Ads


The Moral Realism of Ashgar Farhadi’s “A Separation”

March Web Campaign


Our ongoing work on the web and in First Things magazine assures that your religious ideals and convictions have a voice in the public square. To do that well we need your support. Please click and donate.

R. R. Reno, Editor




New art works animated by sincere piety are rare in the United States. Still rarer are voices that do not see Islam as a minority protected from oppression or a dangerous threat to American liberty, but instead as a moral-theological system whose insights are relevant to contemporary domestic life. It’s unsurprising, then, that despite the critical adulation received by Ashgar Farhadi’s new film, A Separation, its reviewers seem to have missed that the film is work of sincere religious conviction.

The film has won universal critical favor for its formal qualities and vivid presentation of domestic and public life in contemporary Iran, but its most important cinematic virtue, and the key to understanding its moral vision, is its realism. Realism has been an on-again, off-again enthusiasm of “art cinema” since Ozu and Renoir, at least, but realism in A Separation, as for those old greats, is more than stylistic. It serves a particular purpose, revealed by the film’s first scene: A husband and wife face the camera directly and ask a judge, implicitly placed among the audience, to grant a divorce. The intent is clear; we are not supposed to evaluate the work impassively, but are called upon to judge, or rather to join Farhadi in judging, the action on screen.

As a judge must view the facts of a case impartially, however, the director must present them without prejudice. Which is not to say that Farhadi prescinds from judgment himself. On the contrary, his unsparing moral vision and the very ferocity of his condemnation, are only made possible by the complete impartiality of his cinematic vision. A Separation is the work of someone who believes that reality itself has a moral structure, and therefore absolute clarity is sufficient to vindicate the righteous and condemn the unjust.

Mostly condemn, in Farhadi’s case. One man brags, trumpets his own self-righteousness and loses his temper. Another threatens violence and bullies his wife. Women lie and recant. The rich are accused of impiety, the poor of brutishness. At the same time we come to understand that the characters are not without virtue. The story of A Separation is how the little leaven spoils the loaf.

A legal thriller advances the plot. The husband and wife seeking a divorce have separated; the wife has gone to her parents’, leaving the husband, their daughter, and the husband’s father, who has advanced Alzheimer’s, in the familial apartment. The father hires a pious woman to take care of his father as he goes to work and shuttles his daughter to and from school. The stressful situation erupts into conflict when the husband discovers that the woman he hires has left his father alone in the apartment while he’s at work. A murder charge arises from this conflict, and much of what follows revolves around the details of calling witnesses and giving testimony.

While all of this is happening, Farhadi never permits us to forget that above all the film is about the slow dissolution of a marriage. The titular separation happens slowly but never inevitably. Again and again, the possibility of reconciliation, forgiveness, and grace are offered to the couple. It is always within the power of the husband to end with a single act of humility the exile of his wife and his daughter’s unhappiness. Few directors have portrayed the minutia of moral decision so accurately.

Because the film is focused on domestic drama, the political questions that Americans will bring to the film seem oddly unaddressed. It should not be thought that Farhadi does this on purpose, as if to make a political film by negation. This is especially important by contrast with more famous Iranian directors, especially Jafar Panahi, whose recent work This is Not a Film is meant to be something quite like a purely negative political film.

Sometimes critics of domestic, moral works claim that they are politically quietist -- that they counsel resignation when they should encourage resistance—but in reality the opposite is true. Nothing is more fatal to injustice than telling the truth. A film that that tells the truth about the injustice of a lying, obstinate father does not spare the injustice of a regime that executes political prisoners and subjects religious minorities to systematic persecution, no matter how politically inert the film may seem to be.

For Farhadi, it's enough to show how small lies can corrupt character, how vices unresisted can rapidly undermine relationships constructed over a lifetime, how even apparently victimless wrongs are intimately tied to injustice, and how the victims of that injustice are usually the most innocent. The piety of the film is at its most devastating here. A Separation should discomfort an Iranian regime whose injustices are well known. But it should also discomfort a different audience: we who indulge our vices, fail to confront our sins, and prefer the suffering of the innocent to the mortification of our pride.

David Schaengold lives in New York.

RESOURCES

Eve Tushnet, The Impossibility of Divorce: A Review of “A Separation”

Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.

Comments:

3.9.2012 | 2:57am
Rick says:
"Still rarer are voices that do not see Islam as a minority protected from oppression or a dangerous threat to American liberty, but instead as a moral-theological system whose insights are relevant to contemporary domestic life."

I haven't seen this movie, so I can make no comment directly about it, but I was struck by this writer's reference to a subject that is often overlooked or grossly simplified: the nature of domestic and family life in traditional Islamic societies. The family is, in fact, the core of a muslim society. The society's virtues are seen as springing from it, and more specifically from the women in the family, who are the bearers of virtue. Hence, the strict norms for a muslim woman's behavior.

We have seen no end to the demonization of Islamic family life, and in particular the oppresion of women. A case can be made, of course, that muslim women are oppressed, but it always depends on one's perspective and values, and also on how deeply one personally delves into muslim families. I lived for several years in Morocco and came to know many families well. I recall one time that the physical abuse of the wife and children in a family became an issue I had to research for my school in Casablance--a school for disabled children. The source of the problem was one familiar to any American social worker: the father and husband was an alcoholic. We failed to dry him out, but the root of the problem was obviously not Islam.

The essence of relationships in any righteous society, I was told by a Moroccan colleague one day, was respect. A good muslim would respect all other people, and he would comport himself in a way that deserved respect from others. One day, when I confided to my young Moroccan electronics students (in another school) that an American I knew was starting an affair with a Moroccon lycee girl, they weren't at first scandalized. But then they asked if he intended to marry her. When I replied that he was more likely just playing around, they looked grave and told me that it was a great sin to do such a thing to a young woman. How could I fault their value system?

Finally, though, one of the most inspiring students I ever had in one of my classes here in America was a Saudi woman who had accompanied her husband while he studied at our university. Khadija had a robust, outgoing personality, with the most infallibly positive attitude I've ever seen. She was the only muslim in my class, but acted as a sort of cheerleader for the other students--encouraging them and celebrating their successes. One day she told us how she had come to marry her husband. She had come of age, and through family connections, suitable young men were able to come to her home and have private conversations with her. She was allowed to remove her veil for these "interviews." Both she and her future husband expressed a desire for further meetings. These were arranged. When the young man proposed that they marry, Khadija was able to make the final decision. She agreed on one condition: she was only 19 and insisted that he must allow her to get a university education after they married. He agreed, and he kept his promise. Khadija was pregnant with their third child while she was in my class. One day I happened to be walking down the hall in school and found myself behind Khadija and her husband. They were walking hand-in-hand and chatting with an easy intimacy. Then they caught sight of me watching from behind, and almost jumped in mid-stride as they hastily dropped their hands. What can I say? It was unutterably sweet! It was shortly after that incident that 9/11 occurred, and I never saw them again.

I don't want to candy-coat Islamic societies or families. I saw too much to be able to do that. (A young Jordanian woman once wrote an essay in my class about honor killings in Jordan.) But the case of Khadija and her husband, in particular, makes me ponder deeply just how much we may have lost in our madcap rush to personal liberation and modernism.
type the text above in the box below

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact