For those of you that were there during the documentary, you can write a blog response in lieu of one of the articles.
Address some of the following questions:
Was there a particular moment that stuck out? Why? What was your reaction to Iran and the way people treated Brenden especially considering he did not speak Farsi? How effective do you think this documentary was at being a model of "citizen diplomacy" and was it successful at portraying contemporary Iran in a different light?
These are not mandatory questions but are made to help direct your blog response.
The synopsis and his director's statement are below as well as a link to the movie site.
Iran: Hot Tea, Cool Conversations--a revealing documentary that chronicles an American college student's eye-opening journey to Iran. A testament to Citizen Diplomacy, the film highlights unscripted, touching interviews with a number of individuals the filmmaker encounters from all walks of life during this once in a lifetime adventure. The human scale of the film cuts through the political rhetoric of the day unveiling a country full of warm and compassionate people who desire peace and friendship with America and the West. 
Director's Statement:
When official diplomacy fails, Citizen Diplomacy is our only hope.
So long I had sat at the television, watching and listening to biased news coverage aimed at isolating Iran as part of the “Axis of Evil.” This portrayal of Iran was difficult for me to believe. The media's antagonism inspired me to set out on a journey that's scope was far greater than I could have ever imagined. That once-in-a-lifetime trip blossomed into Iran: Hot Tea, Cool Conversations.
Here at home, I interviewed many Americans who associated Iran with “War,” “Violence,” and the 1979 “Hostage Crisis.” But I felt there had to be more to the story. I had to see Iran for myself. Little did I know that my journey would be one, not of just travel, but self-discovery.
My journey began with a simple desire to travel off the beaten path and see Iran through my own eyes. The true impact made on me by the Iranian people came not as much during the shooting of the film in Iran , but back at home while putting it all together. Like a hermit on my computer, night, after night, I entered the timeless world of editing. It was not until then, with hours of video to be sorted, that I realized the full effect of this journey. I feel a responsibility to share an honest glimpse into this mystical place with my fellow Americans. This is more than a movie; it is a dedication to citizen diplomacy and citizen diplomats everywhere.
This documentary reflects a lyrical telling of my time in Iran as an American interwoven with my personal journey as a renegade filmmaker. Iran: Hot Tea, Cool Conversations challenges the conventional media portrayal of Iran , a nation steeped in a deep sense of culture and humanity. Beyond all the noise and propaganda designed to separate us from one another, citizen diplomacy brings out the global citizen in all of us. "
--Brenden Hamilton
-----http://www.iranthemovie.com/about.html
36 comments:
I think that the moment that stuck out in the film was the part where the entertainment industry was discussed. Perhaps it wasn't the focus of the film, but it seems to me that the entertainment industry was not given enough attention. I'm not sure why it is the case, because I think we can learn quite a fair bit about a society's culture from its entertainment industry. For example, while it was mentioned that people watch movies from America, it was only cursory. Perhaps we could learn more about Iran through its entertainment industry, to see what keeps the people moving in their free time.
It's really delightful to see how the Iranians treated Brenden, a foreigner, even though he didn't speak Farsi. I think it speaks volumes of the mentality of the common Iranian towards foreigners. This appears to be something that we dont see in bigger, "more civilised" places. It's a generalisation, yes, but at least, this is true of many of the bigger cities I've been to in Europe.
I think the effectiveness of this documentary can be summed up very nicely by Pico Iyer, in his essay "Why We Travel". For Iyer, "Travel is the best way we have of rescuing the humanity of places, and saving them from abstraction and ideology." Traveling and interacting at this grassroots-level helps to save a foreign place from abstraction and ideology in that it allows us to see what the place is really like, instead of just falling prey to the labels that other people have placed on them. It is definitely a worthwhile enterprise, and I think that Brenden surely realised that the Iran that he thought existed prior to going there is definitely different from the Iran that he went to.
I liked the concept of Americans getting a better sense of the Iranian people but I think there are some limitations to the method he choose. Having it be an Independent Film has given him a measure of freedom in how he choose to present his story and distribute the movie. However, his video has not reached the people it really needs to reach. He said it was shown mostly to student organizations such as Persian clubs where students will likely be open to the possibility that Iranians are not fanatical anti-American fundamentalists.
I feel that Rick Steves video, as silly as it was a times, ultimately had more potential to change American view points simply because it aired repeatedly on public television and reached a wider audience. Even then, public television viewers are a select demographic. Really we need to figure out a way to get this message to the people who need to hear it most.
