Showing posts with label torture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label torture. Show all posts

Saturday, August 1, 2026

Two Prosecutors (Zwei Staatsanwälte)


 













Director Sergei Loznitsa


director at Cannes with Alexsandr Kuznetsov

Georgy Demidov



























TWO PROSECUTORS (Zwei Staatsanwälte)          B+                                                      France  Germany  Netherlands  Latvia  Romania  Lithuania  Ukraine  (118 mi)  2025  d: Sergei Loznitsa

The time has come to look the Soviet monster directly in the eye.  It must be understood in order to be defeated.                                                                                                                              —Director Sergei Loznitsa

Grim, austere, and relentlessly bleak, Loznitsa reminds us what falling into authoritarianism really feels like, as evidenced by the height of Stalin repression in 1937, which is meticulously dissected and explored from the inside, in the jail cells and in the halls of power, exposed with surgical precision, where arrest warrants leading to deaths proceed with miraculous efficiency.  What this Kafkaesque parable suggests is a government’s insistence on the appearance of legality while undermining the entire system by arresting and jailing all dissenting voices, using the prisons as a wave of terror against these individuals, denying them any and all legal rights once they’ve become the exclusive property of a Gulag prison system, never again allowed to see the light of day, as the government runs on complete systematic repression.  Winner of The François Chalais Award (Prix François Chalais) at Cannes in 2025, an award that recognizes the esteemed values of journalism, and the Palić Best Film Award, the top prize at the European Film Festival in Palić, Serbia, the slowly developing story is told in a way that requires extreme patience, as the pace is glacial, allowing plenty of time to ruminate over what we see, with a patient yet unmistakable sense of foreboding, focusing on the devastating minutiae that allows fascism to breed, expressed by the impassive coldness of officers and authorities, as well as the silences of the corridors.  From the maker of My Joy (Schastye moe) (2010), a haunting parable of post-Communist Russia, In the Fog (V Tumane) (2012), a sobering meditation on the complicated moral decisions faced by both soldiers and citizens during wartime, and Babi Yar. Context (2021), which shows how Ukrainians were complicit in the Nazi Babi Yar massacre of Jews, there is probably no director who has documented the criminal history of Russia in such an extensive way as Loznitsa, who has lived in Germany since 2001, yet still prefers to call himself a Russian, objecting to a total boycott on Russian artists and culture, which got him expelled from the Ukrainian Film Academy, where this film, spoken mostly in Russian (viewed as the language of the aggressor), has been banned in both Russia and Ukraine.  The born-in-Belarus yet raised in Ukraine director knows a thing or two about Russia, as his documentary films in particular provide an archival, historical document of the horrors from Russian/Soviet history, where the grounds of the Babi Yar Holocaust Memorial Center was one of the first targeted sites that was hit by Russian missiles and shells during the first days of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (Russia strikes Babyn Yar Holocaust memorial site in Ukraine).  This film serves as a monument to authoritarianism, where maintaining power and control through abject fear is the paramount concern, where the number of prisoners in Russia rose from about 180,000 in 1930 to more than 5 million by the mid 30’s, where a wave of arrests by the secret police, or the NKVD, the Gestapo-like organization that was responsible for the arrests, tortures, deaths, and massacres of millions of people, with millions more falling victim to forced labor, deportation, famine, mass shootings, and starvation.  It’s important to remember that Time magazine put Stalin on its cover 11 times, named Man of the Year twice in 1939 and 1942, as the world was simply oblivious to the grandiose scale of cover-ups of the mass atrocities.  From July 1937 to mid-November 1938 alone, about 1.5 million people, including most of the leaders of the October 1917 Revolution, were arrested, shot, kidnapped, or detained in Gulag camps, where it may come as no surprise that in today’s Russia, the Stalin era is glorified.  The entire film takes place largely in two locations, a cavernous penal colony, which was actually shot in a hundred-year old Brasa prison in Riga, Latvia that is now closed, and the massive halls of justice in Moscow, where the film title only begins to describe how the legal process, which is supposedly available to everyone, in fact shuts the door, yet maintains, on the surface, an avenue of legality, but the NKVD intervenes and undermines any hint of legality at every turn, reaching an unimaginable level of systematic arrests, humiliation, and torture, which may as well be a blueprint into the present.  

