Popular Iranian Cinema before the Revolution

Critics and academics have generally dismissed the commercial productions of the late Pahlavi era, best known for their songs and melodramatic plots, as shallow, derivative ‘entertainment’. Instead, they have concentrated on the more recent internationally acclaimed art films, claiming that these constitute Iranian ‘national’ cinema, despite few Iranians having seen them. Film discourse, and even fan talk, have long attempted to marginalize the mainstream releases of the 1960s and 1970s with the moniker f īlmfārsī, ironically asserting that such popular favorites were culturally inauthentic. This book challenges the idea that f īlmfārsī is detached from the past and pre- sent of Iranians. Far from being escapist Hollywood fare merely translated into Persian, it claims that the better films of this supposed genre must be taken as both a subject of, and source for, modern Iranian history. It argues that they have an appeal that relies on their ability to rearticulate traditional courtly and religious ideas and forms to problematize in unexpectedly complex and sophisticated ways the modernist agenda that secular nationalist elites wished to impose on their viewers. Taken seriously, these films raise questions about standard treatments of Iran’s modern history. By writing popular films into Iranian history, this book advocates both a fresh approach to the study of Iranian cinema, as well as a rethinking of the modernity/ tradition binary that has organized the historiography of the recent past. It will appeal to those interested in Iranian cinema, Iranian history and culture, and, more broadly, readers dissatisfied with a dichotomous approach to modernity.

Pedram Partovi is an Assistant Professor in the Department of History at the American University. Iranian Studies Edited by Homa Katouzian, University of Oxford and Mohamad Tavakoli, University of Toronto

Since 1967 the International Society for Iranian Studies (ISIS) has been a leading learned society for the advancement of new approaches in the study of Iranian society, history, culture, and literature. The new ISIS Iranian Studies series pub- lished by Routledge will provide a venue for the publication of original and inno- vative scholarly works in all areas of Iranian and Persianate Studies.

30 Iran and Russian Imperialism The Ideal Anarchists, 1800–1914 Moritz Deutschmann

31 Iranian Music and Popular Entertainment From Motrebi to Losanjelesi and Beyond GJ Breyley and Sasan Fatemi

32 Gender and Dance in Iran Biopolitics on the Twentieth-Century Stage Ida Meftahi

33 Persian Authorship and Canonicity in Late Mughal Delhi Building an Ark Prashant Keshavmurthy

34 Iran and the Nuclear Question History and the Evolutionary Trajectory Mohammad Homayounvash

35 The True Dream An English Translation with Facing Persian Text Ali-Ashgar Seyed-Gohrab and Senn McGlinn

36 Popular Iranian Cinema before the Revolution Family and Nation in Fīlmfārsī Pedram Partovi Popular Iranian Cinema before the Revolution Family and Nation in Fīlmfārsī

Pedram Partovi First published 2017 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2017 Pedram Partovi The right of Pedram Partovi to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Partovi, Pedram author. Title: Popular Iranian cinema before the revolution : family and nation in filmfarsi / Pedram Partovi. Description: Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2017. | Series: Iranian studies ; 36 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2016059448 | ISBN 9781138230538 (hardback) | ISBN 9781315385624 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Motion pictures—Iran—History—20th century. | Iran—In motion pictures. | Family in motion pictures. Classification: LCC PN1993.5.I846 P35 2017 | DDC 791.430955—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016059448 ISBN: 978-1-138-23053-8 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-38562-4 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by Apex CoVantage, LLC To my mother

Contents

List of figures viii Notes on transliteration ix Acknowledgements x

1 Introduction: imagining Iran in popular film 1

2 Making popular film in Iran 32

3 Heroes and heroines of the nation 50

4 Martyrdom and self-sacrifice 97

5 Exile 139

6 Fate and agency 183

Concluding remarks 203 Bibliography 206 Index 225 Figures

1.1 The f īlmfārsī director lures his audience with sex and music 6 3.1 Detail from Mughal miniature of a royal horse and runner (ca. 1570–1575) 53 3.2 Wrestlers of the zūrkhānah in customary garb, ca. 1890 56 3.3 Interior of Qājār-era Takyah-i Niyāvarān in north Tehran 57 3.4 Detail from cartoon of wrestling champion, or pahlavān, as the Iranian nation 60 3.5 Ābgūsht scene in Ganj-i Qārūn 74 3.6 Farāmarz as jūjah fukulī alongside his gang of toughs 75 3.7 Razm va bazm in the cafe 77 3.8 Yāsamī pays homage to the Mumbai cinema 78 3.9 Shīrīn (Furūzān) as kulāh makhmalī 83 4.1 A winged demon drags Imam Husayn’s murderers in Hell 100 4.2 ‘Alī reacts to Ḥasan’s announcement 114 4.3 ‘Alī pledges himself to a dying Ḥasan in song 116 4.4 Suhaylā seduces Qayṣar 123 4.5 A showdown between Qayṣar and Manṣūr Ābmangul 124 4.6 A literal exchange of martyrdom for love 128 5.1 Camp at Dālāhū 155 5.2 Detail from Anton Sevruguin photograph of Qājār royal encampment ca. 1890–1900 156 5.3 Cabaret en plein air 159 5.4 Two lovers sharing a not-so-private moment 159 5.5 Burzū serenades the valley with Ārzū in the background 160 5.6 Life in exile: a solitary, dehumanizing experience for Mansour 170 6.1 A melancholy Mamal eyes the new Tehran from the old 196 Notes on transliteration

The Persian transliteration scheme followed here is based on the American Library Association-Library of Congress romanization system (ALA-LC Romani- zation Tables: Transliteration Schemes for Non-Roman Scripts, ed. Randall Barry (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, Cataloguing Distribution Service, 1997), 171–177). On the rare occasions where Arabic or Urdu (Hindustani) words are encoun- tered outside of a Persian context, transliteration will follow their respective ALA-LC romanization schemes (Ibid., 10–19, 226–233). The transcription of quotations and citations with transliterated Persian, Arabic, or Urdu will remain faithful to the schemes of their authors. Foreign proper and common nouns that have formally entered the English lan- guage will be represented as they are found in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th ed. (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 2016). However, variant romanizations of these words that are encountered in quotations and cita- tions will not be changed. Non-English generic terms, theoretical concepts, and ideas will be indicated with italics. Non-English proper nouns will not be italicized. Transliterated quota- tions will also remain unadorned. Acknowledgements

My thanks to everyone who offered their support and guidance during the many years that I have been working on this project at the University of Chicago, Lehigh University, American University, and many stops in between. You have my deep- est respect and admiration. Additional thanks to the staff at the National Library and Archives, the Par- liament Library and Documentation Center, the National Film Archive, and the Cinema Museum of Iran in Tehran for their many kindnesses in making possible my research for this book. 1 Introduction Imagining Iran in popular film

This book seeks to treat the popular commercial cinema as both a subject of and source for modern Iranian history. I focus much of my attention on the 1960s and 1970s, the final turbulent decades of the Pahlavi era and a period in which the domestic film industry achieved levels of production and success that it had not experienced before nor has since experienced. During that time, nearly one thousand feature-length titles from Iranian studios reached cinema halls.1 I do not attempt to provide a comprehensive accounting of f īlmfārsī or “Persian-film,” the term that critics, fans, and industry people have used to refer to the Pahlavi-era commercial cinema. I leave that valuable work to more conventional film histo- ries that still need writing.2 Despite the impressive and growing body of literature in English on Iranian cinema, large gaps in our knowledge remain – especially about the films produced in the decades leading up to the Islamic Revolution of 1978–1979. I also do not attempt to write a straightforward historical narrative of modern Iranian society and politics as seen through the lens of cinema. This book does not follow a strict chronology with “important” films taken to be signposts for key events over the past century.3 Instead, I shed light on the “imaginative universe” that filmmakers and audiences realized via popular cinema in order to make sense of social and political processes in Iran’s modernization. This study of Iranian film and history, then, differs substantially in subject material and approach from much of the existing scholarship. Critics and academ- ics writing about Iranian cinema have focused on the art film movement, which itself emerged in the crucial decades of the 1960s and 1970s. Historically compos- ing only a tiny fraction of the nation’s cinematic output and rarely appreciated at home, Iranian art films have nevertheless established a global following over the years to become festival and art-house staples. In most film histories, the interna- tionally oriented art cinema has served as a metaphor for Iran’s largely successful encounter with Western modernity and, especially since the Islamic Revolution, an important symbol of resistance to an oppressive and “backward” regime.4 The prevailing opinion of scholars about f īlmfārsī as second-rate copies of Hollywood and popular Indian films lacking any social value or political relevance – an opin- ion linked to broader intellectual critiques of “entertainment,” “mass culture,” and the “popular” – has contributed to the relative absence of these audience favorites in the same histories. A few critics have gone beyond mere dismissals to describe 2 Introduction the gulf between the content of popular films and the realities of viewers’ lives as “escapism.” According to this line of analysis, domestic studios and their audi- ences, especially during the commercial boom of the 1960s and 1970s, had turned a blind eye to the transformations that national development programs were trig- gering in Iranian society and instead sought comfort in outmoded characters and ways of life.5 While many popular filmmakers have engaged with the past and with “tradition,” I contend that they have done so not to obscure modern institu- tions and processes but to re-define them with the interests of their predominantly middle class viewers in mind. In writing popular films into modern Iranian his- tory, I advocate not only for a fresh approach to the study of Iranian cinema but a rethinking of the modernity/tradition binary that has organized the historiography of the recent past. The f īlmfārsī titles discussed in these chapters turned to history and historical models to represent a world that disputed some of the stated goals of “Pahlav- ism.” I argue that such films have related the past to the modern Iranian masses in the reconfiguration and democratization of “obsolescent” courtly entertainments and devotional practices belonging to what I designate as the “Persianate” world. These films, then, could through their formal components present a potential challenge to the new values and aspirations that national leaders intended for the exemplary classes of a modernizing Iran. Of particular relevance to my analysis are cinematic re-imaginings of performances of ghazal lyric, popular romances, epic literature, and their mystico-religious aspects and complements. Equally, I engage in a contextual analysis of f īlmfārsī titles to investigate popu- lar conceptions of the nation-building projects of political elites in Iran. Scholars have written extensively about the multi-modal efforts of politicians and intel- lectuals to modernize the state and society in twentieth-century Iran, especially during the two decades between 1921 and 1941 when Ri..zā Khan (1878–1944), soon to be the first Shah of the Pahlavi dynasty, dominated the political affairs of the country.6 Some have placed particular stress on the elaboration and promotion of an official national culture and identity in the making of modern Iran.7 Histo- rians who have studied the various challenges made to official ideas of the nation during the Pahlavi era have focused on political, rather than cultural, history. They have privileged the viewpoints of oppositional elites, especially religious cler- ics, on the modernization projects undertaken at that time. Very few writers have examined the character of mass mobilizations against the official Pahlavi vision for Iran’s future, except as a consequence of elite outreach to the general public. Even fewer have considered mass culture as a venue for critiques of Pahlavism.8 The general disregard for popular culture as a subject of study partly explains this scholarly blindspot. I submit that a close “reading” of f īlmfārsī titles from the 1960s and 1970s can provide access to ideas of the nation that competed with (but did not always con- tradict) the secular nationalist project of Pahlavi elites. Critical analysis of these films uncovers an important but rarely examined complex of beliefs and practices that have at times challenged as well as accommodated official national culture and ideas of patriotism in Pahlavi Iran. Moreover, these beliefs and practices have Introduction 3 not entirely lined up with the agendas of political leaders under the Islamic Repub- lic. In their representations of modern life, f īlmfārsī titles framed their characters’ (and audiences’) reality around a popular “civil religion” that took family prosper- ity to be the cosmological proof of the nation and the ontological imperative of its citizens. Other mass media forms such as songs, television serials, radio sermons, rally speeches, and even poster art also contributed to this popular understanding of national life. However, this study focuses on film as a vehicle for an unofficial civil religion. Dramatic action in many popular features was organized around a conflict between the protagonists’ personal and family interests, with the “fate of the nation” working for the ultimate triumph of the family as institution. What often precipitated the characters’ inner conflict was erotic love, whose portrayals drew inspiration from earlier courtly and religious performative traditions. Appro- priately, melodrama was the most prominent “genre” in f īlmfārsī, which naturally fed into many critics’ claims that the popular cinema lacked any political com- mentary or relevance. While modernization and the changing face of life could contribute to the difficulties that film protagonists faced, state programs and their representatives hardly figured in the melodrama or its resolution. Of course, most Iranian art films made in the Pahlavi era or later have also avoided direct com- mentary on economic and social conditions. Critics have praised art film directors who adopted this strategy by claiming the use of political allegory in their work. By contrast, popular Pahlavi-era features that stayed away from representations of national institutions and their agents were considered escapist. However, the absence of the state in many f īlmfārsī titles was perhaps at once a sign of official censorship as well as of popular disengagement with official economic and politi- cal agendas. That f īlmfārsī heroes were often characters living on the margins of law and society and not from the exemplary modern middle classes underlined the mutual ambivalence between the state and popular cinema. Such unlikely heroes of the street may not have had a place in the modernizing society that Pahlavi elites had envisioned, but they gladly suffered exile and martyrdom for the sake of the family as nation. Like past heroic models in the literature and history of the Persianate world, they sacrificed their erotic emotions and their opportunities for personal fulfillment to prove the righteousness of their cause. The difference between f īlmfārsī heroes and their historical precedents was that their on-screen sacrifices were primarily in defense of the family against the countervailing forces of modernist individualism. Although f īlmfārsī representations of popular Iranian civil religion drew on aspects of Islam and tradition, I argue that these films were not just another sign of a “nativist” or “anti-modern” cultural reaction to the Pahlavi national project, which scholars have most commonly identified with radical reformist Shi‘ism and the Islamic Revolution. In fact, the negative attitudes of intellectuals and politi- cians towards the commercial film industry and its products only intensified after the Islamic Revolution, with many prominent figures in the Pahlavi-era cinema receiving lifetime bans from making films. By contrast, many of the principals in the pre-revolutionary art film movement were not subject to similar bans. The longstanding interest of elites across the ideological spectrum to suppress or 4 Introduction eradicate f īlmfārsī problematizes claims about its irrelevance and points to the potential challenge that popular films could pose to the projects of national lead- ers, as well as to the organization of modern Iranian history around a monolithic struggle between secularism and Islam. This challenge continues, with some of the narrative concerns and cinematic techniques most closely associated with f īlmfārsī remaining at the heart of what constitutes popular cinema in the Islamic Republic.

1.1 Fīlmfārsī, entertainment, and the popular

1.1.1 Fīlmfārsī Fīlmfārsī has been perhaps the most frequently employed and least understood epithet for the popular commercial cinema of the Pahlavi era. The term’s precise meaning and application have varied according to the user but it has had an over- whelmingly negative connotation from its earliest references to the present. Most commentators have credited the French-trained filmmaker and critic Hūshang Kāvūsī with first popularizing the term during the latter half of the 1950s in unspar- ing reviews of the work of the budding domestic industry. However, there is evi- dence of its use going back to the late 1940s in the promotion of foreign features dubbed in Persian – then simply meaning “film in Persian.”9 Of course, many of the early Iranian studios had their start in dubbing, only later expanding into film production. This peculiar line of development undoubtedly fed into critiques of the industry and its products leveled by Kāvūsī and others less than a decade later. Writing for high-circulation weeklies as well as more specialized film magazines, Kāvūsī blasted the makers of f īlmfārsī for their total lack of understanding of cin- ematic conventions. These films, he claimed, did not have a coherent structure or story and were made with only commercial interests in mind.10 In a more recent interview, Kāvūsī has explained that during his film review career he chose the term f īlmfārsī to highlight two things that he considered to be lacking in much of the Iranian cinema. Like many compound words, it took on a third meaning independent of or unrelated to the words composing it. Thus, while f īlmfārsī may have been of film and in the Persian language, in his opinion it was neither cinema nor part of the Persian literary-artistic tradition [“Fīlmfārsī ham f īlm būd va ham Fārsī, ammā dar ‘ayn-i ḥāl nah f īlm būd va nah Fārsī”].11 In general usage, f īlmfārsī did not constitute a cinematic genre as understood in Western film discourse and fan talk. It was a term of reference for the entire output of the commercial industry in the same way that “Bollywood” has been employed to describe the Hindi-language cinema of Mumbai-based commercial studios. However, the vast majority of f īlmfārsī titles may be categorized as contempo- rary social melodrama: dramatic productions set in the present day about family and class conflict, punctuated by violence (represented through action sequences) or heightened emotion (often represented through musical “interludes”) and occasionally relieved by comic moments. The association of f īlmfārsī with the “corrupt” culture of the now extinct Pahlavi regime has not kept critics since the Introduction 5 Islamic Revolution from invoking the term to disparage films and filmmakers that they believe have followed the example of f īlmfārsī productions in their compo- sition and style. More than thirty-five years later, f īlmfārsī remains relevant as a cinematic category. At the most basic level, intellectuals writing on Iranian film have employed the term f īlmfārsī to mark social difference and maintain cultural hierarchies in a mass(-mediated) society.12 It has operated as a term of exclusion – to place the popular that is beholden to the market outside of high culture, which is synony- mous with pure and autonomous art. In this schema, Iranian popular commercial cinema has either been bracketed off as “mindless entertainment,” a diversion for the illiterate and semi-literate classes that purportedly made up its audience, or more insidiously claimed as an ideological obstacle to the cultural, social, and political advancement of that same audience.

1.1.2 “Mass Culture” and the “Popular” Questions of authenticity have nearly always been at the center of elite discus- sions of “mass culture.” There is a remarkable consensus achieved on this point in modern cultural critique worldwide, despite emerging out of rather diverse social and political interests.13 For some commentators, the products that emanated from large, faceless media concerns, including films, were not only considered illegitimate but even dangerous; they had no organic connection to the people, despite their claims to the contrary, and were instead an imposition representing antithetical interests. As commodities of a “culture industry,” commercial studio films were standardized and mass-produced like the manufactures of any other industry.14 Likewise, the ways in which people consumed them were also pre- programmed and standardized. A second perspective, while acknowledging the conditions of mass production in popular culture, viewed their forms as essen- tially arising from the tastes of the masses, however vulgar or banal they may be.15 Dwight MacDonald, writing primarily about the mass-mediated culture of the United States after the Second World War, emphasized the common ground in these critiques. He claimed that the ready-made consumption of products emanat- ing from Hollywood studios promoted a “built-in reaction” from their naïve and unrefined audiences. The films’ narrative and aesthetic formulas precluded the possibility of true cognitive and emotional engagement. Consequently, the mas- sification and democratization of culture did not warrant celebration. The forms responsible for it lacked the values and beliefs of stable, “traditional” elite or even folk culture and thus actively posed a threat to them.16 While those in the commercial film industry the world over may have objected to aspects of elite critiques leveled at mass culture, they have nevertheless been largely accepting of the standard terms of reference – often describing their work as “giving the people what they want.”17 Industry insiders have taken to heart that their job is to please the audience – to “entertain” them – and this assertion of populism recapitulates elite discourse in conceiving of the audience as an undif- ferentiated mass whose (lack of ) taste dictates the product on the screen (or at 6 Introduction least its surface character). Such admissions in turn have become targets of satire worldwide, including in Iran (see Figure 1.1). In recent decades, scholars have disputed earlier positions on mass culture and popular film outlined above, submitting that “the people” are neither passive con- sumers of cultural indoctrination nor are they unaffected by the power relations operating in the cultural field. In fact, those associated with or inspired by the Birmingham School of cultural studies have petitioned for a growing recognition of the dialogical relationship of audiences and media producers. This approach to the study of mass culture problematizes the uniformity of audiences’ ideological constructions of popular forms (and, by extension, the uniformity of the audi- ence itself ) as well as uniformity in the ideological commitments of such mass- produced forms.18 Taking a page from the Birmingham School approach, I seek to upset the fixed certainties that have long characterized scholarly opinions of popular Iranian commercial cinema and largely suppressed serious inquiry of it, in either Persian

Figure 1.1 The f īlmfārsī director lures his audience with sex and music. Source: Reprinted from Iṭṭilā‘āt newspaper in Ḥamīd Shu‘ā‘ī, Nāmāvarān-i sīnamā dar Īrān (Tehran: Shirkat-i Hirminkū, 1976), 3: 34. Introduction 7 or English.19 Fīlmfārsī titles were part of a complex formation of cinematic and extra-cinematic discourses and practices that may have been dominated by a spe- cific group or set of interests but were also the result of interaction and negotiation between producers and consumers. As such, popular films in Iran were not simply exploitative of their audiences’ poor tastes or simple minds; they could represent or problematize the aspirations of those who frequented them. In this way, I hope to move the discussion away from notions of passive reception and indoctrination and towards popular film as provocation, wherein the audiences’ cognitive and emotional processing is taken seriously. Perhaps the best evidence for Iranian audiences’ active engagement with the popular commercial cinema is the long list of box office failures during the “golden age” of the 1960s and 1970s. Not all films that were considered to be popular or intended for the people were necessarily popular or well received. While the available box office data is spotty, there is nevertheless enough ancillary evidence to support the claim that there were more unprofitable than profitable releases, even during this hugely productive era.20 Above all, the uneven box office track record of f īlmfārsī productions suggests a more discerning viewership than many observers have previously imagined. Critics have long derided the Pahlavi-era popular commercial cinema’s “manipulation” of its audiences by supplementing their “second-hand” scenarios with sexual titillation, insipid musical numbers, gratuitous violence, and the glorification of the crude but honorable lives of those populating the old city quarters.21 Yet, the formulaic elements of f īlmfārsī titles could not by themselves ensure success at the box office. Understanding what constituted a “good” film for the bulk of Iranian audiences in the decades follow- ing the Second World War, then, requires examining and historicizing the employ- ment of these so-called narrative and stylistic formulas. Such an analysis not only problematizes long-held assumptions of intellectuals and politicians about the character of popular films but also about the character of their audiences.

