This section begins by presenting Reza Shah Pahlavi, a ruler whose rise to power, according to the commentator, started a new era in the history of Iran (Table 4.iv). This idea is reinforced by introducing Reza Shah’s son as a ‘modern (emancipated) ruler’ who is shown as living in a palace “typical of the architecture common to modern Tehran”, a style which is indistinguishable from contemporary Western architecture. To highlight the contrast with the past, the commentary then reverts suddenly to a description of the palaces of the former rulers. The opulence, exoticism and self-indulgence of the old palaces contrast sharply with the more austere lines of the new palace, operating as a visual metaphor for the distinctions between East and West. The architectural metaphor is constructed through editing together extreme close-ups of precious objects in the palace from the sixteenth century. In a sequence showing modern Iran, most of the running time is devoted to detailed focus on these ornaments, allowing for questions regarding the film’s approach to depicting the modernity of Iran.
Image Commentary
“Centuries later, in 1925, Reza Shah rose to power and a new era began marked by a turning from old customs to Western ways of thought”.
“Under Reza Shah’s son, needed law reforms are changing old patterns and bringing hope to people. Young shah’s palace is typical of the architecture common to modern Tehran”.
“Former rulers lived in the rose garden palace. In its mirror throne room is one of the world’s most fabulous objects, the peacock throne. This golden seat of state was designed so that the occupant sat cross-legged with his back against a bolster crusted with pearls and rubies and gold settings. Built for the great Mughal of India who was captured by Nadir Shah and brought to Persia two hundred years ago. Above is the jewelled peacock from which the throne gets its name”.
Table 4.iv: Modern era
Another important point about this sequence is the implication that, unlike the previous golden ages, which the film formulates into a cycle of ups and downs, this ‘modern’ age is one that heralds a golden age that will never wane. This effect is achieved by the way the sequence finishes with words and pictures of jewels, and an account of Nadir Shah’s victory over the Moghuls. This time it is an account of an Iranian conquest, rather than a chronicle of yet another conquest of Iran – a victory that was literally ‘golden.’ Whilst the previous golden ages ended through foreign invasion, or gradual decline, the modern golden age is envisaged as the dawn of permanent growth and sustainable hope, and by implication, glory.
What the film suggests as the basis of the new success story, however, is limited to a rather vague and very general statement about “a turning from old customs to Western ways of thought”. This raises the question of what exactly these “old customs” and their new Western counterparts are, as no further clue is provided by the film. It can be gathered, especially from the two words ‘custom’ and ‘thought’, that the “Western ways of thought” can refer to anything from philosophy to culture, to social and political order,
and so on. The entire native way of life is therefore implicitly criticized as lacking the potential to escape from a dead end. Then there is a reference to “needed law reforms” in order to change ‘old patterns’ and bring about the apparently hoped-for change, yet another implication that the social dynamics, whether manifest in the country’s laws or other institutions, are not only incompatible with, but also a barrier to, progress towards modernity.
As mentioned above, the historical progression of the country is also symbolised by contrasting two kinds of architecture: modern Western architecture which is associated with the dynasty’s modern approach to governing the country, and native Iranian architecture represented by the traditional residences of previous rulers. Through this symbolism, once more, the narrative establishes the dichotomies of old-vs.-new and tradition-vs.-modernity. The space itself is implied to have been modernised through the replacement of the old by the new. However, there is one traditional element of which the film appears to approve. In its narrative of history, as the story of sequential cycles of rising and falling in power and wealth, the film establishes the role of great men as the ultimate agents of positive historical change. The rule of a strong monarch is the one element of the ancient society that the film does not negate. On the contrary, the film appears to suggest that the consistency of the general rule: a-great-king-equals-a-great- country, is the key to Iran’s next era of greatness, under the strong Pahlavi dynasty. So, the governance of the country seems to be one area where change is not necessary for progress towards modernity. Modernisation of the country’s governance is achievable solely by the adaptation of the ‘Western ways of thoughts’ which is best evident in the distance the governing monarch keeps, physically and metaphorically, from the symbolic seat of an Oriental King, the Peacock throne.