Recalling the banality of evil from Jonathan Glazer’s The Zone of Interest (2023), the source material for the film is a novel by the same name written by Georgy Demidov, a Russian-born Soviet experimental physicist and political prisoner from the Kharkiv Technical Institute in Ukraine who was wrongfully arrested in 1938 and spent 14-years in the brutally harsh conditions of the KOLYMA PRISON CAMP in Siberia, a Gulag he referred to as “Auschwitz without the ovens,” where emaciated and starving prisoners were routinely fed only 400 calories per day.  After he was released, he documented the cruel realities of camp life through short stories and novellas, primarily focusing upon the physical and psychological destruction of scientists, intellectuals, and artists under Soviet rule, a phenomenon known as Eliticide.  In 1980, the KGB raided his home, destroyed his typewriters, without which he could not write, as his fingers had been frozen in the Gulag, and confiscated all his manuscripts, where Demidov died in 1987 believing his life’s work was lost forever.  However, following the collapse of the Soviet Union just a few years later, his daughter recovered his surviving manuscripts from KGB archives, and his collected works were later published in six volumes in Russia.  Unlike other famous camp writers like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn or Varlam Shalamov, whom he befriended in prison, Demidov wrote with a sharp focus on individual characters and the Kafkaesque absurdities of state power.  What stands out here is just how chillingly accurate it is, recreated in cold, meticulous detail, getting right into the psychological mindset of the people portrayed and the ruthless system of oppression that erodes every avenue of hope and freedom, continually finding new ways to brutalize their own people, with the Russia of today hurtling back toward Stalinism.  At the center of the picture is a young principled Bolshevik prosecutor, Alexander Kornev (Alexsandr Kuznetsov), only three months removed from law school in the city of Bryansk, some 200 miles southwest of Moscow, yet he’s filled with the revolutionary ideals and beliefs of a true patriot about building a better socialist society, keeping his own personal thoughts to himself, making him hard to read, revealing next to nothing about himself, always remaining calmly measured and restrained.  He becomes a prosecutor at the very moment when the country was in a process of radical change in a way that wasn’t necessarily understood by the rest of the population.  Against all odds, as prisoner letters are routinely burned before ever leaving the heavily guarded premises, but one, written in his own blood on a tiny piece of cardboard, somehow makes it to the desk of this young prosecutor, who is summoned to the local prison by an Old Bolshevik named Stepniak (Alexander Filippenko), like a cry for help, or an answer to his prayers.  Kornev’s ominous arrival to the prison is met by a chorus of silent women standing across the street, mothers, sisters, and daughters of men who are imprisoned inside, waiting for any word, as inmates are strictly forbidden from contacting anyone on the outside.  Built around dialogue gripped by fear, where every spoken word may have devastating consequences, as seemingly harmless encounters can lead to arrests, the staging is minimalist, so precisely constructed and so skillfully staged, essentially built around fewer than ten scenes, mostly unfolding in a series of private conversations, dominated by fixed shots and symmetrical compositions, bare environments, and suffocating silences that speak, disturbingly, of the present.  The goal of expunging all critics and enemies is to consolidate an elite group of loyal supporters whose allegiance lies strictly with Stalin, much like Trump and Putin have similarly targeted political enemies and systematically eliminated all opposition by surrounding themselves with nothing but blindly obedient followers.