At first I thought the documentary was going to be a little bit of a let down. The initial scenes did not necessarily attract me, however, once the story progressed into Iran the documentary really took off.
Therefore a scene which really stuck on was the rug scene. This really destroyed any of those stereotypes, obviously fabricated, of Iranian people. They were every which way a normal society, which I am sure a couple years ago previously, that I would not have believed.
This documentary really made me want to visit Iran and other areas of the middle east. I was thoroughly entertained and delighted by the documentary and how the Iranians treated Brendan, the American foreigner.
Holding the typical view of Iran before I took this class, I always thought of violence whenever Iran was mentioned. This documentary however, led me to look deeper into the Iranian culture and look at the country through a whole different perspective. I thought the video was great and provided a great deal of information. I saw the beauty in the Iranian culture and made me want to visit the country. Of course things might have changed since it was shot a couple of years ago and there has been many political issues going on presently.
I was actually pretty surprised at how friendly the people there were. They all seemed really outgoing and friendly, especially to the tourists. I really wasn’t expecting that. What I also noticed was that the Iranian people seem to be very close and united. There was a part in the video where an Iranian woman was saying that whenever they went out they went in groups and that she maintained good communication with her family. I really admired that because today, based on my observations, it seems like people are all too into their own business and lives that communication is lost in many families. My favorite part of the documentary however, was when they encountered the children coming out of school. I thought that their curiosity was splendid and I liked how eager they were to take part in what was going on.
The only thing that I wish could have been different was the fact that we didn’t get to hear a lot from women. I know that due to cultural and religious beliefs many could not really say much or participate, but I think that it would have been very useful. I think that if we could have had the opportunity to question women walking down the street; it would have been interesting to hear what they had to say. Overall I thought the video was very enriching and emphasized the beauty of the Iranian culture, I really enjoyed it.
Hot Tea and Cool Conversations is a very well created documentary. I enjoyed the people interviewed, the cities visited, the story line and many other things. What stood out to me the most was the large number of people amongst the different class strata’s that spoke English in Iran. Although I have visited my mother country in a total of eight times, since I mostly stayed in Tehran where people are of higher class levels and have the opportunity to learn English, I did not know this might have been the case in other parts of Iran as well. This was important for me to see because many misperceive Iran to be a backwards third-world country undeveloped in areas such as education. Not only are most taught to read and write their own language, but are made to learn a foreign one as well.
The Iranian’s hospitality towards Brenden is a characteristic of the Iranian culture that I am very familiar and proud of. It is a feeling that I have experienced on every one of my trips to Iran that for one reason or another I haven’t seen in any other country I have gone to. The Western media always portrays Iran as a demonic, satanic and violent world that is full of corruption and angry populations. The documentary did a good job of showing the fallaciousness of this notion.
What I took from the movie was how Iranians have a great sense of values. It seems as if the values are not towards the government but more in the sense of humanity, ethics and compassion towards each other. This patriotism might arise from their deep rooted love for family. Their family relationships then arise to create a culture of people who love their nation. It is amazing to me to watch the Iranian people defend a government that treats them so cruelly.
What also caught my attention about the movie was that Iranians are civilized people. Its seems to me that their is a group of socialist, religious believers and communist all mixed together. Iran seems to meet to look like a Islamic Marxist.
As an Iranian, the way people treated Brendan didn’t surprise me at all. One of my friends used to say: “we treat foreigners better than we treat each other!” I guess that is true to some extend. Hospitality has always been one of the important aspects of our culture. I think the tour guide exaggerated a bit when she was talking about how strangers offer to buy ice cream for each other and how well they treat each other. I think few generations ago, such attitudes were more common than today.
However, I really enjoyed when she was talking about how close family members are, they always see each other and keep in touch. That is true for most of the families I know. Basically, no matter how busy you are, you always make time for your family.
I thought the documentary was nicely done. I imagine not having a permit made things difficult and he couldn’t film everything. I love the fact that he stayed unbiased and didn’t just stay in Tehran to film the “elite” lifestyle of Northern Tehran. Seeing people from different social classes and their interaction with Brendan was priceless.
I think one of the best moments of the film was when he explored the lives of the young in terms of their eyes. When I saw how the youth over there spend their time and how similar it is to us here in the United States, I personally realized how close every one is in the world and how small cultural boundaries divide us. The fact that individuals who are half way around the world are doing the exact same things for entertainment that we do over here, was truly something that I'm glad the documentary focused on.