1.1.3 Audiences and class Muḥammad Tahāmī Nizhād has claimed that the demise of the so-called escap- ist commercial cinema in the late 1970s was not just the result of revolutionary upheaval but of a loss of audience. In fact, the Islamic Revolution was itself a sign of the failure of Pahlavi-era popular films.22 From Tahāmī Nizhād’s perspective, it was the poor and uneducated masses in particular who had tipped the scales against the Shah’s oppressive regime. Those “village migrants, children of petty traders, laborers, and clerks, and huge swarms of the uneducated who had flooded the cities” in the decades leading up to the Revolution and had once eagerly lined up for this new form of entertainment finally came to see through the on-screen fantasies as instruments of their political oppression.23 Unfortunately, the author’s profile of the f īlmfārsī audience is based more on inference than evidence. His conclusions take their cue from a decades-old line of mass cultural critique that highlighted popular cinema’s special appeal to the supposedly less refined and easily manipulated lower classes. 8 Introduction Intellectual and political elites have often dealt with the “problem” of f īlmfārsī by relegating it to the cultural and social margins. Consequently, the Pahlavi-era popular commercial cinema has been described as a vulgar, derivative form that was of appeal to the equally vulgar and uneducated masses. For those concerned with cultural uplift and national development, f īlmfārsī was a symbol of Iran’s backwardness – an unfortunate stage in, or worse a regression from, society’s transition to modernity. Parvīz Ijlālī has grounded these longstanding negative assertions about f īlmfārsī and its viewers in psychoanalytic and sociological theories in a 2004 book about popular film and social change in Pahlavi Iran.24 After consulting plot summa- ries and selected social indicators, he has determined that despite the religious “taboo” of the cinema, the supposed political conservatism of f īlmfārsī attracted an audience marginalized in the modernizing nation and threatened by the newly educated middle classes. Such films were little more than a diversion from the insecurities of life for the disaffected and deprived, who were comforted by the filmmakers’ appropriation of familiar religious, mythological, and historical ico- nography. While Ijlālī has admirably acknowledged the popular cinema’s engage- ment with the Iranian past, he has not recognized these on-screen representations of older social and cultural tropes to be new and different ways in which to rep- resent the nation and national life; from his perspective, they were simply a form of cultural atavism. Ijlālī has devoted considerable attention in the book to popular film representa- tions of the javānmard character, a man of honor and strength from the “bazaari” classes who first appeared on screen in the mid- to late-1950s and whose imme- diate historical precedents can be found among the free-wheeling neighborhood rowdies [alvāt, sing. lūtī] who patrolled the popular quarters during the Qājār and early Pahlavi eras. According to Ijlālī, the modern city seemingly had no place for such public-spirited men and their fraternal code. Yet they, or more commonly their contemporary residues, appeared in many titles as guarantors of female chas- tity and, by extension, the family. The depictions of rough lūtī-style justice, espe- cially carried out against morally corrupt and superficially Westernized [ farangī ma’āb] dandies who led virtuous women astray, validate for the author the old- line gender, class, and patriarchal ideals that their supposedly “tradition-bound” audiences were more likely to hold.25 He has claimed that this low-brow cinema operated as a means of social control over less-educated and lower class audiences by championing established ways of life while encouraging suspicion towards the modern educated middle classes, from among whom came some of the loudest calls for social and political reform.26 Ijlālī’s interpretation of f īlmfārsī audiences has drawn on widely used but questionable film theories of character identification. He has argued that the films invariably took their heroes and settings from the older, poorer, or more con- gested neighborhoods of the city in identification with their primary audience, which supposedly came from similar environments.27 Yet, it is not self-evident that viewers need to resemble or identify with the characters on screen in order to understand and enjoy the performances. Even if Ijlālī were right to conclude Introduction 9 that audiences identified withf īlmfārsī heroes, he would still need to explain how conservative, religiously inclined middle and lower class viewers came to terms with the moral ambiguities that many of the films’ loutish protagonists so fond of drinking, brawling, and gambling (among other vices) often raised. Ijlālī’s narrow reading of the javānmard film protagonist as a historical res- idue and class marker has obscured how the historical figure of the lūtī could be appropriated and reconfigured in the cinema to problematize life in modern Iran. Perhaps the most important aspect of what increasingly came to characterize f īlmfārsī-style heroism in the 1960s and early 1970s was precisely the protago- nist’s depiction as living on the margins of law and society. Indeed, the javānmard hero’s outsider status often explained and elevated his selfless actions on behalf of the family, actions which could be at odds with the official interests of the mod- ernizing state. Likewise, the inclusion of the cabaret performer as popular cinema heroine in this period was in all probability not just for the sake of titillation but also drew on the example of female, often courtly entertainers of the past whose moral ambiguity and freedom of action was echoed in a number of film depic- tions.28 Past heroic models and ideals, then, may be a better explanation for the character of f īlmfārsī heroism than filmmakers pandering to underclass audiences on the margins of a transitional society. Moreover, Ijlālī’s claims of audience identification with on-screen characters are complicated by the class backgrounds of the creative and technical staff responsi- ble for the popular titles of the 1960s and 1970s. He has submitted that while such professionals may have been from the modern educated middle classes, they were nevertheless acutely aware of their audiences’ “traditional sensibilities.”29 This awareness undoubtedly contributed to the films’ assumed manipulative effects, to which more sophisticated viewers were apparently immune. However, he has not considered whether the concerns and preoccupations at the heart of many f īlmfārsī titles belonged solely or even primarily to the traditional classes increas- ingly marginalized in a modernizing Iran. If the family was the central focus of the films and the reasoning behind their association with traditionally minded view- ers, he has presented little evidence that the family was any less important to the modern exemplary middle classes. He, and other critics before him, have merely assumed that to be the case as a natural outcome of the education, professions, and life experiences of this “new” social group. The “hostility” towards certain ideas and behaviors connected with the modern, educated members of society found in the late Pahlavi-era popular cinema could similarly represent the anxieties of the filmmakers towards the perceived adverse effects of modernization on this class rather than their potential threat to the more conservative and lower-income strata. Indeed, the dangers that plagued the family in many of the better-received films of the era (e.g., crass materialism, cultural rootlessness, and moral decadence) were more directly applicable to the upwardly mobile and educated classes than they were to the tradition-bound and poor. The overwhelming desire on the part of some to view f īlmfārsī as a cinema largely appealing to the poor and uneducated in Pahlavi Iran has rested on the assumption that modern identities promoted by development experts and national 10 Introduction leaders were at least partially successful in resolving or suppressing internal con- tradictions to create a harmonious relationship between the individual private citi- zen and the professionalizing, bureaucratizing, and industrializing nation-state. Yet I argue that Ijlālī’s evidence suggests instead that the educated middle classes at the center of this “campaign” were not convinced that the formation of modern identities necessitated a clear resolution and hierarchy between private and public selves. Hence, Pahlavi-era popular features may be viewed not as the obsolete entertainment of a world in eclipse but as venues in which national identity in Iran’s transitional society were problematized. To be sure, the draw of f īlmfārsī productions among the modern middle classes has received further validation since the Islamic Revolution. The big hits of the Pahlavi era very much remain a “guilty pleasure,” with continued sales on video to the often highly educated and affluent diaspora community. Iranian satellite television based in offshore posts such as Los Angeles, London, and Dubai has also turned to screening f īlmfārsī features in recent years rather than internation- ally acclaimed art films. The continuing popularity of Pahlavi-era films on video and satellite in exile cannot merely be due to viewer nostalgia. As Hamid Naficy has written, what has stood for “new” entertainment on exile Iranian television, namely music videos and serialized programs, has continued to draw on some of the themes and preoccupations associated with this “defunct” cinema. Their producers have, for example, claimed that the relocation of lūtī characters to the “mean streets” of Los Angeles in their work has been an attempt to save these entertainment icons from destruction under the Islamic Republic.30 In reassessing the relationship between the Pahlavi-era popular commercial cinema and Iranian audiences, I not only call into question the marginality of f īlmfārsī but also its exclusion from “official” definitions of national cinema in scholarly and political discourse.

1.1.4 National cinema Politicians and intellectuals in Iran and elsewhere have frequently exploited the “external threat” of mass culture to mobilize national interests, with the reinforce- ment of cultural hierarchies in mind. While high cultures have long had a “cos- mopolitan” character, the movement of mass culture across borders has provoked suspicion and hostility among elites.31 As I have already suggested, a homegrown mass culture has fared no better in such judgments. Appealing to the notion of commercial cinema as mass production, opponents of f īlmfārsī argued that its products were nothing more than poor copies of popular foreign titles. The com- mercial exploitation of f īlmfārsī was contrasted with artisanal, individual elite and sometimes folk culture. The rapid expansion of f īlmfārsī studios and audiences for their products in the 1960s precipitated efforts on the part of political and intellectual elites to appro- priate Iranian cinema for themselves, rechristening it as an art form (rather than as entertainment) and authentic cultural artifact (rather than as a vehicle of cultural imperialism). The Iranian “New Wave” of the 1960s and 1970s was intended as Introduction 11 part of a new national culture that anchored the modernizing state, promoting and protecting its values from outside attack – for which ironically the electronic media, including film, were viewed as largely responsible. Interestingly enough, the native films that Iranian elites connected with this national cinema movement looked in particular to post-World War II Italian neo-realism for their inspira- tion, though sometimes indirectly through other Third World art cinemas, such as the “Parallel Cinema” movement of India.32 Art filmmakers then frequently rejected native theatricality, professional storytelling, and musical performance as shallow and derivative. Their films instead incorporated a “slice of life” docu- mentary realism, unscripted dialogue, simple camera work, and non-professional actors. Indeed, in following a “world cinema” model worked out on the festival circuit, Iranian art filmmakers and their patrons would reject an earlier Persianate cosmopolitan culture, which instead enriched the popular commercial cinema, for a modernist cosmopolitanism emanating from the West. The showcases for this “alternative” cinema were state television and government-sponsored events such as the annual Shiraz Festival of Arts [Jashn-i Hunar-i Shīrāz] (1967–1977) and Tehran International Film Festival [Jashnvārah-i Bayn al-Milalī-i Sīnamā-yi Tihrān] (1972–1977).33 While New Wave artists received substantial governmen- tal support in the late Pahlavi era, the commercial studios faced heavy taxes and their products were during much of the late Pahlavi era consigned to smaller and less lucrative second- and third-class theaters. New Wave films were largely com- mercial failures in spite of official help, including the patronage of the Queen, and international recognition.34 Moreover, some of the products of this art cinema movement would eventually garner as much controversy from official circles as local and foreign studio features – highlighting in the process the problems of authorship that the film medium had posed.35 Since the Revolution, governmental and quasi-governmental organizations have played an even more prominent role in film production. Interestingly, this official interest has contributed to the growing profile of Iranian art cinema over- seas, especially since the end of the Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988). Gradual eco- nomic recovery and a shift to more pragmatic politics under presidents ‘Alī Akbar Rafsanjānī (1989–1997) and Muḥammad Khātamī (1997–2005) helped to fuel the production of dozens of titles destined for international screenings. Without a hint of irony, foreign critics praised this wave of festival entries from Iran for “lifting the veil” on a closed society and presenting starkly “individual” stories in a country where ideological conformity was seemingly demanded from all. The swift rise of Iranian films and filmmakers on the international film festival and art-house circuit also elicited a mini-boom in academic interest in Iranian cinema. An edited volume published in 2002, entitled The New Iranian Cinema: Politics, Representation, and Identity, arguably inaugurated this flurry of scholarship.36 In the introduction to the volume, Richard Tapper has noted that the “innovative” and “exciting” films of the 1990s were a revival of the aforementioned culturally distinctive and politically engaged “New Iranian Cinema” that had taken form with the support of state organs during the final troubled years of Pahlavi rule. The fact that New Iranian Cinema returned in the 1990s under a “puritanical” 12 Introduction and “totalitarian” Islamic Republic was hailed as a testament to the uncompro- mising artists behind it and the durability of the “homegrown” artistic traditions that helped to inspire it.37 Nearly all academic treatments of the Iranian cinema published since 2002 have chosen to work within the conceptual boundaries that Tapper has laid out. While significant differences have emerged in this literature in terms of theoretical and methodological approach, the subject of analysis has been remarkably uniform: the internationally recognized art cinema of the post- Iraq War era.38 This book problematizes the narrow reading of Iranian national cinema in much of the recent scholarship as largely composed of post-revolutionary art films. Those writing about the globally recognized art cinema have knowingly and unknowingly perpetuated longstanding elitist dismissals of much of the Ira- nian film catalog as cheap knock-offs of foreign films or political propaganda. In the process, they have also dismissed Iranian audiences at home, who have largely avoided titles connected with New Iranian Cinema when they have been permitted theatrical release in Iran. In fact, when critics and academics have made claims about this art film movement as a national cinema, they have invariably highlighted its appeal to the modernist sensibilities of Western art-house audi- ences. The success of Iranian art films abroad has, thus, operated as a symbol of Iranian national “progress” for some intellectuals and politicians. Likewise, the “auteur” directors whose personal vision has supposedly given life to these films have become the physical representatives of that progress. By de-marginalizing f īlmfārsī as mere entertainment or propaganda, this book asks whether its popu- larity was at least in part a challenge to such official ideas of national progress and national culture.

1.1.5 “Entertainment” and film analysis At the heart of much of the critical discourse internationally on film has been a division between “art” and “entertainment.” The work of art from this perspective is a creative break from the mundane. By contrast, entertainment is a potentially deleterious distraction from real life. The character of art and entertainment is in turn claimed to be universal. My interest in popular films and their reception in Iran is partly a challenge to this unquestioned diminution and suppression of popular features as entertainment [sargarmī] among some intellectuals. Richard Dyer has written that what is obscured in much of contemporary cultural critique is an understanding of the term “entertainment” in mass society.39 Many have sim- ply assumed its constituents and its effects. To be sure, much of what is referred to as entertainment today is a product of the electronic media and of the businesses, organizations, and professionals working in these technologies. Certainly, the pre- vailing definitions of entertainment owe more to industry ideas about the pleasures of their products and to whom those pleasures are directed rather than in what con- sumers take pleasure. Yet, Dyer has argued that this fact does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that entertainment is performing a purely ideological function in modern society. Rather, the very nature of modern entertainment forms as well as the Introduction 13 organization of their production (as a complex collaboration of skill, imagination, and financing) helps to work against their effective dissemination as ideology.40 Moreover, the role of the consumer, though subordinate, cannot be ignored in the process of entertainment. The common description of entertainment in elite discourse has been as a diver- sion, an escape for the mind from the realities and obligations of day-to-day life – and, as such, posing the risk of disengagement. By contrast, Dyer has contended that it is precisely the increasing mindlessness and drudgery of modern work and life that drive the forms that entertainment has taken over the past century and the purposes to which people have put them. Utopianism has been a central con- cern of such entertainments, with popular film especially important in this regard: imagining how life was or might be (better) and how such a life might be realized now.41 It is worth emphasizing that these experiences of the world as it could be are not merely flights of fancy, but their opposite. Representations of utopias in mass entertainments are invariably rooted in and rely on our assumptions and attitudes about the world as it is, which vary across time and space. Entertainment is thus not a universal experience as it is often assumed but historically and cultur- ally situated, “temporarily providing, but also in the process defining, happiness” for the cultural world within which it arises.42 Martin Barker has similarly asked about how films relate to their world in formulating his audience-centered approach to film analysis, which builds on the cognitivist models pioneered by David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson.43 Barker’s “pro-filmic” approach rejects the anti-empiricism of psychoanalysis and “effects” theory and instead rests on the assumption that audiences engage with, rather than are seduced by, films. At the center of that engagement is the film’s creation of an imaginative universe, with its own rules and organizing principles. Barker has asserted that what audiences witness on the screen is not a literal reflec- tion of reality. It is instead a representational form of which the viewer is quite aware. Consequently, “[a] film cannot be ‘true’ or ‘false’, or ‘distorted’, because it does not follow real-world rules. Nor can films produce direct behavioural effects on their audiences.”44 Film, and art more generally from Barker’s perspective, has often functioned to defamiliarize the real world rather than deny it, to show aspects of it in ways that force viewers to consider them anew – sometimes to their dismay. In this respect, there is no difference between representations of the “real” and the fictional since both use the same symbols to recognize and (re-) create the world. This interaction with the imaginative universe of the film pre- supposes what Barker has called the “involved, motivated spectator,” who has an understanding of the conventions employed by a particular film culture and of the social and historical context in which that film culture operates.45 With these prior skills and knowledge, he or she can participate in the action on screen – including character behavior and emotions, scene and sequence transitions, camera angles, shifts in time and place, color patterns, and music – to interpret the film as a whole and in its various parts. Spectator interpretations can have both literal and metaphorical dimensions and can take place before, during, and after the viewing. Of course, Barker has rightly pointed out that the spectator may refuse or fail to 14 Introduction perform this presumed role in the viewing of a film. However, without such an engagement it also becomes difficult to imagine how the film could be entertain- ing. At the same time, not all film entertainment may necessarily be entertaining to all those who take up the role of the involved, motivated spectator. Before moving on to case studies, Barker has provided in summary three questions that he has intended to answer in his analysis: “What kind of imaginative universe is on offer in each case? How does it invite and structure our possible involvements? And therefore in what way does it offer itself to the rest of our lives?”46 The analy- sis of f īlmfārsī titles offered in the following chapters will also seek answers to these questions in an effort to move beyond the commonplace descriptions of the films and their audiences as “mindless entertainment.” But what composed the imaginative universe of the Pahlavi-era popular cinema? How did those screen projections and audiences’ enjoyment of them engage with imaginative experi- ences from the past?

1.2 Remaking traditions for the modern Iranian nation The approach outlined above for this study of f īlmfārsī features calls into question their decontextualization as mere entertainment or as knock-offs of Hollywood or popular Indian cinema inviting similar, superficial reactions from audiences. However, it also takes aim at a corresponding dehistoricization of popular cinema in Pahlavi Iran that is found in standard accounts of the form. By this, I mean that critics and academics by and large have either treated such films as obscure signs of the inevitable transition to a modern rational society, politics and economy in Iran or, more commonly, as a remnant of antiquated beliefs and practices in an increasingly rationalizing Iranian state and society. In both cases, the films and their audiences are denied any historical relevance or agency independent of this grand narrative of development. The unspoken subject of this non-history is, instead, the immaterial and changeless “substance” of human reason. A major argument presented here is that popular film practices in Iran belong to a tradi- tion still active in the modern world. I submit that some f īlmfārsī titles and those responsible for them attempted to orient themselves in relation to the cultural and intellectual history of Iran and its periphery. Pahlavi-era filmed entertainments thus took up the icons and imagery of the past to represent and problematize offi- cial ideas of a modernizing, secularizing Iranian nation.