Literally half the film is spent waiting with Kornev waiting to pass through the various layers of prison bureaucracy, who have no interest whatsoever in allowing him to see the prisoner, culminating with the Prison Governor (Vytautas Kaniušonis) offering him a litany of excuses, but he persists, waiting for hours, until they finally agree to the meeting, where he has to pass through a labyrinth of locked gates and doors, always accompanied by a hostile group of implacable faces from the warily suspicious assembled guards who are not pleased by his presence.  When we finally meet the feeble, starved, and thoroughly broken-down prisoner, he’s the kind of character we rarely see in films, a historical icon, having been there at the beginning of the Bolshevik Revolution, filled with the promise of building a new and better society, only to fall victim of the tactics of the NKVD, who have spent years torturing him, and other loyal party members like him, into confessing crimes they never committed, where “honest, knowledgeable experts are substituted by ignorant charlatans,” a line that is sure to draw snickers from American audiences, as it’s a pattern recognized so well in the Trump administration.  Stepniak’s body may have endured endless atrocities, where he’s nearing the end from organ failure, yet his mind is still sharp, making him a fascinating subject of interest, with Kornev recalling how he attended one of Stepniak's speeches about truth and Bolshevism at his law school, where he was immediately impacted by the force of his ideas, impressed that he also belonged to the former party leadership in his hometown.  It’s hard not to be intrigued by this man, finding his beliefs and the essential value of his work suddenly deemed anti-revolutionary, making him an enemy of the state.  Yet he actually stands for something, as opposed to Stalin’s secret police who simply want to erase his existence, as that’s what authoritarians do.  There’s a major difference in conceiving ideas and beliefs, literally building something out of nothing, with the hopes of transforming an entire society, and the parallel course of killing and destroying anything that has to do with planting that seed, where murder is the ultimate political weapon.  With a heavy reliance on dialogue, it’s rare for films to so exquisitely expose profound and radical ideas with this degree of simplicity, where nothing is left to the imagination, as we are literally taken inside this hellhole, an example of immersive cinema, with the film designed to plunge viewers into the psychological mindset of the times, seeing the profound effects, where if the guards could have their way, this prosecutor would never again see the light of day, TWO PROSECUTORS - New Sergei Loznitsa movie ... YouTube (1:17).   But Stepniak urges Kornev to visit Stalin, or members of the Politburo, and do whatever it takes to get as close to the highest powers of the land with a message of what goes on inside these prison walls, as it’s a crime against the revolution.  Accordingly, Kornev takes a train to Moscow, but on route his attempts at sleep are interrupted by an extended monologue from the wildly eccentric old man named Pegleg (also played by Alexander Filippenko), who tells tales about losing a leg and an arm fighting for the Soviets in the Battle of Kowel in WWI, one of the fiercest battles in history, and how he met with Lenin personally in Smolny for war disability benefits, touting his generosity, now seeking an audience with Stalin.  Inspired by Captain Kopeikin from the biting critique of mass corruption in Gogol’s novel Dead Souls, this underlines the disenchantment of the Old Leninist Guard, described as “the true believers,” with the direction of the revolution, where half of the Red Army’s entire officer corps was either killed or imprisoned, filling the screen with an omnipresent dread, as it shows how authoritarian systems actually destroy their own ideals, where Stalinism was the antithesis of Bolshevism, something only the Trotskyites truly understood, making them targets as well.

While the first part of the film is a hellish, Dante’s Inferno allegory, where the gates of Hell bear the inscription, “Abandon hope, all ye who enter here,” the second part exudes a Kafkaesque bureaucratic nightmare, shot inside the marble halls of the old Latvian Radio building in Riga, a Soviet relic constructed in the Stalinist Empire style, the only Latvian public service station to broadcast in Russian.  Swallowed inside the massive interior space, where it’s easy to get lost inside a maze of offices and corridors, with a giant, winding staircase reaching upstairs, Kornev seeks a meeting with the Procurator General, the highest-ranking law officer in the entire country, but is turned away by his secretary (Nerijus Gadliauskas), a man who is fastidious about manners and details, as he has no appointment, but Kornev is persistent, refusing to take no for an answer, so he waits and waits, like the brilliant opening sequence in Orson Welles’ THE TRIAL (1962), Orson Welles- The Trial: Before The Law - Prologue | Franz ... YouTube (2:51), until everyone else has been seen, and only then does the secretary allow him entrance.  Sitting in front of a statue of Stalin, where above that bust hangs a portrait of Lenin, the second prosecutor, Vyshinsky (Anatoliy Beliy) commands immediate attention and respect, never remotely cracking a smile, calm, yet stern, and acutely intelligent, with a sharp ear for details, never missing a thing, where the two prosecutors are intentionally pitted as mirror images of one another, both tasked with rooting out corruption and investigating state crimes.  Knowingly bypassing the local authorities in Bryansk because he knows they’ve been infiltrated by the NKVD, Kornev acts as an ambassador for Stepniak, recounting the egregious conditions there, revealing how the NKVD have rounded up, arrested, and then tortured or killed all the Old Bolsheviks into confessing purely fictional crimes, then using those confessions to issue death warrants, with Vyshinsky shockingly displaying a sympathetic ear, as if hearing these accusations for the first time, Two Prosecutors new clip official from Cannes Film Festival ...  YouTube (55 seconds), indicating he needs medical evidence of the scars of torture if he is to proceed, instructing Kornev to provide that evidence.  Acknowledging that would be paramount to political suicide, as the NKVD would arrest him for crimes against the state, Vyshinsky offers legal protections, starting with evidence they had this face-to-face meeting, guaranteed train passage, along with official documents authorizing him to conduct further investigations.  Kornev leaves hopefully, fully aware of the grave consequences at stake, finding himself sitting in a compartment shared with two jovial men who describe themselves as factory inspector engineers, Vasily (Valentin Novopolskij) and Petya (Dmitrijus Denisiukas), where they toast to Soviet law, with Vasily gleefully singing Shostakovich’s the counterplan song on guitar, which repeats itself over the end credits performed by a full choir, "The Song of the Counter-Plan" [Песня о Встречном] - Soviet ... YouTube (2:45), as it was seen and heard in the 1932 film COUNTERPLAN by Sergei Yutkevich and Fridrikh Ermler.  Whatever inklings viewers may have had up to this point, Kornev becomes the Josef K. of his own story, as the chilling final shot is nothing less than shocking, revealing the true scope of Stalin’s Great Purge, which literally engulfs the entire country in a shroud of death.  Clearly as much about Putin’s Russia as Stalin’s, it should be noted that all three of these Russian actors, Aleksandr Kuznetsov, Alexander Filippenko, and Anatoli Beliy, left Russia after Russian troops invaded Ukraine in February 2022, where their performances offer a testimony of political resistance.  Impeccably shot by Oleg Mutu, typically associated with Romanian director Cristian Mungiu and his Palme d’Or winning 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days (4 luni, 3 saptamâni si 2 zile) (2007), but also Beyond the Hills (După dealuri) (2012), so detailed and precise, with no camera movement whatsoever, only static shots that intensify the creeping paranoia and full-blown claustrophobia, a world where colors are almost non-existent, this is a full-blown horror story that we’re not likely to forget.   