It was nice to see how Iranian locals treated Brenden. Since he is a foreigner, I thought they might give him looks of dismay. However, I was surprised when he showed how truly welcoming everyone was; from the elderly woman to the young kids. I thought it really captured the spirit of Iranians when Brenden conversed with them because even though some of them didn't know English, they showed their excitement and welcoming simply through their smiles. After viewing this documentary, Brenden was able to show everyone that visiting a country like Iran is just like visiting Europe, South America, or any other part of the world that we are more accustomed to. He really captured the essence of the culture and spirit that the country brings.
I believe the documentary effectively portrayed the true side of Iran, a side that we aren't able to see here in the United States much because of the propaganda instilled in our minds by Media networks such as Fox News. Some may have thought that Iran was a country wrought with suicide bombs and other tragic events before viewing this film, but now it is clear that they are a country just like us, with human beings, a workforce, youngsters and a rich culture just like every individual in the United States.
I was also was struck by the hospitality of the Iranian people. It seemed to be Brendan's overall impression, and he conveyed it well to his audience; everyone was so warm and welcoming. I thought the film handled that aspect much better than the earlier one we watched, since it took a much less "gee, whiz" attitude to everyone, and instead of treating people like cute exotic photo opportunities, he seemed to really try to slow down and hear what they had to say.
The scene where he talked to the young man in the cafe especially sticks out in my mind. It seemed to be one of the more complete interviews he chose to put in, and it is well worth its time. Watching him talk, I could understand his story in a much more human way. I was surprised by his attitude towards what he wanted to do with the rest of his life, because it sounded exactly like mine; family expectations point you one direction, but really you have no idea, and you just want to wander and see where the world takes you.
The documentary presented his trip in a very honest way, and I appreciate that. Having seen it, I feel a more real (though vicarious, and as always, slanted through one person's view) connection to and understanding of people there, and I do think he was successful in his mission of citizen diplomacy.
I really enjoyed this documentary for the lightness. Iran is usually shown only during periods of violence, repression or political evolution.
Two things stroke me. First, the incredible beauty of the different parts of the country (all these old buildings, the colourful environment, the peace really attracted me)is something unknown for most of the people who only know Iran through the media perspective. Two months ago, I would never have wanted to travel to Iran for safety reasons however now, Iran has become one of the destinations I really want to visit because of the culture and the amazing landscapes. Secondly, I remember the part when he interviews a man that doesn't speak a lot of english and this man keeps answering that Iran youth has projects and hopes. It really contrasts with the despair we often see during regular TV interviews of young people.
Moreover, people were very nice enven if he doesn't speak farsi ( except the police if I remember).
To conclude, I believe that this movie is successful in the way that we discover Iran is just like another great country, an amazing environment with people that seems quite happy with their life. Nonetheless, even if the tone of the documentary is very light ( I appreciated it), I found at some points that it was a bit trivial and not deep enough. For instance, if he got rid off the usual media perspective, he still has an american bias in his approach , quite obvious in a lot of his questions.
A particular moment that stuck out for me when was Brenden was interviewing the young man who was discussing the type of music he enjoyed, and the young man responded with techno and Eminem. For me, this really illustrated that Iranians are definitely similar to Americans in different aspects, and it was disappointing to think about how Iranians and Americans can be divided so strongly due to the government.
The way Brenden was treated in the country was a pleasant surprise for me. I did not think Brenden would be treated badly, but I definitely thought there would be a lot more hesitation and unease between him and more of the people.
The film definitely portrayed contemporary Iran in a different light than the media, however I'm not so sure if it gave a realistic view. I felt as if the film was a bit too carefree and did not portray some of the more serious issues that are definitely there somewhere among citizens.
I think the film was a very well put together and displayed a positive image of Iran. Brenden was good at evoking meaningful thoughts from the Iranian citizens and getting them to express their true viewpoints, which was mostly one of admiration for America. I can say that this is an accurate portrayal from visiting Iran once, everyone there liked America and wanted to their country to have better relations with them. As shown in the video they are very hospitable to foreigners and strive to leave a positive impression. Also as evidenced in the film, they are very interested in American culture and enjoy their movies and music. Even with restrictions and bans they are try to procure products of American culture and keep up with the latest trends. They also have respect for its values and the freedom it represents. I think it is likely that most of the people Brenden talked to did not like their oppressive government but did not express it on film. It is a young population with a very progressive attitude. Many of the people Brenden talked were young and shared this mentality. If one thing I can criticize about the film is that it did not interview as much some of the older, rural, or more religious members of the population which may not have had the same ideas.