1.2.1 Transformative media There has always been a sense among those in the film industry, wherever they may be, that the experience of film and filmmaking somehow transcends mundane existence. Likewise, the people who make up this film world have been viewed and have viewed themselves as special. The phenomenon of stardom has perhaps been the most powerful argument for and example of this broad recognition of film’s unique attributes in comparison to other and earlier art forms.47 From the beginnings of feature film production in Europe and the United States, there was a Introduction 15 sense among many of those involved in these new industries that they were living lives that transcended the present day.48 Of course, their fans too could participate in this utopian existence by watching their films, thus freeing themselves even momentarily from the mundane and everyday. Some scholars have gone so far as to argue that the liberating potential of film technology has taken up where conventional religions leave off in the modern, secularized world. This is John Lyden’s thesis.49 He has extended his analysis beyond other religious approaches to film that simply identify narrative subjects and themes resembling those which we recognize from conventional religious texts and practices.50 Instead, Lyden has argued that films function “religiously” in that they offer inspiring and thought-provoking images and worldviews, in rela- tion to which filmgoers explore and construct their own approaches to living.51 Likewise, political elites of modern nation-states have viewed official state ide- ology as taking up where conventional religions have left off in the organization and mobilization of society. Thus, national leaders in the twentieth century came to believe that they were transforming their land and society and, in the case of Iran and other Third World countries, bringing them into the modern age. Of course, development experts claimed that the continuing hold of religion in the Third World would make this transition to modernity all the more difficult. There was much discussion in Western academic circles especially after the Second World War about the links between modern society and the instillation of a mod- ern “national consciousness,” as well as the need for mass conversion to a national ideology in mobilizing the incipient masses for the goals of development.52 They viewed the mass media as crucial to the “modernization” process, which promised liberation from the past.53 Indeed, in the 1970s, a new academic field emerged called “development communications,” wherein the progress of modernization was to be measured through indices of mass media penetration.54

1.2.2 Secularism and Islamism To be sure, many political leaders and planning experts understood seculariza- tion as crucial to Third World political and economic development, and elites in Pahlavi Iran were no exception in this respect. In large measure, this seculariza- tion was to involve the government takeover of aspects of public life previously under the direct or indirect purview of religious institutions. Pahlavi officials, in collaboration with nationalist intellectuals, upheld the pre-Islamic Persian empire as a model and impetus for a modern secular and authoritarian state centered on the figure of the Shah.55 As Talinn Grigor has argued, the campaign to privilege the Aryan and Persian past in the national heritage included the building of new “secular” sites of pilgrimage dedicated to the heroes of the Aryan Persian past and the deactivation of living traditions connected with Islam and the Semitic race.56 However, in Iran and elsewhere, this marginalization of religion in the name of national progress also denied for some the overarching meaning that religious institutions had given to life. Theorists of secularization had generally viewed religious worship as an isolated act in the modern world rather than as a “way 16 Introduction of life” leading to personal transformation. Consequently, their ideas of secular nationalism in the abstract could scarcely offer a realistic alternative to so-called backward and reactionary religious worldviews other than their negation. For most scholars of modern Iran and other Muslim countries, a politicized “fundamentalist” Islam has been the major force in opposition to official secular nationalist programs, especially over the past half century. While radical reform- ist Muslims have attacked modernity as cutting off their co-religionists from their history and culture (elsewhere negatively inscribed as “tradition”), the positions taken up by these radicals have also indicated the successful adoption in Muslim intellectual circles of orientations and institutions European in origin.57 In fact, fundamentalist groups have often figured on the modern state apparatus in the achievement of their goals for wider society. Their political programs have by and large only differed in the details from those of secular nationalist elites. Radical reformist movements have also not been able to gain widespread acceptance of their ideological positions or their calls for the legal and moral reformation of society. The growing prominence of political Islam in Iran and the Muslim world has often coincided with the growing despotism of authoritarian nationalist gov- ernments. Ironically, autocratic regimes have themselves supported political Islam as a bulwark against democratic ideas and institutions. In turn, radical reformist Muslims everywhere have taken up the absolutist vision of those oppressive gov- ernments to which they have supposedly been fundamentally opposed.58 In the final analysis, neither the psychologically empty concept of “national progress” that secular nationalist elites propounded nor fundamentalist Shi‘ite prospects of social justice for the believers deferred in time and space would man- age to inspire the bulk of the Iranian masses – even when broadcast via the elec- tronic media. Perhaps the best evidence for this mass indifference to aspects of the secular nationalist and radical Shi‘ite projects can be found in the concerns and preoccupations of Pahlavi-era popular features. Such films, then, represented the prosperity of the family as tied to national well-being – rather than privileging some “universal” notion of economic and social progress. While f īlmfārsī narra- tives often gave priority to the Iranian nation over other broad affiliations, the citi- zens represented therein did not exist simply for the sake of national development. Moreover, personal and collective liberation did not depend on either a Western or Shari‘a-based legal fetishism but on heroic action. Similarly, a fate primarily responsible to the Iranian family – rather than enlightened planning commissions, benevolent monarchs, or a literalist interpretation of the Islamic God – directed the nation, though not necessarily toward any particular end outside of stable fam- ily life. Popular Pahlavi-era cinema could thus provide a venue for an alternative set of beliefs and practices to both those promoted by secular nationalist elites and radical reformist Shi‘ites for the organization of modern national life.

1.2.3 Civil religions, official and popular Of course, what development experts and national leaders expected as part of the modernization process in the postwar, post-independence Third World never quite Introduction 17 existed in the West – namely, a secular society whose public life was uncontami- nated by the ideas and values of conventional religion. As Charles Taylor has writ- ten, church institutions may have lost power in the secular age, but society was not necessarily any less religious in its outlook.59 Even as Enlightenment rationalism replaced Christian theology with humanism in the eighteenth and nineteenth cen- turies, older millennial convictions were reworked with Progress now bringing about the perfect society on earth. In studying American political life, Robert Bellah has argued that while many politicians and ordinary citizens have affirmed the irrelevance of private religious beliefs to the public affairs of the nation, they have not ruled out a religious dimen- sion in national politics. “This public religious dimension is expressed in a set of beliefs, symbols, and rituals that I am calling American civil religion.”60 Accord- ing to Bellah, while the American people may have underwritten political author- ity from the perspective of civil religion, ultimate sovereignty and national destiny has rested in the hands of God. Yet, the theology imparted in official documents, political speeches, and ceremonial occasions in particular has not in his mind been equivalent to the theologies of any Christian sect, although it has taken inspiration from them. It may be better understood as the “God of the civil religion”:

The God of the civil religion is not only rather “unitarian,” he is also on the austere side, much more related to order, law, and right than to salvation and love. Even though he is somewhat deist in cast, he is by no means simply a watchmaker God. He is actively interested and involved in history, with a special concern for America.61

Bellah has emphasized that since the relationship of civil religion with the “church” in the United States has generally not devolved into one of antagonism, Ameri- cans have also rarely viewed their allegiance to both of these national “institu- tions” as conflicting. The churches of the fledging United States had, for their part, accepted the new nation and allowed for the civil religion to become a powerful mobilizing force for national goals. Of course, American civil religion has not been monolithic or composed of a timeless set of beliefs and practices. Traumatic events in American history have especially made their mark on its enduring sym- bols and archetypes. Likewise, just as the civil religion has represented the high- est ideals of American politicians and citizens, it has also been “a cloak for petty interests and ugly passions.”62 Later students of American civil religion have pointed out that what has come to shape this modern faith often goes beyond the explicitly political. Kris Jozajtis has maintained that Hollywood from its beginnings has played a major role in developing the religious dimension in national life – a subject mostly ignored in both film studies and US history.63 Jozajtis has written that D. W. Griffith, whom scholars have often considered to be the father of American cinema, took his work to be vital to the moral rebirth of a society then undergoing rapid change. While he saw himself as standing above politics, he was nevertheless a favorite target of Progressive Era reformers and Christian revivalists for his controversial claims 18 Introduction about the cinema. For Griffith, representations of the national reality, told through a medium that he took to be the “universal language” of Biblical prophecy, could reveal the divine will at work in American life and reaffirm the values of the citizenry better than any old-time sermon, liturgy, or politician’s stump speech.64 Cinematic revelations of the sanctity of the nation, especially through charac- ters’ performance of heroic acts on its behalf, were not unique to D. W. Griffith’s œuvre. To be sure, succeeding generations of filmmakers have retained similar if largely unexpressed understandings of this seemingly secular and modern tech- nology. Their films, as a popular platform for American civil religion, have sup- ported as well as challenged official representations of the same. Similarly, evidence of a civil religion (or civil religions) would seem to exist in twentieth-century Iran. As noted earlier, most historians have considered the reign of Ri..zā Shah Pahlavi as giving rise to the formal and systematic establishment of modern, secular ways of life in Iran underwritten by government-sponsored reforms. The official reorganization of religious endowments, the justice system, and the educational system at that time were at least in part attempts to reduce the role of the clergy in public life. Likewise, the events leading up to the Islamic Revolution and its aftermath supported those who have claimed that Iranian polit- ical history in the twentieth century has been dominated by the struggle between secularism and Islam, with Islam ultimately winning out. Yet, militant secularism and a radical reformist Islam do not exhaust the range of ideological orientations (or “religious” positions) active in modern Iran. Pahlavi reforms were successful in instilling or expanding popular support for certain secular nationalist ideals and practices. However, like Bellah’s civil religion, many of these ideals and prac- tices were not necessarily disconnected from the immediate past or even from the religious tradition. For example, if many people once believed that the Iranian monarch was the repository of the “divine grace” ensuring the well-being of his subjects, they would during the twentieth century come to understand the Iranian nation and its citizens to be the recipients of that blessing and bearers of that responsibility. National prosperity as an ultimate end would in this understanding supersede or become impregnated with ideas of Shi‘ite eschatology. Likewise, national love could be viewed as equally a path to self-fulfillment as divine love. Such beliefs and their associated practices belong in my view to Iranian civil reli- gion, whose study provides a greater depth of understanding to the processes of modernization and secularization during the past century.65 First, a distinction must be made between “official” and “popular” versions of Iranian civil religion. That is not to say that the beliefs and practices connected with each are by necessity alien to the other or even to conventional Islam. The official Pahlavi civil religion – mainly espoused by the court, bureaucracy, and army – did not wholly reject the role of Shi‘ism in Iranian life. The constitution of the modern Pahlavi state, for example, demanded that the Shah be a Shi‘ite Mus- lim and that he vow to propagate the Shi‘ite faith. Moreover, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (1919–1980) in his memoirs affirmed his own and defended his father’s faith in Shi‘ism, noting their observance of the religious obligations of prayer and pilgrimage.66 He intimated that this personal piety explained and was explained Introduction 19 by his conviction in “some unseen hand,” which protected and guided him. In the same breath, though, the Western-educated Shah rejected older conceptions of Iranian kingship, which claimed that he was “an indispensable instrument of God.”67 These ideas were shelved during the reign of his father, a man of aus- tere habits and discipline whose energies, Mohammad Reza Shah claimed, were entirely devoted to the modernization of the nation rather than the “ceremonies” of the court. Ri..zā Shah managed his task “[w]ithout benefit of any overall plan or system of priorities” yet remarkably it “added up to such a rational pattern of national progress.”68 For Mohammad Reza Shah, the unseen hand that guided his father’s agile mind and incomparable work ethic toward Iran’s renewal was that of reason (whose “blessing” all modern men have received). The adherents of an official civil religion, especially after the Second World War, thus took the planning and undertaking of large-scale civil and military projects to above all comprise the liberating practices of the nation. Yet who was eligible for this expe- rience of a transcendent reality in national life? Mainly those who could take part economically in Pahlavi modernization projects and who also shared in the social vision that such schemes had mapped out for the future. From the perspective of Pahlavi officials, what stood in the way of total participation in national develop- ment were the unyielding ways of traditional life. Mohammad Reza Shah wrote that education, in and out of school, was his foremost consideration in creating a hard-working and devoted population eager for “objective knowledge” and “thor- oughly imbued with the scientific spirit.”69 Necessary social change, the instilla- tion of a new social consciousness, would also call for official interference in the supporting structures of traditional life-ways – including the family. Among the demands of Pahlavi modernism were the redefinition of female roles inside and outside the home, the encouragement of a consumerist culture in line with the so- called developed world, and the rethinking of certain moral values and individual loyalties. Representations of popular civil religion in part answered the demands that Pahlavi development had made of the Iranian citizenry by postulating a God or “fate” of the nation as primarily responsible for the prosperity of the family. Yet, the stress placed on the family in popular Iranian civil religion was not necessarily evidence of the stark traditionalist mindsets of its adherents. The growing concern in the twentieth century for the extended patrilocal family was very much a mod- ern one. In fact, there is some evidence to suggest that modernists’ problematiza- tion of the extended family in Iran and elsewhere in the region coincided with its rising importance to new segments of society who previously had little in the way of either family prosperity or social mobility.70 Likewise, male homosociality would take on an even more important role in public life and in family relations with the outside world even as official and unofficial campaigns for “productive” heteronormative sexuality gained ground among the burgeoning middle classes. Consequently, the embrace by some Western-educated or Westernized elites of individualism, heterosocial marriage, and the nuclear family as part of the transi- tion to modernity was matched by a larger movement, especially among those rising (or falling) into the middle classes, that took up (with some adjustments) 20 Introduction older Persianate aristocratic models for the organization of public and private lives.71 While adherents of a popular civil religion may have believed government development programs under the Pahlavi regime to be the way forward, there was an equal conviction that their aims should ultimately serve the family. This concern for the family would continue to animate popular civil religion in post- revolutionary Iran. Again, films, songs, and later television programs have been particularly fruitful sites of evidence and nodes of production for popular civil religion in both the Pahlavi era and the Islamic Republic. To be sure, some art films could also represent elements of popular Iranian civil religion but it is their presence in the little-studied commercial features of the 1960s and 1970s that will be addressed in this book. The popular cinema of the late Pahlavi period could promote, sometimes simul- taneously, the official civil religion – in concert with school curricula, news media, and official documentaries. Similarly, popular films in the Islamic Republic have also contributed to the propagation of officially sanctioned ideas of Islam. The institution of the family was not entirely dismissed in the official civil religion of either the Pahlavi or the Islamic Republican eras. However, for Pahlavi elites at least, the family was important to the extent that it served the nation and its leader- ship. In fact, Pahlavi officials viewed the nation itself as a family with the Shah as its father.72 By contrast, popular civil religion in this period emphasized the idea of the family as nation. In f īlmfārsī depictions of popular civil religion, harmonious family life, pure erotic love, and sacrifice for the sake of family members and friends were the predominant ways in which the citizens of the nation fulfilled themselves. These cinematic considerations of personal fulfillment appeared to diverge from accounts of Islamic cosmology that deferred human fulfillment and represented the created world as a collection of signs for an ultimate and unknowable real- ity. Nevertheless, there was little in the way of contradiction or incompatibility between experiences of popular civil religion and those of Islam, as long as con- ventional religious practices supplemented or complemented the life of the fam- ily. A number of f īlmfārsī features, including some to be discussed in this book, showed characters engaging in conventional religious practices such as formal prayers, pilgrimage, and fasting. Such representations, both sincere and ironic, could demonstrate to the audience the characters’ piety (or lack thereof ) but also often made the case for their primary association with the private affairs of the individuals in question. From the perspective of the films, the obstacles to popu- lar civil religion largely came in the form of threats to family integrity and not necessarily, as in the official Pahlavi civil religion, from tradition and its inher- ent corruptions. These threats could involve interference from government as well as religious bodies in family prerogatives or, relatedly, violations of female virtue as family honor. Exile and martyrdom became in some film narratives paths to personal and collective liberation. In reconsidering character actions and motivations in f īlmfārsī features, this study not only problematizes pre-existing scholarly views of popular cinema but also of the role of the family institution in modern Iranian life. Introduction 21 Political elites, for their part, often had to tolerate or appropriate some of the beliefs and practices associated with popular civil religion and their represen- tations to help mobilize the masses in service of an official goal. By the same token, the masses mobilized against national projects, often with the guidance or encouragement of oppositional elites, when these projects seemingly threatened the core values of popular civil religion. In this way, the enormous political dem- onstrations of the late 1970s – the marches, chants, slogans, and symbology that together contributed to the overthrow of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi – were not, despite the claims of some scholars, merely the reassertion of timeless Shi‘ite ritual and belief, albeit with different points of emphasis than before.73 Instead, one might argue that such protests were a re-articulation of older religious prac- tices in the context of a new national theology and cosmology. Consequently, the participants in the marches were mourning the martyrs of the Revolution, not merely the Imams. Their collective efforts were to advance the cause of social justice primarily for the people of the nation rather than for the wider community of believers. These demonstrations represented the emotional engagement of the people in certain ideas associated with the Islamic Revolution, which had their roots in popular civil religion, and in turn helped to activate such emotions in oth- ers. The themes of fate, heroism, family virtue, exile, and martyrdom that figured heavily in the revolution were also central to f īlmfārsī titles, albeit with different inflections. The self-sacrificing neighborhood protector in the films was not nec- essarily a model for radical action, but such screen representations of underclass heroes may have contributed to formulations of popular civil religion that in part sustained mass revolt against aspects of the modernist Pahlavi vision for Iran. It is important to keep in mind that audiences did not necessarily read the afore- mentioned aspects of popular civil religion into films or into particular scenes in them. Likewise, no assumption can be made that filmmakers were always con- scious of representations of popular civil religion in their films. The more likely hypothesis is that these things simply existed and, in many ways, continue to exist as part of popular cinema (and other mass entertainments) in Iran. They have been taken-for-granted ideas about popular film, film entertainment, and film as a repre- sentation of national life in Pahlavi Iran and even under the Islamic Republic. The best proof of this is the regular, consistent appearance of the icons and imagery related to popular civil religion on Iranian screens. What this book endeavors to examine is how the cinematic themes of heroism, martyrdom, exile, and fate, in contributing to popular civil religion, articulated with the Pahlavi modernizing project and the social aspirations and moral principles of urban youth who com- prised the bulk of its audience.

1.2.4 The Persianate cultural world From where do the major themes explored in f īlmfārsī titles come? The follow- ing chapters argue that film representations of popular civil religion in Iran have especially drawn on and reworked ideas and institutions from medieval and early modern courtly culture and popular devotional life whose relevance often 22 Introduction extended far beyond Iran’s modern borders. In this respect, I claim that popular film in the late Pahlavi era was relatively unique among modern Iranian cultural forms in its engagement with the past. Modernist literature, for example, has by and large adopted the Western novel, short story, and free verse poetry for its expression. The dominant thematic elements and formal conventions in this lit- erature have either taken inspiration from social realism of predominantly Soviet heritage or, more recently, magic realism, rooted in European bourgeois psycho- analysis. Such observations about modernist literature in Iran may also be extended to other parts of the Third World.74 By contrast, f īlmfārsī titles drew on what some have called “Persianate” culture, bringing into dispute critics’ claims of their derivative nature. An understanding of what were once the courtly cultures of the Persianate world were above all at the heart of such film re-appropriations and in part explained the creative links between the Iranian popular cinema of the 1960s and 1970s and neighboring film cultures. These contemporary manifestations of the Persianate world also reveal the false dichotomy that many historians have created between the “modern” and the “pre-modern,” which Ronald Inden has critiqued with special reference to South Asian historiography.75 By the Persianate world, I mean the areas where values, practices, beliefs, and institutions frequently of a Persian or Iranian inspiration though not neces- sarily of Persian or Iranian initiative flourished before and after the advent of Islam, especially among ruling elites. My main focus, however, has been on post-Islamic Persianate culture and its patronage under largely Turkic-speaking rule. Scholars have often credited Marshall Hodgson with first coining the term “Persianate” in reference to the high culture “in Persian or reflecting Persian inspiration” active in the Muslim-ruled empires that came to dominate much of West, Central, and South Asia in the late caliphal and post-caliphal periods.76 For Hodgson, Persianate was seemingly a subset of another term that he coined: “Islamicate,” which did not refer to the religion of the Muslims, its practices, and institutions but to “the social and cultural complex historically associated with Islam and the Muslims, both among Muslims themselves and even when found among non-Muslims.”77 In fact, he claimed that the history of Islamicate civilization in the “central areas” under Muslim rule could be divided into an initial and presumably more “Arab” caliphal phase, which was then followed by a Persianate phase.78 Following Hodgson, Robert Canfield has highlighted the composite nature of Persianate culture by emphasizing the role of largely Turkic- speaking patrons in its development from the eleventh century onwards.79 He has, like Hodgson, pointed to the sixteenth century when the Ottoman, Ṣafavid, and Mughal “Gunpowder” dynasties of Turkic ancestry emerged as world pow- ers as the zenith of a Persianate high culture.80 The core territories of these three empires in Iran, Iraq, Transcaucasia, Central Asia, Anatolia, and the Indian subcontinent have in turn comprised the geographic footprint of the Persianate world in his definition. Undoubtedly, it is the cultures of these early modern Persianate empires and their successors that have had the most profound effect on the character of popular cinema and, by extension, popular civil religion in Iran.81 Introduction 23 In more recent years, a number of scholars have followed the lead of Hodgson and Canfield in arguing for greater study of the Persianate world. However, the prevailing approach has been either past-oriented and centered in particular on the Gunpowder Empires or focused on the Persian language and on the modern nations in which Persian has the status of a national language.82 The processes of nationalism, modernization, and globalization have at once placed aspects of the Persianate world under threat, while giving newfound prominence to others. Yet, what has survived until the present day is not merely a matter of historical recon- struction or ethnolinguistic connection. This book argues that modern accounts of the Persianate world or accounts of the modern Persianate world have invariably left out of their story the democratization of older and often elite Persianate cul- tural practices in modern mass entertainments that may or may not be in Persian. While the focus of this book is on Iran and on Persian-speakers, there will also be references to Hindi/Urdu and Turkish speakers in this cultural area as well as comparisons drawn to the Arab world on its margins. Moreover, I submit that some of the questions raised and tentative conclusions reached also apply to the historically dominated national groups within the Persianate world (e.g., Kurdish, Baluchi, Kashmiri, etc.).

