A huge hit when it was released, the movie is set in 1953, when after the death of Stalin, Beria pronounced an amnesty which put out of work camps an enormous amount of inmates, causing an increase in criminality. 　　At a small village by a lake, live two political exiles spending there few years after camp sentence as "enemy of the people". They don't benefit from the amnesty. The older one works and is integrated in the small community, the younger, a former WWII officer survives doing nothing and is kept on the side. Yet the daughter of a mute woman enjoys to have some talk with him. 　　The police officer tells the main administrative clerck about the recent removal of Beria, the massive amnesties and a group of six wanted men wandering near the place after a murder. 　　The bandits are in fact hiding in a barn, and the next day they attack and take control of the villagers. Not presents at the moment, the two political prisoners can choose: leave the place, but they decide instead to take action against the bandits. Paradox: the so-called "enemies of the people" are in fact the ones who rescue the people, from the real criminals. 　　Historically, the movie is fantastic, because produced in 1987, it was the first mainstream feature dealing directly with a critic of political prisoners and exiles. Khrushchov's destalinization ended the stalinian Terror but didn't allow a level of artistic freedom of expression making possible a movie like this one. 　　History of politics aside, the action and tension are good. Some have labelled it a "russian western" , as few outsiders fight a bunch of nasty and violent bad guys and save the town's good people. 　　The filming location is in central Karelia, not far from Petrozavodsk, north-western Russia. A very beautiful nature. 　　Valeri Priyomykhov received a state prize for his portrayal of the main character.

A huge hit when it was released, the movie is set in 1953, when after the death of Stalin, Beria pronounced an amnesty which put out of work camps an enormous amount of inmates, causing an increase in criminality. 　　At a small village by a lake, live two political exiles spending there few years after camp sentence as "enemy of the people". They don't benefit from the amnesty. The older one works and is integrated in the small community, the younger, a former WWII officer survives doing nothing and is kept on the side. Yet the daughter of a mute woman enjoys to have some talk with him. 　　The police officer tells the main administrative clerck about the recent removal of Beria, the massive amnesties and a group of six wanted men wandering near the place after a murder. 　　The bandits are in fact hiding in a barn, and the next day they attack and take control of the villagers. Not presents at the moment, the two political prisoners can choose: leave the place, but they decide instead to take action against the bandits. Paradox: the so-called "enemies of the people" are in fact the ones who rescue the people, from the real criminals. 　　Historically, the movie is fantastic, because produced in 1987, it was the first mainstream feature dealing directly with a critic of political prisoners and exiles. Khrushchov's destalinization ended the stalinian Terror but didn't allow a level of artistic freedom of expression making possible a movie like this one. 　　History of politics aside, the action and tension are good. Some have labelled it a "russian western" , as few outsiders fight a bunch of nasty and violent bad guys and save the town's good people. 　　The filming location is in central Karelia, not far from Petrozavodsk, north-western Russia. A very beautiful nature. 　　Valeri Priyomykhov received a state prize for his portrayal of the main character.

Every time our annual international film fest hits town, I scan all the offerings, with special attention to Iranian productions. I have seen so many fascinating films from a country that, in recent years, has banned Hollywood and other films foreign to them, and yet their filmmakers, despite having to follow strict guidelines and risking censorship at every turn, produce some of the finest films in world cinema. 　　This documentary features interviews with several Iranian filmmakers, plus clips from a number of their best films. Among various aspects of Iranian film-making, they talk about how their reflective films differ from the Hollywood action variety, although there is such a role for Iranian film as well. What perhaps is really remarkable is how freely these producer/directors talk in a critical way about the censorship exercised in their country. The clever ways they get around it actually appear to challenge and enhance their creativity (as Duke Ellington once said, in describing how he had to compose his music to fit the talents and limitations of his band members, "It can be good to have limits"). Unusual scenarios between husbands and wives get around the rule that men and women, even when married, can't touch. Children are sometimes used to state in an allegorical or analogous fashion what could not be presented by adult characters. And the role of women is wondrously portrayed in these productions from a country that severely limits women's roles.

