After ABOUT ELLY, A SEPARATION and THE PAST, it seemed that Asghar Farhadi had come to a point to use an impressive premise deliberately: confronting the viewers with a moralistic dilemma when facing the sublime subject of death.

Returning to the theme of honor and dignity (once again after FIREWORKS WEDNESDAY), Farhadi proves that he is still preoccupied with the traditional teachings in his society as well – however, interestingly, the film is interpreted in two different ways in his homeland and in international scene. In international scene, most of the viewers believe that the director attempts to portray a stereotypical oriental man: aggressive, violent and illogical when it comes to anything relating to his honor. In Iran, most of the viewers feel that it is just a justification for the rightful actions of a man seeking vengeance for his lost honor.

The opposite interpretations are originated from director’s altering approach to the subject. Before the final showdown, THE SALESMAN is trapped in a Hitchcockian absolutistic plotline. There is a great opening, when the characters, running away from a collapsing building, are masterfully tracked by a fluid camera. Then it turns to be just a simple twist for moving to a new house, not a sign of ongoing unsafety. Therefore when the young couple is settled in a new apartment, the woman is assaulted in the bathroom – simply due to the fact that the previous lodger was a notorious woman. Then there is just one question coming to husband’s mind, “Who’s the assaulter?” Most of the time, the film follows the pattern of moving from one clue to the another, but since there are no journeys implicated for each new discovery, there are no clues about the characters at all. They remain as they are: noisy, aggressive husband and silent, passive wife. The wife eccentrically resists any advice for referring to the police station and filing a complaint – though it is questionable that what is her motivation and how the police are absolutely absent when the injured woman is taken to the hospital. Relying on all of the circumstantial factors, the husband sees no way but to seek biblical justice.

The paradoxical interpretations are also nurtured by the paradoxical characterization of the male hero: an intellectual on the stage (performing Arthur Miller’s DEATH OF A SALESMAN) and in the classroom (showing Dariush Mehrjui’s THE COW for the students) and a traditionalist at home. So unlike the archetypal hero in Masoud Kimiai’s QAISAR (a milestone in history of Iranian cinema marking the beginning of a new wave along with THE COW in 1969, Farhadi’s hero seems to be a castrated version – however his reactions are the same and the intellectual gestures are not harmonized with his character. So essentially there is no big difference between the characters played by award-winning Shahab Hosseini in A SEPARATION and THE SALESMAN – despite the fact they are supposed to represent men coming from two different social classes. Unlike BIRDMAN (2014, Alejandro González Iñárritu) which uses a cycle of recurring situations on stage and in personal life to focus on the nuances in characterization and gradual changes (of course due to its surprising camerawork) which proves to be more stunning rather than convincing, Farhadi’s film does not proceed as it is supposed since there are no changes in the interiors and just some sudden hysterical reactions devised in the script in order to remain on the safe side, act solely as a neutral observer and give way to opposite interpretations inside and outside the country.

So apart from trivial central theme, unattractive stereotypes, undefined relations between the personages and the places, non-existent inner journeys, lack of psychological depth, naïve complications and clues, the film severely suffers from its total abstraction from its society leading to its failure in presenting convincing motivations. Therefore all the references seem to be futile and all intellectual gestures hollow – especially when it comes to Farhadi’s Willy Loman who is absent all through the film and extracted from both story and society, there is no difference to be regarded as a client or a salesman. The director does not portray the assaulter in the society. With reduction of the motivation to some meaningless sentences, the director gives the freedom to any viewer to rely on his own imagination to create the character. If Miller’s low man is detailedly portrayed in a time of transition, Farhadi’s old man is not characterized by any specifications.

In the final showdown, Farhadi does not choose to follow the resolution according to the absolutism ruling all the film. In the last minutes, he disappointingly tries to go back to the relativism which is surely the strength point of his earlier works. He tries to look at everyone from a different point of view – though it seems too late to judge the sinner differently. But coming back to his own world, he succeeds to deliver some images of fear and trembling of his hesitant characters – the images which are totally trivialized all through the way from opening to showdown.

K.