DigiGuide Forums

DOCUMENTARY: Once Upon a Time in Iran, Channel 4 at 21:00 on Thursday 22nd February 2007

A steady drumbeat of leaks suggests that the US and/or Israel may attack Iran sometime over the coming months. Once Upon a Time in Iran is a road movie featuring pilgrims and presidents: a journey to the spiritual heartlands of the Iranian people and a tale of martyrdom that defines their view of aggressors and the outside world.
(Watch Online, Subtitles)

Click to add a DigiGuide alert so you get a reminder when Once Upon a Time in Iran starts

BAFTA award-winning director Kevin Sim follows pilgrims on a breathtaking spiritual journey through Iran and Iraq to reveal how a murder that took place nearly 1400 years ago still shapes the dangerous world of the Middle East. Behind the headlines that read 'The Axis of Evil' and 'the new Hitler', there is another story, which began long ago.

The film follows a group of ordinary Iranians to the source of this tale - one that has galvanised Iranian politics for hundreds of years.

Amongst the pilgrims on this modern Canterbury Tales are Basijis, hard-line revolutionary guards, supporters of President Ahmadinejad and the tough fundamentalist principles of the Islamic Republic; bazaari, the enormously influential traders from the great bazaars of Tehran and Isfahan; athletes from the closely guarded Zoorkheneh, the so called Houses of Strength, the guardians of centuries-old traditions, whose extreme exercise regime is driven by the stories and ancient poetry of Iran. Also amongst the pilgrims will be three-year-old Mohammad Hussein, learning these stories for the first time.

All the pilgrims travel to Iraq in the knowledge that increasingly in recent months these Shi'a shrines - and Shi'a pilgrims - have become targets of Iraqi Sunni attacks. More recently Karbala has become even more than a symbol - it has been an irresistible call to political action.

Another interesting program by Kevin Sim.

Problem being it was rather weighted from the offset, they pulled it back by the end, but left distinct impression it was unbalanced.

At the beginning thought it had been sponsored by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as I presume some form of compromise necessary to get cooperation, especially for future projects.

However, given this piece specifically written to give 'President Bush food for thought' would have been more helpful to start the history lesson in 1940s, not start with a deliberate brief mention of the coup in 1950s whereby it was simplified version that the America & the UK 'deposed' a democratically * elected leader Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh **

* btw - Hitler was also a democratically elected, less we forget, so having a popular mandate by which others misuse such too committ genocide is hardly cricket or a guarantee of non intervention by others. As equally relative to Iran leadership in the 21st Century & its statements about Israel.

** who was actually 'dismissed' by a decree from the Shah, for the PM's efforts to get the Shah to quit Iran.

In 1941, both Britain & USSR purposely occupied Iran, given the then Iranian leader, Reza Shah, was an admirer of Hitler & there was genuine concern what Iran would side with the Axis powers during WWII. Thus the 'Persian Corridor' of supply was created, moving supplies from the Allies to the Soviets.

So the then father was ousted by the Allies & his son put on the throne in his place, Mohammad Reza. That is the crucial bit of info missing from an unbalanced but interesting story nether the less, given the modern context of America & Iran.

Watching this program, the lesson I think they were trying to get across is that the Iranian people would respond yet again too religious manipulation, the legends around Karbala, Hussain, martyrs & oppressors etc. In response, would remind others to remember the western philosophy in respect to war 'make the other guy die for his country' & we view martyrdom as something rather different.

Since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad cannot even guarantee the basics in Iranian society, like the price of tomatoes, really don't think he has much to crow about. There is a very strong likelihood that mainstream Iranian society will oust him, but they better hurry up about it.

Meantime, given Iran's nuclear impasse, lets hope the UN backs up the violation of its legal rulings by Iran otherwise Israel and/or US will be obliged to act, for rather justifiable reasons of self preservation, given Ahmadinejad threatening utterances & less than open nuclear ambitions.

vikingar

"Iran has always co-operated in documentary making in the region."

In the current political situation, having a British film crew being nosy around Iran with a reasonable amount of freedom and security was a tough job. It doubled the budget of the film and took over 3 months more than the estimated original time to gain access. There were western journalists being killed in Iran as the film was being shot.

I though it was very biased and rather strategically scheduled at the time of Bush and Blair talks of invasion. The title was misleading. Once upon a time is a phrase usually used to tell a story which as this was a documentary we would except to have some historical fact. Did I miss it or were there just a couple of shoots of 1950 and 1979 revelation and a quick mention of Shah.

As far as I could see this was a story of group of fundamentalist religious Iranians on their way to Karbala. It didn’t show balanced views of most Iranians and it just repeated some hatred by some religious fanatics against US and Britain. Something like 70% of Iranians are under the age of 30 and they don’t all believe that US and Britain are their enemies and should be wiped off the face of the earth.