Additionally, I think the film did a nice job of showing the significant landmarks of Iran and displaying its visual attractions.
Pretty much of the important parts of Iran were covered including major cities like Tehran, historical sites like Persepolis, and more rural sites. I think it is one of the most appealing countries in the middle east in terms of tourist destinations.
This film did a good job of portraying a image of Iran that is truly accurate and dispelled a lot of notions that it is strongly anti-western and strongly Islamic. Rather it is a country with a growing, young open minded population that increasingly wants better relations with the America.
The documentary truly displays the beauty of a country ever shrouded in mystery and seemingly cut-off to American society. The humanistic approach to diplomacy, in which we can distinguish between people and state, allowed me to ignore what I have seen in the news and in the “papers” and focus instead on people, and how we connect regardless of race, religion, or state.
Of the moments in the documentary which stand out, none do so more than the scene in which they are speaking to a young Iranian male during night hours, and he explains how he learned much of his English through listening to music, in particular rap/hip-hop music. This scene in itself destroyed my image of Iran as a country closed-off to the “Western world” because now I realize that the youth there listen to some of the same music we do, and watch many of the films we do, they are not closed-off.
I found the way Brenden was treated to be remarkable. The people he came in contact with throughout the trip were extremely hospitable and welcoming, they did not show anger or hatred; instead they showed much curiosity towards this stranger. The documentary succeeds at showing Iran for its true exquisiteness, and for showing that it is not impossible for an American to go to Iran if they truly desire.
I realized that this was due perhaps a little too late, my apologies if this seem scattered.
Brenden went to Iran before a lot of the recent conflicts arose (I believe he went in the summer of 2006), which I thought was an interesting point. It makes me wonder how people in the beginning of the film, the ones he interviewed in the United States, what they would have said now. I am sure similar to what they said in the film. But with a new American President and his attempts in loosening the fists everyone in the international world has thrown up, I wish to believe that Americans would hold hold a more optimistic view of Iran now.
And I also found it funny that Brenden went to Iran in the same summer that I did, and stayed about as long as I did. I went to Iran the summer of 2006 as well and stayed for 40 days. And ironically, went to a lot of the same cities he did. I went to Tehran and Shiraz, (and a few other cities), and saw a lot of the same monuments he did. And as for the few cities that he went and I did not, I pleaded with my father to take me to those cities so that I can see the wonders that is Iran.
But my curiosity lies in the desire to know how much of the inter-workings of the culture Brenden did not pick up or understand. I know that when I went to Iran, although Persian, I was very American and there were a lot of cultural references and "pleasantries" that I did not catch until much later. Persians are socially pleasant people, very civil and cordial, but to some degree, it is fake and understood to be fake. But as an outsider, would he understand that? Would he catch it? Or did he bump into people who were actual sincere ( and I just had a plethora of awkward experiences while I was in Iran? )
All in all, the film brought back a lot of fond memories of my first experience in Iran, being searched for unacceptable items, the clothing, the food ( oh god the food ), the weather, the tourism, the mentality, the culture, the richness, the people, all the beauty that is Iran.
What I saw in film was my first trip, but I hope for others, it brought recognition to a misunderstood nation or a sense of home.
The movie I thought was very good at portraying how Iranians not only do not hate Americans but welcome those who are interested in learning about their culture and do not assume the negative connotations that are spread throughout the US are true. It was extremely sad to me how interested they are in having friendly relations with us and how eager they are to have positive portrayals of their country and we do not reciprocate those initiatives. As a country we have completely failed at making foreigners feel welcome and appreciating their diverse experiences and homeland.
I am not at all surprised at how they welcomed Brenden. From having various Iranian friends, the culture has always seemed like a welcoming one to me, regardless of language spoke. Also from my personal immigrant experience I understand the appreciation he showed at simply attempting to learn their language and culture from an inside point and not a media one.
After seeing the documentary it made eager to visit Iran and show them that many of us, like brenden are eager to extend the hand of friendship even if our governments are not, and trade information and appreciation of cultures. This is a documentary that I definitely feel should be viewed and displayed more. It is a grassroot realistic way of looking at Iran that this country sorely needs.
