From the Past; An Interview with Ebrahim Golestan and Related Matters

Conducting an interview with Ebrahim Golestan has its own specific etiquette; it requires patience and a listening ear. Now, at his age (born in 1922) and with his status (as one of the most recognized and influential living intellectuals in Iran), he is not particularly inclined to engage in discussions; he speaks frankly, openly advises others—even the interviewer—and expects everyone to listen to him. Therefore, attempts to conduct a contentious or challenging interview are unlikely to succeed. The newly published book of conversations with Ebrahim Golestan, titled 'From the Past,' results from a personal contact made by a Los Angeles resident named Hassan Fayyad with Golestan to make a film about him. The outcome of their several days of filming has been compiled and arranged by Saeed Pourazimi and published by Nashr-e Salis. At the end of the book, Golestan's corrections to the text are attached in his own handwriting, indicating his fidelity to his words. However, the book has another issue that Golestan objects to: the addition and elongation of some questions. Anyone who has seen Golestan even once knows that in a conversation, it is impossible to pose a long question to him, meaning he will not listen to such lengthy inquiries at all. It is strange that this book contains several very long questions (one spans four pages!) that are clearly added later, and Mr. Golestan does not allow anyone to lecture him about obvious matters such as the difference between a producer and a director (page 55) or to explain Sergei Eisenstein and Jean-Luc Godard (pages 170 to 174). It seems that Mr. Fayyad, aware of the criticisms some have made about the previous interview book (why Parviz Jahed is passive and does not respond to Golestan's sharp tone), wanted to show himself as more than just a questioner by adding questions and explanations in later stages, as well as numerous unnecessary quotes from writers and filmmakers, while also providing a response to Golestan. However, this approach has a major and fundamental flaw: for example, after a lengthy discussion about Shahrokh Golestan's claim regarding the film 'A Fire,' Mr. Fayyad concludes the discussion in his favor by adding a page of explanation and conclusion (page 55) and quoting from Golestan's later letters, without the interviewee having heard these statements to respond to them, as Golestan himself told the writer. Nevertheless, Golestan's words remain readable and enlightening. He still expresses his thoughts bluntly and does not compromise with anyone. He is in a position to state his opinion with complete clarity and is unafraid of it; isn't it true that we all speak this way among our friends? If someone boldly expresses the same thoughts in an interview for publication, it is commendable, not subject to criticism. He says, 'When I ask who these people are and what they are, they say I have insulted them; it is not an insult. When you paint the current situation, you explain, you describe that this person's mouth is crooked, their eyebrows are mismatched, one of their eyes is blind, one of their legs limps. If you say one of their legs limps, that is not an insult. You are explaining and describing this person's leg and how they walk, as you see it. If you are mistaken, someone will say, 'No, no, they don't limp; they have competed a lot and if they are given the chance, they run faster than champions.' Well, let them run. Where are they? Where is it?' He calls all these statements, which can sometimes be controversial, a 'painful confession': 'A person, an Iranian, has had a painful confession, felt it, and said it. Now everyone comes and says no, they have said nonsense. Well, let them say it. But that person has expressed their own words; it is over.' (page 143) He beautifully emphasizes that not everyone should blindly accept everything: 'Does everyone who becomes dear to you have to accept everything about them, all their actions, and all their opinions? No, one should always strengthen the ability to judge as much as possible.' (page 38) These 'painful confessions' are sometimes very instructive; for instance, when he brilliantly likens the creation of a story in a writer's mind (consciously or unconsciously?) to a dream and refers to Freud, saying, 'In your mind, there are a series of materials that combine and then become your dream! A story is more like an orderly dream if its writer is indeed a writer.' Or in places where he opens the way for the audience's thought with a single sentence and a hint: '[Instead of others] step ahead of yourself. It is yourself that you must step ahead of.... It is through knowledge that one can advance...' (page 195) Even when he humorously evades answering an unrelated question: 'In your opinion, what are the similarities or differences between a short story and a novel?' and responds: 'One is short, and the other is long!' At the end of the book, two letters in English from Golestan to the interviewer are published (without Persian translation), the purpose of which is unclear; most of the explanations in the letters are already included in Golestan's words in the book, and it is unclear why the book's creators expect Persian readers to read these English letters. Additionally, the use of English and French words that Golestan sometimes employs may not be understood by Persian readers and should have been edited before publication. For example, what does a Persian reader know about 'interesting' (page 132) – a French word meaning interesting? Similarly, words like 'piece' (page 146), 'gossip' (page 181), and 'Ulysses' (page 187) should have had their Persian equivalents used; and there is also a spelling mistake: 'roller' (page 127) instead of 'roller.' On the other hand, some discussions are repeated twice, one of which should have been removed (such as the repeated story of the film 'Harvest and Seed' on page 92 or the discussion of the new wave of Iranian cinema on page 157), and one or two small sections have no point and should definitely have been removed as simple dialogues that arose in the middle of the interview (such as all the remarks concerning the problems of the DVD version of 'Khesht and Ayneh' that Golestan sent to the interviewer – page 120 – which have no reason to be printed).