The main theme of Asghar Farhadi’s latest “A Hero”, is the question of how to be a hero in the contemporary world, and in particular on social media. The film also wrestles with the question of what it might mean to be a hero in the modern world and what such a status might require. Traditionally, the definition of a hero was more or less clear, and what a hero must do and not do was well-defined. Today, however, the notion of a hero or heroic actions are far less obvious. The criteria seem far more relative today, with mass society building up its own heroes and toppling them as well. This is especially true due to the increasing power of social media, since mass opinions play a much larger role than governments or other institutions. The result is that many people, no matter how well known, are ultimately defined by the consensus of cyberspace. Social media acts as a court which hands out verdicts, magnifies some and knocks others down. Farhadi illustrates this well in A Hero and creates a challenging and surprising story. In this film, it is entirely possible that every action will produce an effect that is directly opposed to what we might expect. From the beginning, the director makes it clear that being a hero in today’s world is not easy at all.
Architecture plays an important role in Farhadi’s works, and the film begins with the leading actor going up the stairs to reach the Tomb of Xerxes, a monument to Iran’s 2500 year history. The motif of ascending and descending stairs comes up frequently in the film. The hero must try to ascend to the tops of platforms, and, finally, when he reaches the top, he will come face to face with this priceless architectural treasure. This opening sequence serves as the key to interpreting the whole story, showing that it is not so easy to reach the top and that being a hero requires much patience.
The story takes place in Shiraz. But, as with any great film, its significance is universal. This is especially the case since the film deals with the problems of living in contemporary cyberspace. Also, for the first time in Farhadi’s career, the film deals with the subject of social class, in which the economy and its relations form the main pillar of people’s destiny.
In terms of acting, the director should be praised for creating fascinating characters. This film, unlike the director’s previous work, places the main emphasis on the protagonist, Rahim, played by Amir Jadidi. From the beginning we subconsciously have a suspicious and vague feeling toward Rahim and we do not know if he is a simple or a fraud person. Is he lying, or is he right? This issue of lying and telling the truth can also be seen in Farhadi’s other works and is especially well and beautifully displayed in this character. We’re never sure if he’s trying to be a hero or if he has no specific goals. The secondary characters of the film are also remarkable, especially the very beautiful acting of Mohsen Tanabandeh as Braham. His character is abused and wounded, and his excellent acting clearly reveals the reasons for his violent behavior towards Rahim. Along with the individual characters, the one played by Sarina Farhadi, as Nazanin, is one of the most beautiful in the film. It is clear that there is a lot of pain in her, and throughout the film, the viewer gradually becomes acquainted with her suffering and, slowly and with reflection, understands the reason for her behavior.
The fate of all these characters will be determined by the end of the film. What remains somewhat vague is the character of Nazanin. She is upset and angry with Rahim about the past and it seems that she drives much of the action of the film. In the end, this character could have helped a lot in unraveling the final knot of the film, but Farhadi did not accept such a strategy. He leaves it up to the viewer to interpret the different pieces of the story puzzle. As a result of this decision, compared to a film like “Separation”, the obvious difference here is the end of the film. There is no catharsis and the viewer remains in suspense. The ending of the film and its final shot especially reminds the viewers of the final shot of John Ford’s “The Seekers.” The audience is left in a state of bewilderment as to whether something bad or good has finally happened. For this reason, this is Farhadi’s most radical film, highlighting, as it does, the ambiguity in much moral decision making.
Pessimism and avoidance of definite decisions is obvious in the worldview of the story. A Hero, like Farhadi’s previous films, and perhaps even more so, shows Farhadi’s pessimism toward civil society. He believes that social issues are more connected to the people’s social behavior and less to the government; Of course, in this film, for the first time in Farhadi’s career, criticism of government institutions such as prisons is seen, although his approach is criticism from inside of the system.