Pioneer Abbas Kiarostami and His Legacy Working with Children
After the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988), poetic realist films, as Reza Sadr says, "provided an immediate response to the desire to wipe out the material and ideological legacies of violence" (Reza Sadr. 2006, p224). This as well as the zenith of Iranian cinema during the late 1980s and 1990s was significantly owed to Abbas Kiarostami who is the first to challenge audiences with unconventional narratives and structure, and neo-realistic filmmaking. Born in Tehran in 1940, the cinema of his childhood was rudimentary, yet it was a time when modernist Persian poetry was flourishing. This sparked his desire to marry the two in cinema. Despite Kiarostami's belief that the revolution did not have an influence on his films' development and style, but rather it "distanced him as a film-maker from his Iranian audience" as stated by the director himself (Rahbaran, 2016, p64), it can be argued that his use of child characters "denounced the horror of the war and/or dealt with themes central to reconstruction such as poverty, unemployment… and social strife" (Reza Sadr, 2006, p224). By capturing people's life experiences, he is unconcerned with the value of acting, but rather the characters' genuine reactions.
This can be seen perhaps most strikingly in his film Where is My Friend's House? (1987). The first in Kiarostami's famous Koker trilogy, the film again chronicles a young boy, Ahmed (Babak Ahmadpour) and his journey throughout Koker in search for his classmate, Nematzadeh's (Ahmed Ahmedpour) house to return his notebook in order for him to complete his homework and avoid punishment at school. Here once more, the director returns to the idea of children and their interactions with adults. As well as their innocence which confronts the complexities of the adult world in Iran. Where is My Friend's House? soon became the first and one of the most acclaimed film series in Iranian film history, attaining the Bronze Leopard at the 1989 Locarno Film Festival, as well as the Golden Simorgh at the 5th Fajr Film Festival in 1987. The two child characters are brothers in real life, making their relationship in the film significantly more effective. Kiarostami explains in order for the main actor, Babak to be able to achieve the heart-breaking performance and distressed facial expressions, he was doing math sums in his head as directed by the filmmaker. This can be seen in the final scene where the realisation that he has found a real friend in Nematzdeh is shown on his face. The lack of artificial lighting and interior scenes help the enhancing of the actors' raw performances because being on camera can hinder their true execution.
Having worked for over twenty years of his career with children, Kiarostami's young characters are often extremely driven, and focused towards a clear goal which is usually achieved by the end of the film. This is because children's desires and self-awareness are much stronger than adults' due to their freedom and expanding imagination. Kiarostami notes that Ahmad is "willing to break conventional rules to maintain his personal principles" (Nayeri, p91). Through his character, we are taught about compassion and friendship. About not giving up and doing what you believe is right no matter what the consequences might be. At the near beginning of the film, Nematzdeh falls over, Ahmad immediately running back to help him up, and washes his wound. This again links to the notion that children are a great device to use in cinema as they appear more real, and ordinary, showing right and wrong behaviour in an unapologetic way. In an interview for TIFF Bell Lightbox in 2016, the filmmaker used an Arab philosopher's reasons for why he admires children, in relation to his portrayal of children confronting adults. One of them stated "I love children because they make no difference between old clothes and new clothes" (Handling, 2016), meaning that children see beyond the surface of things, unlike adults who can easily become shallow and conceited. Again this links to Ahmad’s moral consciousness and noble desire to help his friend. This is juxtaposed with the way the adult characters react to his actions. They are oblivious and ignorant when he asks for directions, too busy with their own lives to pay any attention to a little boy who seems to be wandering aimlessly. Even his own mother and grandmother dismiss his words, and dismiss his desire to return the notebook. When he tells his mother that he does not want to go out and play as he urgently needs to return Nematzdeh’s exercise book, she replies “do your homework then play”, showing her ignorance and lack of respect for her son. What is more she calls him a “clown” in comparison to his brother Ali, who has finished his homework, despite Ahmad being the one who looks after the baby and obeys as he is told. This is a reflection of Iranian everyday life, where "children are expected to be involved with every aspect of family life, including working at paid jobs and taking care of the younger siblings" (Price, 2006). Additionally, the two characters separateness is highlighted through the play of colour in the scene where Ahmad and his mother 'argue' in the courtyard. His rusty red sweater is contrasted with the mother's light blue and white dressing gown, and headscarf.
