Broadcasting the documentary “Be Darbar” on Channel One / Naqviyan’s latest film on the subject of interviews with the leaders of the Pahlavi regime

Fars News Agency – Radio and Television Group: The broadcasting of historical documentaries, especially the contemporary history of Iran, has been going on for several years. This procedure has been more prominent in Persian language satellite channels. By dividing history and pasting colorful and glazed images, these networks try to show the Pahlavi era, which is glamorous and beautiful for young people who have not seen it.

** Forging the date according to the court!

By falsifying history, they paint a false picture of the reality of Iran at that time, and with false analysis, they try to cover up the corruption and inefficiency of that time. But our documentary filmmakers have not been idle in this regard either, and in recent years they have used existing archives to produce documentaries that narrate a history that the dissident media is hiding.

** Playing the documentary “Be Darbar” directed by Naqviyan

One of these documentarians is Mehdi Naqviyan. He has produced many documentaries on the subject of Pahlavi history as well as the Islamic Revolution. His latest production is also called “Be Darbar”, which is supposed to be broadcast every night at 20:20 on the One Sima network.

This historical research documentary is based on the audio interviews of the leaders of the Pahlavi regime in an interview with Harvard University and narrates the corruption and turmoil of the Pahlavi court in the days leading up to the Islamic Revolution.

In his first serial documentary experience, Mehdi Naqviyan addressed the subject of the Islamic Revolution, and the result was an interesting series, “Against the Storm.” He has previously made the documentaries “Brothers”, “Queen’s Mystery”, “Angry Cow”, “Game”, “Fresh Wound”, etc., almost all of which have been screened at documentary film festivals.

Naqviyan has reached a special form of documentary narrative. He considers the influence of fiction and his familiarity with novels and stories as the reason for his new form. Numerous behind-the-scenes conversations have no place in Naqviyan’s documentaries. The presence of unseen and pure archival images is one of the advantages of his documentaries that has added to the attractiveness of his work.

** What are the difficulties of making a historical documentary?

“Archival work has a difficulty and an ease,” says Naqviyan about the construction of historical monuments that use archival images. The convenience is that showing the old archive, because of its appeal to the audience, attracts them well to the “film” and catches the director’s hook; The difficulty is that when the documentary technique becomes the same, the story may be exposed and the next constructive work may be repeated.

He also emphasizes on preventing repetition in this field, that I have told different narrations so that I do not suffer from this repetition. He also says about his way of doing things: Different returns. In cinema, we see the director’s imagination, but in the novel we have to create and imagine the space described by the author. This creativity boils. Of course, I really like the postmodern novels of writers like Paul Ester and Kurt Von Gat, which I usually read overnight. I have seen strange narrations of them that are not limited to anywhere.

Naqviyan also emphasizes on access to archives: no one provides archivists with archives so easily. I selected subjects so that I could download or purchase the archive from the Internet. With that in mind, I made “Angry Cow,” which caught my eye. After that, I went to the subject of the British system of government, and as a result, I made the documentary “The Queen’s Mystery”. Before the “Queen’s Mystery”, managers joked that they knew me as “Angry Cow”.[می‌خندد]. I like to try other genres, but I had a new experience in “Brothers”. Of course, in the narration of contemporary history, our hands are very open and there is no end point. We have a rich archive that if we want to use it to narrate our contemporary history, our hands are very open, but our documentarians have not been happy with contemporary history. It seems that no one is worried about this, but this field really has no end. There is a very good space for work and production.

** I did not want to make a historical diary

He continues: Most of the work I have done has been political. The political documentary has a heavy content that the audience may not be able to relate to, and we enter the research and writing of the script with this awareness. There are a number of foliage in the narrative that we add to the documentary appeal.

Naqviyan also said about making the documentary “Against the Storm”: I had come up with a model that I was making only my personal concerns. Since the establishment of the Art Center Documentary Center, the capacities of the Islamic Revolution to produce the right works have become even more active. The director of the Art Center Documentary Center has repeatedly told me that he intends to produce a work about Pahlavi. Two collections were to be made about the first and second sides; They ordered the first Pahlavi from Mr. Farsi and I was supposed to make the second Pahlavi. Of course, at that time I was not really aware of the greatness of the work. It was not clear what we wanted, we were just going to make a documentary about the second side, but we did not know if it was going to be a portrait of Mohammad Reza or something. If they specifically order a template, we will definitely work more easily, but friends had a lot of trust and said we should start research now. I did not want the documentary text to be like this historical diary. My feeling was that the audience was stuck in heavy historical narratives and not accompanied. I was looking for another narrative and I wanted to change this structure, but I did not have the opportunity to do so. Anyway, I did not let the charm of the work disappear and finally we thank God that we were seen well.

In response to the question that you said that in the face of the archives, you only saw Pahlavi propaganda and that it was likely that the project would fail. What was the new strategy ?, he explained: I was really worried, but we were able to bring these compliments and compliments to the service of the text. For example, we see that Mohammad Reza is opening the Isfahan Steel Factory. I definitely wanted to use these images. We investigated, oil revenues had fallen, Mohammad Reza was building a free energy pipeline to Russia, and in return, they built a steel plant in Iran. The Shah built the pipeline in 1346, but 6 years later the Russians built a steel plant with a capital of about 20% of the profit of energy transfer from Iran.

Steel at that time was not profitable and even importing iron was cheaper than production. The factory was built without an expert eye in the middle of the desert, where there was no water, electricity or gas, and transportation was a major problem. All of these costs made imported steel cheaper. Well, we said all this, and then we showed the glorious pictures of the factory opening!

** How to narrate history fairly?

When it comes to historical documentaries, it becomes difficult because the director, on the one hand, wants to have a fair account of history, and on the other hand, he must be judging the Islamic Revolution. In some historical works, we encounter a kind of tolerance that throws the other filmmaker from the other side of the canvas. For example, in his speech, he insists on saying “Mr. Khomeini” in order to instill neutrality and to be able to attract a gray audience.

In these same revolutionary institutions, we see that our filmmaker is dissolved in the audience and says that we must work for the gray and black class, we must attract everyone. It is wrong to target the gray matter and make a film about him and his taste. We have to make a good film that goes with the gray. This should happen, not that we should give up our principles to please the gray. Do you really think the BBC is documenting the revolution to accompany the religious movement? No! He has principles and expresses his profession so that a large part of the religious community can reach him.

Managers need to understand that they should not be passive, that something attractive and precise should be done to engage all walks of life. I did not make “Against the Storm” for the gray people, but we did our job so carefully that they also listened to the film. The definition of a fair narrative is not to abandon our revolutionaryism and principles. We are going to narrate history and we are not going to put our own analysis, but that does not mean abandoning the ideal. When we turn the pages of history correctly, dictators show themselves.

In the same revolutionary institutions that you mentioned, there is enough of standards in the field of documentary production. Most of the work consists of a few conversations behind the desk, to which a hand-held archive is added, and finally the title of the documentary is added. The course of our documentary is not very ascending in form, although we present good professions.

End of message /