THE METICULOUS EMPATHY OF ASGHAR FARHADI

BRAD S.

4 MONTHS AGO

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about why we’re collectively drawn to film and my own preference for strong characterization over technical mastery (which is not to say, I don’t sometimes react in the opposite way, but usually this is the case.) I wonder if fermenting empathy isn’t among the noblest goals film can strive for.

When began this train of thought is reviewing the three remarkably excellent films from Iranian director, Asghar Farhadi. Fireworks Wednesday, A Separation and The Past are all very human looks at what it means to hold a family together (or not.) Each has its own tone as Fireworks Wednesday veers towards comedy and The Past towards melodrama, while I believe the realism and truthfulness of A Separation makes it the best film of this decade.

In the audio commentary for A Separation, Farhadi talks about his refusal to judge his characters and, in the case of the most recent two, this empathy is very much on display. Of course, many films deal with truly hateful characters that do not appear in works like these. Empathy for a serial killer would less a good thing, but when the subject is everyday people, it can be very powerful.

A Separation deals with a marriage falling apart and a legal conflict between the husband and the housekeeper. In The Past, various family secrets are revealed. In neither case are these small things and there is much cause for anger, but at no time does Farhadi fall back on simple answers. We may relate to or agree more with one character or another, but all believe they are making the best choice under a set of stressful circumstances.

By maintaining directorial distance and not condemning anyone, Farhadi draws us in and allows the audience more intimate access to these family dramas. It seems he built up to this strategy as Fireworks Wednesday’s characters are portrayed more negatively (yet still compellingly.)

I wonder what other directors may have also embraced this strategy, but I’d also like to hear more thoughts on Asghar Farhadi who’s filmography I now consider essential viewing (which is problematic since a number of his other films are difficult to find.)

MISCHA

4 MONTHS AGO

Wouldn’t the excellent crafting of the characterisation be a “technical” mastery to some degree?

I’d say that it’s kind of a “technique” for one to not judge one’s characters in a story, at least to some degree. Perhaps it’s like an artist chiseling away at a sculpture – drawing off superfluous detail until what is left is finely-tuned and elegant i.e. enabling a more intimate “access” to the characters’ inherent moral attributes or ambiguities.

I wouldn’t underestimate just how very tempting for an artist it can be to cram in every detail they can think of when crafting characterisations.

Btw I haven’t seen any Farhadi though have been meaning to.

BRAD S.

4 MONTHS AGO

You’re absolutely correct, Mischa. While making a distinction, I don’t want make it a dichotomy. Characterization and a strong sense of (let’s call it) visual style are more often complimentary and both the result of skilled filmmaking. I’m trying to verbalized certain aspects of filmmaking that I highly value right now and are embodied in Farhadi’s work.

JAZZALO​HA

3 MONTHS AGO

@Brad

The Past, various family secrets are revealed. In neither case are these small things and there is much cause for anger, but at no time does Farhadi fall back on simple answers. We may relate to or agree more with one character or another, but all believe they are making the best choice under a set of stressful circumstances.

I just saw The Past, and I’m not sure you want to discuss the specific film in this thread, but I’m going to make a few comments. (spoilers)

I don’t know if I completely agree with your comments, particularly if I speculate about the way a more conservative audience (particularly in Iran) would react to this film. Specifically, the film doesn’t seem entirely sympathetic to the mother—or at least I can see viewers blaming her the most. I must say that I sort of felt that way myself, having trouble sympathizing or empathizing with her. Her treatment of Ahmad does seem to stem from an excessive desire for revenge, and the film did little to make me feel empathy or sympathy for her. (What I gather is that Ahmad left her and her children, but it seems he has done this because of depression. Her anger and need for revenge is understandable, but I don’t really think the film establishes this.)

On another note, as in A Separation (which I liked quite a bit), provides twist after twist, and I found it a bit tiresome (unlike in the A Separation), and at some point I’m not sure it really contributed much to the film.

What did you make of the significance of the ending?

I wonder if fermenting empathy isn’t among the noblest goals film can strive for.

By “fermenting empathy,” do you mean developing a deeper understanding of characters—particularly if they may behave in ways would be easy for us to condemn? I do think this is a very noble goal, especially in narrative-based films. I think doing so often adds important nuance and complexity in situations that are easy to see in simplistic terms. Speaking of this, I actually think that Paul Haggis’ Crash does a good job of this, despite some of its flaws.

Another film, and filmmaker, that came to mind when I read the OP were Tokyo Story and Ozu respectively. That film certainly could have cast some of the characters in a much less sympathetic light—which is something I suspect some viewers would have preferred. But to the film’s credit, it doesn’t do that.

BRAD S.

3 MONTHS AGO

@Jazz

>>if I speculate about the way a more conservative audience (particularly in Iran) would react to this film.<<

Farhadi could not have made The Past in Iran. The frankness with which it deals with infidelity (which would be considered tame in the West) would have run afoul of Iranian censors. The institutional sexism in those conservative circles would likely have insisted that Marie be condemned outright, but that’s not Farhadi’s agenda and may be another reason this had to be filmed in France.

>>the film doesn’t seem entirely sympathetic to the mother<<

All the characters are flawed and very human. As you mentioned, it’s established that Ahmad was fighting demons that destroyed their marriage. I disagree that it wasn’t established. We are seeing the aftermath that provides context for Marie’s actions. Each character has discernible motivations, which doesn’t mean they are correct, but does make them relatable. We may reasonably come to the conclusion that Marie is more at fault than Ahmad, but Farhadi doesn’t force us to choose sides (same as in A Separation.)

>>twist after twist, and I found it a bit tiresome<<

Yes, the two films are tonally different. A Separation’s twists are grounded in realism, while The Past does veer into melodrama. The thing is I’m not opposed to melodrama if its well done and, for me, it succeeds on that level.

>>What did you make of the significance of the ending?<<

It was kind of beautiful. I’d like to be a bit vague about it, but I do think it captures the struggle to be good to one another under harrowing circumstances.

>>By “fermenting empathy,” do you mean developing a deeper understanding of characters—particularly if they may behave in ways would be easy for us to condemn?<<

Yes. That’s a good way to put it.

>>I actually think that Paul Haggis’ Crash does a good job of this, despite some of its flaws.<<

I’ll disagree with you there. I do think that’s what Haggis was going for, but did he earn empathy through his filmmaking or did he just tell us that’s what we were supposed to feel? Ozu, on the other hand, handled these issues wonderfully and I’d be surprised if Farhadi wasn’t an admirer.

JAZZALO​HA

3 MONTHS AGO

@Brad

Farhadi could not have made The Past in Iran. The frankness with which it deals with infidelity (which would be considered tame in the West) would have run afoul of Iranian censors. The institutional sexism in those conservative circles would likely have insisted that Marie be condemned outright, but that’s not Farhadi’s agenda and may be another reason this had to be filmed in France.

A part of me feels like the film leans toward condemning Marie (Ahamad’s ex-wife)—and maybe even Samir (her fiancee). I haven’t thought deeply about the meaning of the film, but my initial feeling is that the film is about how we can’t escape from the past—and even more specifically, the way adultery ruins the lives of those around them. Perhaps, this is a narrow reading, but I can see many people coming to this conclusion, especially those from a more conservative bent.

I disagree that it wasn’t established. We are seeing the aftermath that provides context for Marie’s actions. Each character has discernible motivations, which doesn’t mean they are correct, but does make them relatable. We may reasonably come to the conclusion that Marie is more at fault than Ahmad, but Farhadi doesn’t force us to choose sides (same as in A Separation.)

