend to be partners with him, the issue becomes different. We may say that we are also partners in this story, but in fact, the pressure is not on our shoulders. We just pretend that this bird is also sitting on our shoulders, while Musa al-Reza bears this pressure alone.

In the end, this director said: All my effort in this film was to point out this point and not let it be forgotten: if there are problems and economic pressures in this country, we should not leave the Musa al-Rezas of our society alone. We should not put more pressure on our people and tell them that you have to deal with these problems alone, while we ourselves do not bear such pressure and have income from other sources. In fact, there are Musa al-Rezas who are being destroyed under the burden of these pressures. My attempt was to make this human aspect of the story affect the audience and raise the question that if there is a problem in this larger society, do we all pay attention to it and accept our responsibility for it? This was my goal in making this film. I don't know how much I have been able to clarify this issue.

"Kabok" is a production of the center for the development of documentary, experimental and animated cinema.