This article was downloaded by: [University of Oklahoma Libraries]On: 30 August 2013, At: 00:23Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Iranian StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cist20

Iranian writers, the Iranian cinema, and the case ofDash AkolHamid Nafici aa Managing Editor of Quarterly Review of Film Studies, University of Southern CaliforniaPublished online: 26 May 2010.

To cite this article: Hamid Nafici (1985) Iranian writers, the Iranian cinema, and the case of Dash Akol, Iranian Studies, 18:2-4,231-251, DOI: 10.1080/00210868508701658

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00210868508701658

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representationsor warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Iranian Studies, Volume XVIII, Nos. 2-4, Spring-Autumn 1985

Iranian Writers, The IranianCinema, and The Case ofDash Akol

Hamid Nafici

From December 1930, when the first Iranian featurefilm was made to the 1980s, 1 the .connections betweenPersian literature and the Iranian cinema have beenintimate, varied, and significant. In fact, an examina-tion of the Iranian cinema in terms of the roles litera-ture plays in it demonstrates that the cinema constitutesan important aspect of the sociology of the Iranianwriter, especially from the mid-1960s to the late 1970s.

This essay surveys the role of literature andIranian writers in the Iranian cinema and then focuses ona prominent example of the relationship between literatureand movies, the popular 1971 film called Dash Akol, forthe purpose of indicating differences in the aims andeffects of the two art forms.

During the infancy of Iranian cinema in early 1948,the film reviewer of the daily paper Kavhan declared thata film can be called "good" when "its story is written bya famous writer and is adapted from a great book."2Although the majority of Iranian films are not written byor adapted from great authors, the connection betweenliterature and cinema has been an important and enduringone from the s ta r t .3 As a first sort of connection,Iranian filmmakers found in classical Persian literature

Hamid Naficy is the Managing Editor of Quarterly Reviewof Film Studies at the University of Southern California.

231 SPRING-AUTUMN 1985

Iran

ian

Stud

ies

1985

.18:

231-

251.

and traditional folklore a rich supply of stories. Thetales and mythical love stories related by the epic poetsNezami and Ferdowsi were among the early favorites,resulting in such films as Shirin va Farhad [Shirin andFarhad] (1934, 1970), Layli va Majnun [Layli and Majnun](1937, 1956), Yusof va Zolaykha [Joseph and Zolaykha](1956), Rostam va Sohrab [Rostam and Sohrab] (1957), andBizhan va Manizheh [Bizhan and Manizheh] (1958). Othermedieval texts such as A Thousand and One Nights andQabusnameh were also mined, resulting in such films asAli Baba va Chehel Dozd [Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves](1967), and Gowhar-e Shab Cheragh [The Jewel that Shinesat Night] (1967).

Famous folk characters and historical figures anderas were a second early story source for cinema, leadingto such films as Mollah Nasreddin (1953), Amir Arsalan-eNamdar [The Famous Amir Arsalan] (1966), Hosayn-e Kord[Hosayn the Kurd] (1966), Nasim-e Ayyar [Nasim theScoundrel] (1967), Jadeh-ye Zarrin-e Samarqand [TheGolden Road to Samarqand] (1968), and Abbaseh va Ja'farBarmaki [Abbaseh and Ja'far Barmaki] (1971), the lattertwo dealing with Harun-al Rashid's era. ;

A third connection between literature and Iraniancinema is provided by foreign novels and short storiesthat have inspired Persian film adaptations.- Mostashar-eJazireh [The Island's Adviser] (1956), directed byJamshid Shaybani, was based on a short story by AlexandreDumas. Dokhtar-e Hamsayeh [The Neighbor's Daughter](1961), directed by Parviz Khatibi, was based on Moliere'sThe Misanthrope. Vasvaseh-ye Shaytan [The Devil'sTemptation] (1967), directed by Mohammad Zarrindast, wasadapted from Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov.To-poli [Fatso] (1972), directed by Reza Mirlowhi, wasadapted from John Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men. Postchi[The Postman] (1972), directed by Daryush Mehrju'i wasbased on a story by Jeorg Buchner. Kaniz [Slavegirl](1974), directed by Kamran Qadakchian, was adapted fromDaphne Du Maurier's Rebecca. Bonbast [Deadend] (1978),directed by Parviz Sayyad, was based on an Anton Chekovshort story. This trend has continued even under theIslamic republic with such films as Mowj-e Tufan [Wave ofthe Storm] (1981), directed by Manuchehr Ahmadi and basedon Steinbeck's The Pearl and Barg va Bad [The Leaf and

IRANIAN STUDIES 232

Iran

ian

Stud

ies

1985

.18:

231-

251.

the Wind] (1984), directed by Mansur Tehrani and adaptedfrom O'Henry's story "The Last Leaf."

In the late 1960s and during the 1970s, a new andmore significant development occurred in the Iraniancinema: the adaptation of works of contemporary authors.Showhar-e Ahu Khanom [Ahu's Husband] (1966), directed byDavud Mowlapur, was based on Ali Mohammad Afghani's novelof the same name. Baba Kuhi [Baba Kuhi] (1968), alsodirected by Mowlapur, was based on Mohammad Hejazi'snovel of the same name. Tangsir (1973), directed by AmirTaheri, was based on Sadeq Chubak's novel of the samename. Khak [The Earth] (1973) by Mas'ud Kimiya'i, wasbased on Mahmud Dowlatabadi's story "Owsaneh-ye BabaSobhan" [Baba Sobhan's Myth]. Malakut [The Divine One](1976) by Khosrow Haritash, was taken from Bahrain Sadeqi'sstory of the same name. And the thirteen-part televisions e r i e s Da'i Jan Napele'on [Uncle Napoleon] (1976),directed by Naser Taqva'i, was based on Iraj Pezeshkzad'snovel of the same title. The best known literary workadapted into a feature film during this period was SadeqHadayat's short story called "Dash Akol," to be discussedin due course. :