1.3 Outline of the book This book is primarily about the Pahlavi-era popular commercial cinema but also references a number of non-Iranian and post-revolutionary films to investigate the components of a popular civil religion in Iran and its connections with early modern Persianate courtly and religious culture. The choice of films for this pro- ject has in large measure been determined by the popularity they enjoyed with Iranian audiences, with a particular focus on the contemporary melodramas that dominated film production in the 1960s and early 1970s. Unfortunately, a strong desire on the part of some Iranians, at home and abroad, to “forget” these films altogether has limited viewing choices – a problem that more severely affects stu- dents of Iranian cinema than those of other neighboring film cultures. The occa- sional references to more recent productions aim at illustrating the contemporary cinema’s lasting bonds with older films and their themes, as well as the continuing relevance of popular civil religion in modern Iranian life. Similarly, “foreign” films discussed in the pages to come have been chosen for their thematic and for- mal affinities or historical links with features from the heyday off īlmfārsī . Given its longstanding regional importance and the generally recognized though largely unexamined connections it has to f īlmfārsī, the Mumbai-based Hindi-language commercial cinema receives special attention in this regard. Not all the films that informed this study and its conclusions are cited in the text. Others are only ref- erenced in passing or in footnotes. Some films are treated to detailed analysis to better illustrate the major cinematic preoccupations of filmmakers and audiences in Iran at that time. These titles and the figures associated with them may enjoy “special” or “controversial” status in film histories; their designation is also a subject of discussion here. However, the primary interest of the book is in the 24 Introduction cultural and political interpretations of the cinematic form in a popular Iranian context. As such, it should be emphasized that the “special” films examined here can also be “ordinary” in their representations of the major themes identified in f īlmfārsī titles. There are four substantive chapters and each includes at least one detailed film analysis. Preceding these chapters is a short historical background of the popular Iranian commercial cinema. The analytical chapters also include several figures, mainly film stills, to further illuminate the arguments made or descriptions given in the text. Aside from the films, I turn to the industry press from the heyday of f īlmfārsī to fill gaps in information as well as contextualize the film analysis. More theoreti- cally inclined articles from film journals and book-length film histories, mainly in Persian and English, have also been consulted. As previously mentioned, the contribution of such histories and critiques to the substance of the arguments presented in the book has been marginal – in part because of the longstanding prejudices in intellectual circles against the Iranian popular cinema. Moral and aesthetic condemnation has ruled the day. For the chapter sections on older Per- sianate links to f īlmfārsī themes, “classic” literature, literary criticism, and pri- mary and secondary historical sources have informed the discussions therein. Chapter Two involves a brief discussion of the beginnings of f īlmfārsī and the historico-cultural context in which it developed. Of particular interest is the origins of the commercial film industry in dubbing, which shaped its technical and artistic features while inviting hostile reactions from political and intellec- tual elites. Emphasizing this transition from film dubbing to filmmaking does not demand the conclusion that the popular Iranian cinema of the Pahlavi era was inherently derivative. In fact, dubbing would appear to be a creative process that sought to accommodate (and even cultivate) the sensibilities of its audiences. Chapter Three considers the development of heroism and masculine virtue in f īlmfārsī cinema. Similar themes and examples in Persianate literature and his- tory are raised to better understand their re-imaginings in popular films. I ask how the depictions of male exemplars in f īlmfārsī – a cinema largely about men and for men – related to ideas of the family, nation, and of a popular civil religion. Of particular interest is the socially marginalized status of these protagonists and the subsequent difficulty of drawing a line between hero and anti-hero. Finally, I touch on the equally precarious position of female virtue in f īlmfārsī and Iranian entertainments, new and old. Chapter Four examines representations of martyrdom in f īlmfārsī cinema. In support of this study is an exploration of the character of martyrdom and self- sacrifice in Persianate and Shi‘ite myth and history. I then turn to the question of how, during the past century, martyrdom has been implicated in popular assertions of the divinity of the Iranian nation. Finally, I look at how f īlmfārsī titles represented the legal-political institutions of the Pahlavi regime, which formed the backbone of what one might call the official civil religion. The various governmental organs charged with these duties hardly figured in the films. Neither were the sacrifices that film characters made usually for their sake. Instead, the heroes often achieved personal and national salvation absent or in spite of the state. Introduction 25 Chapter Five explores the theme of exile in Persianate cultural history, particu- larly in song and image. I argue that f īlmfārsī titles largely reworked older ideas of exile to reaffirm or strengthen familial love and homosocial bonds crucial to the welfare of the family. This chapter concludes with a brief look at the real-life experience of exile for modern Iranians since the Islamic Revolution. Chapter Six inquires into the central role of fate in f īlmfārsī titles and in the life of the Iranian family – a topic that is also addressed in passing throughout. Fate as the god of popular civil religion has differed from the God of Islam in the sense that its focus has never been universal. Rather, its interests have been narrower with its workings applying only to the characters in the films and, by extension, their viewers. In other words, they have applied only to Iranians. The concluding remarks offer some directions for the further study of popular civil religion in Iran. As mentioned earlier, the formulation and dissemination of the beliefs and practices of popular civil religion have certainly not been limited to the commercial cinema of the Pahlavi era. Examples may be found in more recent films as well as in other media venues, raising the question of how politi- cians and religious leaders in the Islamic Republic have had to accommodate for popular civil religion to accomplish their goals.

