In my film I wanted to capture the essence of the era of Shah Abbas. To make a film capturing that idea could have cost millions and involved millions of extras like a Cecil B. Demille style production but I didn't have that kind of budget. Instead the film became an art film which many critics found metaphysical and jewel like. In 1978 the film was presented at the Monte Carlo Film Festival.

The actor Richard Widmark was one of the judges. He congratulated me and commented favorably on my film. He particularly liked the mixture of Monteverdi and traditional Persian music in it. Although the film was mentioned by the reporter covering the festival for Time Magazine, in retrospect the Monte Carlo Film Festival was not the correct venue to debut this film. Even the judges were not right. I mean after all Widmark was a cowboy actor. It won a gold medal at the documentary festival in Nice that year as well.

The IRI didn't like my film because it did nothing to enhance their politics. At the Key Club people sent me over champagne. They recognized my film. I had used some of my own funds to produce it. It was not a popular film. I have never tried to make a popular film. I have particular tastes that may not appeal to everyone. But I can tell you that whoever sees this film loves it. It has become a Classic.

I am a foreigner in Italy and also in Iran. I can tell you that Darius Mehrjui ("The Cow."1970, "The Cycle,"1977 and "The Tennants," 1982) likes my work and respects it. I was never part of a group. I always went solo.

When I was making: "Sarab-e-Soltanieh," the revolution started and the NIRT which was helping to fund it went on strike. The IRI didn't like my film. I told them it was about the mosque at Soltanieh but they weren't impressed. In this film half the Iranians were Europeanized and Americanized and half were not. The male protagonist was an archeologist studying the unique blue ceramic tile at Soltanieh. He was played by Parviz Mirhosseini. In his role, he had a traditional conservative father and he had gone to school in a madresseh. His girlfriend, played by Shohreh Aghdashloo, was Europeanized and didn't speak Persian very well.

I thought this film was appropriate for the time but the IRI put it in a box at NIRT and said they would call me and that was 24 years ago now. The film had three episodes and I made it with both my own money and funding from NIRT. I thought it was a very honest work.

Shohreh was perfect for the role. She is a real actress and works very hard. I came to feel a great affection for Shohreh and vice versa. When you put me in touch with her after 24 years it was like no time had passed at all. She is so unpretentious and simpatica. Also Gholam-Hossein Naghshineh was perfect in both my films: "Pietro Della Valle" and "Sarab-e-Soltanieh." The Italian film editors were very impressed with the professionalism of Naghshineh. The filming of "Sarab-e-Soltanieh" was made so easy by the professionalism of the actors.

Q: What was the deal with that Yugoslav lead actor: Stanco Molnar? What was his recommendation?
A: I was attracted by his eyes but he was a pain in the ass. He was recommended to me by
my friends the Taviani brothers. He had acted for Paolo and Vittorio Taviani in their film "Intolerance" about the American director Griffith. He also acted in Bertolucci's: "1900"
and in "Allons Enfants..." Stanco worked with Marcello Mastroiani but he did not have the warm personality of Marcello. I liked Stanco's eyes.

You know I have many gay friends who are very simpatico and wonderful human beings but Stanco put on airs and had a difficult personality to work with. A great actor must be humble and helpful not difficult. He was a closet case gay and had a diva attitude. Remember how he fussed about not having a room in the Shah Abbas Hotel and moved in over there at his own expense? And I never got much help from the assistant directors either while making "Pietro..."

Regarding "Sarab-e-Soltanieh," the cause should have been more important than luck. In ancient Persia, 500 years ago, they used to talk about "the auspicious time to do something, the right time to do something." It was the wrong time to make this film. I finished it in August of 1978. With all the strikes going on, I saw it all happening but I had to bring this film to Iran to make it. There were huge strikes, nothing was happening at NIRT and then the Shah left and Khomeini arrived. The revolution made huge, huge changes to everything. The new directors, even the best are restricted by the IRI. Actresses have to wear head scarves.

But even during the Shah's time there were some quite daring films that were made.
I once asked Hatami, the director of "Silk Route" how he managed to get away with making that film. It took a lot of courage to make that film even coming at the end of the Shah's era as it did.

