Notes

Introduction 1. India and the United States, in that order, far surpass the rest of the world. 2. Different issues, such as the role of war in films, anthropology, and the problems of international reception, particularly in festivals, are taken up in various venues (Khosronejad, 2011; Gow, 2011; Fischer, 2004). A number of anthologies have been equally influential (Tapper, 2002b; Issa and Whitaker, 1999) . The essays by Hamid Naficy in these collections and elsewhere have been tremendously influen- tial, and I will refer to them repeatedly throughout this book. 3. Among the worthy topics one could mention would be the role of directors as auteurs, the issue of genres, race in film, or problems with reception at international festivals, to name a few. I believe that the themes I address do provide a coherent whole, despite the many obvious areas that one could equally value. 4. “Solely” is the operative word here. Negar Mottahedeh’s work is clearly very philo- sophical by design, as is anything that Hamid Dabashi has produced. 5. Iranians usually refer to the government as the regime or the Iranian regime, which is quite telling in its repressive connotation. 6. The roots of the and the background to the revolution have, at the time of writing, been studied in depth (Dabashi, 2006; Abrahamian, 2008, 1993; Mirse- passi, 2010). 7. I owe this use of disaster to an analysis by John D. Caputo on postmodern ethics (Caputo, 1993a: 24). 8. The Green Movement is certainly retrieving the cosmopolitan heritage of the Ira- nian legacy. I am not arguing that there is nothing of the past to retrieve, but that ’s present state is more fragmented than a Heideggerian ontology allows for. 9. Nacim Pak-Shiraz has analyzed the relationship between the clergy and The Lizard as well as Reza Mirkarimi’s Under the Moonlight (2001) (Pak- Shiraz, 2007). 10. There is a growing number of Iranian filmmakers working abroad, with their accented cinema (Naficy, 2001). That is another prolific area that my book does not address, as the scope of the Iranian cinema’s efficiency and presence continues to grow. 11. Chapter 3, as a shorter version, was published by Philosophy Today (Erfani, 2007). Chapter 4, also as a shorter version, appeared in Reconstruction (Erfani, 2010). I am grateful for the permission to incorporate these essays in this book. 194  Notes

Chapter 1 1. In his biography of Deleuze and Guattari, Francois Dosse recounts that Deleuze’s friends were rather shocked by Deleuze’s attachment to a historical event, even the war (Dosse, 2010). 2. Philosophical questions particular to film are the focus of the other chapters of this book. 3. See Chapter 2. 4. See Chapter 3. 5. Ian Buchannan’s position, addressed at the end of this chapter, also calls for such extension, which he calls “Deleuze in reverse.” 6. Laura Mulvey goes much further. She assigns Kiarostami “uncertainty principles” (2006: 123– 43). Elsewhere, she argued that “Uncertainty is built into Kiarostami’s cinema, and this is what differentiates it so definitely from the cinema of, say, , which is ultimately a cinema of faith and certainty” (Mulvey, 2002: 260). 7. I am on purpose using Louis Althusser’s expression “Ideological Apparatus” (Althusser, 1972). While Althusser and Deleuze agree on the displacement of subjectivity, they have significant disagreements, especially regarding the status of history and Hegel’s legacy (Hardt, 1993: 107). Althusser’s innovation within the study of ideology was his emphasis on the reproduction of ideology with each generation. This reproduction occurs through the state apparatus, as well as other structural agents, such as church and schools. The death of Khomeini showed that his regime possessed a certain ideological depth. Unlike dictator- ships that are solely based on a cult of a leader, this theocracy has managed to reproduce itself for the past three decades. But as the Green Movement testifies, there is a genuine crisis of ideology. I address this matter in Chapter 5 in more detail. Althusser’s expression here fits Majidi insofar as he cannot fully conform and reproduce the ideology. 8. Dimitris Papadopoulos and Vassilis Tsianos capture this idea succinctly, though in its political application. “The concept of becoming seeks to articulate a political practice in which social actors escape their normalized representations and recon- stitute themselves in the course of participating in, and changing, the conditions of their material existence. Becoming is not only a force against something (against, primarily, the ubiquitous model of individualism and the sovereign regimes of population control), but is also a force which enables desire. Every becoming is a transformation of one multiplicity into another; every becoming radicalizes desire and creates new individuations and new affections” (2008: 223). 9. One might object that action- image entails change. That is certainly true but in a limited sense of change. Action- image, as we will see, is about a central protagonist acting on its world (milieu). That intervention in the milieu does not take into account the organic nature of Becoming and time, which transforms multiplicities into other multiplicities. The protagonist of action-image is seldom really changed, or if he is, it is a change that is mastered. The agent maintains the sensory- motor link. 10. As we shall see later in this chapter, Deleuze believes that modern cinema no longer has the right “people” to work from. Classical cinema, which includes Hollywood as well as Soviet films, had these people. Notes  195