Saturday, November 22, 2025

It Was Just an Accident (Yek tasadef sadeh)


 


























Director Jafar Panahi

Panahi accepting the Palme d'Or at Cannes










IT WAS JUST AN ACCIDENT (Yek tasadef sadeh)                      B                                             Iran  France  Luxembourg  USA  (103 mi)  2025  d: Jafar Panahi

For the script, the initial idea came very quickly, I wondered what would happen if one of those around me in prison, once out, got their hands on someone who had inflicted torture and humiliation on him.  —Jafar Panahi

Winner of the Palme d’Or Award (1st Place) at Cannes, the first Iranian film to win the coveted prize since Abbas Kiarostami’s THE TASTE OF CHERRY (1997), where this may be a case of the Cannes jury awarding a twice imprisoned director based upon his life experiences as an artist whose work has been banned by an authoritarian regime, which helped shape his moral vision, as opposed to the film he has made, which sets no new cinematic standards, as it’s essentially the same ambiguous morality play he’s been making for the past fifteen years, no better and no worse.  Unlike his previous three films, TAXI (2015), 3 Faces (Se rokh) (2018), and No Bears (Khers nist) (2022), this one does not star the director in front of the camera.  Panahi shares a similar fate as his fellow persecuted Iranian director Mohammad Rasoulof, whose films Manuscripts Don't Burn (Dast-neveshtehaa nemisoosand) (2013), 2020 Top Ten List #2 There Is No Evil (Sheytan vojud nadarad) (2020), and The Seed of the Sacred Fig (Dâne-ye anjîr-e ma'âbed) (2024) also reflect the same experience of imprisonment and torture, which this resembles in style and philosophy.  While an outraged free world is quick to award prizes and heap critical acclaim upon these films, it’s fair to question whether these prizes are deserving, as audiences in theaters are divided, many wondering what all the fuss is about.  In fact, one might even go so far as to think Panahi’s best films were actually made prior to his arrest, which would be THE WHITE BALLOON (1995), written by Abbas Kiarostami and winner of the Camera D’Or (Best First Feature) at Cannes, THE MIRROR (1997), winner of the Golden Leopard (1st Place) at the Locarno Festival, THE CIRCLE (2000), winner of the Golden Lion (1st Place) at Venice, CRIMSON GOLD (2003), winner of the Un Certain Regard Jury Prize (2nd place) at Cannes, and OFFSIDE (2006), winner of the Grand Jury Prize (2nd Place) at Berlin, where all but his first two films, which were made with government support and focused on children, have been banned from ever screening in Iran.  Whatever you happen to believe, his earlier films were not alike, showing more distinct differences in look, style, content, and thematic vision.  Since his arrest, they all seem to be part of the same vein, defying authorities by filming in secret with almost no money, smuggling the prints out of the country to be distributed in the West, elaborating on moral and philosophical dilemmas.  While they may be headier works, delving into ageless questions of the eternal, they can also be painstakingly frustrating to watch, with plenty of long takes (one near the end lasting nearly 12-minutes), as we bear witness to the effects of torture and trauma, leaving unanswered existential questions that linger long afterwards.  As if arising out of the claustrophobic setting of Roman Polanski’s DEATH AND THE MAIDEN  (1994), with similarities to Jonathan Millet’s recent GHOST TRAIL (2024), this is a blend of crime thriller and dark comedy, set over the course of a frenzied 24 hours, with pacing that is taut and unpredictable, as well as overt philosophical references to the absurdity of Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, which in this case refers to waiting for justice, where none of these flawed characters are particularly likeable, but that’s not the point, as it’s about people living under the brutal oppression of an authoritarian regime, who are thrust together and forced to have a reckoning with the past, where everyone deals with shared trauma in different ways, so the question becomes what would you the viewer do under similar circumstances?  Just how far are you willing to go, do they have the right man, what are the ramifications of torture in a police state when the killers are still walking among us, can the cycle of violence ever end, and just how does one eradicate evil?  It’s interesting how Panahi interjects children into the discussion, exerting a silent influence, where that innocence is a stark contrast to the murderous dirty work of their parents.  Panahi can now work safely in France, while continuing to live in Tehran, where this is France’s submission at the Oscars for the Best International Film.    

While it’s no small feat to live and survive under harshly oppressive circumstances, that strong-handed, authoritarian rule has become more commonplace around the world, where it may take more than a puzzling ambiguity and unanswerable moral questions to believe this is essential or groundbreaking cinema, though it does resort to a more straightforward narrative for the first time in a decade, where a dissection of modern Iran evolves into a comedy of errors, with much of this mirroring Paul Thomas Anderson’s American exposé in One Battle After Another (2025) which is also surprisingly prescient, where in each film it’s the prevalent use of humor that’s surprising for such a heavy subject matter, offering a humane complexity.  Nonetheless the highly distinguished Palme d’Or award universally recognizes the importance of artistic expression in defiance of repression.  Although Iranian New Wave cinema, especially after the Islamic Revolution (1979), accepted plenty of restrictions and censorship, Iranian directors were not discouraged and managed to create a new visual language in order to convey philosophic, tragic, and tenderly sweet messages from children that may be defined as a humanistic aesthetic, connecting art to the real-life contemporary problems of ordinary people in a near documentary style.  Key figures of the Iranian New Wave cinema movement would include Abbas Kiarostami, the undisputed pioneer of Iranian cinema, making films both before and after the revolution, Dariush Mehrjui, who moved from social issues to a more personal cinema, Majid Majidi, a poet of humanism, Mohsen Makhmalbaf and his wife Marziyeh Meshkini, and later his daughter Samira, filmmakers with a social conscience, followed by Panahi, the voice of resistance, making politically charged films that critique the Iranian government, Asghar Farhadi, the master of moral dilemmas, and Bahman Ghobadi, exploring the resilience and culture of the Kurdish people along the border.  Panahi began as a protégée of Kiarostami, and was originally sentenced in 2010 for his support of the Iranian Green Movement, imprisoned briefly, placed in solitary confinement and blindfolded when undergoing interrogation sessions, then placed under house arrest, where it would be more than a decade before he went to prison to serve his sentence, nonetheless he was banned from filmmaking, traveling, and speaking to the international press for 20 years.  However this did not deter him from making films in secret and working around the conditions of his sentence, but he was imprisoned initially in 2010, serving a few months before he was placed under house arrest awaiting his trial, and again in 2022, sent to the notorious Evin Prison, spending seven months until he was released the following year, but only after going on a hunger strike, with the conditions of his sentence finally lifted, allowing him to travel to Cannes for the first time since 2003 to collect the Palme d’Or in person, where he was welcomed like a conquering hero.  Jury president Juliette Binoche expressed solidarity with the then-imprisoned filmmaker at the 2010 Cannes award ceremony after receiving the Best Actress Award for her performance in Kiarostami’s CERTIFIED COPY.  Panahi stressed that this film was also made in secret, due to their explicit critiques of the authoritarian government and their history of ongoing violence, using limited resources, with some astonishing aspects to the editing by Amir Etminan (Editing in Secrecy: How Amir Etminan Cut Jafar Panahi's ...), which was also conducted in secret from a safehouse in Tehran, working completely alone, without an assistant or post-production team, shouldering the entire process himself, staying offline for safeguarding, using equipment that was far too small for all the footage, which was hidden in different locations across the city to evade raids.  Under constant threat of discovery, the risk was clear, that if discovered, he could potentially face potential arrest and a permanent ban from the country.  During the actual shoot, they were stopped by authorities at one point, but they were alerted with enough time to quickly remove all evidence of filming, so they were temporarily detained, but eventually let go. 