Notes 1 More precisely, there were 958 domestically produced releases during the twenty years between 1959 and 1978. Additionally, dozens of film projects launched during this production era were never released. In 1959, twenty-two Iranian productions debuted in cinema halls across the country and that number grew annually before reaching its peak in 1972 with ninety new titles screened. Commercial over-expansion, general economic malaise, and revolutionary turmoil contributed to a sharp drop-off in industry activity in the second half of the 1970s, with only eighteen new features released in 1978. See M. Ali Issari, Cinema in Iran: 1900–1979 (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1989). 2 Jamāl Umīd’s 1200-page history and sourcebook of pre-revolutionary Iranian cinema, Tārīkh-i Sīnamā-yi Īrān: 1279–1357 (Tehran: Intishārāt-i Rawzanah, 1998), is invalu- able to students of f īlmfārsī but no comparable work exists in English. M. Ali Issari’s semi-autobiographical study laid the groundwork for further scholarship on this pro- lific period in Iranian film production but few historians have taken the initiative to write about the Pahlavi-era popular commercial cinema. Hamid Naficy has admirably attempted to address the tunnel vision afflicting many in the field in his four-volume A Social History of Iranian Cinema (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2012–13). Yet even this important work is disappointing in its treatment of f īlmfārsī, uncriti- cally accepting many of the negative stereotypes and clichés about the films and their audiences. 3 See, for example, Hamid Reza Sadr, Iranian Cinema: A Political History (New York: I. B. Tauris, 2006). 4 Naficy models this approach to Iranian film history in A Social History of Iranian Cinema. 5 This critique of the popular Iranian cinema perhaps takes it most complex and influen- tial form in the Persian-language work of Muḥammad Tahāmī Nizhād. See in particu- lar his Sīnamā-yi ru’yāpardāz-i Īrān: Ḥalqah'ī dar zanjīrah-yi khiyālbandān (Tehran: ‘Aks-i Mu‘āṣir, 1986). 6 Stephanie Cronin’s edited volume, The Making of Modern Iran: State and Soci- ety under Riza Shah, 1921–1941 (New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003), includes 26 Introduction contributions from many of the principal figures working in this subfield of modern Iranian history. 7 See, for example, Camron Amin, The Making of the Modern Iranian Women: Gender, State Policy and Popular Culture, 1865–1946 (Gainesville: University Press of Flor- ida, 2002); Talinn Grigor, Building Iran: Modernism, Architecture, and National Her- itage under the Pahlavi Monarchs (New York: Periscope, 2009); and Afshin Marashi, Nationalizing Iran: Culture, Power, and the State, 1870–1940 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2008). Their points of focus may differ but each argues for the role of state policy in promoting and producing an official national culture that shaped modern Iranian identities during the late Qājār and Pahlavi eras. 8 There is a vast body of literature cataloging opposition to Pahlavism from dissident elites and ideologically motivated political groups, with special attention given to the efforts of high-ranking Shi‘ite clerics to thwart the modernist vision of national leaders. Ervand Abrahamian’s Khomeinism: Essays on the Islamic Republic (Berkeley: Uni- versity of California Press, 1993) has detailed how Khomeini and like-minded clerics and intellectuals contested Pahlavi ideas of the nation in the lead-up to the Islamic Rev- olution. Mehrzad Boroujerdi has discussed the oppositional views of lay and religious intellectuals in Iranian Intellectuals and the West: The Tormented Triumph of Nativism (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1996). The political left’s struggle against the historical trajectory of Pahlavi Iran has also received extensive scholarly attention. Stephanie Cronin’s edited volume, Reformers and Revolutionaries in Modern Iran: New Perspectives on the Iranian Left (New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004), is a collec- tion of reappraisals of leftist movements during the Pahlavi era. A notable exception to the scholarly emphasis on politically oriented opposition to the Pahlavi nationalist project is Annabelle Sreberny-Mohammadi and Ali Mohammadi’s Small Media, Big Revolution: Communication, Culture, and the Iranian Revolution (Minneapolis: Uni- versity of Minnesota Press, 1994). Yet even their approach is largely top-down and elite-oriented. The authors of this work focus on Pahlavi elites’ monopolization of the mass media and oppositional forces’ efforts to challenge the regime’s vision for Iran by reaching out to the masses through alternative media, such as recorded sermons on cassette tapes. 9 Muḥammad Tahāmī Nizhād, Sīnamā-yi Īrān (Tehran: Daftar-i Pizhūhishhā-yi Farhangī, 2001), 42–43. 10 Umīd, Tārīkh-i sinamā-yi Īrān: 1279–1357, 260–261. Kāvūsī was part of the pro- fessionalization of film criticism in Iran during the 1950s. Other prominent critics writing in high-circulation weeklies and specialized film publications in this period included veteran reviewer Farrukh Ghaffārī, who had recently returned from France, the IDHEC-educated documentarian Hazhīr Dāryūsh, and author and editor Tughrul Afshār. They were of one voice in their condemnation of f īlmfārsī, of its amateurish grasp of cinematic techniques and obscene content. Soon organized as a syndicate, the critics repeatedly called in their columns and editorials for the creation of a true national cinema that respected rather than exploited its audience. Some, like Ghaffārī and Kāvūsī, even turned to feature filmmaking in the late 1950s and early 1960s in sup- port of their message but enjoyed little success with audiences and lukewarm official support for their efforts. See Ghulām Ḥaydarī, Barrasī-i tārīkhī-i <>nivīsī dar sīnamā-yi Īrān (Tehran: Mu’assasah-’i Intishārāt-i Āgāh, 1989), 16–29. 11 Quoted in “Dūrbīn barā-yi ānhā vaṣīlah-i ma‘āsh būd: Guft va gū bā Hūshang Kāvūsī,” in Fīlmfārsī chīst?, ed. Ḥusayn Mu‘azzizī Niyā (Tehran: Nashr-i Sāqī, 1999), 8. 12 Pierre Bourdieu has argued that it is through critique that intellectual elites in French society establish their cultural and social capital as arbiters (and protectors) of “legiti- mate” culture in the era of mass culture. They present their cultural competencies and dispositions as superior, but their tastes are by and large “asserted purely negatively, by the refusal of other tastes” (Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, trans. Richard Nice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984), 56). Introduction 27 13 Joanne Hollows and Mark Jancovich, “Popular Film and Cultural Distinctions,” in Approaches to Popular Film, ed. Joanne Hollows and Mark Jancovich (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1995), 1–14. 14 On the “culture industry,” see Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception,” in Dialectic of Enlightenment (New York: Continuum, 1993), 120–167. 15 Edward Shils has approached this position in an essay entitled, “Mass Society and Its Culture,” Dædalus 89 (1960): 288–314. 16 Dwight MacDonald, “Masscult & Midcult,” in Against the American Grain (New York: Random House, 1962), 3–75. 17 Take, for example, the Egyptian slang expression “al-gumhūr ‘āyiz kidah” [“The pub- lic wants it”] that industry people there have long used as a mantra to “excuse” the content of their films (Viola Shafik, “Egyptian Cinema,” in Companion Encyclopedia of Middle Eastern and North African Film, ed. Oliver Leaman (New York: Routledge, 2001), 44). 18 See, for example, Henry Jenkins, Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture (New York: Routledge, 1992). 19 Persian-language publications on the subject of f īlmfārsī have largely consisted of memoirs and histories lacking or dismissive in their film analysis. More theoretically informed (and less polemical) book-length studies of popular cinema have yet to find a place in Iranian film studies literature. The previously mentioned work of Muḥammad Tahāmī Nizhād is a notable exception. Ḥusayn Mu‘azzizī Niyā’s edited volume Fīlmfārsī chīst? does not engage in sustained contextual and formal analysis of the popular commercial cinema of the Pahlavi era but is largely the collected opinions and memories of industry figures and film critics, then and now. In English, a handful of Ph.D. dissertations have engaged in plot analysis of f īlmfārsī titles over the past three decades. I have particularly benefited from Behrad Najafi’s examination of common f īlmfārsī narrative components in “Film in Iran, 1900–1979: A Political and Cultural Analysis,” (Ph.D. diss., Universitet Stockholms, 1986). 20 Humā Jāvdānī has collected box office data for the pre-revolutionary cinema in her Sālshumār-i tārīkh-i sīnamā-yi Īrān: Tīr 1279 – Shahrīvar 1379 (Tehran: Nashr-i Qaṭrah, 2002). However, her research has not turned up any information for the major- ity of films released in those decades, which might suggest their less-than-impressive performance with audiences. Further complicating assessments of individual films’ success during this period is the lack of hard information about production costs. Parvīz Ijlālī has included figures from the industry press of the time on average production costs in the 1960s and 1970s in his Digargūnī-i ijtimā‘ī va f īlmhā-yi sīnamāyī dar Īrān: Jāmi‘ahʹshināsī-i f īlmhā-yi ‘āmmahʹpasand- i Īrānī (1309–1357) (Tehran: Intishārāt-i Farhang va Andīshah, 2004), 101–102. In the 1960s, the average production budget was 4.7 million rials (roughly equivalent to 62,000 US dollars), while in the 1970s, it was 8 million rials (or 115,000 US dollars). Presumably based on this information, Ijlālī has attempted to chart the percentage of “box office hits” (without providing a precise definition of the term) during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s (Ibid., 92). Despite the limitations in his approach, at no time does his annual total of box office hits con- stitute a majority of domestically produced releases, and in the 1970s the hits add up to less than one-fifth of all films. A cursory examination of film listings in newspapers and fan magazines of the 1960s and 1970s back his conclusions, revealing that most features did not last more than a week in release at individual theaters. Moreover, the sheer number of anxiety-filled interviews and editorials about the future of the indus- try in the general and specialized press of the period speaks to the mixed fortunes of f īlmfārsī with audiences. 21 Mas‘ūd Mihrābī has taken up this particular critique of f īlmfārsī in extended form in his Tārīkh-i sīnamā-yi Īrān: Az āghāz tā sāl-i 1357 (Tehran: M. Mihrābī, 1997), 50–184. 28 Introduction 22 Tahāmī Nizhād, Sīnamā-yi ru’yāpardāz-i Īrān, 189–191. 23 Ibid., 9 24 Ijlālī, Digargūnī-i ijtimā‘ī va f īlmhā-yi sīnamāyī dar Īrān. For an extended critique of the book, see my review essay “Reconsidering Popular Iranian Cinema and its Audi- ences,” Iranian Studies 45 (2012): 439–447. 25 Ijlālī, Digargūnī-i ijtimā‘ī va f īlmhā-yi sīnamāyī dar Īrān, esp. 217–284. 26 Interestingly, Ijlālī has argued that the periods of greatest social reform under Pahlavi rule matched up with periods of film industry dormancy or decline (Ibid., 35–38). 27 He has supported his argument about the popular Iranian cinema’s audience demo- graphics by drawing attention to the location of the theaters (at least in Tehran) that predominantly screened f īlmfārsī in the 1960s and 1970s (Ibid., 118–140). I have also taken this aspect of his argument to task for its weak grasp of history in my essay “Reconsidering Popular Iranian Cinema and its Audiences”: 442–443. 28 For an example of the powerful and precarious positions that female entertainers could hold in pre-modern Persianate societies, see Rudi Matthee, “Prostitutes, Courtesans, and Dancing Girls: Women Entertainers in Safavid Iran,” in Iran and Beyond: Essays in Honor of Nikki R. Keddie, ed. Rudi Matthee and Beth Baron (Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 2000), 121–150. 29 Ijlālī, Digargūnī-i ijtimā‘ī va f īlmhā-yi sīnamāyī dar Īrān, 400. 30 The Making of Exile Cultures: Iranian Television in Los Angeles (Minneapolis: Uni- versity of Minnesota Press, 1993), 185. 31 See, for example, John Tomlinson, Cultural Imperialism: A Critical Introduction (London: Pinter Publishers, 1991). 32 See Italian Neorealism and Global Cinema, eds. Laura Ruberto and Kristi Wilson (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2007). Bengali masters such as Satyajit Ray took the lead in the Parallel Cinema movement. Fans and critics of Iranian art cin- ema, along with Iranian art filmmakers themselves, have continued to acknowledge the artistic legacy of Ray down to the present. In fact, the renowned Japanese director Akira Kurosawa went so far as to declare his Iranian colleague ‘Abbās Kiyārustamī as Ray’s direct cinematic descendant in a 1993 interview. See Shohreh Golparian, “The Emperor and I: Abbas Kiarostami Meets Akira Kurosawa,” Film International 1, no. 4 (1993): 4. 33 In fact, some writers have argued for the beginnings of an authentic Iranian national cinema in television. In 1969, the newly established state television network had set up a film arm, Telfilm, to nurture this parallel cinemaf īlmfārsī . Telfilm offered several young filmmakers an opportunity to produce films for network broadcast andpos- sible theatrical release outside of the commercial studio environment, which some felt had become stifling and exploitative (Issari, Cinema in Iran, 212–215). The films produced during this period included Chashmah/Spring (Ārbī Uvānisiyān, 1972), Ārāmish dar ḥuz..ūr-i dīgarān/Tranquility in the Company of Others (Nāsir Taqvā‘ī, 1973), Mughulhā/The Mongols (Parvīz Kīmiyāvī, 1973), and Shāhzdah Iḥtijāb/Prince Iḥtijāb (Bahman Farmānārā, 1974). 34 Most of the figures associated with the Iranian art cinema, then and now, have never- theless tended to be dismissive of the home audience and their supposed understand- ings of the cinematic medium in favor of more “sophisticated” foreign viewers. On the basis of his quotations in the press, ‘Abbās Kiyārustamī was one filmmaker especially guilty of this attitude. See, for example, Farah Nayeri, “Iranian Cinema: What Hap- pened in between,” Sight and Sound 3, no. 12 (1993): 28. 35 On the subsequent misgivings of official patrons for the Iranian art cinema, see Jam- shid Akrami, “The Blighted Spring: Iranian Cinema and Politics in the 1970s,” in Film and Politics in the Third World, ed. John Downing (New York: Praeger, 1987), 131–144. 36 The New Iranian Cinema: Politics, Representation, and Identity, ed. Richard Tapper (New York: Routledge, 2002). 37 Tapper, ‘Introduction,” in The New Iranian Cinema, 1–2. Introduction 29 38 Notable examples of this scholarship on New Iranian Cinema include Negar Mot- tahedeh’s Displaced Allegories: Post-revolutionary Iranian Cinema (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2008), which turns to psychoanalytic and related feminist film theories to argue for the “ironic” reorientation of national cinema under the Islamic Republic as a women’s cinema. She has primarily drawn her examples from the films of ‘Abbās Kiyārustamī, Muḥsin Makhmalbāf, and Bahrām Bayz..ā’ī, which to a greater or lesser extent have all been considered to be part of the Iranian art film movement. Saeed Zeydabadi-Nejad has taken a more ethnographic approach in The Politics of Ira- nian Cinema: Film and Society in the Islamic Republic (New York: Routledge, 2010) and has contended that official regulation of the industry since the Revolution has not turned Iranian cinema into an instrument of propaganda but has instead fueled political activism and activist filmmaking. Interestingly, Zeydabadi-Nejad has contended that the New Iranian Cinema has been boldest in its social and political critiques precisely because the rising international profile of its directors has allowed them to transcend local conditions of production. Khatereh Sheibani has drawn on literary history in her study of post-revolutionary Iranian films inThe Poetics of Iranian Cinema: Aesthetics, Modernity and Film after the Revolution (London: I. B. Tauris, 2011), arguing that national poetic traditions have best survived in the engagé New Iranian Cinema and its pre-revolutionary precedents. 39 Richard Dyer, Only Entertainment (London: Routledge, 2002), esp. 5–9. 40 Ibid., 20. 41 On utopianism in the cultural life of the West, see Krishan Kumar, Utopianism (Min- neapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1991). 42 Dyer, Only Entertainment, 3. 43 Barker, with Thomas Austin, From Antz to Titanic: Reinventing Film Analysis (Lon- don: Pluto Press, 2000), 13. Henry Jenkins has outlined Bordwell and Thompson’s cognitivist approach to film analysis, which Bordwell has titled “historical poetics” in “Historical Poetics,” in Approaches to Popular Film, 99–122. 44 Barker, From Antz to Titanic, 33. 45 Ibid., 31. 46 Ibid., 55. 47 Richard Dyer has examined scholarly perspectives on how the artistic/technical pro- cesses and mass understandings of the cinematic medium explain and even elevate individuals to stardom in Stars, new edn., with Paul McDonald (London: BFI, 2007). 48 See, for example, Justine Brown, Hollywood Utopia (Vancouver: New Star Books, 2002). 49 John Lyden, Film as Religion: Myths, Morals, and Rituals (New York: New York Uni- versity Press, 2003). 50 Conrad Martin and Joel Ostwalt’s edited volume, Screening the Sacred: Religion, Myth, and Ideology in Popular American Film (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1995), is one prominent example of a more straightforward approach to film and religion. The volume’s authors have argued that conventional religious themes and imagery have appeared regularly in popular American features and not merely in those titles that were explicitly religious in content. Neither Lyden’s approach to film as reli- gion nor Ostwalt’s and Martin’s religion-in-film approach has found much traction among scholars of Iranian cinema. Nacim Pak-Shiraz’s Shi‘i Islam in Iranian Cinema: Religion and Spirituality in Film (London: I. B. Tauris, 2011), which largely follows Martin and Ostwalt’s example in identifying religious themes in Iranian film, is the exception. However, she has, like many in the field, focused her attention on the post- revolutionary art cinema. 51 Ronald Inden has made similar arguments about the commercial Hindi film and its recursive relationship with audiences in “Transnational Class, Erotic Arcadia, and Commercial Utopia in Hindi Films,” in Image Journeys: Audio-visual Media and Cul- tural Change in India, eds. Christiane Broesius and Melissa Butcher (New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1999), 41–66. He has further elaborated on the existence of a “national 30 Introduction theology” in popular Indian films in “Popular Patriotism in Indian Film,” in Political Hinduism: The Religious Imagination in Public Spheres, ed. Vinay Lal (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2009), 251–275. 52 Some academics claimed that the social ills that plagued the Third World were also evident among certain “backward” populations in the “First World,” who were equally hindered by traditional class antagonisms, narrow family interests, and a despairing fatalism. In his postwar ethnography of a village in southern Italy, Edward Banfield argued that a longstanding ethos of “amoral familism” had kept residents from work- ing together for the communal good to escape their material impoverishment. See his The Moral Basis of a Backward Society (New York: The Free Press, 1958). 53 See, for example, Daniel Lerner, The Passing of Traditional Society: Modernizing the Middle East (New York: The Free Press, 1964). This transformational view of the media is likely Soviet in origin. Soviet agitprop was highly conscious of cinema as a public opinion generator, especially among the sub-literate masses. See Richard Taylor, The Politics of Soviet Cinema, 1917–1929 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979), esp. 106–108. 54 In Iran, this scholarly initiative culminated with the establishment of the Iran Com- munications and Development Institute. See Sreberny-Mohammadi and Mohammadi, Small Media, Big Revolution, xiii. 55 Afshin Marashi has provided a concise account of this Pahlavi patriotism in National- izing Iran, 49–85. 56 Grigor, Building Iran, 34–41. The opening of certain mosques, shrines, and seminar- ies, which secular nationalists viewed as bastions of backward and anti-modern ideas and practices, to tourist traffic was an example of such deactivation. 57 This push for a “return to the roots of Islam,” as Aziz al-Azmeh has written on the subject of religious “revival” in the Arab world at least, has been “at best metaphorical, in any case symbolic, and involves a fair amount of falsification, the grafting onto the Islamic tradition of all sorts of modern historical, social, and political concepts which the tradition is incapable of digesting” (“The Religious and the Secular in Contempo- rary Arab Life,” in Islams and Modernities, 2nd edn. (London: Verso, 1996), 52). 58 Ibid., 43–45. The establishment of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq in 2014 provides ample evidence for al-Azmeh’s contentions. 