# taz.de -- Artistic freedom in Iran: "As if it were raining cement on us"
       
       > The Iranian filmmakers Jafar Panahi and Mohammad Rasulov have been given
       > harsh sentences. An interview with their colleague, film director Rafi
       > Pitts who now lives in Paris.
       
 (IMG) Bild: "So far no dictatorship has succeeded in preventing artists from expressing themselves."
       
       taz: Mr. Pitts, did you expect the sentences handed down to your colleagues
       Jafar Panahi and Mohammad Rasulov to be so harsh? 
       
       Rafi Pitts: I expected them to be harsh on Panahi and Rasulov, but I didn’t
       expect a sentence of six years in prison and a twenty-year ban on
       practicing their profession. But theses days, no one can say anymore what
       is going to happen in Iran. Anything is possible. Never in the history of
       cinema have filmmakers been sentenced without having actually made a film
       but merely because they intended to make one.
       
       Their lawyers have until the end of January to lodge an appeal against the
       sentence. What do you think their prospects are? 
       
       That is why I wrote the open letter to Mr. Ahmadinejad and called on the
       international film industry to stage a two-hour strike on February 11, the
       anniversary of our revolution. To draw attention, to stop the escalation of
       this madness. Perhaps it will make them see reason.
       
       Do you really believe that? 
       
       Whether I like it or not many people in my country voted for Ahmadinejad.
       They no longer have a majority, the majority voted for the Green Movement
       in 2009. Nevertheless, we have to live together. So, a president rules in
       my country who is protected by revolutionary guards.
       
       Both are continually invoking the revolution and freedom in the name of the
       revolution. If that means for them thirty-two years after the revolution
       that they have the freedom to lock up any artist or journalist who asks
       questions, then I as an artist must reflect this attitude.
       
       More than 80 percent of today’s population weren’t even born at the time of
       the revolution. Talk of the revolution sounds very anachronistic. 
       
       That’s true. But that means it is high time to question the government
       about its goals and its legitimacy—and to do so in its own language. Of
       course the French press would use a different kind of vocabulary with
       Sarkozy to the one I have chosen for my letter to Ahmadinejad. But in my
       country everything still centers around the revolution of 1979. And they
       try to pretend there have been no new developments, as if the mass protests
       following the elections had never happened, as if no one had died.
       
       Is that why the regime reacts so sensitively when this construction of
       reality is criticized? 
       
       Yes. It criminalizes us as antirevolutionaries. Therefore we must ask: What
       exactly do you mean by “in the name of the revolution”? They must define
       what revolution means for them so that we can choose to be for or against
       the laws they represent.
       
       Have you received any reaction? 
       
       No.
       
       Do you think Ahmadinejad will react? 
       
       He ought to, because 70 percent of Iranians today are younger than thirty.
       They don’t know what the revolution stands for. Hussein Moussavi himself
       was a revolutionary and leader of the Green Movement, which used to be
       legal and is now suddenly illegal.
       
       Refusing to define things is a great technique for exercising power. Why
       should Ahmadinejad weaken himself by laying down principles to which he is
       then obliged to adhere? 
       
       I don’t know whether that would weaken him. I just know that the only thing
       I can do is to confront him with these questions: If I who am living in
       Paris for well-known reasons don’t say anything, how can I expect anyone in
       Tehran to say anything? So the least I can do is to write an open letter
       and have it published by the Western press, thus increasing the chances
       that it will reach Ahmadinejad. And anyway it is about more than just my
       colleagues in Iran.
       
       Other countries might use this kind of pre-emptive censorship as a
       precedent? 
       
       Of course they might. If the film industry doesn’t manage to show a gesture
       of solidarity now, then in five or ten years time the next government might
       decide to sentence people not on the basis of deeds but simply of
       intentions.
       
       What kind of conditions are Panahi und Rasulov likely to be held under? 
       
       Nobody knows at the moment. But you can see how tired Panahi looks after
       three months in custody, and imagine how he might look after six years.
       
       Have your colleagues in Tehran already reacted to the sentence? 
       
       The strongest reaction so far has come from the Association of Iranian
       Filmmakers. They have called on all film workers in the West to boycott the
       forthcoming Fajr film festival in Tehran. For filmmakers in Iran that means
       making a big sacrifice, because this festival is an important forum for
       showing their films.
       
       You have called on people all over the world to down tools for two hours. 
       
       The Iranians will participate in the strike too, I’m quite certain about
       that. But it is important for solidarity to be shown outside Iran and also
       outside the film industry. I know I’m asking a lot. But if it helps to save
       Panahi und Rasulov, then a two-hour strike is maybe not too much to ask.
       During those two hours, some people may start to think about what it would
       mean not to be allowed to work for twenty years.
       
       What options do filmmakers currently have in Iran? Can they still work at
       all? 
       
       Of course they can. So far no dictatorship has succeeded in preventing
       artists from expressing themselves. In one way or other. In Iran everyone
       is now going underground, or they are already working underground.
       