I feel like the film is skewed against Marie and Samir, though. To make Marie more sympathetic, the film could have gave a stronger indication or depiction of the way Ahmad’s leaving justified Marie’s resentment and need for revenge. I’m not sure how or if the film could do that, but there’s also other factors. First, Marie seems to have been with several different men. (I think Lucie might have mentioned that she was married three times? Lucie and Lea are only half-sisters, I believe.) So this sort of paints Marie in a negative light. Next, Ahmad’s reasons for leaving are unclear, but I get the feeling that Marie contributed to this in some way. I say this because Ahmad does try to explain the reason he left, but Marie refuses to listen. Of course, this isn’t definitive, and we know that Ahmad experienced depression. (I’m sure if it was because Ahmad struggled with living in Paris or if he had problems with Lucie. Ahmad’s talk with his friend, Shahryar, the restaurant owner, suggested one or the other.)

Yes, the two films are tonally different. A Separation’s twists are grounded in realism, while The Past does veer into melodrama. The thing is I’m not opposed to melodrama if its well done and, for me, it succeeds on that level.

If by “tonally,” you’re also referring to the objective or purpose of the twists, then I agree. In A Separation, I feel like the twists served the film better because it showed the complexity of the situation—that there were no clear cut villains or “good guys.” But in The Past, the twists just seemed more contrived—and more for suspense or entertainment. Then again, maybe I felt that way because The Past was the second Farhadi film I watched. (If Farhadi has a lot of twists in the next film I see, I might have an even more negative reaction.)

It was kind of beautiful. I’d like to be a bit vague about it, but I do think it captures the struggle to be good to one another under harrowing circumstances.

Hmm, how do you arrive at that? My first reaction upon seeing Samir’s wife’s hand clutching his was that it was about the way we can never escape the past.

I’ll disagree with you there. I do think that’s what Haggis was going for, but did he earn empathy through his filmmaking or did he just tell us that’s what we were supposed to feel? Ozu, on the other hand, handled these issues wonderfully and I’d be surprised if Farhadi wasn’t an admirer.

Crash is more melodramatic and contrived, but the similarity I see is in the way both films show the complexity of the human beings and the situations—complexity that is often overlooked.

BRAD S.

3 MONTHS AGO

Jazz, you’re right that the idea of not being able to escape the past is a major theme of the film. I’ve been focusing on other elements, but as the title suggests, this idea can’t be ignored. What I like about the film is that it applies to all the characters and we can extrapolate that will also apply to the children as they grow up as well. The last scene with Samir and his wife is bittersweet and I found his committment and connection to be beautifully portrayed in the final close up. That doesn’t make the situation any less tragic.

JAZZALO​HA

3 MONTHS AGO

How do you think Ahmad and Marie’s past relates to the more recent past of Marie and Samir’s affair? My feeling is that Marie and Samir’s act is the key action, almost to the point where I feel like the film’s title refers to that event. However, I feel like whatever happened between Ahmad and Marie must be somewhat important as well. What that significance is and how it relates to Marie and Samir’s affair, I’m not sure.

The last scene with Samir and his wife is bittersweet and I found his committment and connection to be beautifully portrayed in the final close up. That doesn’t make the situation any less tragic.

Except for maybe Ahmad, everyone else seems screwed. Marie and Samir’s future seems bleak, and I can’t really imagine a plausible, positive outcome. Ditto their children.

BRAD S.

3 MONTHS AGO

It’s noted a couple times that Samir looks like Ahmad and the an inference that Marie may have been attracted to that similarity (through the two men could not have more different maturity levels. If Marie is not “over” Ahmad, that affects just about every action in the film, including her decision to invite her ex into her home.

Another aspect of the film I love is how Ahmad relates to the children. With all these reveals, it must be tempting to display some August, Osage County level Histrionics, yet when there are kids around (which is just about always) Ahmad makes a point to try to frame the situation in ways the would be least traumatic. Of course, the kids are smart and the damage has already been done.

JAZZALO​HA

3 MONTHS AGO

(through the two men could not have more different maturity levels.

You think Ahmad was significantly more mature than Samir? How so?