59 Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007). 60 Robert Bellah, “Civil Religion in America,” Dædalus 96 (1967): 4. 61 Ibid., 7. 62 Ibid., 18–19. 63 Kris Jozajtis, “ ‘The Eyes of All People Are Upon Us’: American Civil Religion and the Birth of Hollywood,” in Representing Religion in World Cinema: Filmmaking, Mythmaking, Culture Making, ed. S. Brent Plate (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), 239–261. 64 Ibid., 244–246. 65 George Braswell is among the few academics to contemplate the existence of a civil religion under the Pahlavi regime in his “Civil Religion in Contemporary Iran,” Journal of Church and State 21 (1979): 223–246. However, what he has identified as “din-e- dowlat” (223), or the state’s religion, would appear to be more national leaders’ and bureaucrats’ interpretations of Islam and its place in public life rather than a set of beliefs and practices distinct from but also related to the secular nationalism of the regime and the Islam of the masses. 66 Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, Mission for My Country (London: Hutchinson, 1961), 20, 47, 62, 326. 67 Ibid., 58. 68 Ibid., 49. Introduction 31 69 Ibid., 238–265. 70 Among the few scholars who have examined the social history of the family insti- tution in the Middle East, Alan Duben and Cem Behar have contended in Istanbul Households: Marriage, Family, and Fertility, 1880–1940 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991) that extended family networks in nineteenth- and early ­twentieth-century Istanbul were primarily of relevance to the upper classes whereas lower class families were mostly small in size, nuclear, and neolocal. Moreover, mar- riages were contracted among the Istanbul lower classes without much concern for social advancement. It is perhaps logical that increasing educational and social oppor- tunities would contribute to the spread of formerly aristocratic “family values” beyond elites in the modern Persianate world. 71 In the Indian context, M. N. Srinivas, in dialogue with Milton Singer and others, has referred to such appropriations of the institutions and practices of “traditional” high- status groups by the “modernizing” masses as “Sanskritization” in Social Change in Modern India (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966). 72 Camron Amin has most forcefully made this argument in his The Making of the Mod- ern Iranian Women. 73 See, for example, Kamran Scot Aghaie, The Martyrs of Karbala: Shi‘i Symbols and Rituals in Modern Iran (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2004), esp. chapter 6. 74 For a problematization of Third World literature as a mirror on society, see Aijaz Ahmad, “Jameson’s Rhetoric of Otherness and the ‘National Allegory’,” Social Text 17 (1987): 3–25. 75 On the “dialogical” relationship between “modern” and “medieval” texts and prac- tices, see his “Introduction: From Philological to Dialogical Texts,” in Ronald Inden, Jonathan Walters and Daud Ali, Querying the Medieval: Texts and the History of Prac- tices in South Asia (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 4–29. 76 Marshall G. S. Hodgson, The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World Civilization (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974), 2: 293. 77 Ibid., 1: 59. 78 Ibid., 2: 294. Hodgson’s terminology has been frequently misused since the publica- tion of The Venture of Islam. The term “Islamicate” has been especially victimized, with many simply using it as a synonym for “Islamic.” For example, Ira Bhaskar and Richard Allen have written in their book Islamicate Cultures of Bombay Cinema (New Delhi: Tulika Books, 2009) that they drew inspiration from Hodgson’s work but they have limited their study to only the conspicuously Muslim films in the Mumbai-based popular Indian cinema. Unfortunately, the authors have not recognized that many of the ideas and cultural forms associated with Muslim life in South Asia highlighted in their film analyses may also be found at the center of “non-Muslim” Hindi films. Vivek Taneja has criticized their collapsing distinction between “Islamicate” and “Islamic” in his review, “Stereotyping the Muslim in Bombay Cinema,” Economic & Political Weekly 44: 4 (2010): 30–32. 79 He has used the rather unwieldy term “Turko-Persian Islamicate” to describe this cultural phenomenon. See his “Introduction: The Turko-Persian Tradition,” in Turko-­ Persia in Historical Perspective, ed. Robert Canfield (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 1991), 12. 80 Ibid., 21. 81 I have written in greater depth about the Persianate roots of popular cinema in Iran as well as “neighboring” India and Turkey in a forthcoming journal article, “Constituting Love in Persianate Cinemas,” in the Journal of Persianate Studies. 82 The recently established Journal of Persianate Studies, succeeding the short-lived Studies on Persianate Societies (2003–2005), incorporates both these approaches. See Saïd Amir Arjomand, “From the Editor: Defining Persianate Studies,” Journal of Per- sianate Studies 1 (2008): 3. References “160 nafar az TilÄ«vÄ«ziyÅ«n ikhrāj yā bÅ«rs-i ānhā laghv shud.” ItÌ£tÌ£ilā‘āt, March 13, 1979. ‘AbbāsÄ«, MahdÄ« . TārÄ«kh-i kushtÄ«-i Īrān. 2 vols. Tehran: Intishārāt-i MajÄ«d, 1998. Abisaab, Rula Jurdi . Converting Persia: Religion and Power in the Safavid Empire. London: London, 2004. Abrahamian, Ervand . Khomeinism: Essays on the Islamic Republic. Berkeley: Berkeley, 1993. Abu Haggag, Yusuf . “Memoirs of a Street Tough.” Translated by Everett Rowson . In Everyday Life in the Muslim Middle East, edited by Donna Lee Bowen and Evelyn Early , 38–46. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993. Adelkhah, Fariba . Being Modern in Iran. Translated by Jonathan Derrick . New York: Columbia University Press, 2000. (Original work published in 1998). Adle, Chahryar . “Acquaintance with Cinema and the First Steps of Filming and Filmmaking in Iran: 1899 to ca. 1907,” translated by Claude Karbassi . Tavoos: Quarterly of Iranian Art 5/6 (2000–2001): 180–214. Adorno, Theodor , and Max Horkheimer . Dialectic of Enlightenment. New York: New York, 1993. Afary, Janet . The Iranian Constitutional Revolution: Grassroots Democracy, Social Democracy, and the Origins of Feminism. New York: New York, 1996. Aghaie, Kamran Scot . The Martyrs of Karbala: Shi‘i Symbols and Rituals in Modern Iran. Seattle: Seattle, 2004. Ahmad, Aijaz . “Jameson’s Rhetoric of Otherness and the ‘National Allegory’.” Social Text 17 (1987): 3–25. Ahmed, Leila . Women and Gender in Islam: Historical Roots of a Modern Debate. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992. Aigle, Denise . Le Fārs sous la domination Mongole: Politique et fiscalité. Paris: Paris, 2005. “Ā’īnnāmah-’i jadÄ«d taqlÄ«l-i ‘avāriz.. tadvÄ«n gardÄ«d.” Sitārah-i sÄ«namā 199 (1959): 6. Akhavi, Shahrough . Religion and Politics in Contemporary Iran. Albany: Albany, 1980. Akhrorov, Ato . “Le cinéma tadjik, cinéma du Toit du monde.” Translated by Marilyne Fellous . In Le cinema d’Asie centrale sovietique, edited by Jean Radvanyi , 85–92. Paris: Éditions du Centre Pompidou, 1991. Akrami, Jamshid . “The Blighted Spring: Iranian Cinema and Politics in the 1970s.” In Film and Politics in the Third World, edited by John Downing , 131–144. New York: Praeger, 1987. 207 Akrami, Jamshid . “Cinema (iv. Film Censorship).” In Encyclopædia Iranica, edited by Ehsan Yar-Shater , 5: 585–586. Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda, 1991. al-Azmeh, Aziz . “The Religious and the Secular in Contemporary Arab Life.” In Islams and Modernities (2nd edn.), 41–58. London: Verso, 1996. Al-e Ahmad, Jalāl . Plagued by the West. Translated by Paul Sprachman . Delmar, NY: Caravan Books, 1982. (Original work published in 1962). Algar, Hamid . “Āl-e ‘abā’.” In Encyclopædia Iranica, edited by Ehsan Yarshater , 1: 742. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985. Alvand, SÄ«rÅ«s . “TahlÄ«l va barrasÄ«-i Qayá¹£ar .” FÄ«lm va Hunar 272–277 (1969–1970): 10, 37; 8; 10; 26; 10, 31; 27, 30. Amanat, Abbas . Apocalyptic Islam and Iranian Shi‘ism. New York: New York, 2009. “Āmār-i izdivāj-i sifÄ«d bālā nÄ«st.” Sharq, April 26, 2015. Amid, Mohammad Javad . Agriculture, Poverty and Reform in Iran. New York: New York, 1990. Amin, Camron . The Making of the Modern Iranian Women: Gender, State Policy and Popular Culture, 1865–1946. Gainesville: Gainesville, 2002. Anderson, John Ward . “Roll Over, Khomeini! Iran Cultivates a Local Rock Scene, within Limits.” Washington Post, August 23, 2001. Andrews, Walter , and Mehmet Kalpaklı . The Age of the Beloveds: Love and the Beloved in Early-Modern Ottoman and European Culture and Society. Durham, NC: Durham, NC, 2005. Anvar, Iraj . “Peripheral Ta‘ziyeh: The Transformation of Ta‘ziyeh from Muharram Mourning Ritual to Secular and Comical Theatre.” Drama Review 49, no. 4 (2005): 61–67. ‘ĀqilÄ«, Bāqir . Riz..ā Shāh va qushÅ«n-i muttaḥid al-shakl: 1300–1320 S. Tihrān: Tihrān, 1998. ‘AqÄ«qÄ«, Sa‘īd . “Bāzgasht-i kāmil bih sÄ«namā-yi dahahhā-yi 30 va 40: Guft va gÅ« bā Sa‘īd ‘AqÄ«qÄ«, fÄ«lmnāmahnivÄ«s va muḥaqqiq.” Sharq, September 20, 2010. Arasteh, A. Reza . “The Role of Intellectuals in Administrative Development and Social Change in Modern Iran.” International Review of Education 9 (1963): 326–334. Arasteh, A. Reza , and Josephine Arasteh . Man and Society in Iran. Leiden: Leiden, 1964. Arjmand, DāryÅ«sh . “Difā‘ az KÄ«miyāyÄ«.” Guzārish-i FÄ«lm 154 (2000): 86–89. Arjomand, Saïd Amir . The Turban for the Crown: The Islamic Revolution in Iran. New York: New York, 1989. Arjomand, Saïd Amir . “From the Editor: Defining Persianate Studies.” Journal of Persianate Studies 1 (2008): 1–4. Arkoun, Mohammad . “‘Ishk..’” In Encyclopædia of Islam (2nd edn.), edited by Emeri van Donzel , Bernard Lewis and Charles Pellat , IV: 118–119. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973. Armbrust, Walter . “The Golden Age before the Golden Age: Commercial Egyptian Cinema before the 1960s.” In Mass Mediations: New Approaches to Popular Culture in the Middle East and beyond, edited by Walter Armbrust , 292–327. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. Armbrust, Walter . “The Ubiquitous Non-presence of India: Peripheral Visions from Egyptian Popular Culture.” In Global Bollywood: Travels of Hindi Song and Dance, edited by Sangita Gopal and Sujata Moorti , 200–220. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008. Arnold, Thomas . Painting in Islam: A Study of the Place of Pictorial Art in Muslim Culture. New York: Dover Publications, 1965. (Original work published in 1928). Arslan, Savaş . Cinema in Turkey: A New Critical History. New York: New York, 2011. 208 AsadÄ«, ‘AlÄ« , and Hurmuz Mihrdād . Naqsh-i rasānahhā dar pushtÄ«bānÄ«-i tawsi‘ah-i farhangÄ«. Tehran: Tehran, 1976. Asha, Sadek . “The Evolution and Development of Iranian Cinema: From Film-Farsi to the Post- Revolutionary Cinema, with Particular Reference to Islam and Popular Entertainment Culture.” Ph.D. diss., University of Sussex, 1998. AsnādÄ« az mÅ«sÄ«qÄ«, ti’ātr va sÄ«namā dar Īrān (1300–1357 H. Sh.). 3 vols. Tehran: Mu‘āvanat-i Khadamāt-i MudÄ«riyat va Iá¹­á¹­ilā‘rasānÄ«-i Daftar-i Ra‘īs JumhÅ«r, 2000. Ayoub, Mahmoud . Redemptive Suffering in Islām: A Study of the Devotional Aspects of ‘ĀshÅ«rā’ in Twelver Shī‘ism. The Hague: The Hague, 1978. Babayan, Kathryn . “Sufis, Dervishes, and Mullas: The Controversy over Spiritual and Temporal Dominion in Seventeenth Century Iran.” In Safavid Persia: The History and Politics of an Islamic Society, edited by Charles Melville , 117–138. London: I. B. Tauris, 1996. Baecque, Antoine de . La Nouvelle Vague: Portrait d’une jeunesse. Paris: Paris, 1998. Bahār, Muḥammad TaqÄ« . TārÄ«kh-i mukhtaá¹£ar-i aḥzāb-i siyāsÄ«-i Īrān. Vol. 1. [S. l.: Vol. 1. [S. l., 1944. Bahmani, Behrouz . “Death to 6/8.” The Iranian, April 22, 2005, www.iranian.com/BruceBahmani/2005/April/68/index.html. Bahrambeygui, H. Tehran: An Urban Analysis. Tehran: Tehran, 1977. Banani, Amin . “The Role of the Mass Media.” In Iran Faces the Seventies, edited by Ehsan Yar- Shater , 321–340. New York: Praeger, 1971. Banfield, Edward . The Moral Basis of a Backward Society. New York: New York, 1958. Banisadr, S. Abbas . La tâ‘ziyé, ou, le drame persan. Vancouver: Vancouver, 1994. Barker, Martin . From Antz to Titanic: Reinventing Film Analysis. With Thomas Austin . London: With Thomas Austin. London, 2000. Bateson, M. C. , J. W. Clinton , J. B. M. Kassarjian , H. Safavi , and M. Soraya . “Ṣafā-yi Bāṭin: A Study of the Interrelation of a Set of Iranian Ideal Character Types.” In Psychological Dimensions of Near Eastern Studies, edited by L. Carl Brown and Norman Itzkowitz , 257–274. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977. Baum, Wilhelm . Shirin: Christian, Queen, Myth of Love. Piscataway, NJ: Piscataway, NJ, 2004. Bausani, Alessandro . “ Ghazal. ii: In Persian Poetry.” In Encyclopædia of Islam (2nd edn.), edited by Bernard Lewis , Charles Pellat and Joseph Schacht , II: 1033–1036. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965. Bayz..ā’ī, Bahrām . Namāyish dar Īrān. Tehran: Tehran, 1965. Bayz..ā’ī, Ḥusayn Partaw . TārÄ«kh-i varzish-i bāstānÄ«-i Īrān: ZÅ«rkhānah. Tehran: Tehran, 2003. Bazin, André . “On the politique des auteurs .” Translated by Peter Graham . In Cahiers du cinéma: The 1950s: Neo-Realism, Hollywood, New Wave, edited by Jim Hillier , 248–259. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985. Beaster-Jones, Jayson . “Film Song and Its Other: Stylistic Mediation and the Hindi Film Song Genre.” In More Than Bollywood: Studies in Indian Popular Music, edited by Gregory Booth and Bradley Shope , 97–113. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Bednarz, Dieter . “Iranian Soap Star Swept up in Video Scandal.” Spiegel Online, November 30, 2006, www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,451449,00.html. Beeman, William . “Cultural Dimensions of Performance Conventions in Iranian Ta‘ziyeh.” In Ta‘ziyeh: Ritual and Drama in Iran, edited by Peter Chelkowski , 24–31. New York: New York University Press, 1979. 209 Beeman, William “Images of the Great Satan: Representations of the United States in the Iranian Revolution.” In Religion and Politics in Iran: Shi‘ism from Quietism to Revolution, edited by Nikki Keddie , 191–217. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983. Beeman, William . The “Great Satan” vs. the “Mad Mullahs”: How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other. Westport, CT: Westport, CT, 2005. Behrangi, Samad . The Little Black Fish and Other Modern Persian Stories. Translated by Eric Hooglund and Mary Hegland . Washington: Translated by Eric Hooglund and Mary Hegland . Washington, 1987. Bellah, Robert . “Civil Religion in America.” Dædalus 96 (1967): 1–21. Bellah, Robert . The Broken Covenant: American Civil Religion in Time of Trial. Chicago: Chicago, 1975. Bhaskar, Ira , and Richard Allen . Islamicate Cultures of Bombay Cinema. New Delhi: New Delhi, 2009. Bill, James . The Politics of Iran: Groups, Classes and Modernization. Columbus, OH: Columbus, OH, 1972. Bill, James . The Eagle and the Lion: The Tragedy of American-Iranian Relations. New Haven, CT: New Haven, CT, 1988. Bonine, Michael . “Shops and Shopkeepers: Dynamics of a Provincial Iranian Bazaar.” In Modern Iran: The Dialectics of Continuity and Change, edited by Michael Bonine and Nikki Keddie , 233–258. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1981. Bordwell, David . “The Art Cinema as a Mode of Film Practice.” Film Criticism 4 (1979): 56–64. Bordwell, David , Janet Staiger , and Kristin Thompson . The Classical Hollywood Cinema: Film Style & Mode of Production to 1960. New York: New York, 1985. Bordwell, David , and Kristin Thompson . Film Art: An Introduction (8th edn.). Boston: McGraw- Hill, 2008. Boroujerdi, Mehrzad . Iranian Intellectuals and the West: The Tormented Triumph of Nativism. Syracuse: Syracuse, 1996. Bostock, Frances , and Geoffrey Jones . Planning and Power in Iran: Ebtehaj and Economic Development under the Shah. London: London, 1989. Bourdieu, Pierre . Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Translated by Richard Nice . Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984. (Original work published in 1979). Boyce, Mary . “The Parthian Gōsān and Iranian Minstrel Tradition.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 18 (1957): 10–45. Bozorgmehr, Mehdi . “From Iranian Studies to Studies of Iranians in the United States.” Iranian Studies 31 (1998): 5–30. Braswell, George . “Civil Religion in Contemporary Iran.” Journal of Church and State 21 (1979): 223–246. Brook, Peter . There Are No Secrets: Thoughts on Acting and Theatre. London: London, 1993. Brown, Ian . Khomeini’s Forgotten Sons: The Story of Iran’s Boy Soldiers. London: London, 1990. Brown, Justine . Hollywood Utopia. Vancouver: Vancouver, 2002. Brown, Katherine Butler . “If Music be the Food of Love: Masculinity and Eroticism in the Mughal ‘Mehfil’.” In Love in South Asia: A Cultural History, edited by Francesca Orsini , 61–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Bruzzi, Stella . Men’s Cinema: Masculinity and Mise-en-Scene in Hollywood. Edinburgh: Edinburgh, 2013. 210 BulÅ«kbāshÄ«, ‘AlÄ« . Qahvahkhānahhā-yi Īrān. Tehran: Tehran, 1996. Bürgel, J. Christoph . “Love, Lust, and Longing: Eroticism in Early Islam.” In Society and the Sexes in Medieval Islam, edited by Afaf Lutfi Al-Sayyid Marsot , 81–117. Malibu, CA: Undena Publications, 1979. Bürgel, J. Christoph . “The Romance.” In Persian Literature, edited by Ehsan Yarshater , 161–178. New York: Bibliotheca Persica, 1988. Cahen, Claude . “Mouvements populaires et autonomisme urbain dans l’Asie musulmane du moyen âge, III.” Arabica VI (1959): 233–265. Calmard, Jean . “Le Patronage des Ta‘ziyeh: Elements pour une étude globale.” In Ta‘ziyeh: Ritual and Drama in Iran, edited by Peter Chelkowski , 121–130. New York: New York University Press, 1979. Calmard, Jean . “Shi‘i Rituals and Power II. The Consolidation of Safavid Shi‘ism: Folklore and Popular Religion.” In Safavid Persia: The History and Politics of an Islamic Society, edited by Charles Melville , 139–190. London: I. B. Tauris, 1996. Calmard, Jean . “Popular Literature under the Safavids.” In Society and Culture in the Early Modern Middle East: Studies on Iran in the Safavid Period, edited by Andrew Newman , 315–340. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2003. Canfield, Robert . “Introduction: The Turko-Persian Tradition.” In Turko-Persia in Historical Perspective, edited by Robert Canfield , 1–34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Cejpek, Jiří . “Iranian Folk Literature,” in History of Iranian Literature, ed. Karl Jahn , 607–709. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1968. (Original work published in 1956). Chehabi, Houchang . “Sport and Politics in Iran: The Legend of Gholamreza Takhti.” International Journal of the History of Sport 12 (1995): 48–60. Chehabi, Houchang . “Voices Unveiled: Women Singers in Iran.” In Iran and Beyond: Essays in Honor of Nikki R. Keddie, edited by Rudi Matthee and Beth Baron , 151–166. Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda, 2000. Chehabi, Houchang . “RÅ«yārū’ī-i sunnat va mudirnÄ«tah dar tarbiyat-i badanÄ«-i Īrān dar dahah-’i nukhust-i sadah-’i bÄ«stum.” Īrān nāmah 24 (2008): 81–103. Chehabi, Houchang . “Zurḵāna.” Encyclopædia Iranica, edited by Ehsan Yar-Shater , accessed March 10, 2017, www.iranicaonline.org/articles/zur-kana. Chelkowski, Peter . “Ta‘ziyeh: Indigenous Avant-garde Theatre of Iran.” Performing Arts Journal 2, no. 1 (1977): 31–40. Chelkowski, Peter . “Popular Entertainment, Media, and Social Change in Twentieth-century Iran.” In The Cambridge History of Iran, edited by Peter Avery , Gavin Hambly and Charles Melville , 7: 765–814. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Child, Ben . “Indian Clerics Issue Fatwa against Makers of Muhammad: The Messenger of God .” The Guardian, September 14, 2015, www.theguardian.com/film/2015/sep/14/fatwa-muhammad- the-messenger-of-god-majid-majidi-ar-rahman. Clinton, Jerome . The Divan of ManÅ«chihrÄ« DāmghānÄ«: A Critical Study. Minneapolis: Minneapolis, 1972. Cole, Juan . “Mafia, Mob, and Shi‘ism.” With Moojan Momen . In Sacred Space and Holy War: The Politics, Culture, and History of Shi‘ite Islam, 99–122. London: I. B. Tauris, 2002. Cook, David . “Moral Apocalyptic in Islam.” Studia Islamica 86 (1997): 37–69. Cook, David . Martyrdom in Islam. New York: New York, 2007. Corbin, Henry . History of Islamic Philosophy. Translated by Liadain Sherrard . London: Kegan Paul International, 1993. (Original work published in 1964). 211 Cronin, Stephanie . The Army and the Creation of the Pahlavi State, 1910–1926. London: London, 1997. Cronin, Stephanie , ed. The Making of Modern Iran: State and Society under Riza Shah, 1921–1941. New York: New York, 2003. Cronin, Stephanie , ed. Reformers and Revolutionaries in Modern Iran: New Perspectives on the Iranian Left. New York: New York, 2004. Dabashi, Hamid . Theology of Discontent: The Ideological Foundation of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. New York: New York, 1993. Daniel, Elton . “Arabs, Persians, and the Advent of the Abbasids Reconsidered.