Persepolis

I watched Persepolis with a bunch of friends tonight and I thought I should make some comments on  it. For those of you know don't know Persepolis is a animated film based on Marjane Satrapi's autobiographical novel (which has the same name). The movie is in French but there are subtitles. This film was featured on the top ten list of film's  of 2007, nominated for best animated featured film for the Academy Awards, nominated for Best Foreign Language Film for the Golden Globe Awards, nominated Best Picture for the 2007 European Film Awards.. just to name a few of the numerous other awards it was nominated for. Interestingly enough, it was nearing banned in Lebanon and was highly criticized by the Iranian government.

 Anyways, the story is about how Marjane grew up in Iran as a young child and the experiences she had when the Shah was in power. Even though she was naive about the political situation she was still very interested to learn about what was going on. Marjane eventually moved to Vienna by the time she was 13. Her parents sent her off to live there by herself because they felt the conditions of the revolution were too unsafe for her to continue her life in Iran (especially because she was the type of the person to openly speak out about her concerns-- which was very dangerous). So this story basically describes her coming of age.. she was psychologically damaged in many ways and spent much of her youth being depressed. she had no real support system as she spent most of her adolescent years moving from one house to another. Her experiences in Vienna included: heartaches (the first guy she fell in love with became gay and the other cheated on her), backstabbing, discrimination against foreigners, pot-heads, addition, sickness, being homeless, getting kicked out of institutions, heavily engaging in the punk culture, language barriers, loneliness, and the struggle to fit in. Eventually she moves back to Iran because she just cant stand living by herself anymore (by this time she is probably 19 or 20). However when she comes back things arent exactly easy. Post-revolution includes more killing (pre-revolution was more arresting, post-revolution was more killing), less freedom, more restrictions, and consistently getting checked by the "postegars"(police). Even though I wasnt raised in Iran during this time period, I feel some of this was exaggerated in the movie to emphasize the change in regime (based on the numerous accounts I've heard from people). 

First of all, I think she did any amazing job of capturing the subtle details of the culture in the film. However, as far as the content goes I feel like the viewer should be aware that this 

is only one person's account from that whole experience-- definitely biases. Its really hard to see the biases when you are getting a first person narration and you dont know much about the topic anyway. -- so for those of you who havnt seen it keep this in mind. But as I said, overall she did a great job of capturing that experience and really breaking down the revolution and what was happening. It is definitely a complex/serious issue that can rarely be described in a way that people can understand-- so kudos to her for being able to do that. As mentioned earlier this story was initially presented as a graphic novel (comic book). While historical writing and traditional journalism serve its purpose effectively there are some limitations to presenting the information in this manner. This brings up the question: What is the most effective way to present information about complex/serious issues? Finding alternatives to ways of educating the public is something that has been brought up amongst writers and artists (going back to shaping culture). When you are specifically addressing a complex issue that you want to present to the average joe who just wants to learn a little-- its hard to motivate them with long tedious information that can be seen as boring. unfortunately i people dont find the information presented in an appealing way they wont learn about it or even look at it (maybe this is why americans are so ignorant to many of the things going on in the world? they are so used to the fast paced way of life and being bombarded by so much info all the time that if something doesnt scream at them or offer them a new alternative they just choose not to care or go out of their way to learn about it). also, historical writing and journalism can be seen as impersonal. this form of writing gives the bigger picture to how and why events occur, but the reader will not be able to really connect with people involved in that current issue or have some sort of emotional attachment/reaction to the situation. Example, reading that "Mr. X has been tortured, expelled from school, and fined $2000 dollars" is very different than reading a story on what that person went through in order to deal with all that (in relation to the historical and political situation). Not that you cant attempt to experience or feel from more formal writing.. but its obviously much less than what you can get from a narrative. Narratives allow you to dig deep within the issue because you are experiencing the situation through someone else's eyes (one of the reasons people like non-fiction so much). however, looking at it from the flip side you are obviously going to have a bias story if you are learning about history from a narrative. Basically thats the point of historical writing and journalism -- to not have this biases.While using alternate forms of presentation (ex graphic novel) for complex/serious issues can be affective in getting the viewers attention and keeping them engaged there are limitations to what type of information can be presented (as can be with historical writing and journalism).

-- Back to Persepolis again.. one of the reasons I thought it was soo successful was because it was an animation> I dont think the author would be as affective in getting her message across if it was a Hollywood film (many people seem to agree on this point). From aesthic purposes it was beautiful...Loved the creativity and details.. the choice of frames, angle, transitions. 

I can write pages on the choice of visual techniques in order to present the information in the best manner but I wont get too detailed into that. 

Just a few things: 

1) simplistic drawings by not adding too many contour lines. does the amount of detail represent the artists ability? absolutely not. the more simple the imagery the more focus the viewer has on the actual information. if the viewer has to choose the hierarchy of information being presented especially when it comes to word and image the artist/ writer has not been succesful at their job (unless they are consciously challenging their reader). 

2) choice of black and white verse color. Color represented the current time and black and white was her past. Seems like something common used in films right? It can be but it makes more of difference with animated films/graphic novels. once again goes back to how much the viewer gets distracted and where the artist wants to put the emphasis. 

3) choice of imagery for officals, teachers, police (basically anyone associated with the government).. these figures became more like icons or symbols rather than characters. it all seemed to blend together. once again going back to the purpose of the artist/writer ( in which this case the biases kicks in). Two outside examples I can think of that serves a similar purpose are: #1) in 300 when the persians all kinda of became one unified character so to speak. throughout the entire movie you briefly see these "monsters" heads, bodies, etc. they all look the same and they are shown in groups. ANY time in films, media, print or whatever you seen people show in groups and they look similar its bc that person is trying to put less importance on that group/type of people whatever.... thats why people related so much more the greeks in 300 because it actually showed their lives outside of war. the viewer was sympathetic bc we saw the development of the characters lives throughout the entire movie. anything to do with the persians was very impersonal and brief. but most people dont realize this when they are watching it.(btw i didnt use 300 as an example bc there are persians in it- it was just the first thing that can into my mind)

#2) Much of Any Worhol's "pop art" serves a similar purpose. im sure everyone 

has seen the famous campbells soup images or the marilyn monroe images... theres hundreds of these everywhere. basically worhol took icons (famous people, objects of consumerism, etc) that have been  overemphasized in society and repeated them numerous times within one image. when you see the same icon so many times in one frame that object/person definitely appears to be less important. The emphasis is on the repetition rather than the subject. seems like an obvious thing... but he was making a political statement about society. He was not seeking to make art of mass-produced items but to mass produce art itself. 

Anyways getting back on track again-- the point of these two examples was to show how the artist/author can be biased just by HOW they present images. so as a viewer, we might not pick it up unless we are looking for it. we just kinda of accept whatever we see. 

Those were just 3 of numerous other visual techniques the author used in this film.. but its getting late and i need to sleep.. 

ps: watch the movie :}