Collaboration of writers and poets with filmmakersin adapting their own stories and novels for the screenproved another significant development in the Iraniancinema of the 1960s and 1970s. Ebrahim Golestan wroteand directed Khesht va Ayeneh [Mudbrick and Mirror](1965). The screenplay for Gav [The Cow] (1968), basedon a story by Gholamhosayn Sa'edi, was written by Sa'ediand Mehrju'i. Sa'edi and Taqva'i collaborated on thescreenplay of Aramesh dar Hozur-e Digaran [Tranquility inthe Presence of Others ] (1971). The screenplay forShazdeh Ehtejab [Prince Ehtejab] (1974), based on HushangGolshiri's novel Shazdeh Ehtejab, was written by Golshiriand Bahman Farmanara. The screenplay for Dayereh-ye Mina[The Cycle] (1974), based on Sa'edi's story "Ashghalduni"[Garbage Dump], was written by him and Mehrju'i. A finalexample is the script for Savehha-ve Boland-e Bad [TallShadows of the Wind] (1978), which was based on Golshiri'ss t o ry "Ma'sum-e Awal" [The First Innocent], and waswritten by him and Farmanara.

Some filmmakers, especially those belonging to theNew Wave school, were themselves accomplished writers,

233 SPRING-AUTUMN 1985

Iran

ian

Stud

ies

1985

.18:

231-

251.

poets, or dramatists, and they used their own stories aswell as adopting those of others. Abdolhosayn Sepanta,who had written and produced in India the first Persianlanguage talkie Dokhtar-e Lor [The Lor Girl] (1933),wrote and directed a number of films based on Persianhistory and folklore: Ferdowsi (1933), Shirin and Farhad(1934), and Layli and Majnun (1937); Feraydun Rahnemawrote and directed Siyavash dar Takht-e Jamshid [Siyavashin Persepolis] (1967). Ebrahim Golestan wrote anddirected Asrar-e Ganj-e Darreh-ye Jenni [The Mystery ofthe Treasure of the Valley of the Jinn] (1971), on thebasis of which he wrote a novel in 1974. Bahram Bayza'iwrote and directed a number of effective films, such asRagbar [Downpour] (1970), Gharibeh va Meh [Stranger andthe Fog] (1974), and Kalagh [The Crow] (1976).

Finally, a number of filmmakers who were not them-selves prominent authors wrote original screenplays whichthey turned into movies, among them Parviz Kimiyavi's twofilms Mogholha [The Mongols] (1973) and a film variouslyknown in Iran by its English titles Cinderella or O.K.Mister (1978), Sohrab Shahid Saless's Tabi'at-e Brian[Still Life] (1974) and Dar Ghorbat [Far From Home](1975), Khosrow Haritash's Saraydar [The Custodian](1976), 'Ali Hatami's Suteh Delan [Brokenhearted] (1977),Abbas Kiarostami's Gozaresh [The Report] (1977), and AmirNaderi's Marsiyeh [Elegy] (1978).

It must be said here that often the writers andsometimes the film directors lacked professional trainingin writing screenplays.4 in such cases, they learnedtheir craft through trial and error, through the processof collaboration, and by watching a lot of foreign moviesand imitating them.5 As the foregoing description ofconnections between literature and cinema implies, theactive and varied cooperation of Iranian authors withfilmmakers and the crossing of boundaries between litera-ture and cinema in the 1970s enriched Iranian cinematremendously and caused a virtual renaissance in thefield, marked by public and critical recognition both athome and abroad. As a result of this cross-fertilization,motion picture plots, dialogue, characterization, andthemes became more sophisticated and realistic. Under-pinning these improvements was a solid and technicallysuperior cinematography, original scoring, and dynamic

IRANIAN STUDIES 234

Iran

ian

Stud

ies

1985

.18:

231-

251.

editing, brought about by the input of technical peopleas well, some of whom had been trained abroad.

The sociological significance of the foregoingconnections between Iranian film and literature becomesapparent in answering such questions as why writers havecollaborated with filmmakers and what the consequences ofsuch collaboration have been. One reason is the financialrewards of writing for films. Because most writers andpoets could not make a living from their own art,6 theygenerally found employment as teachers in the public-school system, or as civil servants in the governmentbureaucracy. Some writers were employed in the privatesector or wrote screenplays—even for banal feature filmspejoratively dubbed filmfarsi [Persian film] by detrac-tors. Popular novelists such as Ali Kasma'i, MohammadMaymandi Nezhad, and Hosayn Qoli Mosta'an frequentlywrote screenplays. Ali Kasma'i set a trend for melo-dramatic tear-jerkers with his screenplays, for Sharmsar[Disgraced] (1950), Madar [Mother] (1951), and Gheflat[Neglect] (1953). Maymandi Nezhad's screenplays includedthose for Shekar-e Khanegi [The Domestic Prey] (1951) andSetareh'i Cheshmak Zad [A Star Twinkled] (1963) andMosta'an's works included Gonahkar [Sinner] (1953).Well-known poets, too, moonlighted as filmfarsi screenplaywriters. For example, Mehdi Sohayli wrote the script forcheap comedies such as Arus-e Farari [Bride on the Run](1958), Ebram dar Paris [Ebram in Paris] (1964), andBedeh Par Rah-e Khoda [For God's Sake Give Generously](1971) and Esma'il Nuri Ala penned the scripts forMardan-e Sahar [Men of Dawn] (1970) and Motreb [Dancer](1972). Even the prominent poet Ahmad Shamlu wrote thescreenplay for nine low-brow features between 1963 and1966.7 That all of Shamlu's screenplays were writtenover such a short period of time implies more thananything else a short-lived financial need on his partwhich, when satisfied, allowed the poet to cease writingsuch screenplays.