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 117 (1997): 542–548. Dānishvar, SÄ«mÄ«n . Savushun: A Novel about Modern Iran. Translated by M. R. Ghanoonparvar . Washington: Mage, 1990. (Original work published in 1969). “Dar ḥāshiyah-i tarjumah va dÅ«blah dar Īrān.” Sitārah-i sÄ«namā 191 (1958): 13. Davis, Dick . Epic and Sedition: The Case of Ferdowsi’s Shāhnāmeh. Fayetteville: Fayetteville, 1992. Davis, Dick . “On Not Translating Hafez.” New England Review 25 (2004): 310–318. Devji, Faisal . Landscapes of the Jihad: Militancy, Morality, Modernity. Ithaca, NY: Ithaca, NY, 2005. Digard, Jean-Pierre . “Gypsies of Persia.” In Encyclopædia Iranica, edited by Ehsan Yarshater , 11: 412–415. Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda, 2001. Dihkhudā, ‘AlÄ« Akbar . “PushtkÅ«h.” In Lughatnāmah, 4: 4917–4918. Mu’assasah-’i Intishārāt va Chāp-i Dānishgāh-i Tihrān, 1994. Dihkhudā, ‘AlÄ« Akbar . “QārÅ«n.” In Lughatnāmah, 10: 15264–15265. Mu’assasah-’i Intishārāt va Chāp-i Dānishgāh-i Tihrān, 1994. DilfānÄ«, MaḥmÅ«d , ed. FarhangsitÄ«zÄ« dar dawrah-’i Riz..ā Shāh: Asnād-i muntashir nashudah-i Sāzmān-i Parvarish-i Afkār, 1317–1320 H. Sh. Tehran: Tehran, 1999. Duben, Alan , and Cem Behar . Istanbul Households: Marriage, Family, Fertility, 1880–1940. Cambridge: Cambridge, 1991. During, Jean . Musique et extase: L’Audition mystique dans la tradition soufie. Paris: Paris, 1988. During, Jean , and Ziba Mirabdolbaghi . The Art of Persian Music. Translated by Manuchehr Anvar . Washington: Translated by Manuchehr Anvar . Washington, 1991. Dyer, Richard . Only Entertainment. New York: New York, 2002. Dyer, Richard . Stars (new edn.), With Paul McDonald . London: BFI, 2007. Egan, Eric . The Films of Makhmalbaf: Cinema, Politics and Culture in Iran. Washington: Washington, 2005. Ehlers, Eckart , and Willem Floor . “Urban Change in Iran, 1920–1941.” Iranian Studies 26 (1993): 251–275. Ehsani, Kaveh . “Do-e Khordad and the Specter of Democracy.” Middle East Report 212 (1999): 10–11, 16. Eilers, Wilhelm . “Baḵt: i. The term.” In Encyclopædia Iranica, edited by Ehsan Yarshater , 3: 536–538. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1989. Ellis, John . “The Literary Adaptation.” Screen 23 (1982): 3–5. Elwell-Sutton, Lawrence . “LÅ«á¹­Ä«.” In Encyclopædia of Islam (2nd edn.), edited by C. Edmund Bosworth , Emeri Van Donzel , Bernard Lewis and Charles Pellat , V: 839. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1986. Ernst, Carl , and Bruce Lawrence . Sufi Martyrs of Love: Chishti Sufism in South Asia and Beyond. New York: New York, 2002. 212 Essad-Bey, Mohammad . Reza Shah. With Paul Branden and Elsa Branden . London: With Paul Branden and Elsa Branden . London, 1938. “Eteraz,” Youtube, www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt65xa6Jo4k. Accessed August 13, 2016. Ettinghausen, Richard . Arab Painting. Geneva: Editions d’Art Albert Skira, 1977. (Original work published in 1962). “Exposition et Hôtel à Téhéran.” L’Architecture d’aujourd’hui 84 (1959): 98–99. FardÄ«n, Muḥammad ‘AlÄ« . Khāṭirāt-i FardÄ«n. With ‘AlÄ« RaḥīmÄ«pÅ«r . Tehran: With ‘AlÄ« RaḥīmÄ«pÅ«r. Tehran, 2000. FardÄ«n, Muḥammad ‘AlÄ« . SÄ«namā-yi FardÄ«n bih rivāyat-i Muḥammad ‘AlÄ« FardÄ«n. With ‘Abbās BahārlÅ« . Tehran: With ‘Abbās BahārlÅ« . Tehran, 2000. Faṭḥ ‘AlÄ« BaygÄ« , DāvÅ«d . “Muqaddamah.” In Ḥasan Shimshād , KhulāsÌ£ah-i qisÌ£sÌ£ahhā va namāyishnāmahhā-yi takht hÌ£awz̤ī, edited by DāvÅ«d FatÌ£hÌ£ ‘AlÄ« BaygÄ« , 7–8. Tehran: Intishārāt-i Namāyish, 2003. Fātiḥ, Muṣṭafá . “Ījād-i istāsiyÅ«n-i rādiyÅ«.” Mihr 1 (1933): 518–520. Ferdowsi, Abolqasem . The Legend of Seyavash. Translated by Dick Davis . London: Translated by Dick Davis. London, 1992. Ficino, Marsilio . Commentary on Plato’s Symposium on Love. Translated by Sears Jayne . Dallas: Translated by Sears Jayne . Dallas, 1985. “FÄ«lmhā’ī kih dar sÄ«namāhā-yi Tihrān nishān mÄ«dahand.” UmÄ«d, April 18, 1944. Fischer, Michael . “Towards a Third World Poetics: Seeing through Short Stories and Films in the Iranian Cultural Area.” Knowledge and Society 5 (1984): 171–241. Fischer, Michael . Iran: From Religious Dispute to Revolution. Madison: Madison, 2003. Floor, Willem . “The LÅ«á¹­Ä«s: A Social Phenomenon in Qājār Persia: A Reappraisal.” Die Welt des Islams (n.s.), 13 (1971): 103–120. Floor, Willem . “The Guilds in Iran: An Overview from the Earliest Beginnings to 1972.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 125 (1975): 99–116. Floor, Willem . “The Political Role of the Lutis in Iran.” In Modern Iran: The Dialectics of Continuity and Change, edited by Michael Bonine and Nikki Keddie , 83–98. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1981. Floor, Willem . The History of Theater in Iran. Washington: Washington, 2008. Foran, John . Fragile Resistance: Social Transformation in Iran from 1500 to the Revolution. Boulder, CO: Boulder, CO, 1993. Frayling, Christopher . Spaghetti Westerns: Cowboys and Europeans from Karl May to Sergio Leone. London: London, 1998. Frye, Richard . “Notes on Religion in Iran Today.” Die Welt des Islams (n.s.), 2 (1953): 260–266. “FurÅ«zān: Man dÄ«gar giryah nakhvāham kard.” FÄ«lm va hunar 44 (1965): 8–9. Gaffary, Farrokh . “Coup d’oeil sur les 35 premières années du cinéma en Iran.” In Entre l’Iran et l’Occident: Adaptation et assimilation des idées et techniques occidentales en Iran, edited by Yann Richard , 225–234. Paris: Éditions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, 1989. “ Ganj-i QārÅ«n: As-ar-i jadÄ«d-i Siyāmak YāsamÄ« rā bibÄ«nÄ«d.” FÄ«lm va hunar 62 (1964): 8–9. Ganjnameh: Cyclopaedia of Iranian Islamic Architecture. Edited by Kambiz Haji-Qassemi . Vol. 3. Tehran: Edited by Kambiz Haji-Qassemi . Vol. 3. Tehran, 1998. Gardet, Louis . “ Djanna .” In Encyclopædia of Islam (2nd edn.), edited by Bernard Lewis , Charles Pellat and Joseph Schacht , II: 447–452. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965. 213 Ghaffary, Farrokh . “Theatrical Buildings and Performances in Tehran.” Translated by Nikki Keddie . In Qajar Iran and the Rise of Reza Khan: 1796–1925, edited by Nikki Keddie , 94–102. Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda, 1999. GharÄ«bpÅ«r, BihrÅ«z . Ti’ātr dar Īrān (2nd edn.). Tehran: Daftar-i PizhÅ«hishhā-yi FarhangÄ«, 2011. GhazālÄ«, Muḥammad . A Thematic Commentary on the Qur’an. Translated by Ashura Shamis . Herndon, VA: Translated by Ashura Shamis . Herndon, VA, 2000. Gheissari, Ali . Iranian Intellectuals in the Twentieth Century. Austin: Austin, 1997. Giffen, Lois . The Theory of Profane Love among the Arabs. New York: New York, 1971. Gledhill, Christine . “The Melodramatic Field: An Investigation.” In Home Is Where the Heart Is: Studies in Melodrama and the Woman’s Film, edited by Christine Gledhill , 5–39. London: BFI, 1987. Goldziher, Ignaz . Muslim Studies. Edited by S. M. Stern , translated by C. R. Barber and S. M. Stern . Vol. 1. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1967. (Original work published in 1890). Golparian, Shohreh . “The Emperor and I: Abbas Kiarostami Meets Akira Kurosawa.” Film International 1, no. 4 (1993): 4. Good, Byron , Mary-Jo Del Vecchio Good , and Robert Moradi . “The Interpretation of Iranian Depressive Illness and Dysphoric Affect.” In Culture and Depression: Studies in the Anthropology and Cross-Cultural Psychiatry of Affect and Disorder, edited by Arthur Kleinman and Byron Good , 369–428. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986. Goodman, Lenn . “Friendship in Aristotle, Miskawayh and al-GhazālÄ«.” In Friendship East and West: Philosophical Perspectives, edited by Oliver Leaman , 164–191. Richmond, UK: Curzon Press, 1996. Grabar, Oleg . “Seeing Things: Why Pictures in Texts.” Princeton Papers: Interdisciplinary Journal of Middle East Studies VIII (2001): 1–4. Gramsci, Antonio . Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith . New York: International Publishers, 1971. (Original work published in 1964). Grigor, Talinn . Building Iran: Modernism, Architecture, and National Heritage under the Pahlavi Monarchs. New York: New York, 2009. “GÅ«gÅ«sh, MahastÄ« va Hāyidahhā dar RādiyÅ«-TilÄ«vÄ«ziyÅ«n jā’ī nadārand.” Iá¹­á¹­ilā‘āt, March 6, 1979. Gupt, Somnath . The Parsi Theatre: Its Origins and Development. Translated by Kathryn Hansen . Calcutta: Translated by Kathryn Hansen . Calcutta, 2005. “Guẕasht-i dawrān-i bÄ« khiyālÄ«.” Sharq, December 28, 2014. HÌ£abÄ«bÄ«, MuhÌ£sin , and Bernard Hourcade . Ātlās-i kalānshahr-i Tihrān. Vol. 1. Tehran: Vol. 1. Tehran, 2005. HÌ£abÄ«biyān, NāsÌ£ir , and MahÌ£yā Āqā HÌ£usaynÄ« . Tamāshākhānahhā-yi Tihrān az 1247 tā 1389. Tehran: Tehran, 2010. ḤāfizÌ£-i AbrÅ« . Ẕayl-i jāmi‘ al-tavārÄ«kh-i RashÄ«dÄ«. Edited by Khānbābā BayānÄ« . Vol. 1. Tehran: Edited by Khānbābā BayānÄ« . Vol. 1. Tehran, 1939. ḤāfizÌ£-i ShÄ«rāzÄ« , Shams al-DÄ«n Muḥammad . The Green Sea of Heaven. Translated by Elizabeth T. Gray, Jr. Ashland, OR: Translated by Elizabeth T. Gray, Jr. Ashland, OR, 1995. Haghighat, Mamad . Histoire du cinéma iranien: 1900–1999. With Frédéric Sabouraud . Paris: With Frédéric Sabouraud . Paris, 1999. 214 Hanaway, William . “Persian Popular Romances before the Safavid Period.” Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1970. Hanaway, William . “ ‘Ayyār (ii. ‘Ayyār in Persian Sources).” In Encyclopædia Iranica, edited by Ehsan Yarshater , 3: 161–163. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1989. “HÌ£aqāyiqÄ« darbārah-yi fÄ«lmfārsÄ«: iqtibāsÌ£ va taqlÄ«d va kupiyah.” Sitārah-i sÄ«namā 443 (1964): 16. Harris, Colette . “Love: Modern Discourses: Central Asia.” In Encyclopedia of Women and Islamic Cultures, edited by Suad Joseph , 3: 230–232. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2006. HÌ£aydarÄ«, Ghulām . BarrasÄ«-i tārÄ«khÄ«-i <>nivÄ«sÄ« dar sÄ«namā-yi Īrān. Tehran: Tehran, 1989. Hebdige, Dick . “The Meaning of Mod.” In Resistance through Rituals: Youth Subcultures in Post- War Britain, edited by Stuart Hall and Tony Jefferson , 71–79. London: Routledge, 2006. Hegland, Mary . “Friendship: Iran and Afghanistan.” In Encyclopedia of Women and Islamic Cultures, edited by Suad Joseph , 2: 192–194. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2005. Hidāyat, Ṣādiq . Nayrangistān. Tehran: Mu’assasah-’i MatÌ£bū‘ātÄ«-i AmÄ«r KabÄ«r, 1956. (Original work published in 1923). “HirkÅ«lhā-yi sÄ«namā-yi Īrān,” Sitārah-i sÄ«namā 276 (1960): 16–17. Hodgson, Marshall G. S. The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World Civilization. 3 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974. Hollows, Joanne , and Mark Jancovich . “Popular Film and Cultural Distinctions.” In Approaches to Popular Film, edited by Joanne Hollows and Mark Jancovich , 1–14. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1995. Holý, Ladislav . Kinship, Honour, and Solidarity: Cousin Marriage in the Middle East. New York: New York, 1989. HumāyÅ«nÄ«, Ṣādiq . Ta‘ziyah dar Īrān. Shiraz: Shiraz, 1989. HumāyÅ«nÄ«, Ṣādiq . Ta‘ziyah va ta‘ziyahkhvānÄ«. [S.l.]: Intishārāt-i Jashn-i Hunar, [n.d.]. Huntington, Samuel . The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: New York, 1996. HÌ£usÅ«rÄ«. ‘AlÄ« Siyāvushān. Tehran: Tehran, 1999. Ibn Hishām, ‘Abd al-Malik . The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of SÄ«rat RasÅ«l Allāh. Translated by Alfred Guillaume . Karachi: Translated by Alfred Guillaume. Karachi, 1997. IjlālÄ«, ParvÄ«z . DigargÅ«nÄ«-i ijtimā‘ī va fÄ«lmhā-yi sÄ«namāyÄ« dar Īrān: Jāmi‘ahshināsÄ«-i fÄ«lmhā-yi ‘āmmah'pasand-i ĪrānÄ« (1309–1357). Tehran: Tehran, 2004. Inden, Ronald . “Transcending Identities in Modern India’s World.” In Politics and the Ends of Identity, edited by Kathryn Dean , 64–102. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1997. Inden, Ronald . “Transnational Class, Erotic Arcadia, and Commercial Utopia in Hindi Films.” In Image Journeys: Audio-visual Media and Cultural Change in India, edited by Christiane Broesius and Melissa Butcher , 41–66. New Dehli: Sage, 1999. Inden, Ronald . “Introduction: From Philological to Dialogical Texts.” In Querying the Medieval: Texts and the History of Practices in South Asia, edited by Ronald Inden , Jonathan Walters and Daud Ali , 4–29. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Inden, Ronald . “Popular Patriotism in Indian Film.” In Political Hinduism: The Religious Imagination in Public Spheres, edited by Vinay Lal , 251–275. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2009. Inden, Ronald , and Ralph Nicholas . Kinship in Bengali Culture. Chicago: Chicago, 1977. 215 InṣāfpÅ«r, Ghulām Riz..ā . TārÄ«kh va farhang-i zÅ«rkhānah va gurÅ«hhā-yi ijtimā‘ī-i zÅ«rkhānahraw. Tehran: Tehran, 2007. Ismā‘īlzādah, Hasan . Hasan Ismā‘īlzādah: Naqqāsh-i maktab-i qahvahkhānah’ī. Edited by KāzÌ£im ChalÄ«pā and ‘AlÄ« RajabÄ« . Tehran: Edited by KāzÌ£im ChalÄ«pā and ‘AlÄ« RajabÄ« . Tehran, 2007. Iqbāl, Muḥammad . Kulliyāt-i ash‘ār-i FārsÄ«-i Mawlānā Iqbāl-i LāhawrÄ«. Edited by Aḥmad SurÅ«sh . Tehran: Edited by Aḥmad SurÅ«sh . Tehran, 1964. Irwin, Robert . The Arabian Nights: A Companion. London: London, 1994. Issari, M. Ali . Cinema in Iran: 1900–1979. Metuchen, NJ: Metuchen, NJ, 1989. Issawi, Charles . “The Iranian Economy, 1925–1975: Fifty Years of Economic Development.” In Iran under the Pahlavis, edited by George Lenczowski , 129–166. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 1978. Ja‘farÄ«, Sha‘bān . Sha‘bān Ja‘farÄ«. With Humā Sarshār . Tehran: With Humā Sarshār . Tehran, 2007. JāmÄ«, ‘Abd al-Raḥmān ibn Aḥmad . Mas-navÄ«-i Haft awrang. Edited by A‘lā Khān Afá¹£aḥzādah and ḥusayn Aḥmad Tarbiyat . 2 vols. Tehran: Markaz-i Muṭāla‘āt-i ĪrānÄ«, Daftar-i Nashr-i MÄ«rās̱-i MaktÅ«b, 1999. “Jang bā fisād-i akhlāqÄ«.” Īrānshahr 1 (1922): 89–104. JāvdānÄ«, Humā . Sālshumār-i tārÄ«kh-i sÄ«namā-yi Īrān: TÄ«r 1279 – ShahrÄ«var 1379. Tehran: Tehran, 2002. JayrānÄ«, FiraydÅ«n . “HujÅ«m-i ma‘jÅ«nhā-yi haftgānah.” FÄ«lm 19 (1984): 34–37, 48. JayrānÄ«, FiraydÅ«n . “TaqlÄ«d dar sākht va maz..mÅ«n.” FÄ«lm 21 (1985): 31–33. Jenkins, Henry . Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture. New York: New York, 1992. Jenkins, Henry . “Historical Poetics.” In Approaches to Popular Film, edited by Joanne Hollows and Marc Jancovich , 99–122. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1995. Jozajtis, Kris . “ ‘The Eyes of All People Are Upon Us’: American Civil Religion and the Birth of Hollywood.” In Representing Religion in World Cinema: Filmmaking, Mythmaking, Culture Making, edited by S. Brent Plate , 239–261. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. Kandiyoti, Deniz . “Gendering the Modern: On Missing Dimensions in the Study of Turkish Modernity.” In Rethinking Modernity and National Identity in Turkey, edited by Sibel Bozdoğan and Reşat Kasaba , 113–132. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1997. Karamustafa, Ahmet . God’s Unruly Friends: Dervish Groups in the Islamic Later Middle Period, 1200–1550. Salt Lake City: Salt Lake City, 1994. Karshenas, Massoud . Oil, State, and Industrialization in Iran. Cambridge: Cambridge, 1990. Kashani-Sabet, Firoozeh . Conceiving Citizens: Women and the Politics of Motherhood in Iran. New York: New York, 2011. Katouzian, Homa . The Political Economy of Modern Iran: Despotism and Pseudo-Modernism, 1926–1979. New York: New York, 1981. Katouzian, Homa . Iranian History and Politics: The Dialectics of State and Society. New York: New York, 2003. KāvÅ«sÄ«, HÅ«shang . “ChigÅ«nah mÅ«sÄ«qÄ« vārid-i sÄ«namā shud.” Sitārah-i sÄ«namā 85 (1956): 8. KāvÅ«sÄ«, HÅ«shang . ‘Mihmān-i haftah: HÅ«shang KāvÅ«sÄ«.” Sitārah-i sÄ«namā 227 (1959): 21, 24. KāvÅ«sÄ«, HÅ«shang . “DÅ«rbÄ«n barā-yi ānhā vaṣīlah-i ma‘āsh bÅ«d: Guft va gÅ« bā HÅ«shang KāvÅ«sÄ«.” In FÄ«lmfārsÄ« chÄ«st?, edited by Ḥusayn Mu‘azzizÄ« Niyā , 5–10. Tehran: Nashr-i SāqÄ«, 1999. Kesavan, Mukul . “Urdu, Awadh and the Tawaif: the Islamicate Roots of Hindi Cinema.” In Forging Identities: Gender, Communities and the State, edited by Zoya Hasan , 244–257. New Delhi: Kali for Women, 1994. 216 Keshavarzian, Arang . Bazaar and State in Iran: The Politics of the Tehran Marketplace. New York: New York, 2007. Keyvani, Mehdi . Artisans and Guild Life in the Later Safavid Period: Contributions to the Social- Economic History of Persia. Berlin: Berlin, 1982. KhāchÄ«kiyān, Sāmū’il . “KhāchÄ«kiyān va ḥaqāyiqÄ« tāzah.” FÄ«lm va hunar 229 (1969): 12–14. Khaleghi Motlagh, Djalal . “Erotic Literature.” In Encyclopædia Iranica, edited by Ehsan Yarshater , 8: 558–560. Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda, 1998. Khazrai, Firoozeh . “Music in ‘Khusraw va Shirin’.” In The Poetry of Nizami Ganjavi: Knowledge, Love, and Rhetoric, edited by Kamran Talattof and Jerome Clinton , 163–178. New York: Palgrave, 2000. Khoi, Esmail . Outlandia: Songs of Exile. Selected and translated by Ahmad Karimi-Hakkak and Michael Beard . Port Coquitlam, Canada: Selected and translated by Ahmad Karimi-Hakkak and Michael Beard . Port Coquitlam, Canada, 1999. Khomeini, Ruhollah . Islam and Revolution: Writings and Declarations of Imam Khomeini. Translated by Hamid Algar . Berkeley, CA: Translated by Hamid Algar . Berkeley, CA, 1981. Khomeini, Ruhollah . SabÅ«-yi ‘ishq: Ghazalhā-yi ‘ārifānah-i Ḥaz..rat-i Imām KhumaynÄ«. Tehran: Tehran, 1989. Khomeini, Ruhollah . Islamic Government: Governance of the Jurist. Translated by Hamid Algar . London: Translated by Hamid Algar . London, 2000. Khosravi, Shahram . Young and Defiant in Tehran. Philadelphia: Philadelphia, 2008. Khosrokhavar, Farhad . Suicide Bombers: Allah’s New Martyrs. Translated by David Macey . London: Pluto Press, 2005. (Original work published in 2002). Khosronejad, Pedram , ed. Iranian Sacred Defence Cinema: Religion, Martyrdom and National Identity. Canon Pyon, UK: Canon Pyon, UK, 2012. Kiyāniyān, Riz..ā . Nāṣir va FardÄ«n: Guft va gÅ«-yi Riz..ā Kiyāniyān bā Nāṣir Malik Muá¹­i‘ī va Muḥammad ‘AlÄ« FardÄ«n. Tehran: Tehran, 2006. KÅ«histānÄ«nizhād, Mas‘ūd . SÄ«namā dar ‘aá¹£r-i MashrÅ«á¹­ah. Tehran: Tehran, 2004. Kumar, Krishan . Utopianism. Minneapolis: Minneapolis, 1991. KÅ«shān, MaḥmÅ«d . Sikāns-i ākhir: Khāṭirāt-i MaḥmÅ«d KÅ«shān bā Duktur Ismā‘īl KÅ«shān, pidar-i sÄ«namā-yi Īrān. Los Angeles: Los Angeles, 2014. Lambton, Ann . “Recollections of Iran in Mid-Twentieth Century.” Asian Affairs 19 (1988): 273–288. Lambton, Ann . Landlord and Peasant in Persia: A Study of Land Tenure and Land Revenue Administration. London: I. B. Tauris, 1991. (Original work published in 1953, revised in 1969). Lane, Edward . The Manners & Customs of the Modern Egyptians. London: London, 1908. Langford, Wendy . Revolutions of the Heart: Gender, Power and the Delusions of Love. New York: New York, 1999. Lawrence, Bruce . “Thematic Antecedents for the Urdu Ghazal in the Sufi Poetry of the Sultanate Period.” In Studies in the Urdu Ghazal and Prose Fiction, edited by Muhammad Umar Memon , 61–100. Madison: South Asian Studies Publication Series, 1979. Lerner, Daniel . The Passing of Traditional Society: Modernizing the Middle East. New York: New York, 1964. Lewis, Franklin . “Reading, Writing, and Recitation: Sana’ī and the Origins of the Persian Ghazal.” PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1995. Lewis, Franklin . “Hafez (vii. Hafez and Rendi).” In Encyclopædia Iranica, edited by Ehsan Yar- Shater , 11: 483–491. New York: Encyclopædia Iranica Foundation, 2003. 217 Loeffler, Reinhold . Islam in Practice: Religious Beliefs in a Persian Village. Albany: Albany, 1988. Loewen, Arley . “Proper Conduct (Adab) is Everything: The Futuwwat-nāmah-i SulṭānÄ« of Husayn Va‘iz-i Kashifi.” Iranian Studies 36 (2003): 543–570. Longley, Clifford . Chosen People: The Big Idea that Shaped England and America. London: London, 2002. Loy, R. Philip . Westerns in a Changing America, 1955–2000. Jefferson, NC: Jefferson, NC, 2004. Lyden, John . Film as Religion: Myths, Morals, and Rituals. New York: New York, 2003. MacDonald, Dwight . Against the American Grain. New York: New York, 1962. MaḥbÅ«bÄ« ArdakānÄ«, ḥusayn . TārÄ«kh-i mu’assassāt-i tamaddunÄ«-i jadÄ«d dar Īrān. Vol. 3. Tehran: Vol. 3. Tehran, 1989. Mahdavi, Shireen . “Amusements in Qajar Iran.” Iranian Studies 40 (2007): 483–499. ManāmÄ«, Akbar . Sarguẕasht-i dÅ«blah-yi Īrān. Tehran: Tehran, 2009. “Mānand-i Hamlit.” FÄ«lm 328 (2005): 144. Marashi, Afshin . Nationalizing Iran: Culture, Power, and the State, 1870–1940. Seattle: Seattle, 2008. Martin, Conrad , and Joel Ostwalt , ed. Screening the Sacred: Religion, Myth, and Ideology in Popular American Film. Boulder, CO: Boulder, CO, 1995. Marvin, Carolyn , and David Ingle . “Blood Sacrifice and the Nation: Revisiting Civil Religion.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 64 (1996): 767–780. Massé, Henri . Croyances et coutûmes persanes. Vol. 1. Paris: Vol. 1. Paris, 1938. MatÄ«nÄ«, Jalāl . “Ayāz.” In Encyclopædia Iranica, edited by Ehsan Yarshater , 3: 133–134. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1989. Matthee, Rudi . “Prostitutes, Courtesans, and Dancing Girls: Women Entertainers in Safavid Iran.” In Iran and Beyond: Essays in Honor of Nikki R. Keddie, edited by Rudi Matthee & Beth Baron , 121–150. Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda, 2000. May, Lary . Screening out the Past: The Birth of Mass Culture and the Motion Picture Industry. Chicago: Chicago, 1983. Mazumdar, Ranjani . Bombay Cinema: An Archive of the City. Minneapolis: Minneapolis, 2007. Meftahi, Ida . Gender and Dance in Modern Iran: Biopolitics on Stage. New York: New York, 2016. Mernissi, Fatima . Women in Moslem Paradise. New Delhi: New Delhi, 1986. Mernissi, Fatima . Beyond the Veil: Male-Female Dynamics in Modern Muslim Society (revised edn.