The point in the movie that really stood out to me was when they celebrated his birthday. Not only did the people he knew participate, but the entire restaurant joined in congratulating him. I think this was a nice illustration of the kindness of the Iranian people. Also, the response to the celebration in the Iranian restaurant mimicked what you would expect to see in an American restaurant. It also was interesting, because culturally I was never really aware if birthday celebrations were culture specific, or Christian specific, and this showed that even if it isn’t a common practice in Iran, the people are willing to accept others people beliefs. Another point I really like within the film, and one I wished the American masses would understand, is when somebody said that ‘the people are not the government.” People are people wherever you go, and an artificial boundary used on a map to distinguish power does not make the people living within that area any different. A group of people should not be blamed and are not at fault for the actions of their country. Also, the fact that this was not made by some big production company, but rather just an illustration of a person’s journey through Iran, I felt the entire film was more believable and ‘real.’ Though some of the acting at the end was poor, I think the documentary did a nice job on briefly touching on many facets of Iranian life and culture, and I would personally like to see a more specific documentary focusing on one aspect of Iranian culture.
The documentary "Hot Tea and Cool Conversations in Iran" did not contribute with much in my opinion.
First, I didn't understand what the focus of the movie was, the macro or the micro perspective. It started of with the video clips of George W. Bush talking about the axis of evil, after that it shifted focus completely and gave us a glimpse from some Iranians daily life. It is, however, important to make a distinction between the people of Iran and their government. When Bush talks about the axis of evil he refers to governments, Iran's one of them, that he asserts help terrorism, this has nothing to do with the people of Iran. The movie, however, tries to give us the impression that Bush, in those speeches, talked about the people of Iran. Even though I don't agree with Bush in much, I think it is important to not make connections like these, and instead discuss his actual policy towards Iran, which can be critiqued in it self.
The main part of the movie takes place in Iran, my feeling is that the director wants to show us that Iranians are nice people; has anyone (except some extremists) doubted that? Maybe I'm wrong, but is that not obvious that most people in Iran, like in all other countries, are nice, hardworking, honest people. I would even say, based upon my experience from Sweden, that Iranians have a very good reputation.
I thought the documentary did an effective job of portraying the attitudes of each culture towards the other. If anything, it shows how influential the media is. You notice in the U.S. the people had largely negative attitudes/thoughts with respect to Iran, but the opposite was not true. It would be interesting to see how much of this is due to Iranian media and how much of it is due to looking beyond media and trying to get a sense for what's really going on. In the U.S. we seem to defer our opinions to media coverage and I wonder if that's where the disconnect is.
Just as I was struck with the openness and curiosity of the Iranian people in Rick Steve's documentary, I felt the same way with this film. I will say that watching both of these videos strengthens the argument that there seems to be a disconnect between many Iranians and their current government. I say this because of the stark contrast between the current government's rhetoric about America and the West and the average person's openness and willingness to engage in conversation with both Brenden and Rick. There's no doubt in my mind that some Iranians agree with their current leaders and express distaste for America; however, by the looks of both films that seems to be the minority.
In all honesty, and I am ashamed to say this, the average Iranian seemed to have a better sense of shared humanity and understanding towards Americans than I think most Americans would of Iranians. I would be afraid of the American reaction if an Iranian (who spoke little English) came to explore and interview the people of our country. Although I don't want to jump to any conclusions...
I found the conversation between Brenden and the young man at an outside cafe to be most insightful and revealing. Just comparing his goals and aspirations to mine, I figured I was not that fundamentally different. These sort of connections reveal the commonality between all of us and show the importance of "citizen diplomacy."
I've said it before and I'll say it again...I would love to visit Iran one day and this movie has provided me with more inspiration.
In light of another blog posted up, about the use of chemical weapons, I found one conversation that Brendan had to be very interesting. The gentleman sitting across the table from him one night told him that the world is one country. He did not believe in violence as a necessary means to come to agreements, nor was it something perpetuated from a lot of common Iranians against Americans. This same young man also filled the conversation with mirth when discussing his favorite hip-hop artists like Tupac, and his curiosity about Eminem. I thought this was also equally interesting, because it brought this person a step closer to wanting to relate to one type of U.S. music culture. Therefore it was not just an ambivalent observer wanting cooperation for strict international cooperation, but it did a great deal to show just how much both cultures can relate to each other.
I would also like to stress that the documentary showed not only how Iranians treated Brendan, but how this crew wanted reciprocity by not being ignorant observers and showing true interest in the culture. I did not feel that Brendan went to Iran with an agenda to disprove some political opinions . During the interview in class he specified his intentions many times , but it would not be hard to find someone with good intentions but a lack of ability to express that.