I really think this should have been called On the road to Karbala and the documentary makers should have made sure that the audience would know that this is a view of just one segment of Iranian society. As it is anyone who doesn’t know Iran or Iranians would think that this is what all Iranian are like.

I personally am writing to OFCOM to complain.

On Friday, February 23, 2007 - 11:50 annab wrote...
"Iran has always co-operated in documentary making in the region."

In the current political situation, having a British film crew being nosy around Iran with a reasonable amount of freedom and security was a tough job. It doubled the budget of the film and took over 3 months more than the estimated original time to gain access. There were western journalists being killed in Iran as the film was being shot.

I haven't heard about these western journalists being killed. Where were they from? If this story is true it would be very unusual because:
a) it hasn't been reported by western media - they would be keen to report such a story
b) nor reported by "Reporters without Borders" which keeps statistics on the well-being of journalists around the world.

On Friday, February 23, 2007 - 12:24 siaye.niakamal wrote...
I though it was very biased and rather strategically scheduled at the time of Bush and Blair talks of invasion. quote]

The film was comissioned as a direct consequence of the explosive international relations situation between US/ Iran, so no wonder it is 'topical'. Television does have a commercial aspect, like it or not. Strategically sheduled as Iranian propoganda? Certainly not. It was sheduled on a confirmed date as soon as it got to post-production, 2 weeks before it was shown. 2 weeks ago, Iran was in the news somewhat less frequently.

certainly! It was beautiful, powerful and interesting. For me, I found it fascinating how the mirror -effect worked within the film. By that I mean the way we saw our western selves through this Shia Iranian lens. THAT was the breath of fresh air!

We must have been watching a different programme because on 2 occasions they mention their hatred toward US and Britain. I think it also demonstrates your blindness if you think that there aren't two groups in Iran, one of extremely fundamentalist Iranian (which I think you might belong to as your quotes from Ahmadienejad shows) and another group of logical Educated Iranian who don't believe that 1000 virgins will come to them if they you give your life for Allah.

Your world is too black and white. Like George Bush's worldview - "you're either with us or with the terrorists".

Firstly, out of all the shias in Iran; there are those who don't believe in religion at all, those that pray occasionally, those that do all the obligatory acts and some that dedicate their lives to religion. I'm sure there are many other categories too. Who do you class as a fundamentalist?

Secondly, the spiritual leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei issued a fatwah that production, stock-piling and use of nuclear weapons is forbidden. So by your apparent definition the "fundamentalists" are the ones who are the most strongly against the production of nuclear weapons and mass proliferation.

Edited by nb_ahmad on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 17:18

I find it an interesting, if not ironic, rearguard defence of the fundamentalist regime in Iran by some posters above, especially nb_ahmad.

People have been fleeing Iran since the religious zealots took over the country in 1979 - just a selection of what is out there on the net

The flows of intellectual, middle class & those from working classes looking for safety & opportunity has been significant, fleeing Iran to many areas, especially the UK & US, the home of the BBC & CNN et al

But things in life often go full circle & those passionate Iranian students & activists of 1970's (now in power) are the oppressors for which the current generation of students & activists rebel against.

Q. who is fleeing oppression in the western democratic progressive societies, to find asylum in Irrational Iran?

The flow of the oppressed is one way between those respective societies,

But credit where credit is due, the desperate find sanctuary & are given assistance by the people of Iran & the UNHCR:

"Despite the huge number of Afghans who continued to return home, they remain the largest refugee group of concern to UNHCR, with 1.9 million scattered across 72 countries. The great majority are still to be found in Pakistan and Iran, which continue to host the largest refugee populations in the world" [4a] [4b]

Personally, my objection are not too Iranians (as a Brit, I had an Iranian girlfriend & have Iranian friends myself).

Rather my objection (as with most in the west) is with the minority of religious zealots, extremists & fundamentalists who are ruining Iran, the region & the reputation of Islam (Shia) & fail to embrace the 21st Century & adapt … let alone funding international terrorism (Shia - Hamas & Hezbollah … to name but some).

When they overtly oppress their own people, especially women & other minorities, who can trust the ‘assurance’ & utterances, let alone proven demonstrated abuses, of the Iranian Regime (political & religious).

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] http://www.hambastegi.org/english/index.htm
[2] http://www.irainc.org/dcenter/bckgrnd.html
[3] http://www.farsinet.com/chair/
[4a] http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/basics/opendoc.htm?tbl=BASICS&id=3b028097c
[4b] http://www.britkid.org/si-refugees.html

Edited by bbc_consumer on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 22:04