       So for filmmakers there is no longer any gray area? 
       
       That takes us back to where we started. Nobody knows any more what is legal
       and what is illegal. Before the riots in 2009 we made films that were
       either censored if the regime disliked them or else were not allowed to be
       shown in Iran. Now Panahi and Rasulov have been sentenced while still
       shooting a film and they have been accused of not having had a script. Once
       the madness has gone that far, the only thing left is to go underground.
       
       In his defense speech to the court Panahi pointed out that that the space
       in which his international prizes are exhibited in the Tehran film museum
       is larger than his cell. Have his trophies now been removed? 
       
       Not as far as I know. The regime is still basking in his fame and yet it
       destroys his existence because of an idea he had for a film.
       
       Many people interpret the brutality of the regime as a sign of weakness.
       
       Killing is always a sign of weakness. Progress can only be made when things
       are allowed to be discussed. A state of unambiguousness always means
       stagnation. But in Iran we aren’t stagnating, we are sliding further and
       further backwards.
       
       Are the regime’s days numbered? 
       
       In purely mathematical terms, yes, because the regime has completely
       distanced itself from the country’s youth. In that respect change is
       inevitable. The question is simply: Will it involve bloodshed and how much
       longer will it take? That was one of the reasons why I made The Hunter. If
       you take away a person’s ability to express him- or herself it’s only a
       question of time before he or she explodes.
       
       What about the conflict within the government? Through Wikileaks we have
       learned that the president was allegedly slapped in the face by one of the
       revolutionary guards. 
       
       I strongly suspect that many people up there are dissatisfied with
       Ahmadinejad. Moussavi was also part of the government. But that’s all I can
       say about that.
       
       Many people say the government is simply afraid that images of violence and
       of people full of hope for change will go round the world. 
       
       That’s probably true. But it’s really crazy, because we’ve all seen those
       images already. Sometimes I really think the government no longer knows
       what is happening in the country. Because everyone in Iran knows that a
       huge number of people took to the streets and that some of them died.
       Whether in the country or in the city, everyone knows. Perhaps the
       government should look on the Internet more often.
       
       Subsidies for bread and gasoline were recently abolished. People say that
       this move will cost the government support among the people. So why did it
       do this? 
       
       If I were cynical I would say because they want us to go out on the streets
       and protest against them. Even just two years ago I would never have
       dreamed that I would write a letter to the president. I’m not a
       particularly political person, but nor have I ever been so furious. Because
       things were moving forwards, admittedly in small steps and always within
       the limits of censorship, but something was happening. Ten years ago it
       would have been unthinkable that I would have got permission to shoot a
       film like The Hunter. After the 1979 revolution cinema was more or less
       dead. And then an industry developed again, Abbas Kirostami made Taste of
       Cherry; since then we’ve been able to talk about suicide. Revolutions don’t
       happen overnight, and things can’t be repaired overnight either. But there
       had been a cautious opening. And now it is as if cement had rained down on
       us and destroyed everything. What do we have to lose? What else will they
       give us that we could lose?
       
       Why are so many Iranians in Iran still so optimistic? 
       
       Pessimists can’t survive in Iran. My generation is a “no future”
       generation. Because of the economic situation, high unemployment, sanctions
       that only affect the general population, it is really difficult even just
       to get by. You always live one day at a time. No one knows what will have
       happened by the evening. That creates a certain intensity, a certain
       vitality, and optimism as well.
       
       18 Jan 2011
       
       ## AUTOREN
       
 (DIR) Ines Kappert
       
       ## ARTIKEL ZUM THEMA
       
 (DIR) Repression im Iran: Der Staatsfeind ist ein Künstler
       
       Eineinhalb Jahre nach der "grünen Revolution" will das Regime vor allem mit
       Repression die Kontrolle zurückgewinnen. Die Attacken gelten verstärkt den
       Kulturschaffenden.
       
 (DIR) Berlinalechef über Solidaritätsstreik: "Es ist alles so irrational"
       
       Die Berlinale beteiligt sich nicht am internationalen Streik der
       Kulturschaffenden gegen die Verurteilung der iranischen Regisseure Panahi
       und Rassoulof, sagt ihr Chef Dieter Kosslick.
       
 (DIR) Ahmadinedschads Bürochef kritisiert Urteil: Unterstützung für Panahi
       
       Der Bürochef des iranischen Präsidenten Mahmud Ahmadinedschad hat angeblich
       das harte Urteil gegen Jafar Panahi kritisiert. Auch die Berlinale
       unterstützt den Filmemacher.
       
 (DIR) Künstlerische Freiheit im Iran: "Wir fallen immer weiter zurück"
       
       Die iranischen Filmemacher Jafar Panahi und Mohammad Rassulof wurden zu
       harten Strafen verurteilt. Ein Gespräch mit ihrem Kollegen Rafi Pitts, der
       heute in Paris lebt.