The general attitude of the youth culture in the documentary was very expressive of its own opinions, especially the women. A large stereotype on Muslim women has been that they somewhat cower before men, because they may choose to keep their face veiled. However it was proven in this documentary, and as well as in others, that this is very far from the truth.
Overall, Brendan's documentary proved that youth expression is individuated and atomized. It gave a great deal of information about an Iran that can only be understood by those that travel there.
In light of another blog posted up, about the use of chemical weapons, I found one conversation that Brendan had to be very interesting. The gentleman sitting across the table from him one night told him that the world is one country. He did not believe in violence as a necessary means to come to agreements, nor was it something perpetuated from a lot of common Iranians against Americans. This same young man also filled the conversation with mirth when discussing his favorite hip-hop artists like Tupac, and his curiosity about Eminem. I thought this was also equally interesting, because it brought this person a step closer to wanting to relate to one type of U.S. music culture. Therefore it was not just an ambivalent observer wanting cooperation for strict international cooperation, but it did a great deal to show just how much both cultures can relate to each other.
I would also like to stress that the documentary showed not only how Iranians treated Brendan, but how this crew wanted reciprocity by not being ignorant observers and showing true interest in the culture. I did not feel that Brendan went to Iran with an agenda to disprove some political opinions . During the interview in class he specified his intentions many times , but it would not be hard to find someone with good intentions but a lack of ability to express that.
The general attitude of the youth culture in the documentary was very expressive of its own opinions, especially the women. A large stereotype on Muslim women has been that they somewhat cower before men, because they may choose to keep their face veiled. However it was proven in this documentary, and as well as in others, that this is very far from the truth.
Overall, Brendan's documentary proved that youth expression is individuated and atomized. It gave a great deal of information about an Iran that can only be understood by those that travel there.
I think this movie showed Americans that Iran is not some mythological evil figure, but a country with which we have some differences between the governments, but relate to the people. The overall message of the film- that our governments may disagree, but we are all still human, has been mirrored in other media we have looked at (for example, the Rick Steves travel documentary). I think this is an important idea that is not stressed enough in mainstream society.
Brenden’s premise about “citizen diplomacy” when governmental diplomacy fails, is a decent one. However, when you need special connections to even get into Iran from the US (and vice versa), it makes the idea of citizen diplomacy a lot more difficult to practice. I did feel that while the filmmaker may have had good intentions, it was slightly disrespectful to try to film mosques. It is rude to disregard the culture’s values, even when you are trying to explain them.
Although the film was sometimes adolescent in its filmmaking style, I believe it is because the filmmaker decided to make a true and honest documentary instead of one dictated by Hollywood.
I think that this film only focused on the aspects to prove to Americans that Iran is not the monster that we depict it to be. It was as if the country was put into a 'show box' for viewers to only get a taste of what the country is really about. Granted, I know the filmmaker is not Iranian himself nor speaks Farsi, however I do believe he should have maybe done a bit more research on the more important cultural aspects of the civilians.
I do agree with Sarah, the Rick Steven's film was much more interesting and I think captured the people in a different light. I feel like in this documentary the people were in a sense 'placed to play a part' by being told that they would be in an American film. However in the Steven's film, the people were actually asked questions about how it is to live day-to-day, and how their cultural and historical pasts have influence on their everyday lives.
After watching the film, I was a little surprised by how most of the Iranian people were willing to openly discuss different aspects of their life with Americans, and sharing their thoughts about Iran's political future. More interestingly, Iranian people in the film seemed quite different from the common misconception. The streets in Iran looked safe from the film, and many people warmly welcomed the producers of the film into discussions hoping to demonstrate other aspects of Iran. Much of my presumptions that I had about Iran were inaccurate. I think most Americans would consider Iran to be chaotic and dangerous, which is really not the case. I think media had a lot to do with this, since most of the Americans never been to Iran, whatever we think we know about Iran came from the media. News, movies, even newspapers, all the media surrounding us portraits this negative image of Iran for perhaps political reasons, and since people tend to believe everything they see on TV today, it is really difficult for the public to know what’s really going on in Iran.
