After the premiere of The Seed of the Sacred Fig at Cannes, it is evident that responsibility for actions under oppressive regimes remains a central issue in contemporary Iranian discourse, particularly in the works of filmmaker Mohammad Rasoulof. His exploration of this subject, especially in There Is No Evil and his latest film, The Seed of the Sacred Fig, reveals a profound engagement with the philosophical ideas of Hannah Arendt and Jean-Paul Sartre. While some argue that Iranians working within the regime must take responsibility for their actions, others, drawing on Arendt’s ideas, contend that these individuals are mere unthinking cogs in a system, acting under coercion and without full agency. This article examines and compares Arendt’s and Sartre’s views on responsibility for crimes, applying these perspectives to the Iranian context, and analyzing how Rasoulof’s cinematic evolution reflects a shift toward Sartre’s position on full accountability.
This analysis is particularly relevant in light of Rasoulof’s remarks during the Cannes press conference for The Seed of the Sacred Fig, where he stated that the psychological struggles of those working for the authorities are of great importance to him.
Sartre’s Perspective on Responsibility for Crimes
Jean-Paul Sartre’s existentialist philosophy is founded on the idea that individuals are “condemned to freedom,” meaning they are always free to make choices and must fully accept responsibility for those choices, regardless of external circumstances. Sartre’s framework emphasizes that even in oppressive conditions, individuals retain the freedom to choose their actions and are therefore entirely responsible for them. This perspective has significant implications for Iranian officials and employees within the regime. According to Sartre, these individuals cannot justify their actions by claiming they were merely following orders or were coerced into compliance. Rather, they are fully accountable for their complicity in the regime’s actions because they bear direct responsibility for their choices.
Arendt’s Perspective on Responsibility for Crimes
Hannah Arendt offers a contrasting view, focusing on the nature of evil and moral responsibility in bureaucratic and totalitarian systems. In her analysis of Adolf Eichmann’s trial, Arendt introduced the concept of the “banality of evil,” arguing that ordinary individuals can commit horrific crimes by following bureaucratic norms and orders without deep moral reflection. Arendt contends that in complex systems, responsibility is diffused, as individuals see themselves as mere executors of tasks. This perspective has often been used to argue that Iranian officials and employees are not fully responsible for the regime’s actions, as they operate in a highly structured and coercive environment that normalizes their behavior and stifles independent moral judgment.
The Iranian Context: Mohammad Rasoulof’s Perspective
Mohammad Rasoulof’s films provide a nuanced exploration of these philosophical debates in the Iranian context. In There Is No Evil, especially in its first segment, Rasoulof examines the lives of individuals involved in carrying out state executions in Iran, showcasing how ordinary people are turned into instruments of oppressive government policies. This segment aligns with Arendt’s view by highlighting the systemic pressures that compel individuals to conform and participate in morally questionable acts. The characters in this section often justify their roles by perceiving themselves as small components of a larger machine, reflecting the “banality of evil.” The film also explores responsibility through other characters, such as a soldier who evades his duty to execute, a woman who rejects a marriage proposal from an executioner, and a father living in self-imposed exile as a form of protest against executions.
In contrast, The Seed of the Sacred Fig marks a significant shift in Rasoulof’s perspective, aligning more closely with Sartre’s philosophy.
The film follows Iman, a revolutionary court judge in Tehran, as he grapples with distrust and paranoia amidst intensifying political protests and the mysterious disappearance of his firearm. Iman’s suspicion of his wife, Najmeh, and daughters, Rezvan and Sana, leads him to impose strict and oppressive measures within the family, escalating tensions. As societal norms and familial dynamics collapse, Rasoulof critiques Iman harshly, holding him fully accountable for his actions. This shift reflects Rasoulof’s embrace of Sartre’s perspective, rejecting Arendtian interpretations that might absolve Iman of personal responsibility due to systemic pressures.
Rasoulof’s shift in perspective may be attributed to his personal experiences, including imprisonment in Iran and witnessing the regime’s violent suppression of women’s rights protests. Having observed the regime’s brutality firsthand, Rasoulof’s belief in the necessity of individual moral accountability appears to have solidified. The widespread circulation of information on social media has further challenged the Arendtian notion of ignorance among regime collaborators. Experiencing the regime’s complete ruthlessness during the women’s movement likely made it difficult for Rasoulof to sustain an Arendtian perspective that views individuals within the regime as mere cogs in the system. This disillusionment may also explain his decision to leave Iran and settle in Europe. Compared to his earlier works, which allowed for Arendtian interpretations of complicity, The Seed of the Sacred Fig strongly critiques regime officials, reflecting Sartre’s insistence on full personal responsibility.
Comparative Analysis
The divergent views of Arendt and Sartre provide valuable insights into the debate on responsibility within oppressive regimes. Sartre’s existentialist framework offers a compelling argument for full accountability, asserting that individuals within the Iranian regime are entirely responsible for their actions because they always retain the freedom to choose. This perspective aligns with calls for Iranian officials and employees to be held accountable and prosecuted for their complicity in the regime’s crimes.
Conversely, Arendt’s analysis considers the structural context in which crimes are committed, emphasizing how bureaucratic systems normalize acts of evil. Her concept of the banality of evil suggests that individuals may not fully comprehend the moral consequences of their actions within highly coercive and routinized environments. This perspective has been used to argue that individuals within the Iranian regime operate with limited agency and that judgments of their personal responsibility should account for the systemic constraints they face.
Rasoulof’s cinematic evolution captures this philosophical tension. In There Is No Evil, he offers a nuanced portrayal of systemic pressures that compel individuals to carry out state executions, adopting a less judgmental stance. However, in The Seed of the Sacred Fig, Rasoulof’s critique intensifies, reflecting Sartre’s philosophy by depicting Iman as fully responsible for his actions and emphasizing the importance of moral agency even within oppressive systems.
Conclusion
The question of responsibility for crimes in the Iranian context is a complex and contentious issue. Mohammad Rasoulof’s films mirror this complexity, evolving from an Arendtian exploration of systemic complicity to an emphasis on Sartre’s notion of full accountability. Both philosophical perspectives provide valuable insights into the nature of moral responsibility within oppressive regimes. Sartre’s focus on absolute freedom and responsibility highlights the importance of individual moral agency, while Arendt’s analysis of systemic evil underscores the challenges individuals face in critically assessing their roles within oppressive systems. Together, these perspectives offer a comprehensive framework for understanding and addressing the moral responsibility of those working within regimes like Iran’s.
Rasoulof’s personal experiences, including his imprisonment and direct witness to the regime’s violent suppression of dissent, have likely intensified his critical stance toward collaborators. His latest film, The Seed of the Sacred Fig, embodies Sartre’s philosophy, portraying the judge as fully responsible for his actions and rejecting any justification based on systemic pressures. This evolution in Rasoulof’s work underscores the continued relevance of Sartre’s existentialist philosophy in contemporary debates about moral responsibility under oppressive regimes.
© 2020-2024. UniversalCinema Mag.