Every time our annual international film fest hits town, I scan all the offerings, with special attention to Iranian productions. I have seen so many fascinating films from a country that, in recent years, has banned Hollywood and other films foreign to them, and yet their filmmakers, despite having to follow strict guidelines and risking censorship at every turn, produce some of the finest films in world cinema. 　　This documentary features interviews with several Iranian filmmakers, plus clips from a number of their best films. Among various aspects of Iranian film-making, they talk about how their reflective films differ from the Hollywood action variety, although there is such a role for Iranian film as well. What perhaps is really remarkable is how freely these producer/directors talk in a critical way about the censorship exercised in their country. The clever ways they get around it actually appear to challenge and enhance their creativity (as Duke Ellington once said, in describing how he had to compose his music to fit the talents and limitations of his band members, "It can be good to have limits"). Unusual scenarios between husbands and wives get around the rule that men and women, even when married, can't touch. Children are sometimes used to state in an allegorical or analogous fashion what could not be presented by adult characters. And the role of women is wondrously portrayed in these productions from a country that severely limits women's roles.

1 2020年伊始，苏莱曼尼以死在中外博得大名，而其实他早已声名显赫 　　2 这是2019年3月BBC给他制作的纪录片，描述其传奇一生 　　3 简单说，近20多年中东或伊斯兰各重大冲突，都脱不来他的身影，而且是扮演主角 　　4 和美国或友或敌，致力扩张什叶新月，插手之多，无人可及

1 2020年伊始，苏莱曼尼以死在中外博得大名，而其实他早已声名显赫 　　2 这是2019年3月BBC给他制作的纪录片，描述其传奇一生 　　3 简单说，近20多年中东或伊斯兰各重大冲突，都脱不来他的身影，而且是扮演主角 　　4 和美国或友或敌，致力扩张什叶新月，插手之多，无人可及

出身富家而又善良的医生卡玛尔，爱上了生病住院的贫民姑娘艾明娜，并且为了娶她而甘心去过贫穷的生活。 由于家庭的阻挠卡玛尔被医院辞退，婚后他开了一间小诊所维持生计。但是在一次出诊时不幸摔伤了腿，只能在家里休养，他们的生活变得拮据起来。艾明娜为了让家里生活正常运转，便瞒着丈夫给一位双目失明的富人去做护工。由此引起了卡玛尔的父亲和表妹的非议，诬蔑她对丈夫不忠。卡玛尔也对妻子产生了误解，带着年幼的女儿重新回到了父亲身边。

《绑架》描写了在美国特务组织的指使下，捷克斯洛伐克人民的叛徒劫持了一架民航客机降落在西德机场，美军占领当局用尽一切卑鄙无耻的手段，企图强迫飞机中的乘客留在西德，藉此对人民民主国家进行诬陷，制造国际紧张局势，但是被绑架到西德的捷克斯洛伐克公民们，虽然经历不同，职业不同，却都一致地热烈和平，热烈自己的国家，因此他们坚决要求立即回到自己的祖国，他们在威迫利诱下毫不动摇，与美国特务分子展开无情的斗争，终于获得了胜利。

It took two years for Mehran Tamadon to persuade the four supporters of the Iranian regime to risk taking part in an experiment with him. Now he receives them as guests at his family’s country house to try out something that does not exist in Iran: a pluralistic society. As the women disappear into the guest rooms, the men discuss the advantages and disadvantages of a secular society, the veil, abortion, freedom of the press… The guests not merely outnumber the filmmaker, who is critical of the regime, but are also masters of rhetoric. Again and again, they twist his words and use them against him. His secular society, they argue, is just as ideological as their religious one. The mood is contentious, but there’s also a great deal of communal laughter, prayer and cooking. In the end, the attempt to create a social utopia fails as there are simply too many issues that are non-negotiable. But does that mean that the experiment itself has failed? After all, for a brief time, differing lifestyles and opinions managed to co-exist. A dialogue took place. For the filmmaker, however, there’ll be a high price to pay. (Berlinale 2014)

It took two years for Mehran Tamadon to persuade the four supporters of the Iranian regime to risk taking part in an experiment with him. Now he receives them as guests at his family’s country house to try out something that does not exist in Iran: a pluralistic society. As the women disappear into the guest rooms, the men discuss the advantages and disadvantages of a secular society, the veil, abortion, freedom of the press… The guests not merely outnumber the filmmaker, who is critical of the regime, but are also masters of rhetoric. Again and again, they twist his words and use them against him. His secular society, they argue, is just as ideological as their religious one. The mood is contentious, but there’s also a great deal of communal laughter, prayer and cooking. In the end, the attempt to create a social utopia fails as there are simply too many issues that are non-negotiable. But does that mean that the experiment itself has failed? After all, for a brief time, differing lifestyles and opinions managed to co-exist. A dialogue took place. For the filmmaker, however, there’ll be a high price to pay. (Berlinale 2014)