I thought the film did an amazing job of showing an alternative perspective on the current relations(at the time the documentary was filmed)between the people of Iran and and those from outside the country. It seemed as if Brenden was treated with great hospitality from the Iranian citizens that he encountered during the time of his trip. Given the political tension, at the time, between the United States and the Iranian Government the citizens were still respectful of Brenden as they treated him as an individual regardless of his nationality. This film truly depicts the beauty that lies with in Persian culture. I could not imagine a young Iranian college student coming to the United States and be treated the same way. It seems as if the good within Iran, either being the individual citizens or the culture as a whole, is completely distorted by the political propaganda that is derived from popular media.
I think this documentary has the ability to open the eyes of many people. This documentary typifies the significance and importance of teaching others that they should develop opinions and beliefs on their own. At the time this documentary was filmed the relationship between United States and Iran was at a pivotal point as political tension grew immensely between the two. However, this film demonstrates that the tension displayed on a macro level between governments does not always effect the people that make the countries and culture what they are. With all of the above said, I truly believe that there is hope for diplomatic relations between new generations of leaders regardless of the political history that countries have.
I thought the documentary was a genuine attempt at an Iranian cultural education. I thought it succeeded in pointing out deep similarities in the ways of Iranians and, say, Californians from San Jose; it portrayed a very gentle relationship between an American and a bit of Iran, which may or may not be the general experience.
I liked how the documentary didnt focus on many controversial issues, and instead attempted to show everyday life and conversation with everyday people in Iran, with a sort of focus on their feelings toward Americans (instead of America as a whole). In doing so, it gave a perspective on Iran which is very different from the perspective offered by mainstream media, the only access to Iranian culture that many people have. Most of the news regarding Iran does not satisfy your curiosity on what it would be like to, say, drink a beer with an Iranian bus driver. This kind of cultural education offered in the documentary is valuable and underrated.
I feel like this documentary's strongest asset was addressing western misconceptions of Iran and Iranian culture. Specifically, I enjoyed how he made a point to note that Iranians, contrary to popular western understanding, have high respect for their women. In fact, I feel like this documentary was attempting to bridge the gap between the cultures and really showed that at the heart of the matter, the people themselves have more in common than the uninformed believe.
Brenden's documentary, as well as the Rick Steves film, did a fantastic job at portraying Iranian culture in an honest and unbiased way. I feel like they were both welcomed with high regard because they truly showed an interest in Iranian culture. This fact was evident to the locals and consequently, Brenden and Rick were both treated very well-especially considering their lack of the ability to speak Farsi.
With that said, I enjoyed how Brenden's film explored other, less privileged areas of Iran. This provided a more honest survey of Iranian culture. These were both very informative films and I hope they continue continue to address foreign misconceptions and inform the uninformed.
The documentary was really surprising in how sharp the contrast is between the Iranian people and their attitudes to the West and its culture and the environment they live in. Buildings are covered with graphic anti-American imagery, western music is banned, and everywhere it seems society has become more strictly Islamic, yet teenagers listen to rap and electronic music. People smile and talked to Brenden almost everywhere he went. It was the complete opposite of the assumption a lot of westerners have. The image of the dour unsmiling Ayatollah has shaped the Western imagination of Iran, and we've projected that image onto the Iranian people, when really, Iranian society is as vibrant and charming as I ever was.
For me, I think the scene that stood out most was the group discussion towards the end in which a girl In the crowd said that governments, not people, are the cause of conflict between Iran and the USA. I was struck by the honest simplicity of it. In reality, there is no reason for our to countries not to get along. Okay, there's the whole Christianity versus Islam thing, but I think it's a red herring. When two peoples listen to the same music, watch the same movies, and a similar contempt for bad governance, how could we be anything but friends! I especially like the idea of citizen diplomacy. If there could be more contact between Iranians and Americans, it would be hard to keep the misperceptions we have about each other. Although the governments argue, I think this documentary made it apparent that it's for strategic, not cultural reasons.
I was really touched by how the Iranians treated and even spoke (yeah, it was surprising to see people spoke English outside of the major cities) Brenden because there is so much negative propaganda out that alll Iranians hate Americans. Although its true that people with that mentality do exist, it is wrongful that it has become the generalized misconception. Also it was wonderful to see that the youth there are just like the youth here, eager to learn and try new things- Americans just have the freedom to follow their whims.
The portrayal of Iranians as being very welcoming of foreigners, especially Americans, did not strike me as odd. After living in Iran for 8 years, I understand the attitudes associated with Western culture; most teenagers embrace American values with open arms. This film is nevertheless critical because there are many people out there who do not understand this notion.