If Marie is not “over” Ahmad, that affects just about every action in the film, including her decision to invite her ex into her home.

Right. The problem is that Marie’s feelings—as well as what happened to her and Ahmad—are all so murky. Does Marie still love Ahmad or is she out for revenge as Ahmad suggests at one point? And does she have an affair with Samir, simply because he looks like Ahmad—that is, she really still does love Ahmad (or at least has some feelings for him). The situation is tragic, but if this line of thinking is correct, it’s hard not to see Marie in more sympathetic light. (I don’t know, maybe you disagree with that.)

With all these reveals, it must be tempting to display some August, Osage County level Histrionics, yet when there are kids around (which is just about always) Ahmad makes a point to try to frame the situation in ways the would be least traumatic.

And this makes Ahmad seem a really decent guy. But where’s the equivalent type of scene for Marie? I’m not saying the film has to show this—but without scenes like this, it makes the film seem less balanced.

PEPO, A SHY THIEF

3 MONTHS AGO

“It seems he built up to this strategy as Fireworks Wednesday’s characters are portrayed more negatively (yet still compellingly.)”

That might be the view you take away from Firework’s Wednesday, but be aware, Farhadi knew exactly what he was doing from the beginning. I haven’t had the pleasure of seeing The Past or About Elly, yet, but the astounding brilliance of Beautiful City cannot be topped. An ex-con pleads with a family who’s oldest daughter was murdered to forgive the teenager (now legal adult) that killed their daughter, so his life may be spared (and dealing with what you may have mentioned in the OP about empathizing with a killer, the killer has little to no screen time, memory serves (maybe a few minutes in the very earliest part of the film, but he is not characterized or outrightly explored)). This ex-con falls defiantly in love with his friend’s sister, who hopes her brother may be spared a capital execution (one can imagine the kind of life a woman like her would lead, in this sadly oppressive state). Just Farhadi’s sight for young love is almost enough to rupture one’s heart, just for the beauty alone, he almost makes that sense that you had with that person come alive again, so forcefully you’d never guess it comes from one of the most socially restrictive places on earth (which in part if the point of every one of the master’s son’s films). And the family won’t forgive. Not a murderer. Not a man who killed their darling daughter. Not the man that took all their hope and dreams of the future away from them. Never. Ever. A killer should pay with his life… Unless this reformed young ex-con agrees to marry the disabled younger daughter of the victim’s family. The absurd genius is in the fact that you can see love, see hatred, see chance, see pity, redemption, loss, suffering, see all the disappointing things life has to offer and feel every one of them and it still remains a Beautiful City he creates.

And remember what I said about the greatness of this film being unable to be topped? Dancing in the Dust is better, in nearly every regard. Farhadi is, maybe to me, the greatest of filmmakers and carrying the torch from Naruse’s grave.

BRAD S.

3 MONTHS AGO

@Jazz

>>You think Ahmad was significantly more mature than Samir? How so?<<

It seems to me that immaturity is actually Samir’s primary attribute. Note how Marie has him leave the room when a serious conversation needs to be had. He’s also, in an amusing scene, assumed to be the hired painter. He has trouble belonging in Marie’s world.

>>The problem is that Marie’s feelings—as well as what happened to her and Ahmad—are all so murky<<

I think you make some really good observations here, but I also sense that you want clear answers when the murkiness is one of the film’s great strengths. This ambiguity allows us to look deeper into the characters and draw our own conclusions.

>>Ahmad seem a really decent guy<<

Yes, during the course of the action in this film, but the past haunts Ahmad as well. It seems he was not always such a nice guy and much of Marie’s motivation has resulted from his past behavior. I’m not saying Marie is blameless. The thing is, this isn’t a movie like Doubt where the point is guilt or innocence. It’s a vicious circle of cause and effect that is looked at, I believe, with an impressive degree of compassion.

BRAD S.

3 MONTHS AGO

@ Hombre

I would love to hear you expound on the connection between Farhadi and Naruse.

