State the legitimate definition of a vulgar film

Theater News Base: The head of the Cinema Organization has recently said that some of the film productions are not defensible and in the dignity of an Iranian and Muslim family, and for this reason, weak and ugly works will no longer be licensed and shown, because Iranian cinema is cultural cinema, thought. Axis and family-centered cinema.

Mohammad Khazaei stressed that “although the cinema organization is facing a lot of depot productions whose problems and shortcomings must be managed, but in the new government, we will not issue any licenses to make vulgar and vulgar films.”

The vulgar adjective that is sometimes attributed to some movies is one of those words that has been much more popular in cinema for several years and has been discussed from every angle and spectrum, but now that the head of the cinema organization – some time after the minister’s comments Islamic Culture and Guidance on the status of some films – has announced that it will no longer allow vulgar and vulgar films The question arises that what is the criterion for distinguishing vulgar films for different audiences?

We asked this question to Abolhassan Davoodi, who has made various films such as “Magic Journey”, “I Love the Earth”, “Rainy Man”, “Zadboom”, “Crazy Face” and the comedy “Hazarpa”. In response, he commented: “Those who have decided not to license obscene films probably have a specific definition of it; If it’s just a matter of confronting a filmmaker who they think has stretched his legs beyond the kilim, it certainly requires more frankness and courage in expressing it, and well, it’s a heresy, but if that’s a general message for all filmmakers, cultural management should be first. Clearly define the legitimate and legitimate definition of vulgarity and how they have achieved this “right” and “understanding”, because this is usually the way of those who see themselves as the custodians of all people’s affairs, choose and imagine instead. They have the right to value themselves, so they often make the same mistakes.

The point is that vulgarity in any mind can have a different meaning and definition, if in my view its meaning may be somewhat different from what exists in the eyes of men; So if some filmmakers want to limit the scope or do not want some films (such as revealing social works) to be made under the pretext of this vague definition, it may be more honest to hide behind these vague and interpretable words because anyway Those who make such assessments and those behind them have repeatedly expressed their views on this issue. They look similar to what some call the Internet restriction “protection.” These friends only turn a blind eye to such things, and the fact that you consider yourself the master of the tastes of the majority and even the general public and of all walks of life, in practice, can not be imagined except in terms of intellectual and managerial dictatorship.

Each group that comes to work always has a clear view and approach to issues and currents and is not very camouflaged, they usually decide either by their own intellectual criteria or by criteria dictated by other authorities to move things forward. Incidentally, this Mr. Khazaei that I know may have a clearer mentality about this issue (vulgar film), and sometimes even the criteria he has on this subject are close to my taste, and it is certainly noteworthy and thought-provoking, but experience It has been shown that in some particular political thoughts, it is not possible to make decisions based on the wise understanding of individuals or on the basis of their knowledge and views, because sometimes individuals are instructed to implement certain political behaviors and specific thoughts, so I believe this emphasis and instruction “It can be the imposition of a political taste rather than a cultural or social management method.”