Perhaps this is also a social critique by Kiarostami, of the unjust treatment of children. Punishment is given as a lesson. This links to the grandfather’s ironic ‘words of wisdom’ which he shares with his elderly companion after making Ahmad bring his cigarettes from home. He says he wants his grandson brought up so he can fit into their society, adding that his father used to give him “a beating every fortnight”. His words are undermined when he goes on to say that Iranians should only be told things once before they understand something. Ironically Ahmad needs to repeat himself several times to all of the adults in the film before they actually hear what he is trying to ask them. Ahmad’s search for his friend’s house “constitutes an act of solidarity and alliances against the students’ oppressive school master and an act of defiance against his family” (Issa, Whitaker, 1999, p91). It is worth noting that his father is only mentioned by the mother, shouting that "he'll sort (Ahmad) out" when he comes home from work. Yet the only time we see him is at the end of the film, listening to the radio. He doesn’t say anything and does not even seem to acknowledge Ahmad. This is interesting considering Iranian society is traditionally highly patriarchal, with men being at the head of the household. Family is still very much one of the "most important social institutions and children are the focal point” in Iran (Price, 2006). Nevertheless, the film does not "proclaim (family) to be the basic cell of society or the ultimate source of love, support or morality" (Reza Sadr, 2002, p233). Casey Williamson argues however that the mother is not “flatly represented as unreasonable” (Issa and Whitaker, 1999, p92), as she is only trying to protect her son from a journey into a far away, unfamiliar neighbourhood.
Another predominant formal element of Kiarostami’s work is his constant use of the long, real-time shot, capturing and emphasising landscapes and the nature of life. As soon as Ahmad's mother leaves the scene, he sneaks the exercise book under his sweater and runs outside. There is a drum beat in the background and the score picks up the pace as he runs in zigzag up the hill towards the neighbourhood of Poshteh. . The boy completes the same journey to Poshteh and back to Koker twice, with the camera shooting the scenes at identical angles. The use of long shots and repetition of these shots serve as a way of distancing the spectator from the story, and forming an emotional attachment with the characters. Both journeys to Poshteh include the same Persian score, whereas the journey back to Koker is completely silent. This emphasises the urgency in Ahmad's quest, as well as his sense of wander and hope. The muted trip back suggests Ahmad's disappointment in himself, and failure to achieve his goal.
We then cut to the final scene. Ahmad is sitting at home refusing to eat his dinner. He is so upset about his unsuccessful quest, that he has no appetite. The boy finally does perhaps what he should have done at the beginning, and completes both his homework and Nematzadeh's. The film ends with a high angle shot of his friend's exercise book, opened on a page with the daisy given to Ahmad by the elderly blacksmiths earlier on in the film, signifying sincerity, friendship, and innocence. The flower also links to the film's overall message about good intentions.
As touched upon earlier, the film was filmed in Koker, a small village in Gilan Province which was devastated by an earthquake in 1990, five years after filming. The aftermath of the earthquake is presented in the second film of the trilogy, And Life Goes On also known as Life and Nothing More (1992), where history intertwines with fiction (Issa, Whitaker, 1999, p93) . In response to the Koker trilogy's endings, the director suggests "in none of the films is the search neatly concluded, indicating perhaps the impossibility of a complete and final end - in art as in life" (p93), adding that “art should show life better than it is, not worse” (p93). In Where is My Friend's House? the search throughout appears ineffective and somewhat fruitless, though Ahmad manages to return the book back in time in the end and saves his friend from trouble. There is the possibility however, that this will happen again. This can be assumed from the beginning of the film, where another little boy's exercise book had gotten mixed up with his cousins. Through the constructed nature of the film, as well as the two features that follow, Kiarostami shows not only life in Koker, but conditions in Iran as a whole.