From my point of view, the film's creators were aiming to provide a new lens for the general American public to view Iranians through- something different from the national news channels. This is certainly a laudable goal, but I believe there is an underlying theme in the movie that must be addressed. One which has little to do with Iran by itself.
In essence, the film demonstrates the universal human condition. That is, it shows how a culture entirely removed from that of the US, a nation antagonized by the US government, can have such a strong tie with the US. It shows that we are through and through still humans and that two people across the world from each other might be completely different, but will still be connected to each other through the human condition.
I did not think the idea was strange one bit. Unlike the Cold War, Iranians as individuals are rarely discussed today, which may be a good thing. A typical Russian during the 1980's was considered to be a cruel and barbaric person. Watch Rocky IV and you will see what I mean.
Also, from my experience, Iranians aren't associated with any prevailing negative stereotype, so the film would be very believable for most level-headed Americans. As for the length of the film, it needs to be shortened, in order to keep interests. Finally, any footage from Iran is good footage (granted that there is a genuine attempt to be objective in the presentation).
After watching Brendan’s documentary, I saw a correlation with his documentary and basically every other documentary about modern Iran. Basically, the person who is filming goes into Iran trying to break the stereotype that Iranian people have a sincere dislike for Americans, and that they know little or nothing about the press. Throughout his documentary, we are constantly reminded that Iran is a peaceful nation that shares a lot of similarities with the United States. I found it particularly interesting when Brenden interviewed the young population in Iran, since we could relate to them. These documentaries do a great job of fighting the ignorant beliefs that many uneducated people throughout the world have of Iran, such as correlating it as immediate danger due to the similarity of the name Iran with the name Iraq. I thought that the true humanistic nature of the Iranian people was portrayed throughout the film with their constant kindness and grace.
This was a great documentary, very feel-good and easy to watch. However, it's all in the eye of the beholder, no? We destroy prejudices in our mind because we WANT to, not because we're enlightened. It's true, stereotypes arise out of ignorance. but also, out of closedmindedness. Brenden, although he was witness to all the media's allegations about Iran, was still willing and open minded enough to decide to step out of his comfort zone and see for himself. And his decision to keep this an independent film and show to other Persian/Iranian student organizations makes perfect sense. There would be no audience for it outside of that.
An analogy I could make is that the movie is like an egg. About a controversial, hard, topic, but fails to provide any substance. Bill O'reilly and others at Fox News (my prime example because of all the Iranhate that comes out of them) would have no problem crushing this egg. I, for one, am glad this movie does not reach a larger audience. Brenden, although not Iranian, seems out to prove one side of the argument: Iran is NOT evil. From the scenes where he bonds with another Iraninan youth over rap music, to stopping in the streets with a crowd of young students, the movie fails to tackle some of the pressing issues, even for 2006: drug use, HIV, poverty, lack of economic improvement, etc. This is one form of bias, even though most Iranians wouldn't have problem with it. I, for one, am glad this movie does not reach a larger audience. Us Iranians need to realize that we need to present the facts straight, the good and the bad, and only this way can we help Iran. Encouraging these types of documentaries (Even Rick Steves') may make us nostalgic and make us think we're proving that that we are NOT terrorists, but it doesn't do anything for improved diplomatic relations OR a better and more free Iran. Our hospitality will not stop Bill O'reilly from wanting to blow Iran off the face of the earth. Sorry.
I, like most of my classmates, believe that this documentary and the host of Iranian films that focus on the humanity of the people, do a great service to the country. These works help to familiarize foreigners with the character of a nation. Foreigners--particularly Americans--can witness the similarities between their respective peoples, and lose the fear and assumptions that misinformation can create.
However I also see another purpose to films like these.
I am Iranian, yet have never been to the country. The Iran I imagine is based mostly on the stories I hear from family members.
Iranian expatriates and the generations of children of Iranian desent born away from the country are also to benefit from films like Brendan's. It is not only Citizen Diplomacy on behalf of the "ignorant American," for it also shows those Iranians in exile what their land is like today, and if the stories of the Iran of the past still hold true today.
I often wonder if I have a correct impression of Iran, or have idealized it in my mind. It is always great to have such visuals, and to also hear the sounds of the street, homes and music to bring the culture a bit closer to those of us who have never had the opportunity to see the place of our ancestry. With this view of Iran today, and the stories my elders tell of the Iran of yesterday, I feel that I am better equipped to interpret and envision the place I wish to pay homage to some day.
Post a Comment