By the 1970s, largely due to the input of the NewWave cineastes, Iranian cinema had reached a level of pro-fessional and financial respectability which allowed somefilmmakers and writers to actually live off their ar t .Writers who, due to small financial returns, could notsupport themselves as writers, now found that writingscreenplays was not only remunerative, but more impor-

235 SPRING-AUTUMN 1985

Iran

ian

Stud

ies

1985

.18:

231-

251.

tantly, conferred prestige and recognition, which could,in tu rn , have a beneficial effect on the sale of theirpoetry and novels. This is particularly true of thosewriters who collaborated with New Wave filmmakers. Forexample, Golshiri, who received some $3,500 and $14,000respectively for the screenplays of Prince Ehteiab andTall Shadows of the Wind,8 admits that the 1974 motionpicture based on his 1969 novel Prince Ehteiab was whollyresponsible for whatever fame he has enjoyed beyond thesmall readership of modernist Persian literature.9 Eventhe Pahlavi government authorities ignored the anti-establishment themes of the novel. But as soon as themotion picture began drawing large audiences in movietheaters, Golshiri was arrested and briefly incarcerated.Subsequently, the readership and popularity of the bookincreased. According to Bahman Famanara, the director ofPrince Ehteiab, the book's first run had a circulation of2,000, only 800 copies of which had been sold by the timethe movie came out. The effect of the film on thepopularity of the novel was such that during the periodin which the film was in distribution, the book wasprinted five times. 10

Perhaps the uneven censoring of the arts frightenedsome writers away from writing for publication, andpushed them toward screenplay writing, since in the1970s, censorship notwithstanding, movies seemed to havethe goodwill of the government, the business community,and the general public. This receptivity attractedcommitted writers to cinema and allowed them to parti-cipate in creating socially conscious movies.

Another complex reason involved film's larger reachas compared with that of books. For example, in 1976,movies reached a very large mass audience since theatershad a seating capacity of over 277,000 nationwide, 11while books, with average print runs of 1,000 to 3,000,had a very limited reach. 12 The majority of the popu-lation, illiterate and semiliterate, could enjoy films,but obviously did not benefit from books. These factorsinfluenced the choices that writers made. For example,after publishing several translations and collections ofshort stories, Golestan turned his attention towardmaking movies from the late 1950s onward preciselybecause he sensed that the impact of his films would bemuch greater than of any book he might publish. 13

IRANIAN STUDIES 236

Iran

ian

Stud

ies

1985

.18:

231-

251.

Writers who usually had to be content with being popularamong only a small, like-minded group of readers, musthave experienced considerable psychological satisfactionto see their work appreciated by large, diverse audiencesnationwide. The effect of this newfound bond between thewriters and their audiences was the enrichment of both.

Of course, cinema did not always enjoy popularityamong the masses. Religious and moral objections againstcinema were raised from its introduction into Iran. InNovember 1904, the constitutionalist Ebrahim Sahhafbashiopened the first public cinema in Tehran. However, histheater closed down after just one month principallybecause the famous cleric Shaykh Fazllolah Nuri hadproscribed cinema. 14 Sahhafbashi's wife, too, claimsthat Mozaffar al-Din Shah was afraid of the power of theclerics and ordered her husband to stop his cinematicactivities and abandon the idea of operating a cinema. 15In spi te of such early religious objections, cinemagradually gained popularity and prestige, so that by the1960s and 1970s going to movies had become the mostpopular pastime, 16 and making films was no longer con-sidered an immoral and heretical activity by the averageIranian.

The airing of an increasing number of movies andfilm review programs on television and the publication ofregular film review columns in magazines and newspapersenhanced the public's awareness of films and those whoworked in the industry. The new film schools, societies,and many festivals in the 1970s created an atmosphere inwhich films could be seen, appreciated, and discussed. 17Finally, the international praise won by such New Wavefilms as The Cow (Chicago, London, Venice), Tranquilityin the Presence of Others (Venice), The Postman (Berlin,Cannes, Venice), Dash Akol (Tashkent), Still Life (Ber-lin), Stranger and the Fog (London), The Mongols (Paris),and Tangsir (Delhi), helped elevate Iranian motionpictures to the level of an important and prestigious artform which literary figures and audiences took seriouslyin contrast to the scorn accorded fUmfarsi.18

In the discussion of the role of literature incinema, the most telling aspects generally presentthemselves in a comparison of the original literary workand the film based on it. The significant changes that

237 SPRING-AUTUMN 1985

Iran

ian

Stud

ies

1985

.18:

231-

251.

occur in the translation of the literary into the cel-luloid medium result from such diverse factors as thediffering audiences of the two art forms, differingfinancial investments and expectations, and the nature ofthe two media. Briefly, it can be noted that while filmsdepend on moving images, mass audience, and industrialmarketing and production, novels and stories depend onlanguage, a limited audience, and individual creation andreception. To illustrate such changes for the purpose ofshedding further light on sociological aspects of Persianliterature and cinema, a case study is here offered ofthe most famous Persian literary work turned into anIranian film: the short story "Dash Akol" by SadeqHedayat (1903-1951), Iran's most famous twentieth-centuryauthor. The 1971 film version, which bears the sametitle as the 1932 story, is directed by Mas'ud Kimiya'iand stars Behruz Vosuqi (Dash Akol), Bahman Mofid (KakaRostam), and Mary Apik (Marjan).19 The film receivedcritical acclaim at home and abroad. According to thefilm's "trailer" shown in movie houses, many majordailies and periodicals including Rowshanfekr, Kayhan.Ferdowsi, Tehran Mosawar, Javanan, Khandaniha, Sepid vaSiyah, Ettela'at-e Hafteqi, and Omid-e Iran, reviewed thefilm when it first opened and declared it a "world-classmasterpiece." In 1972, it won the Best Film, Best Blackand White Cinematography, and Best Supporting Actorprizes from Sepas Film Festival in Iran and the Diplomaof Praise from the Tashkent Film Festival. Subsequently,the film was shown at the third and fifth Tehran Inter-national Film Festivals in 1974 and 1976.

