By Riza Siyami – December 11, 2024
While Iranian cinema has successfully crossed geographical borders and gained international acclaim, it remains overly centralized within its own borders—with most films being, in essence, “Tehran films,” featuring modern urban lifestyles and narratives set in the capital. Stories of various ethnic groups are still underrepresented. Although in recent years we have seen more local filmmaking, the press conference for Niki Karimi’s Atabai highlighted the question of language in cinema: Is Persian necessary for Iranian film, and does using a local language undermine a film’s “Iranian-ness”? This debate gains urgency as more critically acclaimed films have recently been made in local languages.
When advocating for local cinema, asserting that Iranian films shouldn’t be confined to Tehran or urban stories, it’s vital to recognize that language and dialect are integral to a region’s culture. Removing local language from films set in specific localities—especially realist films—weakens their structural integrity. It would be a cinematic misstep.
Persian is Iran’s official language but not the sole “cinematic tongue.” Cinema employs multiple registers:
The visual-technique language, the universal grammar of film.
The official spoken language, typically Persian.
The ethnic/local language, reflecting a region’s linguistic diversity and narrative realism.
In many regions of Iran, local language naturally dominates daily conversations. Reflecting that linguistically is an act of realism—not separatism or ethnic bias. For a film set in a local setting, using the local language is a dramatic necessity; ignoring it would violate internal dramatic logic of the story.
National cinema emerges from local cinema. Without embracing regional diversity, we cannot fully unlock the creative potential of Iran’s biodiverse cultural landscape. Not all of Iran is Tehran, and not all stories are urban. Each ethnic group brings its own narratives—and its own cinematic potential. This doesn’t mean local-language cinema ignores cinematic rules; it uses them within a vessel shaped by locality.
Local cinema also uncovers regional talent in directing and acting, introducing them into the national cinematic ecosystem. Strengthening regional cinema bolsters national cinema. Therefore, filmmaking in Iran must escape the capital, rooting stories in local geographies. Using local language draws in audiences who speak that tongue—such as the many Turkish speakers—who can find deeper emotional connection and identification with characters.
In successful local-language films, viewers are carried along more by cinematic language and storytelling than by dialogue itself. The language becomes secondary to the film’s artistic power.
When cultural policy supports regional and experimental cinema, we cannot marginalize local languages. This issue is largely resolved in Iranian documentary cinema, but remains contested in narrative film—some see local languages as unpatriotic or even separatist. However, dogmatic use of local language without dramatic justification is also harmful. Elevating one language over another is equally misguided.
What matters is the structure and cinematic expression—if it fails, we can’t compensate with dialogue. There is no intrinsic superiority or inferiority between official Persian and local languages in film. Instead of extremes—either dogmatic restriction or token usage—we should pursue linguistic dialogue in cinema, as Bahram Beyzaie did in The Little Stranger Bashu, where empathy transcends language.
Link to the original article in Farsi: سینمای بومی و مسئله زبان فیلم | دربارۀ مرکزگریزی در فیلمسازی