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987. (Original work published in 1975). MihrābÄ«, Mas‘ūd . Farhang-i fÄ«lmhā-yi mustanad-i sÄ«namā-yi Īrān. Tehran: Tehran, 1996. MihrābÄ«, Mas‘ūd . TārÄ«kh-i sÄ«namā-yi Īrān: Az āghāz tā sāl-i 1357. Tehran: Tehran, 1997. Milani, Abbas . Eminent Persians: The Men and Women Who Made Modern Iran, 1941–1979. Vol. 2. Syracuse: Vol. 2. Syracuse, 2008. Mirjafari, Hossein . “The HÌ£aydarÄ«-Ni‘matÄ« Conflicts in Iran,” translated by John Perry . Iranian Studies 12 (1979): 135–162. MÄ«r MÄ«rānÄ«, ‘AlÄ« . Bih rang-i yād, bih tÌ£a‘m-i sÄ«namā: Mardān-i bāzÄ«gar-i sÄ«namā-yi Īrān. Tehran: Tehran, 2001. Moaveni, Azadeh . Lipstick Jihad: A Memoir of Growing Up Iranian in America and American in Iran. New York: New York, 2005. 218 Mofid, Kamran . Development Planning in Iran: From Monarchy to Islamic Republic. Wisbech, UK: Wisbech, UK, 1987. Moin, Baqer . Khomeini: Life of the Ayatollah. London: London, 1999. Mostaghim, Ramin , and Sarah Parvini . “White Marriage a Growing Trend for Young Couples in Iran.” Los Angeles Times, May 29, 2015. Mottahedeh, Negar . Displaced Allegories: Post-revolutionary Iranian Cinema. Durham, NC: Durham, NC, 2008. MuḥammadābādÄ«, Akbar . “SÄ«namā-yi Jang va sÄ«namā-yi Difā‘-i muqaddas.” Dunyā-yi taá¹£vÄ«r 32 (1996): 54–55. “Munnabhai Will Return Once Sanjay Comes out: Raju Hirani.” The Times of India, November 17, 2013. MurādÄ«, IbrāhÄ«m . “FÄ«lm bardārÄ« dar Īrān.” Mihr 5 (1937): 896–901. Murata, Sachiko . The Tao of Islam: A Sourcebook on Gender Relationships in Islamic Thought. Albany: State University of New York, 1992. MusÌ£tÌ£afavÄ« RijālÄ«, MÄ«nÅ«dukht . Vaqf dar Īrān. [S.l.: s.n.], 1972. Modern Iran: The Dialectics of Continuity and Change, edited by Michael Bonine and Nikki Keddie , 341–359. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1981. Nafici, Hamid . “Iranian Writers, the Iranian Cinema, and the Case of Dash Akol.” Iranian Studies 18 (1985): 231–251. Nafici, Hamid . “Islamizing Film Culture in Iran.” In Iran: Political Culture in the Islamic Republic, edited by Samih Farsoun and Mehrdad Mashayekhi , 178–213. New York: Routledge, 1992. Nafici, Hamid . The Making of Exile Cultures: Iranian Television in Los Angeles. Minneapolis: Minneapolis, 1993. Nafici, Hamid . An Accented Cinema: Exile and Diasporic Filmmaking. Princeton: Princeton, 2001. Nafici, Hamid . A Social History of Iranian Cinema. 4 vols. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2012–13. Nafisi, Azar . Reading Lolita in Tehran: A Memoir in Books. New York: New York, 2003. NafÄ«sÄ«, Sa‘īd . Sarchishmah-i taá¹£avvuf dar Īrān. Tehran: Tehran, 1989. Najafi, Behrad . “Film in Iran, 1900–1979: A Political and Cultural Analysis.” Ph.D. diss., Universitet Stockholms, 1986. Najmabadi, Afsaneh . Land Reform and Social Change in Iran. Salt Lake City: Salt Lake City, 1987. Najmabadi, Afsaneh . “The Erotic VatÌ£an [Homeland] as Beloved and Mother: To Love, To Possess, and To Protect.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 39 (1997): 442–467. Najmabadi, Afsaneh . “‘The Morning After’: Travail of Sexuality and Love in Modern Iran.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 36 (2004): 367–385. Najmabadi, Afsaneh . Women with Mustaches and Men without Beards: Gender and Sexual Anxieties of Iranian Modernity. Berkeley: Berkeley, 2005. Naremore, James . “Introduction: Film and the Reign of Adaptation.” In Film Adaptation, edited by James Naremore , 1–18. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2000. NaṣīrÄ«far, ḥabÄ«b Allāh . TarÄ«khchah-’i ta’sÄ«s-i RādiyÅ« Tihrān. Tehran: Tehran, 2004. Naá¹£rÄ« IshrāqÄ«, JahāngÄ«r . Namāyish va mÅ«sÄ«qÄ« dar Īrān. Vol. 3. Tehran: Vol. 3. Tehran, 2004. 219 Nashat, Guity . “Marriage in the Qajar Period.” In Women in Iran: From 1800 to the Islamic Republic, edited by Guity Nashat and Lois Beck , 37–62. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2004. Nasr, Seyyed Hossein . Sufi Essays. Albany: Albany, 1973. Nasr, Vali . “Politics within the Late-Pahlavi State: The Ministry of Economy and Industrial Policy, 1963–1969.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 32 (2000): 97–122. Nayeri, Farah . “Iranian Cinema: What Happened in between.” Sight and Sound 3, no. 12 (1993): 26–28. Nichols, Bill . “Discovering Form, Inferring Meaning: New Cinemas and the Film Festival Circuit.” Film Quarterly 47, no. 3 (1994): 16–30. NiẓāmÄ« GanjavÄ« , The Story of Layla and Majnun. Translated by Rudolph Gelpke . Boulder, CO: Shambhala, 1978. Nooshin, Laudan . “Subversion and Countersubversion: Power, Control, and Meaning in the New Iranian Pop Music.” In Music, Power, and Politics, edited by Annie Randall , 231–272. New York: Routledge, 2005. “PadÄ«dah’ī bi-ism-i fÄ«lm fārsÄ«.” Sitārah-i sÄ«namā 331 (1962): 3. Pahlavi, Mohammed Reza . “Riz..ā Shāh-i KabÄ«r.” In Mardān-i khvudsākhtah, edited by IbrāhÄ«m Khvājah NÅ«rÄ« , 6–40. Tehran: Mu’assasah-i Maá¹­bū‘ātÄ«-i AmÄ«r KabÄ«r, 1956. Pahlavi, Mohammed Reza . Mission for My Country. London: London, 1961. Pahlavi, Mohammed Reza . The White Revolution. Tehran: Tehran, 1967. Paidar, Parvin . Women and the Political Process in Twentieth-Century Iran. New York: New York, 1995. Pak-Shiraz, Nacim . Shi‘i Islam in Iranian Cinema: Religion and Spirituality in Film. London: London, 2011. Papan-Matin, Firoozeh . “Love: Nima’s Dialogue with Hafez.” In Essays on Nima Yushij: Animating Modernism in Persian Poetry, edited by Ahmad Karimi-Hakkak and Kamran Talattof , 173–192. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2004. “Pārs FÄ«lm bār-i dÄ«gar fa‘āliyat-i khvud rā sar giriftah.” Sitārah-i sÄ«namā 62 (1956): 14–15, 18. Parsons, Talcott , “Introduction.” In Max Weber , The Theory of Economic and Social Organization, translated by A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons , 3–86. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press & The Falcon’s Wing Press, 1957. Partovi, Pedram . “Girls’ Dormitory: Women’s Islam and Iranian Horror.” Visual Anthropology Review 25 (2009): 186–207. Partovi, Pedram . “Reconsidering Popular Iranian Cinema and Its Audiences.” Iranian Studies 45 (2012): 439–447. Pauwels, Heidi , ed. Indian Literature and Popular Cinema: Recasting Classics. New York: New York, 2007. Perron, Lalita du . “Tawayaf.” In Keywords in South Asian Studies, www.soas.ac.uk/south-asia- institute/keywords/file24815.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2016. Pinault, David . “Zaynab Bint ‘AlÄ« and the Place of the Women of the Households of the First Imāms in Shī‘ite Devotional Literature.” In Women in the Medieval Islamic World: Power, Patronage, and Piety, edited by Gavin Hambly , 69–98. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998. Pinault, David . Horse of Karbala: Muslim Devotional Life in India. New York: New York, 2000. Polhemus, Robert . Erotic Faith: Being in Love from Jane Austen to D. H. Lawrence. Chicago: Chicago, 1995. QādirÄ«, AmÄ«r . “MardÄ« kih AmÄ«r Khān rā kusht.” FÄ«lm 255 (2000): 96–98. QādirÄ«, Īraj . “Az Īraj QādirÄ« bishnavÄ«d.” FÄ«lm va hunar 346 (1971): 16–17, 38. 220 Rahman, Fazlur . “Bak.ā wa Fanā’.” In Encyclopædia of Islam (2nd edn.), edited by Bernard Lewis , Charles Pellat and Joseph Schacht , I: 195. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1960. Rahnema, Saeed . “Multinationals and Iranian Industry: 1957–1979.” The Journal of Developing Areas 24 (1990): 293–311. RajabÄ«, ĀzÄ«tā . RÄ«khtshināsÄ«-i bāzār. Tehran: Tehran, 2007. Rajadhyaksha, Ashish and Paul Willemen . Encyclopaedia of Indian Cinema. London: London, 1994. “Raqá¹£-i arqām: naẓarÄ« bih bāzÄ«garān-i sÄ«namā-yi Īrān.” FÄ«lm va hunar 397 (1972): 2–3. Raudvere, Catharina . The Book and the Roses: Sufi Women, Visibility, and Zikir in Contemporary Istanbul. Istanbul: Istanbul, 2002. RaypÅ«r, Bahrām . “ManzÌ£arah-i ‘umÅ«mÄ« az sÄ«namā-yi HindÅ«stān.” Sitārah-i sÄ«namā 271 (1960): 20–21, 33. Renard, John . Islam and the Heroic Image: Themes in Literature and the Visual Arts. Columbia: Columbia, 1993. Richard, Yann . Shi‘ite Islam: Polity, Ideology, and Creed. Translated by Antonia Nevill . Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1995. (Original work published in 1991). Ridgeon, Lloyd . “The Islamic Apocalypse: Mohsen Makhmalbaf’s ‘Moment of Innocence’.” In Representing Religion in World Cinema, edited by S. Brent Plate , 145–158. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. Ridgeon, Lloyd . “The ZÅ«rkhāna between Tradition and Change.” Iran 45 (2007): 243–265. Ringgren, Helmer . Fatalism in Persian Epics. Uppsala: Uppsala, 1952. Ringgren, Helmer . “Islamic Fatalism.” In Fatalistic Beliefs in Religion, Folklore, and Literature, edited by Helmer Ringgren , 52–62. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1967. Robertson, Bronwen . “Persian Pop Music: At ‘Home’ in Exile and in ‘Exile’ at Home.” Context: Journal of Music Research 29/30 (2005): 31–41. Rochard, Philippe . “The Identities of the Iranian ZÅ«rkhānah .” Translated by H. E. Chehabi . Iranian Studies 35 (2002): 313–340. Ruberto, Laura , and Kristi Wilson , eds. Italian Neorealism and Global Cinema. Detroit: Detroit, 2007. Rumi, Jalaluddin . The Sufi Path of Love: The Spiritual Teachings of Rumi. Edited by William Chittick . Albany: Edited by William Chittick . Albany, 1983. “RÅ«-yi pardah: Ganj-i QārÅ«n .” Sitārah-i sÄ«namā 493 (1965): 13. Sabahi, Farian . “Gender and the Army of Knowledge in Pahlavi Iran, 1968. 1979.” In Women, Religion and Culture in Iran, edited by Sarah Ansari and Vanessa Martin , 99–126. Richmond: Curzon, 2002. Sabety, Setareh . “Googoosh on Tour: Decoding a Popular Iranian Myth.” The Journal of the International Institute 8, no. 2 (2001). http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.4750978.0008.204. Sadr, Hamid Reza . “Contemporary Iranian Cinema and Its Major Themes.” In Life and Art: The New Iranian Cinema, edited by Rose Issa and Sheila Whitaker , 26–43. London: The National Film Theatre, 1999. Sadr, Hamid Reza . Iranian Cinema: A Political History. New York: New York, 2006. SÌ£affāriyān, NāsÌ£ir . “Ākhir-i bāzÄ«-i khÅ«n.” FÄ«lm 255 (2000): 98–99. Said, Edward . Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books, 1979. Sarris, Andrew . “Notes on the Auteur Theory in 1962.” Film Culture 27 (1962–1963): 1–8. SāvajÄ«, Salmān . Kulliyāt-i Salmān SāvajÄ«. Edited by ‘Abbās Vafā’ī . Tehran: Edited by ‘Abbās Vafā’ī . Tehran, 2004. 221 Savory, Roger . “Social Development in Iran during the Pahlavi Era.” In Iran under the Pahlavis, edited by George Lenczowski , 85–127. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 1978. Sayf, HādÄ« . NaqqāshÄ«-i qahvahkhānah. Tehran: Tehran, 1990. Sayf, Muḥsin . Kārgardānān-i sÄ«namā-yi Īrān: Az Ugāniyāns tā imrÅ«z. 2 vols. Tehran: KānÅ«n-i FarhangÄ«-HunarÄ«-i Īs-ārgarān, 1998. Schayegh, Cyrus . “Sport, Health, and the Iranian Middle Class in the 1920s and 1930s.” Iranian Studies 35 (2002): 341–369. Schick, Irvin Cemil . “Space: Harem.” In Encyclopedia of Women and Islamic Cultures, edited by Suad Joseph , 4: 544–548. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2007. Schick, Theodore, Jr. “Fate, Freedom and Foreknowledge.” In The Matrix and Philosophy: Welcome to the Desert of the Real, edited by William Irwin , 87–98. Chicago: Open Court, 2002. Schmitt, Arno . “Different Approaches to Male-Male Sexuality/Eroticism from Morocco to Usbekistān.” In Sexuality and Eroticism among Males in Moslem Societies, edited by Arno Schmitt and Jehoeda Sofer , 1–24. Binghamton, NY: Haworth, 1992. Schneider, David . American Kinship: A Cultural Account. Chicago: Chicago, 1980. Schramm, Wilbur . “Communication Development and the Development Process.” In Communications and Political Development, edited by Lucian Pye , 30–57. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1963. Seyller, John , Rainald Franz , Ebba Koch , Antoinette Owen , and Wheeler Thackston . The Adventures of Hamza: Painting and Storytelling in Mughal India. Washington: Washington, 2002. ShabāvÄ«z, ‘Abbās . “ShabāvÄ«z: Siyāmak YāsamÄ« dar maṣīr-i khvud dar jā mÄ«zanad.” FÄ«lm va hunar 196 (1968): 16–17, 47. ShabāvÄ«z, ‘Abbās . “GuftgÅ« bā ‘Abbās ShabāvÄ«z, tahÄ«yah kunandah.” In Qayá¹£ar: Namād-i insān-i mu‘tāriz.., edited by Riz..ā Shukr AllāhÄ« and ḤamÄ«d TÅ«rānpÅ«r , 163–166. Tehran: Qaṣīdah, 2000. Shafik, Viola . “Egyptian Cinema.” In Companion Encyclopedia of Middle Eastern and North African Film, edited by Oliver Leaman , 23–129. New York: Routledge, 2001. Shafik, Viola . Popular Egyptian Cinema: Gender, Class, and Nation. Cairo: Cairo, 2007. ShahrÄ«, Ja‘far . TārÄ«kh-i ijtimā‘ī-i Tihrān dar qarn-i sÄ«zdahum. 6 vols. Tehran: Mu’assasah-i Khadamāt-i FarhangÄ«-i Rasā, 1988–89. ShamÄ«sā, SÄ«rÅ«s . Farhang-i ishārāt-i adabiyāt-i FārsÄ«. 2 vols. Tehran: Intishārāt-i Firdaws, 1998. ShāmlÅ«, Aḥmad . Kitāb-i kÅ«chah. Vol. 3. Tehran: Vol. 3. Tehran, 1998. Sharī‘at, ‘AlÄ« Aá¹£ghar . “Tafarruj gāhhā-yi ‘umÅ«mÄ«.” Īrānshahr 3 (1924): 107–111. Sharma, Sunil . “Love: Pre-modern Discourses: Persian, Arabic, Ottoman, Andalusian and South Asian.” In Encyclopedia of Women and Islamic Cultures, edited by Suad Joseph , III: 236–241. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2006. Sheibani, Khatereh . The Poetics of Iranian Cinema: Aesthetics, Modernity and Film after the Revolution. London, UK: London, UK, 2011. Shils, Edward . “Mass Society and Its Culture.” Dædalus 89 (1960): 288–314. Shu‘ā‘ī, ḤamÄ«d . Farhang-i sÄ«namā-yi Īrān. Tehran: Tehran, 1975. Shu‘ā‘ī, ḤamÄ«d . Nāmāvarān-i sÄ«namā dar Īrān. 3 vols. Tehran: Shirkat-i HirminkÅ«, 1976. “SÄ«namā, dāmÄ« barā-yi khvānandagān-i ma‘rÅ«f.” FÄ«lm va hunar 334 (1971): 10–12. “SÄ«namāpÄ«shagān-i Īrān dar yak jalasah-i jinjālÄ« Hayāt-i Taá¹£fiyah bar guzÄ«dand.” Āyandagān, March 17, 1979. 222“SÄ«namā-yi FārsÄ« madyÅ«n-i chih kisānÄ« ast?” In FÄ«lmfārsÄ« chÄ«st?, edited by Ḥusayn Mu‘azzizÄ« Niyā , 11–46. Tehran: Nashr-i SāqÄ«, 1999. “<>hā, bāzmāndagān-i sÄ«namā-yi varshikastah.” Āyandagān, March 3, 1979. “Siyāmak YāsamÄ«, chihrah’ī dirakhshān dar sÄ«namā-yi Īrān.” FÄ«lm va hunar 42 (1965): 12–13. Smith, Jane , and Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad . The Islamic Understanding of Death and Resurrection. New York: New York, 2002. Smith, Murray . “Altered States: Character and Emotional Response in Cinema.” Cinema Journal 33, no. 4 (1994): 34–56. Sprachman, Paul . Language and Culture in Persian. Costa Mesa: Costa Mesa, 2002. Sreberny-Mohammadi, Annabelle , and Ali Mohammadi . Small Media, Big Revolution: Communication, Culture and the Iranian Revolution. Minneapolis: Minneapolis, 1994. Srinivas, M. N. Social Change in Modern India. Berkeley: Berkeley, 1966. Statistical Yearbook 1963. Paris: Paris, 1964. Stephanson, Anders . Manifest Destiny: American Expansionism and the Empire of Right. New York: New York, 1995. Stokes, Martin . The Arabesk Debate: Music and Musicians in Modern Turkey. Oxford: Oxford, 1990. Stokes, Martin . “Strong as a Turk: Power, Performance, Representation in Turkish Wrestling.” In Sport, Identity, and Ethnicity, edited by Jeremy MacClancy , 21–41. Oxford: Berg, 1996. Subtelny, Maria . “Husayn Va’iz-i Kashifi: Polymath, Popularizer, and Preserver.” Iranian Studies 36 (2003): 463–467. SuhravardÄ«, Shihāb al-DÄ«n . The Philosophical Allegories and Mystical Treatises. Edited and translated by Wheeler Thackston . Costa Mesa, CA: Edited and translated by Wheeler Thackston . Costa Mesa, CA, 1999. SÌ£ulhÌ£jÅ«, TÌ£ahmāsib . “SÄ«namā dar āyÄ«n-i javānmardÄ«.” Dunyā-yi tavÄ«r 82 (2000): 58–59. Suppressed Persian: An Anthology of Forbidden Literature. Translated and annotated by Paul Sprachman . Costa Mesa, CA: Translated and annotated by Paul Sprachman . Costa Mesa, CA, 1995. TÌ£abÄ«bÄ« Īraj . “Dar gÅ«shah va kinār-i istÅ«diyÅ«hā-yi Īrān: Duktur KÅ«shān va Pārs FÄ«lm.” Sitārah-i sÄ«namā 189 (1958): 6–7. TÌ£abÄ«bÄ« Īraj . “Jinjālhā-yi sÄ«namā‘ī va hunarÄ«.” Sitārah-i sÄ«namā 160 (1958): 19–21. TahāmÄ« Nizhād, Muḥammad . “RÄ«shahyābÄ«-i ya’s dar sÄ«namā-yi 1308 tā 1315-i Īrān.” VÄ«zhah-i sÄ«namā va ti’ātr 2/3 (1973): 113–125. TahāmÄ« Nizhād, Muḥammad . SÄ«namā-yi ru’yāpardāz-i Īrān: HÌ£alqah'Ä« dar zanjÄ«rah-yi khiyālbandān. Tehran: Tehran, 1986. TahāmÄ« Nizhād, Muḥammad . SÄ«namā-yi Īrān. Tehran: Tehran, 2001. “Tajrubah-’i buzurg.” FÄ«lm 191 (1996): 36. Talattoff, Kamran . Modernity, Sexuality, and Ideology in Iran the Life and Legacy of a Popular Female Artist. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse, NY, 2012. Taneja, Vivek . “Stereotyping the Muslim in Bombay Cinema.” Economic & Political Weekly 44: 4 (2010): 30–32. Tapper, Richard . “Introduction.” In The New Iranian Cinema: Politics, Representation, and Identity, edited by Richard Tapper , 1–25. New York: Routledge, 2002. “TaqlÄ«l-i ‘avāriz..-i fÄ«lmhā-yi FārsÄ« muvāzÄ« bā taqlÄ«l-i ‘avāriz..-i fÄ«lmhā-yi khārijÄ« bāyad ṣūrat gÄ«rad.” Sitārah-i sÄ«namā 79 (1956): 2. “TasÌ£fiyah dar TilÄ«vÄ«ziyÅ«n idāmah mÄ«yābad.” ItÌ£tÌ£ilā‘āt, March 10, 1979. 223 Tavakoli-Targhi, Mohamad . “Going Public: Patriotic and Matriotic Homeland in Iranian Nationalist Discourses.” Strategies: Journal of Theory, Culture, and Politics 13 (2000): 175–200. Tavakoli-Targhi, Mohamad . Refashioning Iran: Orientalism, Occidentalism and Historiography. New York: New York, 2001. Taylor, Charles . A Secular Age. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge, MA, 2007. Taylor, Richard . The Politics of Soviet Cinema, 1917–1929. New York: New York, 1979. “Ti‘dād-i sÄ«namāhā-yi Īrān á¹­ay-i sih sāl kāhish yāft.” Jām-i Jam, September 10, 2015. Tomlinson, John . Cultural Imperialism: A Critical Introduction. London: London, 1991. Tran, Mark , and Fred Attewill . “Iraqi Special Forces Kill Militia Leader in Basra.” Guardian Unlimited, May 25, 2007, www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/25/usa.iraq. ṬūsÄ«, Javād . “SÄ« sāl ba‘d.” In Qayá¹£ar: Namād-i insān-i mu‘tāriz.., edited by Riz..ā Shukr AllāhÄ« and ḤamÄ«d TÅ«rānpÅ«r , 209–235. Tehran: Qaṣīdah, 2000. UmÄ«d, Jamāl . TārÄ«kh-i SÄ«namā-yi Īrān: 1279–1357. Tehran: Tehran, 1998. UmÄ«d, Jamāl . TārÄ«kh-i sÄ«namā-yi Īrān: 1358–1369. Tehran: Tehran, 2004. “Va ḥālā rūḥat rā bih Khudā bispār,” FÄ«lm 251 (2000): 34–35. Vadet, Jean-Claude . L’Esprit courtois en Orient dans les cinq premières siècles de l’Hegire. Paris: Paris, 1968. “Va Ä«nham sarguẕasht-i Rāj KāpÅ«r hunarpÄ«shah-i hunarmand-i HindÄ« kih Ä«n haftah mÄ«hmān-i ‘ālÄ«qadr-i māst.” Sitārah-i sÄ«namā 85 (1956): 9, 30. Vā‘iẓ KāshifÄ«, ḥusayn . Rawz..at al-shuhadā’. Edited by MaḥmÅ«d Riz..ā Iftikhārzādah . Tehran: Edited by MaḥmÅ«d Riz..ā Iftikhārzādah . Tehran, 2005. Vanita, Ruth . “ Dosti and Tamanna: Male-Male Love, Difference, and Normativity in Hindi Cinema.” In Everyday Life in South Asia, edited by Diane Mines and Sarah Lamb , 146–158. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2002. Varzi, Roxane . Warring Souls: Youth, Media, and Martyrdom in Post-Revolution Iran. Durham, NC: Durham, NC, 2006. “Vaẓ‘-i barnāmahhā va ravish-i RādiyÅ«-TilÄ«vÄ«ziyÅ«n.” Iá¹­á¹­ilā‘āt, March 12, 1979. Vieille, Paul , and K. Mohseni . “Écologie culturelle d’une ville islamique Tehran.” Revue géographique de l’Est 9 (1969): 315–359. Vitalis, Robert . “American Ambassador in Technicolor and Cinemascope: Hollywood and Revolution on the Nile.” In Mass Mediations: New Approaches to Popular Culture in the Middle East and beyond, edited by Walter Armbrust , 269–291. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. Vus-Å«qÄ«, BihrÅ«z . BihrÅ«z Vus-Å«qÄ«: zindagÄ«nāmah. With Nāṣir Zirā‘atÄ« . San Francisco: With Nāṣir Zirā‘atÄ« . San Francisco, 2004. Weber, Max . The Sociology of Religion. Translated by Ephraim Fischoff . Boston: Beacon, 1963. (Original work published in 1922). Wilber, Donald . Riza Shah Pahlavi: The Resurrection and Reconstruction of Iran. Hicksville, NY: Hicksville, NY, 1975. Wills, Charles . Persia as It Is: Being Sketches of Modern Persian Life and Character. London: London, 1886. World Communications: Press, Radio, Film, Television. Paris: Paris, 1956. World Communications: Press, Radio, Television, Film. New York: New York, 1964. Yar-Shater, Ehsan . “Ta‘ziyeh and Pre-Islamic Mourning Rites in Iran.” In Ta‘ziyeh: Ritual and Drama in Iran, edited by Peter Chelkowski , 88–94. New York: New York University Press, 1979. 224 YÅ«sofÄ«, Gholām Ḥusayn . “Bayrāmšāh.” In Encyclopædia Iranica, edited by Ehsan Yarshater , 4: 4–5. Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda, 1990. Zādah MuḥammadÄ«, Mujtabá . Lumpanhā dar siyāsat-i ‘aá¹£r-i PahlavÄ«. Tehran: Tehran, 2007. Zakeri, Mohsen . Sāsānid Soldiers in Early Muslim Society: The Origins of ‘Ayyārān and Futuwwa. Wiesbaden: Wiesbaden, 1995. Zeydabadi-Nejad, Saeed . The Politics of Iranian Cinema: Film and Society in the Islamic Republic. New York: New York, 2010. Zubaida, Sami . “Components of Popular Culture in the Middle East.” In Mass Culture, Popular Culture, and Social Life in the Middle East, edited by Georg Stauth and Sami Zubaida , 137–163. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1987. Zubaida, Sami . ‘The Quest for the Islamic State: Islamic Fundamentalism in Iran and Egypt.” In Islam, the People, and the State: Essays on Political Ideas and Movements in the Middle East, 38–63. New York: I. B. Tauris, 1993.