Take a look at the movie “We have to” made by Reza Dermishian / Be black and be praised

Charso Press: Hashem (Zakaria Hashemi) finds the abandoned child in his taxi and this is the beginning of his search in the city. In “Khesht va Ayneh” (Ebrahim Golestan, 1344), the search for the mother of an abandoned child ends up in an orphanage, but all this narrative, with all its margins and anecdotes, is an excuse for Ebrahim Golestan to travel to Tehran in the early 1340s and is finally an opportunity. For him, it manifests itself in various manifestations, from the inefficiency of the bureaucratic system to the social crises of his time. However, it seems that Golestan’s attempt to depict the world around him ends at the cost of losing the main line of the narrative. It seems that the filmmaker’s attachment to showing different manifestations of urban life in the first half of the 1340s largely replaces the central narrative.

The exact analogy of “We have to” (Reza Dermishian, made in 1397, shown in 1401) with the symbolic work of Ebrahim Golestan is difficult, but as much as the various themes of Golestan’s film leave the main narrative line hidden or incomplete, in Reza Dermishian made by The details that can be described below in an attempt to portray the inefficiency of bureaucracy or social ills publicly allow the narrative line of the film to be paid for so that “we have to” is more of a show of disturbing scenes rather than a stressful one. So the film is probably closer than anything to what critics of Iranian films at international festivals call “blackouts” or “festival films”; Where, in the opinion of extremist critics, some films presented at international film festivals, by emphasizing some components, such as poverty, addiction and disorder, show a disturbing image, which is sometimes even too harsh by critics with titles such as “patriotism”. Is denied.

However, regardless of the harsh critics of Iranian films present at international festivals and vague titles such as “festival film” or “blackout”, Reza Dermishian’s emphasis on creating a space and showing visual elements that emphasize social crises should be removed first of all. Becoming the narrative line of the film affects and weakens the rhythm and power of the film’s story.

The film’s commercial announces the relationship between the three women; Dr. Mahshid Pendar, gynecological surgeon (Fatemeh Motamedaria), Sara Nedayi, basic lawyer of a court of law (Negar Javaherian) and Golbahar Rezvani, daughter of Kartan Khoab (Ahmadieh Campus). In the same announcement, the bond between the three women is mentioned as an excuse that is supposed to pay for the central theme of the film; Confrontation between ethics or law. So, if we accept the points mentioned in this announcement, both the structure of the narrative and its content will become clear to us; That is, we see the confrontation and relationship between the three women who are supposed to show us the relationship between morality and law, and perhaps to make us look at this complex issue with questions or doubts. From this point of view, the three mentioned characters, regardless of anything, are supposed to become allegories in order to pay attention to the content; A carnivorous woman who is deprived of her basic human rights and completely unaware of them, and two women, one who speaks of human rights (lawyer) and the other who is offended by injustice, personally acts (doctor). Finally, the confrontation between the representative of law and morality in the absence of the cartoon girl (who is portrayed as a victim) shows the central theme of the film. In a sense, and given the name of the film, in the end, and in spite of the confrontation that the film mentions in the trailer, the young girl is caught in an algebraic situation that is portrayed not from a philosophical point of view but from a social point of view. Inefficiency is described and displayed.

The problem starts when the film, in addition to spending a lot of time paying for space (such as the constant presence of cartoons throughout the film or sub-stories that refer to injustice or disorder), openly wastes the opportunity for confrontation between the characters. From this perspective, of course, the viewer is affected by watching multiple scenes of social unrest, but instead there is no opportunity to pay attention to the relationship between the characters. In fact, two women (a doctor and a lawyer) do not talk to each other except in one scene, in the final third, and this weakens the subject and renders the dramatic situation inoperable, and openly delays the dramatic knot until it becomes ineffective. Dermishian, on the other hand, tries to establish the logic of the central characters’ behavior based on the more or less endless portrayal of poverty, cartoons, or addicts from the perspective of the two characters. As a result, we see at least two main characters constantly watching the status of the dream cartoons, in particular, it seems that the director prefers to pay the status and demands of the doctor more or less entirely on the same subject; He looks at the cartoons constantly and with a look of sympathy. So is he upset watching them? Since the character never talks about it, we have to resort to speculation.

The third problem, however, is that the director does not seem to have a specific view or perception of the projected theme. It can be guessed that he is probably more associated with a lawyer than a doctor; This can be deduced from the type of games; The doctor’s helplessness and the lawyer’s audacity or toughness. Also, we see only the romantic death of the lawyer and, of course, the last trial, which to a large extent condemns the doctor, but in what is called the confrontation between morality and law; Even when we do not know much about the two characters. Given this situation and what has to do with the confrontation between ethics and law, it seems that the director prefers to stand behind the law and condemn ethics. Perhaps the situation would have been a little more complicated, or at least more attractive, if the characters had stood in front of each other and had more luck talking. At the very least, the characters in the film could not be seen merely as allegories, but as characters who take the opposition between morality and law out of the realm of good and evil and add a human dimension to it. So if we are going to consider the film as a confrontation, nothing significant will happen to us.

“We have to” can be liked for its atmosphere. As has been said in most of the critiques and comments, perhaps the film’s boldness in portraying social unrest can be praised; Yet “we have to” ultimately depicts nothing more than the blackness and bitterness of social unrest; Without having to say much about the central and important confrontation.