The plot summary of the film is as follows. Thefilm's title character and hero, a respected and fearsomeluti, confronts in the film's opening sequence a bois-terous, undesirable luti named Kaka Rostam, Dash Akol'slong-time antagonist. By way of explanation, lutishistorically formed a social grouping which was funda-mentally urban,20 which in nineteenth-century Iran,included two basic types: entertainers and urban socialbandits.21 As entertainers, lutis acted as musicians,dancers, performers, jesters, and organizers of ta'ziyehand other religious ceremonies. They frequented certainhangouts such as coffee houses, cafes or bars, andnightclubs where alcohol, dancing, and music were avail-able. As social bandits, lutis embodied two primary, andoccasionally contradictory, behaviors. As lutis, they

IRANIAN STUDIES 238

Iran

ian

Stud

ies

1985

.18:

231-

251.

acted in a sort of Robin Hood capacity, obtaining justicefor the underdog and practiced kindness, self-sacrifice,frankness, bravery, truthfulness, loyalty, and piety. Inthei r vi l lainous, lat ro les , they worked as middlemenbetween r ival clerics, landowners, and state governorsand exerted social control through violence.22

The adversary relationship between Dash Akol (theluti) and Kaka Rostam ( the lat) is established in thefirst two sequences. In the opening sequence, the firstline of Hedayat's short story, which states "Everyone inShiraz knew Dash Akol and Kaka Rostam were such bitterenemies that they would have shot each other's shadow,"is superimposed over the scene. Here, a drunken KakaRostam belligerently argues with a woman and forces herchild, who has spit in his face, to drink wine. In thefollowing coffee-house sequence, Kaka Rostam incessantlyridicules the teaboy. In both cases, it is Dash Akol whostraightens him out. All encounters between the hero andthe villain follow the style of a classic confrontationin a Western: while Kaka Rostam is gloating over hisaccomplishments, Dash Akol unexpectedly appears from thedarkness of the night . Accompanied by appropriatelydramatic music, he walks with measured, confident steps,and proceeds to put Kaka Rostam and his cowardly gang intheir places.

After these sequences, the scene shifts to the homeof an elderly friend of Dash Akol called Haji Samad, whorequests on his deathbed that Dash Akol take charge ofhis wife, his daughter Marjan, and his business affairs.Unable to deny a dying man's wish, Dash Akol accepts theresponsibility, but confesses out loud: "God bless youHaji, but this was not a good thing you did. A man is aman when he is free. Now you have put chains on me."

Later, in the course of the funeral ceremony, DashAkol lays eyes on Marjan for the f i r s t time and istransfixed. Marjan accidentally drops her handkerchief,which Dash Akol retrieves. This handkerchief becomes asymbol for Marjan of Dash Akol's platonic love for her.Subsequently, Dash Akol's single-minded devotion to theaffairs of the rich Haji and to Marjan is shown, whichearns him the ridicule of Kaka Rostam and other lutis.He sees these other lutis at Molla Eshaq's cafe, where

239 SPRING-AUTUMN 1985

Iran

ian

Stud

ies

1985

.18:

231-

251.

they drink, listen to live music and luti songs, andwatch Aqdas dance.

When Marjan's mother asks Dash Akol's permission tomarry Marjan to a suitor, Dash Akol, acting according toa strict honor code, chooses not to divulge his love forMarjan and acquiesces to the marriage. On the night ofthe wedding, he turns the affairs of the late Haji overto the bridegroom, and in despair seeks out Eshaq's cafeto drink and forget. Here, Aqdas confesses her love toDash Akol: "beh lebasat hasudim misheh" [I envy yourclothes], but he spurns her. Aqdas insists on making loveto him, and a forlorn Dash Akol, having lost his reasonfor maintaining his puri ty for Marjan, gives in toAqdas!s demand: "Tonight, you, too, will become abr ide ." Their love-making scene is shown in parallelwith that of Marjan and her husband. Throughout, DashAkol is seen squeezing Marjan's handkerchief in his hands.

Later that night, returning from the cafe in adrunken, disabled condition, Dash Akol encounters KakaRostam and his gang in an alleyway, where he is ridiculedand beaten mercilessly. In this sequence, Kaka Rostamaccuses Dash Akol of having become a rich man's "guarddog," and reveals that his own bellicose and antisocialbehavior stems from the mistreatment of his servantparents by their wealthy master. He tells how one nighthis parents were thrown into a courtyard pool in themiddle of winter: "With this action they wanted to teachme obedience, but instead I learned to become a goodbully." Dash Akol defiantly challenges Kaka Rostam to aduel with qamehs [machetes] at the site of the ta'ziyehpassion-play theater the following night. Then, DashAkol attends a zurkhaneh [house of strength] to preparehimself for batt le. Also, for the third time in themovie, he confesses his love for Marjan to the onlycreature he trusts, his parrot.

The final showdown takes place after the ta'zivehperformance. Kaka Rostam and his impatient gang are allready, but Dash Akol is late. They accuse him of being acoward and a woman. A gang member turns to women on-lookers and shouts: "Maybe one of you is Dash Akolhiding under a veil." But, as they are about to declaretheir victory and leave, Dash Akol again suddenly appearsfrom out of the darkness. The machete duel between him

IRANIAN STUDIES 240

Iran

ian

Stud

ies

1985

.18:

231-

251.

and Kaka is fierce and continues under a heavy downpour,until Dash Akol pins Kaka to the ground. But, he decidesonce again not to do away with Kaka Rostam and for thethird time in the movie he tells him: "I do not killdogs." As Dash Akol turns to leave, Kaka Rostam lungesand stabs him in the back. Dash Akol turns around, grabsKaka Rostam by the neck and chokes him to death.

On his deathbed, Dash Akol asks Eshaq to deliver hisparrot to Marjan. When Marjan is given the parrot, DashAkol's voice is heard confessing his love to the parrotwhich says: "My love for you killed me." The movie'slast scene shows two birds playing joyfully in the water.When one of them flies away, the image freezes, showingthe one remaining behind. Over this image is superimposedthe first lines from Hedayat's famous novel The Blind Owl(1941): "In life there are sores which slowly erode themind in solitude like a kind of canker. One cannotreveal these pains to anyone since people generallyconsider such unbelievable pains rare and strange, and ifsomeone says or writes, people "23

In comparing a film with the original story on whichit is based, it is always important to keep the goals ofthe filmmaker in mind. In this case, for example, thedirector's response to reviewers who criticized him fornot being faithful to the original story is instructive. 24He complains that famous stories have many "heirs" whoconstantly worry about what happens to the stories. Inhis view, these people expect a filmmaker to "send thestory into a machine and the film into the same machine,count to ten, and pull out the film, a photocopy of thestory." Kimiya'i's intention was not to copy, but tointerpret Hedayat's story. 25 Accordingly, this analysiswill focus only on a comparison of "functions" and a fewother major differences between the film and short story,which illuminate social roles of literature and cinema.The single-sentence statements of functions describeeither a single attribute of a character or a singleaction. While these functions here refer to the charac-ters and action of Dash Akol, they are not exclusiveto this particular film; rather, they are generic elementsin the luti film genre. A similar analysis of Hedayat'sshort story allows a functional comparison.

241 SPRING-AUTUMN 1985

Iran

ian

Stud

ies

1985

.18:

231-

251.

FUNCTIONS FOUND IN DASH AKOL FILM AND SHORT STORY

Film

1. The hero (Dash Akol) is anoutstanding member of society

2. The hero helps his neighbors3. The villain (Kaka Rostam)

attacks and harms society4. Society is unable to punish him5. The villain challenges the hero6. The hero wants to retain his

position7. The hero accepts certain

responsibility.8. The hero becomes heroine's

guardian9. The hero falls in love

10. The hero desires freedomfrom obligation

11. The hero does not reveal hislove to the loved one

12. The hero confides in a thirdparty (parrot)

13. The hero and villain attenda cafe

14. The hero drinks to forget15. Another woman (Aqdas) loves

the hero16. The hero agrees to marriage

of loved one to another17. The hero loses face and is ridi-

culed by villain and others18. The villain takes advantage and

strikes19. The hero rises to the occasion

and challenges the villain20. The hero defeats the villain in

a single combat21. The hero is merciful (DA re-

fuses to kill KR)22. The villain is ruthless and de-

" ceitful (KR stabs DA in back)

Short Story

Same as in film

Same as in filmSame as in film

Same as in filmSame as in filmSame as in film

Same as in film

Same as in film

Same as in filmSame as in film

Same as in film

Same as in film

Same as in filmbut .live music anddancer are addedSame as in filmSame as in film

Same as in film

Same as in film

Same as in film

Same as in film

The villain de-feats the heroAbsent from thestoryAbsent from thestory

HtANIAN STUDIES 242

Iran

ian

Stud

ies

1985

.18:

231-

251.

Film Short Story

23. Pathos: society recognizes the Same as in filmservices of the hero (carryingDA's body off, while leaving KR'sdead body unattended in the rain)

24. The villain dies in battle, the Only the herohero dies later in bed dies

25. The unstated love is revealed Same as in filmthrough an agency other than theloved one (DA's parrot)

Although this comparative chart of functions revealsseveral differences between the film and the short story,there are more differences or nuances not represented bythe cha r t . Hedayat's "Dash Akol" is one of the mostfamous Persian shor t s tor ies ever.26 in it, Hedayatpaints an idealized bu t relat ively well-rounded figurefor Dash Akol. From the point of view of physicalappearance, Dash Akol is "old," scarred, and ugly. Butunderneath, he is a man of high moral value and courage,whose positive qualities exceed the negative ones, thusmaking him more of a lut i than a Iat . In contrast,Hedayat 's Kaka Rostam cuts a basically negative figureand is s t r i c t ly a Iat , who engages in many antisocialacts . For Hedayat, Dash Akol represents a type of herowhose era is fast disappearing as symbolized by DashAkol's death at the hands of Kaka Rostam. Hedayat seemsto be mourning the passing of such idealized types, andtheir replacement with villainous sociopaths such as KakaRostam. In the film, however, similar to early AmericanWesterns, the main characters are unambiguous: the heroDash Akol is made wholly good and Kaka Rostam the epitomeof evil. Since in the film the two chief characters killeach o ther , Hedayat's deep nostalgia for the fading ofl u t i s is ab sen t from the film (although as a r u l e ,nostalgia is a consistent element in luti films).

The short story seems to offer three basic reasonsfor the animosity between Dash Akol and Kaka Rostam:the i r professional luti r i va l ry , the symbolic battle ofgood and evil , and the instigation of the clerics whoconsidered Haji Samad's riches out of their reach as longas Dash Akol was in charge of his affairs. The reasonsthat come through in the film are the traditional rivalry

243 SPRING-AUTUMN 1985

Iran

ian

Stud

ies

1985

.18:

231-

251.

K»£ S llriS>. t h e Sood/evil dichotomy, and in addition,wealths? ™,S ? e s i r e f o r Personal revenge against aDash Air S 7 •° r W h o m W s P a r e n t s worked, vis-a-visSam«H rlS d e c i s i o n t 0 h e lP the wealthy family of. HajidSS™. • aPP e a r s that these changes made by the filmcensoShf T , f r ° m Ms d e s i r e <not fuUy r e a l i z e d d u e toWnJrf JP) ^corporate into his film what he hadS J * r o m e}der l«tis in Shiraz about the rivalrymisSncr f r

1! a l- l i f e D a sh Akol and Kaka Rostam, elementsmissing from Hedayat's story.