There is no way today that I could remake "Sarab-e-Soltanieh" now with all the women in chadors. We are small in the face of huge historic events. Before the revolution much was wrong but there were a lot of good things too. Those who wanted a better Iran were marginalized by the IRI. The Mojahedin and the Fadaiyan were marginalized.

Q: What did you think of Sharpour Bakhtiar?
A: Sharpour Bakhtiar would have been perfect. Khomeini appealed to the illiterate masses. I interviewed Bakhtiar one time for the "Corriere della Sera" (largest circulation Italian daily.) Bakhtiar was educated in France. The population of Iran was not ready for Bakhtiar. The people had once loved the Shah but the Shah did not give parliament enough power.

The Imperial Court appointed parliament and the MP's were mostly the nouveau riche. Bakhtiar believed in the constitution of Iran and in an elected parliament. Mossadegh believed in the constitution and the parliament as well. All the revolutions in Europe in the 1800's were fought to gain parliamentary systems. The Shah understood this too but it was too late. He needed to start making Iran into a republic 4 or 5 years sooner.

I believe that the USA had only one motive. They were afraid of the USSR only. I do not believe in a big conspiracy theory. Usually motives are simple not complicated in history. Khomeini wanted to export his revolution to the Shias in Iraq. I believe Saddam attacked Iran for his own motives also and not just at the bidding of the USA. Khomeini wanted to conquer Jerusalem and Syria. If Gorbachev had arrived earlier there would have been a much softer transition in Iran.

Illiteracy almost no longer exists in Iran. There are many books being printed and translated in Iran. As long as the first page has a disclaimer against the Shah and his father then they can print anything they want without further censorship. People are very well read these days and a lot of books are being published now in Iran. The Shah had much more censorship of literature than now. It is a different type of censorship now of a religious nature like the restrictions on drinking, women's dress and make up and so on.

Some great books have been written under the IRI regime about Shah Reza and Reza Shah. Some very good writers are still in Iran. The population has become much more educated. The population never dies. The Italians have never been as great as the Romans even though they had their Renaissance, O.K.! But Persians never die. Persians were always advisors to the Ottoman caliphs for example. Modern Greeks have never attained the greatness of the ancient Greeks like Aristotle, Socrates or Plato but Persians still have a great culture.

Q: What do you think about modern Iranian cinema?
A: Some beautiful films are also being made now in Iran. The whole world is calling Iranians terrorists thanks to America and yet they have been making films, some very artistic films in the middle of all this. Persians in the final analysis are poets not terrorists. I always thank Persian students and poets because they insist on existing in spite of all the politics.

"The Circle," "Dayere" of Jafar-e-Panahi was very beautiful. It was not right for TV because it was full of "chiaro scuro." It won the Golden Lion award at the Venice film festival. The movie starts out in a hospital with a baby being born and the whole family wanting a boy. When a girl is born they are all disappointed. You see I am telling you again that women are the last colony to be liberated.

Kiorastani has been very successful. In Italy he has much respect and is considered a great photographer and referred to as Maestro. Also Makhmalbaf and his film "Kandahar" has earned a lot of recognition internationally. I am very impressed by the courage of Kiorastani and his films.

Q: Besides Kiarostani and Makhmalbaf are their any other modern Iranian directors that you admire?
A: Well those are the two I am most familiar with. I liked Abbas Kiarostani's "Taste of Cherry" about ordinary events in life and emotions versus 20th century events beyond our control. His films are always successful despite the climate of fear of censorship in the IRI and I admire his courage greatly. "The Circle" was much more cinematographic but I did not find it profound three days later....

A lot of the interest in Iranian film is due to the curiosity in the West about life in the IRI. However I must add that there were also some great directors at the time of the Shah like Kimiavi. He was an admirer of Jean Luc Goddard. Kimiavi made some very beautiful films in those days. In fact, despite his shortcomings, the Shah actually did much for Iran and the Iranian cinema industry with classes offered in cinematography at the universities and by supporting NIRT. The great directors of Iran learned their craft under the Shah's regime not the Mullahs even though they try to claim credit for them.



to be cont.