I’m really glad to hear such accolades for Farhadi’s early work as it means I have more to look forward to on the level of these three wonderful films.

Yet where to find them? A number of you have my E-mail. If anyone has links to Beautiful City or Dancing in the Dust, I’d be grateful if you sent them my way.

JAZZALO​HA

3 MONTHS AGO

@Brad

It seems to me that immaturity is actually Samir’s primary attribute. Note how Marie has him leave the room when a serious conversation needs to be had. He’s also, in an amusing scene, assumed to be the hired painter. He has trouble belonging in Marie’s world.

He might seem to have trouble belonging in Marie’s world because he’s in an awkward situation (i.e., Marie invites her ex-husband to stay with them). Then he suspects—and maybe starts feeling insecure (perhaps with justification)—that there’s still something between the two of them.

My impression of Samir is that he’s a pretty sensitive person. He runs his own business, and he seems to be a responsible and caring parent. That takes quite a bit of maturity, don’t you think?

I think you make some really good observations here, but I also sense that you want clear answers when the murkiness is one of the films great strengths.

Well, the murky history between Ahmad and Marie make it hard to sympathize with Marie. Add to what we see on the screen, and I think the film doesn’t give us much to sympathize with Marie. I forgot to mention that Lucie doesn’t want Marie to marry Samir because she will just chase him off again—did I remember that right? This creates the impression that she’s not really stable or responsible.

And all the things she does to Ahmad—failing to book a hotel so he has to stay; surprising him with her upcoming marriage and soon to be baby—that seems pretty uncool. Is there anything in the film that helps us see Marie in a more favorable/sympathetic light?

Yes, during the course of the action in this film, but the past haunts Ahmad as well. It seems he was not always such a nice guy and much of Marie’s motivation has resulted from his past behavior. I’m not saying Marie is blameless.

He wasn’t always a nice guy, but based on what we see in the film, it seems like this was the case because of depression—something he can’t really control—or maybe something Marie did.

BRAD S.

3 MONTHS AGO

>>Is there anything in the film that helps us see Marie in a more favorable/sympathetic light?<<

Its not necessary that we view her favorably. I’d agree that she’s creating more turmoil through her actions. But empathy and sympathy are not the same. All I’m claiming is that Marie’s motivations are understandable, especially in light of feelings she may still have for Ahmad. That I feel I can empathize with her motivations does not mean that I don’t recognize that she often shows a lack of good judgment. In a different sort of film, I might be tempted to dismiss such a character as an antagonist, yet that doesn’t happen for me here.

JAZZALO​HA

3 MONTHS AGO

@Brad

Empathy and sympathy are not the same, but within the context of the thread, I think they’re very closely related—or at least that’s the impression I got from the OP. The empathy leads to sympathy or at least slows down our impulse to condemn a character(s). Is that not what you meant?

All I’m claiming is that Marie’s motivations are understandable, especially in light of feelings she may still have for Ahmad. That I feel I can empathize with her motivations does not mean that I don’t recognize that she often shows a lack of good judgment. In a different sort of film, I might be tempted to dismiss such a character as an antagonist, yet that doesn’t happen for me here.

“Understandable” in the sense that her actions are believable or that you find them justified in some way? A parent might take revenge on the person who murdered his/her child. That may not be good judgment, but we can feel the act is justified to some degree. I don’t really get that with Marie.

Let’s suppose that Ahmad, in his depression, had an affair with another woman. And we saw scenes showing Marie’s devastation; maybe we see her humiliated at work or among her friends. And then suppose Ahmad’s departure leaves Marie and her children in a really bad situation, making her desperate and lonely. Enter Samir—who is financially stable and caring. Marie knows that Samir’s married, but she’s so desperate and lonely that she has an affair with Samir. This would definitely cast Marie in a different light. We may not view her favorably, but I don’t think we would view her actions as critically without this information. See what I’m saying?

https://mubi.com/topics/the-meticulous-empathy-of-asghar-farhadi