T>Pf.i T h S f a c t t h a t t h e s t o r y a n d t h e f U m a r e b a s e d onw » 6 V * s a n d Personalities introduces an additionalfiim complexity. In other words, not only do such"ims as Dash Akol have a relationship with the literaturerrom which they are adapted, but also they may be informedh L 2 o r ^ n a l events on which the literary work wast™«?Y-V H e d a v a t ' s short story is derived from thei i i « t - f e

e l t . o r l e s o f two famous, turn-of-the-century^ ^ » ™ ^ r a z * H o wever, the life story that Mas'udfn^Y I ( d l r e c tor) and Bahman Mofid (arch vUlain in therum) discovered from the elders in Shiraz during theirroWoS - W a i V a s t l y a n d ^scinatingly different from thatO«H f̂ m H e d a y a t ' s story and from that which finallyenaed upon the screen.

Mofiri^iv^j11^10 s h i r a z i elders with whom Kimiya'i andUvlnt ?n^ d ' * , K a k a R o s t a m w a s a y°unS c h i l d i n ShirazflrSf, £® household of the powerful and wealthy Qavamw S t i J ' n W 8 ? a r e n t s w e re servants there. One coldwinter night when his father refused to allow Mr. Qavam

coSfi,aSCeSS , tO ms w i f e ' t h e y w e r e t h r o w n o u t into the^ t 3 ? ™ P°o1 as punishment. Both froze to death. Thecnuci Kaka Rostam watched this scene from behind a windowohS/^T t 0 t a k e r e v enge. Soon after this incident, thecnud ran aWay and was trained by Dash Akol to become aa ^ i « e ? T i R o . s t a m ' s hatred for Qavam's action turned himS5?bo« f " C h f a m i l i e s , whom he called qaba atlasi£ £ o r [ s a ^ n "J a c k e t wearers], and one of his favoritet ^ L f- — w a s t o f o r c e wealthy passers-by to removetneir satin jackets, which he would in turn give to the

T - P ^ ! ? 1 ^ £ S a r S l a t e r ' t h e e l d e i > o f the Qavam family, whotn J? ^ S h A k o l ' s neighborhood, embarked upon a tripxo Mecca. As tradition dictated, he asked the neighbor-

IRANIAN STUDIES 244

Iran

ian

Stud

ies

1985

.18:

231-

251.

hood luti Dash Akol to look after his wife, daughter, andhis belongings in his absence. Meanwhile, Dash Akol'smale lover impregnated Qavam's daughter through anillicit relationship. In order to protect his lover,Dash Akol claimed that it was he who had failed in hispromise and committed such an unethical act againstQavam's daughter. Such a serious breach of trust amonglutis, however, is a sure passport to shame and must notgo unpunished. Accordingly, Dash Akol was placed infront of a tree and killed with a machete by the nextperson in line to become the neighborhood's luti, i .e . ,Kaka Rostam.

Kaka Rostam was apparently very popular with thecitizens of Shiraz since the elder lutis remembered hisfuneral procession in the 1940s to be so grand that thecity of Shiraz became a giant traffic jam for nine hours.

In its existing form, Kimiya'i's film presents KakaRostam as a pure villain. Apparently, the director'sat tempts to incorporate elements from the originalreal-life story into the movie were thwarted by governmentcensors. For example, scenes evoking anti-upper-classfeelings such as the deaths of Kaka Rostam's parents orthose showing him removing the satin jackets of thewealthy were cut from the film entirely. Also censoredwere references to the fact that the boy whom Kaka Rostamforced to drink wine in the opening scene was one ofQavam's children and the tea-boy whom Kaka Rostam ridi-culed so intensely was a Qavam tea-boy. By excisingthese elements from the film, the censors removed thebasic motivation and drive which fueled Kaka Rostam'sactions, turning him into a purely villainous and violentindividual. The passing reference in the film to thefreezing of Kaka Rostam's parents is too slight to createjustification or motivation for his actions in the mindsof the audience.27

As for Hedayat's story, although no information isavailable to account for why he changed the real-lifestory, Hedayat's reworking of historical elements incombination with details he made up is consonant with thethematic thrust in much of his works.

245 SPRING-AUTUMN 1985

Iran

ian

Stud

ies

1985

.18:

231-

251.

Unlike the s tory, the film illustrates the virulentattitude of lutis toward women, especially women enter-ta iners . Time is also treated differently. In thestory, the events take place over a period of at leastseven years , while the film certainly does not indicatesuch a long passage of time.

The film director has successfully transformed intoimages some of the descriptive or poetic passages of thestory, and by choosing evocative locations for houses,alleyways, and the cemetery, he has beautifully re-createdthe ambience of turn-of-the-century Iran. Kimiya'i'sattention to ethnographic and cultural details rendersscenes of the wedding, funerals, and luti dialogs andaltercations vibrant and enjoyable.

