A SEPARATION (Jodaeiye Nader az Simin) B+
aka: Nader and Simin,
A Separation
Iran (123 mi) 2011
d: Asghar Farhadi Official site
My finding is that
your problem is a small problem.
—Judge (Mohammad Ebrahimian)
A thoughtful, slowly developing film that is largely
sustained by scenes set in small, inhabited rooms where people actually talk to
one another, where in this film what they choose to openly acknowledge makes
all the difference in the world, as tiny omissions are the secret ingredient
that add essential drama to this often subdued story. Not sure why all the unanimous praise for
this film, as his earlier efforts are equally superb, but it’s a small, completely
unpretentious film, largely one giant squabble that opens the film and
continues unabated until the supposed justice is rendered in the lingering final
shot, told in an extremely realistic style, mostly through piercingly honest,
nonstop dialog written by the director, where there are few traces of stylistic
flourish, simply an exposé of everyday life, easily comparable to KRAMER VS.
KRAMER (1979), though without the histrionic element, as this doesn’t highlight
post divorce aftereffects, it deals with all the pre-divorce
ramifications. In fact, had people paid
attention, as there are opportunities for reconciliation all throughout this
story, the results would largely be different.
What makes this film so essential is the degree to which choices matter,
and not in larger-than-life, long drawn out fights to the finish which are
obviously contentious, but in the kind of ordinary talk that takes place every
day in people’s lives. In this film,
it’s the small moments that matter. Never
passing judgment, which is key, the director allows people and their various
points of view to interact, where the accumulation of small details eventually
escalates into something larger and potentially life threatening, where all
reason seems to explode into thin air and self-preservation takes over. While there are small, honorable moments
throughout, they are matched by equally despicable moments of lies and deceit
where human behavior can become an endurance test for the last one
standing. What’s especially unusual is
the high quality of acting by all represented parties, where no one really
plays the lead, as everyone becomes equally significant, also the relaxed and
informal view of Iranian justice at work, as there are no lawyers used and each
side is free to speak directly to the judge or one another, but will be removed
by a guard if they threaten violence.
Opening in an unpretentious room where a judge calmly
listens to an otherwise well-educated and loving mother and father offer their
disagreements about their family’s future, where the wife Simin (Leila Hatami)
wants to take their teenage daughter Termeh (Sarina Farhadi, yes, daughter of
the director) out of the country in pursuit of a better life, while the husband
Nader, Peyman Moadi, who wrote the screenplay to Saman Moghadam’s excellent film CAFÉ SETAREH (2006), agrees to let her
go, if she insists, but their daughter stays with him, as he must stay to look
after his own father who suffers from Alzheimer’s disease. Since there is no unanimity of decision, the
judge orders them to go home and work it out between themselves. What’s clear from the outset is that is
something neither one of them intends to do, as Simin anxiously packs while
Nader tries to find a housekeeper to look after his father during the day while
he’s at work, both avoiding one another while their daughter sits in the corner
and trembles. Perhaps the initial
sympathy lies with the husband, as he can’t simply abandon his father, and the
daughter has chosen to live with him, so the mother is the odd one out when she
leaves, though never ventures far and remains involved. The beleaguered Razieh (Sareh Bayat) is the
housekeeper, obviously over-challenged on the first day, as she can’t keep up
with full-time demands of an incapacitated elderly patient and look after her
own small daughter at the same time, where she’s stymied by the idea of having
to clean up after he soils himself, wondering if it’s a sin, a violation of
Islamic law which forbids the touching of any man except your husband. Her harrowing experience is made all the more
difficult due to her own pregnancy, where lifting this guy around all day is
just not possible, agreeing to stay on for a few days until they can find
somebody else.
After the initial introduction of the principal characters,
the rest of the film is a continual shift of truth and perception, where events
occur that require lawful intervention, where the courts attempt to determine
the truth, but the testimony offered may not be the full truth, where there’s
an interesting difference in class division pitting a modern, more affluent
family against a more oppressed, fundamentally religious, and economically
challenged family, where friendships may sway a neighbor’s or family member’s
testimony, where the injured parties feel slighted and dismayed at some of the
counter accusations, where both sides continually place blame on others, rarely
taking responsibility themselves, where escalating charges may be brought and
people imprisoned. In this nightmarish
scenario of quickly shifting events, the audience’s sympathies are challenged
due to each individual’s circumstances, where the idea of blood money is
raised, an ancient idea of reaching an honorable accord between families
through the payment of money, which supposedly wipes the slate clean, but
individuals have reservations, often hiding something from loved ones. The court has interests in pursuing the
truth, investigating and interrogating various parties, each family has their
own needs and interests, and there’s a moral or spiritual truth that each
individual must answer to. All of these
interests collide in a stunning web of moral complexity where no one wants to
admit they’re wrong, or see someone wrongfully charged, but people take
desperate measures, where children are used as battering rams in the pursuit of
justice, where all they want is for their parents to stay together, no matter
the cost. It’s an intricate design how
all these pieces of the puzzle, when moved in a different manner, will result
in a differing outcome. But how can
anyone predict the future or know what’s best?
And even once justice is rendered, is this any kind of acceptable
outcome? A microcosm of society at
large, this flawed and deeply humane view of how people’s lives and interests
intersect becomes a highly personalized view of the pursuit of justice.
