Documentary Review: Divorce Iranian Style

Divorce Iranian Style is another observational documentary (Longinotto, 1997) set in an Iranian marriage courtroom. Just like Home from the Hill, the aim of the documentary is to shed light on an unfamiliar situation to the intended viewers. These would be anyone not familiar with the Iranian culture, particularly in the field of divorce and its legal processes. The documentary focuses on three different Iranian women, who all want to divorce their husbands for various reasons. The institution in this case is the Iranian court, a place which can’t be accessed by just anyone. Using the entire court room as a subject allows for a wider range of actions from the subject as opposed to using one person. This wider range of action is more eventful, which could allow for more entertainment, and therefore can be seen as a way of engagement. While it might seem to be of little importance, the casting for this film contributes greatly to its ability to engage. This is because of the subjects’ ability to enlighten the audience about their experience as Iranian women going through divorce. Longinotto’s decision to cast these women was impactful as it appeals to people’s curiosity of the unknown, prompting them to keep watching. The casting of the judge also plays a role in this as the character has little sympathy for the women’s situation and enjoys his position of power. “A calm, turbaned judge seems coldly distant in the face of heated testimony from women in their chadors, speaking with unblushing intimacy about rotten domestic situations.” (Stack, 1999) sums up perfectly the relationship between the judge and the women being oppressed in their marriages. The spectator’s emotions grow negatively towards a character like this which maintains a level of engagement. This power dynamic might encourage viewers to keep watching as their sympathy grows for the women. The empathy that is created by this dynamic is what draws the spectator into the documentary, due to a subconscious desire for the judge to not get his way. While Home from the Hill may have been relatable to western viewers, this documentary might seem more distant from the lives of the majority of them. The fact that the film is in Farsi, makes it harder for viewers to empathise, as there is an extra step (reading the subtitles) in the process of understanding what they are saying. However, I would imagine for a Farsi speaker the language would not present such a barrier in the context of relatability as this additional step of processing wouldn’t apply. Because relatability to western viewers doesn’t offer much in terms of engagement, Longinotto uses other conventions to ensure that her film is still engaging. In terms of the storyline the aspect that engaged me the most was the empathy. While it is hard to relate to the subjects, it is easy to establish an emotional connection to them. This is because the viewer sees the raw emotion pouring out of each character in the documentary. Through their body language and facial expressions, we gain a sense of understanding that we might not be able to achieve through the dialogue. This documentary is an excellent showcase of the power of capturing body language and facial expression in film to facilitate empathy from the viewers.

A significant part of how these emotions are shown to audience is through editing. Although the subjects have very compelling stories, Longinotto would have had difficulty deeply engaging her audience with just the story alone. For example, the power dynamic between the judge and the women is shown in part by the exclusive use of wide shots of the judge, which allow for his entire white outfit to be seen by viewers. The fact that the judge is the only one in the room with a fully white outfit highlights the pedestal that he is on above everyone else. Alongside this, the judge is the only one who is seen through these wide shots, as everyone else is reflected through medium shots which only show them from the waist up. The long cuts reflect the way in which we witness life, as there are no cuts in our day-to-day experiences. Similarly, to its effect in Home from the Hill, the long cuts keep viewers engaged by conveying a feeling of realism as what viewers see on screen parallels what they see in real life. Additionally, it allows viewers to gain more insight into how the stories unfold. Diegetic sound has a similar but through an auditory medium, in the same way viewers are constantly hearing sound in everyday life, they are also constantly hearing sound in the film world. Because of these factors, the audience is further encouraged to empathise with the situation they see before them. Each argument the women make to the judge, and each emotional bullet that they experience, is also felt by the audience. Additionally, Longinotto uses a series of close-ups and medium close-ups during the opening sequence. Quite a few of them are close-ups of the women at points when they are expressing emotion, which further encourages the spectator to empathise with the women. It is interesting to note that there are no close-ups of the judge. This contrast between the lack of wide shots of the women and close-ups of the judge further solidifies the power dynamic does a lot to evoke emotion from the audience. Lastly, Longinotto’s choice to include shots of men and women entering the courtroom and going through the gender specific security processes, suggests a desire to set the tone for this very gender based power dynamic. This scene occurs within the first fifteen minutes of the documentary, which perhaps gently stirs the emotional juices of the audience. Therefore, the editing in Divorce Iranian Style plays a key role in emotionally engaging the audience.

In regard to the unobtrusive filming style of the documentary, this film has more of a ‘fly on the wall’ feel to it compared to Home from the Hill. There are no interviews or dialogue from Longinotto, aside from the opening voiceover monologue in which she contextualises the film. This gives the impression that the drama and emotion we see throughout the documentary is completely authentic and unprompted – all the filmmaker did was capture what was before her. That being said, as discussed by Silvio Carta in the journal article “Visual and Experiential Knowledge in Observational Cinema”, the filmmaker is in a position of power, as they choose what is to be shown and what is to be hidden, meaning that what we see in the documentary is not entirely unobtrusive. The filmmaker can manipulate what we see in an attempt to get the audience to have certain ideas on the documentary (Carta, 2015). In addition to this, the fact that Longinotto is filming in a courtroom as someone who is not a part of the culture, can mean that the behaviour she captured might not be as authentic as it could be. Not only is a courtroom a space in which cameras are prohibited, it is also a space which is emotionally strenuous. Because of this it is difficult to believe that the presence of Longinotto in the courtroom had no effect on the subjects’ behaviour and demeanour. Additionally, the filmmaker’s desire to make consistently engaging content suggests that what viewers see is crafted together in a way that both highlights and casts shadows over certain aspects of the experience. Not only that, it is important to remember that Longinotto is a human being with personal interests and curiosities that influence what she pays attention to. Given that, we could say that Divorce Iranian Style, along with any other observational documentary will only ever be unobtrusive to a certain degree, as “observational films show not only the people who were filmed but also the filmmaker’s act of observing” (Carta, 2015). In regards to the subjectivity of Longinotto’s role in the film, it’s quite likely that she was well aware of her potential influence in production and took measures to ensure her effect was minimised. This documentary is still relatively unobtrusive, which allows for less of a barrier between the audience and the story. This enhances engagement as it has the effect that the audience is sitting in the courtroom watching what unfolds. Therefore, this relatively unobtrusive style we see in Divorce Iranian Style has a positive effect on engagement, bridging the gap between the audience at home and the Iranian courtroom.

Conclusion

Narration, unobtrusive filming, and editing are all conventions of observational documentary that all contribute towards how the documentaries keep audiences engaged. A great extent of what makes the documentaries stimulating are the three conventions that are covered in the essay, with the most being narration. This is because the encouragement for the audience to watch the film begins with the general idea that the filmmaker has, and then the story follows on from