What happened on the night of Mohammadreza Moghdisian?

Charso Press: According to the public relations of the Cinema Museum, after the screening of Hamid Jafari, the documentary maker about the living cinema of Yad Maqdisian and his cinematic legacy, he said: The most important works of this prominent documentary maker were made in the sixties and seventies. But he presented himself as a precise film maker with his first films, there is no copy of his first film, but his second film “Ngargar Altafi” and especially his second film “Kore Pezkhaneh” are important, detailed and decorated works that are It is considered as an important filmmaking. The cinema of the Saints is based on reconstruction. Magdasian believed that documentary cinema would lose many possibilities without reconstruction.

“Dialogue in the fog”; The only film that has not been remade is the Saints

Jafari continued: When we are not present in the evolution of an event, we either have to define it or show it in different ways. Maqdisian attached great importance to making the reality into a movie, the meaning of making a movie is not just to depict it. Cinema should be a tool that crystallizes your central idea.

Jafari added about the characteristics of Magdasian’s cinema: He was very loyal to the idea he got from the subject in the reconstruction. Today, we see a movie that recreates everything, but the reconstruction is in the service of storytelling, or the filmmaker hides his reconstruction as if the camera is directly present on the scene. This method is far from the method of rebuilding the saints.

Emphasizing the role of reconstruction in documentary cinema, he said: The subject of this film is the dredging of Nemur River. It was possible to prepare a report on this issue, but Magdasian got an idea in this issue that has a deep connection with Iranian culture and that is “epic”. He had no other way to crystallize the idea of ​​the epic in the film except for reconstruction. In the movie, we see that people are dredging a river together. In this incident, there is an order in nature itself that is hidden from our eyes, it can be felt but not seen. To show this order, you inevitably occupy the event, because you have to transfer the event from the three-dimensional space to the two-dimensional screen and create a special order of the screen. This work cannot be illustrated except by reconstruction.

He also said about the visual structure of the film: the composition of the film’s shots is painterly and very fine details are included in it, for example, the long shot shots of dredging in the sequence of Luqwars and the scene of the sacrifice.

Jafari, in response to the question, is the film “Serud Dasht Neymur” a populist film? He said: This film is not an anthropological work, but it has anthropological features. There are anthropological features in many works of Maqdisian, but his cinema is not anthropological.

Jafari added: In the beginning of the film, we see a view of a hill, and then shovels coming up from behind the hill, and then a crowd of shovels and the person leading them appears like a general. What does this picture tell us? As if some people are going to war. This is the image of people going to war with nature. Arranging this facade in such a way that it can convey such a purpose cannot be achieved except by reconstruction. The importance of the film is that it expresses its idea in a cinematic way, which is about the saga of cooperation of the people of Nimur and is rooted in the tradition of that people.

He added: Magdasian knew both cinema and could communicate with people. Bringing a large number of people from the village in front of the camera for consecutive days is by no means an easy task.

He went on to say: “Maghdisian cannot be defined without Mohammad Reza Aslani.” Magdasian had learned cinema from Mr. Aslani. Mr. Aslani was the producer of Maqdisian’s first film “The Last Melheme” and also one of his most important films “Kore Pezkhaneh”. He was also Mr. Aslani’s assistant in several films, including the “Child and Exploitation” series.

He continued: Aslani’s cinema is also based on reconstruction, although he follows a different path. Magdasian had a close relationship with Aslani during the making of this film, and Mr. Aslani discussed painting and especially Iranian painting for him and other friends in numerous meetings. The stability of the compositions in this work is the result of the knowledge that was gained in these meetings. Magdasian was very careful and sensitive in his compositions, and the role of Mohammad Reza Aslani is very prominent in this matter.

This documentary maker also said about the role of research in the cinema of Mohammad Reza Magdasian: He attached great importance to research, but his problem was how the research of a work can find a cinematic expression. In his view, research for a filmmaker had a different meaning than research from a writer’s point of view. Documentary cinema is a multifaceted field and there are many types of documentary films that we all know as documentary cinema. Magdasian’s view was not to simply convey information to the audience with his works, but he was always looking for the cinematic crystallization of his central idea. In this film, his idea is the epic of cooperation among people. In his works, each idea is dramatized in a different way.

He also mentioned about Mahmoud Bahadri’s long-term cooperation with Magdasian: Zind Yad Bahadri was one of the most prominent cinematographers of our documentary cinema. Of course, Magdasian always worked with very good cameramen and considered himself indebted to them. He always said that Farhad Saba, the videographer of “Traditional Water and Irrigation in Iran” made me become a filmmaker, and he had the same connection with Bahadri.

He always said that this film would not have been completed without Bahadri. He also made the film Khizab and three films about the music masters of Iran’s regions with the cooperation of Mahmoud Bahadari as a cinematographer.

Maqdisian was a very intelligent filmmaker

Jafari explained about the production conditions of “Serud Dasht Neymur”: making this film at that time is very important. Nowadays, it is no longer possible to produce such films. At that time, Dr. Morteza Farhadi informs the people that this ritual will be performed for the last time, and the people of Moqdasian put his effort into making the film, and of course, the director of the TV group supported the production of this film.

Regarding the dredging plans, multiple takes were not possible and Magdasian filmed these sequences with two cameras. But he had organized the scene very well before shooting.

In response to a question about “Cinema Verité”, he also expressed: “Cinema Verité sometimes happens only on the surface, while not only is it all a reconstruction, but lies are also told in it.” Of course, there are buyers for them because they respond to common stereotypes.

In the continuation of this meeting, Ord Attarpour, a well-known documentary film maker, also said about Maqdisian’s cinema: I collaborated with Maqdisian as a producer in the film “Two, Three Things I Can Say”; He was a very intelligent filmmaker. His film “Conversation in the Mist” is considered a wonderful work in Iranian documentary cinema. At the end of his working career, Moghdasban changed his work style a little, which I think was not the result of a change in his point of view, but due to the physical problem he had with his age.

He continued: “Maghdisian had a justice-seeking mindset and accompanied the lower classes, and this issue is also reflected in the movie we watched.” He had a very complex mind and I think he was trying to create another character in this film. In the minds of the saints, there were always things that could not be brought up publicly, that is why he tried to put these things in the mind of the audience in another way.

Stating that there is a relationship between the film and the use of the method of reconstruction, Attarpour said: It is not possible to say with certainty how correct the use of reconstruction is about this method. . In fact, it can be said that Mohammad Reza Magdasian was a filmmaker whose films will always remain and he himself will never be repeated.

In addition, Saeed Rashtian, one of the veteran documentary makers of Iranian cinema, also said about “Serud Dasht Neymur” and other works of Maqdisian: “Many people were present in this film, whose existence is very important.” including Zind Yad Bahadri, whose role in the collection of holy works should be emphasized. I got to know these people through research and writing, and I had the chance to be the producer of one of the films of the Saints. He was very professional in his work and at the same time being close to him brought many joys and troubles.

He said about reconstruction in documentary cinema: Today, they go for reconstruction to make things easier, but it was not like this in the past. Documentary cinema in that period is a continuation of the new wave cinema that existed in fiction cinema. For the filmmaker, the focal idea is important, and he thinks about how to make a cinematic narrative out of it. In that period, people like Ebrahim Mokhtari and Mohsen Abdul Wahab tried to figure out how to approach the visual reality of cinema.

In the end, Rashtian said: This period is considered a school and experience in documentary cinema, which means mixing and getting closer to reality, for this reason, they put the subject in a position that would show their desired reactions.