Persian literature and contemporary Iranian writershave been an indispensable source of inspiration, stories,p l o t s , charac ters , and screenplays for the Iraniancinema. These have been discussed. But the collaborationof writers with filmmakers is a symbiotic and a reciprocalone. Although writers usually worked in cinema, thecinema and its techniques influenced them and their worksin many ways. In exceptional cases, such as with BahrainBayza'i in postrevolutionary Iran, a cineaste moved intowriting plays exclusively. In cases where, a movie wasturned into a literary work, such as Golestan's TheSecrets of the Valley of the Jinn, the cinematic influ-ences are clearly detectable. 28 The work of some writerswho wrote for cinema was influenced by this collaboration.For example, it has been suggested that Mosta'an's storieswere grea t ly influenced by cinematic techniques.29Kimiya'i, who is seasoned at adapting literary works intofilm, testifies to the effect of movies on literature bystating that stories written after cinema are vastlydifferent from those written prior to its inception. Inhis opinion, the differences lie in the plot development,rhythm, and mode of expression. That is why extensivemodification is necessary when one adapts a precinemastory for the cinema, such as Hedayat's "Dash Akol."30

The collaboration of writers benefited the filmmakersgreatly in that it helped filmmakers to create betterfilms, which contained realistic and powerful plots,motivation, dialogue, and character development. This

IRANIAN STUDIES 246

Iran

ian

Stud

ies

1985

.18:

231-

251.

cooperation went beyond feature films and extended intothe nonfiction area as well. For example, Golshiriworked closely with Mehrju'i on Alamut (1977), a filmabout Hasan Sabbah which the latter was making for theNational Iranian Radio and Television. The filming tookplace on location in various parts of the country, andcarrying a suitcase full of books and reference materials,Golshiri joined the film crew, and proceeded to write andrewrite many passages of film narration on the spot.31

Finally, in the stifling literary atmosphere of thelate 1960s and early 1970s, the act of collaborationitself proved of psychological value for both the writersand the filmmakers, since it drew them closer together.They sought one another; and many of them, such asMehrju'i, Sa'edi, Golshiri, Kimiya'i, and Taqva'i,respected one another and shared social and politicalviews. Literature enriched cinema and cinema influencedliterature. The ultimate homage paid to a writer and apoet is the one Mehrju'i pays to Mehdi Akhavan-e Saleswhen he states, "One of my dreams is to one day make afilm that matches the beauty, the depth, and the firmnessof Akhavan's "Akhar-e Shahnameh" [The End of Shahnameh ]. 32

NOTES

1. The first Iranian feature (silent), called Abi va Rabi [Abi andRabi], was directed by Ovans Oganians and was first shown inTehran on Day 12, 1309/1930. For details, see: Jamal Omid,Tarikh-e Sinema-ve Iran~-2; Zendegj va Sinema [The History ofIranian Cinema—2: Ovans Oganians: Life and Cinema] (Tehran:Faryab, 1984), p. 28.

2. Kavhan. 13 Farvardin 1948, quoted in "43 Sal Naqd-e Film dar Iran"[43 Years of Film Criticism in Iran] by Mohammad Tahani Nezhad,Vizheh-ve Sinema va Te'atr [Film and Theater Special], No. 6(February 1973): 12.

3. In fact, the relationship of Iranian writers with cinema precedesthe production of films in Iran. For example, the prominenthistorian and writer Sa'id Nafisi was the Chairman of the AcademicCouncil and professor of history and costumes at the first schoolof dramatic arts in Iran. He also made public speeches in support

247 SPRING-AUTUMN 1985

Iran

ian

Stud

ies

1985

.18:

231-

251.

of the school, which had been established by Ogans Oganians in1929 to train needed personnel for making films. Omid, History,p. 65.

4. This situation partly stems from a lack of attention paid to theart of screenplay writing, whose roots may be traced to theprecedent set by the first school of dramatic arts in Iran. Alook at the curriculum of Oganians' school reveals no classesin writing or Persian literature; instead, one encounters classesin calesthenics, gymnastics, swimming, boxing, ballet, acting, andof course photography and cinematography.

5. Kimiya'i in his interview with Saberi acknowledges this by saying:"I learned cinema from cinema, not from books." Iraj Saberi,"Safar-e Harf ba Mas'ud Kiniya'i" [A Voyage of Words with Mas'udKiaiya'i], Sinema 6 (December 1976): 8.

6. Michael C. Millmann, "The Modernist Trend in Persian Literatureand Its Social Impact," Iranian Studies 15 (1982): 23-24.

7. Films whose screenplays were written by Ahmad Shamlu are: Mardhava Jaddehha [Men and Roads] (1963), Tar-e Ankabut [Cobweb] (1963),Dokhtar-e Kuhestan [Ihe Daughter of the Mountain] (1963), Nirano-eDokhtaran [Ihe Girls' Tricks] (1964), Boribast [Blind Alley](1964), Hameh Sar Harif [Opponent] (1965), Daqh-e Nanq [Brandedwith Shame] (1965), Bi Eshao Haraaz [Never Without Love] (1966),and Farar az Haoioat [Escape from Truth] (1966). " As far as isknown Branded with Shame is the only film that Shamlu is creditedwith directing.

8. Author's interview with Bahman Farmanara, the director of bothfilms, Toronto, Canada, July 1985.

9. Hushang Golshiri, [Autobiographical Sketch] Prince Ehteiab.recorded and translated by Minoo R. Buffington,- Maior Voices inContemporary Persian Literature—Literature East and West. No. 20(1976): 250.

10. Interview with Farmanara.

11. The seating capacity of movie houses increased dramatically in the1970s. In 1971, the nationwide seating capacity was 98,087; in1972, 100,283; and in 1976, 277,521. In 1976 there were a totalof 419 theaters in Iran, 112 of them in Tehran. Gozaresh-eFarhangi-ve Iran 2534 [Cultural Activity in Iran 2534] (Tehran:Ministry of Culture and Art, 1975/76), pp. 412-414; 'Ali Asadi,

IRANIAN STUDIES 248

Iran

ian

Stud

ies

1985

.18:

231-

251.

"Dar Amadi Bar Jame'eh'shenasi-ye Sinema dar Iran" [Introductionto the Sociology of Cinema in Iran], Film va Zendegi. Nos. 13-14(Spring 1973): 14-15.

12. According to Gozaresh-e Farhangi-ve Iran. 2534. p. 135, thecirculation of more than half of all 1,015 books published in 1976was between 1,000 and 2,000.

13. Michael Hillmann, A Lonely Woman: Forough Farrokhzad and HerPoetry (Washington, D.C.: Three Continents Press, 1986).

14. JTamal Omid, Tarikh-e Sin*>mve Iran——It Pavdavesh va Bahreh B^**dari[The History of Iranian Cinema—1: Appearance and Utilization](Tehran: Faryab, 1984): 50-52.

15. Mohammad Tahami Nezhad, "Risheh'yabi-ye Ya's" [Finding the Rootsof Despair], Vizheh-ve Sinema va Te'atr. Nos. 5 and 6 (Day 1973):14.

16. For statistics on the popularity of movies, see: Hamid Naficy,"Cinema as a Political Instrument," Modern Iran: The Dialecticsof Continuity and Change, eds. Michael Bonine and Nikki Keddie(New York: SUNY, 1981), p. 359.

17. For more information on the dynamism of the motion picture andtelevision industries in the 1960-70s, see: Hamid Naficy,"Iranian Feature Films: A Brief Critical History," QuarterlyReview of Film Studies. No. 4 (Fall 1979): 443-464.

18. For details on award-winning Iranian films, see: Mehdi Asam, ed.,Rahnema-ve Fi1m^a-ve Barqozideh-ve Irani dar Jashnvareh'ha-VQDakheli va KhareU [A Guide to Selected Iranian Films in Foreignand Domestic Festivals] (Tehran: Ministry of Culture and Art, 1976).

19. Technical information on Dash Akol: Film, 35mm, sound (Persian),black and white, 1350 [1971]. Producer: Sherkat-e SinemaTe'atr-e Rex and Hushang Kaveh. Director/Screenplay writer:Mas'ud Kimiya'i. Director of Cinematography: Ne'mat Haqiqi.Music: Esfandiar Monfaredzadeh. Editors: Mas'ud Kimiya'iand Hosayn Hand. Cast: Behruz Vosuqi (Dash Akol), Bahman Mofid(Kaka Rostam), Mary Apik (Marjan), Jalal, Kan'an Kan'ani, Shahr-zad, Zhaleh. Lab: Estudio Filmsaz. Dash Akol has frequentlybeen screened publicly in American movie theaters and copies of iton videocassette are available for rental or purchase.

249 SPRING-AUTUMN 1985

Iran

ian

Stud

ies

1985

.18:

231-

251.

20. William Hanaway, "Persian Popular Romances before the SafavidPeriod" (Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1970), p. 142.

21. Willem M. Floor, "Ihe Political Role of the Lutis," Modern Iran;The Dialectics of Change and Continuity, eds. Michael Bonine andNikki Keddie (New York: SUNY, 1981), p. 86.

22. Ihe luti/lat types are not unique to Iranian literature andcinema. Many other countries have somewhat similar characters intheir literature and mythology. As far as cinema is cqncerned,there are many similarities among the three national genres ofAmerican Western, Japanese Samurai, and Iranian luti films, but wewill not deal with such cross-cultural comparisons here. For adetailed study of the luti film genre, see Hamid Naficy's forth-coming "Luti Films and Persian Popular Literature."

23. Ihe quotations in the synopsis of the film are translated from thesound track of the film.

24. For samples of reviews, see the following: Feraydun Mo'eziMoqaddam, "Dash Akol-e Hedayat va Dash Akol-e Kimiya'i" [Hedayat'sDash Akol and Kimiya'i's Dash Akoli. Neqin. No. 76 (Shahrivar,1971): 14. Pirasteh Kowrang, "Past va Farazha-ye Yek Asar-eSinema'i" [Ihe Ups and Downs of One Cinematic Work], Neqin.No. 76 (Shahrivar, 1971): 18. Jahangir Hedayat, "Dastani kehEdameh Darad..." [Ihe Story which Continues...], Neqin. No. 76(Shahrivar, 1971): 20. Bahman Maqsudlu, "Negahi Beh Filmha-yeMas'ud Kimiya'i: 1, Dash Akol" [A Look at Mas'ud Kimiya'i'sFilms: 1, Dash Akoli. Vizheh-ve Sinema va Te'atr. No. 1 (n.d.): 141.

25. Saberi, "A Voyage."

26. Sadeq Hedayat, "Dash Akol," Seh Oatreh Khun [Ihree Drops ofBlood], 8th printing (Tehran: Parastu, 1965), pp. 61-87. For theEnglish version, see Richard Arndt and Mansur Ekhtiar, trans."Dash Akol," Sadeo Hedavat: An Anthology, ed. Ehsan Yarshater(Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1979, Modern Persian Lit-erature Series, No. 2), pp. 41-52.

27. Ihe account of the real-life story of these two luti charactersand the censorship of the film is based on an interview conductedby the author in September 1984 with Bahman Mofid, who in reallife has lived very close to lutis and is very familiar with theirlife style, manners, and belief system. He has also acted innumerous luti films. He accompanied the film director to Shirazand participated in the research phase of the film.

IRANIAN STUDIES 250

Iran

ian

Stud

ies

1985

.18:

231-

251.

28. For details, see: Paul Sprachman, "Ebrahim Golestan's TheTreasure: A Parable of Cliche and Consumption," Iranian StudiesIS (1982): 155-180.

29. Abolhasan 'Alavi Tabataba'i, "Risheh yabi-ye Este'mar-eFarhangi-ye Gharb dar Sinema-ye Iran" [Finding the Roots of theWest's Cultural Imperialism in Iranian Cinema] Kavhan-e Farhanqi 2(1985): 27.

30. Saberi, "A Voyage."

31. This information is based on the author's conversations withGolshiri and Mehrju'i in 1977.

32. Jamshid Akrami, "Ba Mehrju'i dar Donya-ye Mehrju'i" [With Mehrju'iin the World of Mehrju'i], Film, No. 1 (December 1976): 8.

251 SPRING-AUTUMN 1985

Iran

ian

Stud

ies

1985

.18:

231-

251.