This film is a result of the director’s own experience in prison and what he endured, feeling very personal, which the filmmaker claims is “based on real events experienced by actual prisoners,” opening on a deserted highway outside Tehran late at night where there are no lights, as a husband Eghbal (Ebrahim Azizi) driving with his pregnant wife and exuberantly playful daughter fatally runs over a dog, while also damaging his car, sending the young girl into despair, with her mother claiming “It was just an accident.”  This dialogue-heavy, neo-realist story sets the tone for what follows, as it’s a series of calamities that places ordinary individuals in precarious predicaments, each one having to answer for how they respond, with the film rooted in complex questions, while also exposing what appears to be a rampant societal epidemic of corrupt payoffs and blatantly forced tips.  Dropping his car into a nearby garage afterwards, the storyline shifts to Vahid (Vahid Mobasseri), an unassuming Azerbaijani mechanic, who recognizes the sound of the man’s voice, and even more distinctive is the squeaking sound of his prosthetic leg, immediately recognizing him as Pegleg Eghbal, the notorious prison interrogator who mercilessly tortured him and other blindfolded political prisoners.  The next day, he follows and kidnaps the man in broad daylight, knocking him unconscious before dragging him into the desert to bury him alive, showing no mercy whatsoever, but when the man vehemently denies the accusations, Vahid hesitates, and seeks confirmation from a few of his fellow survivors, including Shiva (Mariam Afshari), a war-scarred photographer found in the middle of a wedding shoot, who doesn’t want to deal with this anymore, as she’s finally put her life back together, and goes hijab-less nearly the entire film.  The young married couple, still in their Western wedding attire, is Golrokh (Hadis Pakbaten, also without a hijab) and Ali (the director’s nephew Majid Panahi), both of whom share grudges against this man, as well as Hamid (Mohamad Ali Elyasmehr), an impulsive hothead, a volatile former inmate who angrily wants to kill him on the spot.  Each recognizes a distinct mannerism, his smell, his limp, his tone, but no one is certain, as they were all blindfolded while tortured in prison, though Hamid thinks he recognizes the scars on the guard’s legs.  They all end up yelling and screaming at each other, arguing over what to do, their conflicted emotions inflamed by this prisoner, whose presence allows their traumatic memories to resurface, making them angry at what they were forced to endure.  With doubt creeping in, vengeance and justice blur, as they can’t decide for certain what they really want to do with this guy, only that the irrationality of their emotions is taking over, It Was Just an Accident new clip official from Cannes Film ...  YouTube (1:49), a scene that contains perhaps the most vulgar slew of curses in Farsi of any movie filmed and set in Iran, offering an uncensored representation of the anger and trauma held by Iranians who were persecuted by the regime and who managed to survive, while expressing that anger in public is grounds for arrest, encapsulating just how radical the film is and what it is trying to achieve.  Scorned by trauma, raging at the thought of exacting vengeance, the characters question how to plot their revenge, questioning whether they really want to become what he represents, merciless killers carrying out acts of horrific violence.  The cast is mostly made up of dedicated amateurs, who suddenly have a change of heart, conflicted by their nagging conscience, unable to find any acceptable solution, which only angers and disappoints them even more.  But one thing is clear, ordinary family man Eghbal is a despicable figure who sadistically carried out hideous crimes, leaving each one of them scarred and damaged for life, where there is no reprieve from the trauma that will forever haunt them, left to replay it in their minds over and over again, like a broken record.  Whatever the outcome, they have descended into an all-consuming hell that was inflicted upon them, where there is no escape.  Panahi shines a light on a grotesque aspect of the Islamic regime, yet in the end, even Eghbal is a human being, presenting the audience with an ethical dilemma, where audiences will wonder if retribution or redemption is the right course of action. 

Jafar Panahi and Martin Scorsese on It Was Just an Accident ...  YouTube (1:08:25)