11. Hamid Dabashi rightly points out that the Iranian model cannot be reduced to the Italian one either (2007: 34). 12. Where Is the Friend’s House? (1987) and (1994) are the other two parts. For more on them, see, for instance, Alberto Elena (2005). 13. As Elena notes, this film parallels Kiarostami’s other films in which children live in a hostile world, with unforgiving authority figures who seem to care little for the children’s welfare (2005: 68). 14. See Chapters 2 and 4 for more on Kiarostami’s style. 15. “Life Goes On,” an alternative translation of the title of the film, is in fact closer to the original Persian. 16. Majidi, elsewhere, mentions that he likes Ford along with Hitchcock, Rossellini, and Pasolini (Ward, 2003: 299). The last two, for Deleuze, are in sharp contrast with Ford. 17. Color is an important motif in the New Iranian Cinema. Its use is, however, not as “cheap” a device as it might appear, at least not in all cases (Mottahedeh, 2004a). 18. “Time,” says Deleuze, “has always put the notion of truth into crisis” (1989: 130). 19. If the content is allowed back, Deleuze considers it as “religious kitsch” (Flaxman, 2000: 366). 20. As I have not delved into all of Deleuze’s detailed analysis of cinema, it might appear that aside from the irony of a blind boy as “seer,” the image- time remains an image. Not only does Deleuze have subdivisions that include more tactile func- tions, such as the haptic-image, recent Deleuzian scholarship, particularly with the work of Laura Marks, has made vision “multisensory” (L. Marks, 2000: 159). Marks has also elaborated on the image of hands on screen as a multisensory, simi- lar to Mohammad’s explorations (L. Marks, 2002: 8). 21. Bert Cardullo, on the other hand, considers this scene one of the “comic moments” of the film (2004: 93). 22. Despite the radical differences between Lacan and Deleuze, particularly on the notion of desire, they are in agreement that “woman” is excluded from the norm, the majority for Deleuze and the Other for Lacan. Chapter 5 addresses Lacan and in film. 23. It is interesting to note that Deleuze found that music as a vehicle of majoritarian thinking can at the same time be minoritarian (Grosz, 2008: 57). 24. In Chapter 3, I revisit Majidi’s work, in praise of his creativity. While I have been critical of him at times in this chapter, it is only in comparison to the genuine innovative forces of other directors. In Chapter 3 the issue of his popular style will be more directly addressed.

Chapter 2 1. This position does not negate “great thinking.” As John Caputo explains, “[w]hen thinking is truly recognized for what it is, its poetic character will be acknowledged. The great poets think, the great thinkers think poetically” (Caputo, 1986: 235). 2. The difference between “us moderns” and the Greeks will be addressed later in the chapter. Contrary to diluted interpretations of Heidegger, he did not (always) long for the Greeks. 196  Notes

3. infamously made this mistake. For more on this, see Afary and Anderson (2005). Afary and Anderson hastily associate Foucault’s political blunder with his philosophy. Despite that shortcoming, there are invaluable primary texts by Foucault in their volume. 4. Goethe famously admired the Persian poets, especially (Tafazoli, 2001). Hei- degger was no stranger to mysticism either, albeit a Christian one (Caputo, 1986). 5. For the sake of this chapter I am using Persian and Iranian fairly interchangeably. Splitting the difference would require arguments that would take me too far afield. 6. I believe that it is better, for the sake of my analysis, to focus only on one film— one that I believe is more “revealing” of the role of the director as the poet. I am also implicitly acknowledging that very few are well versed in both philosophy and Iranian cinema, discouraging me from engaging many films at once or—to put it bluntly— name- dropping. 7. See, for instance, Kiarostami’s Close-Up (1990), where his unique use of the medium has also been appreciated (Perez, 1998: 262– 72). 8. To anyone already familiar with Heidegger, this is all very alarming, though I believe Kiarostami’s technique, given our modern condition, will prove to be inti- mately Heideggerian after all. 9. Despite the title, the story involves mulberries, though cherries are later mentioned as well. 10. In his conversations with Kiarostami, Jean- Luc Nancy candidly— and with great honesty—admits that he does not have enough grounding in Iranian to fully appreciate Kiarostami’s work (Nancy, 2001: 46). 11. Heidegger’s example is actually a “young girl,” and he calls her a “young thing.” 12. Elsewhere Heidegger pursued this line of inquiry further with sculpture (Beistegui, 2005: 148). 13. According to Dennis J. Schmidt, there is a healthy (perhaps authentic) politi- cal component in Heidegger’s call for self- assertion (2001). As John D. Caputo pointed out, Heidegger was already fond of the idea of self-assertion early in his philosophy (1991: 64). More importantly, Caputo has demonstrated the inherent dangers that lurk in Heidegger’s romanticization of the past and the dangers of Heidegger’s closet- essentialist call for becoming “one” nation (Caputo, 1993b: 89). 14. I find this qualification fitting, since in needy (postmodern) times, all metaphysics, including metaphysical atheism, must be abandoned (Caputo, 2007). 15. Heidegger’s philosophy of science also contains similarities to Kuhn (Caputo, 2000: 151– 70). 16. I have modified the translation of Hölderlin’s title in Dabashi’s text for the sake of continuity. 17. Translation is my own. Notes  197

Chapter 3 1. Carroll also uses the metaphors of being “cemented” and being “locked” onto the screen (Carroll, 2003: 61). 2. In Chapter 5, with the work of Fethi Bensalma, I will show, to Carroll’s chagrin, that literate “Easterners” are not immune to psychoanalysis either (Benslama, 2009). 3. Carroll explicitly favors reopening the “kind of inquiries about the arts that Plato and Aristotle initiated” (2010: 161). 4. Merleau- Ponty makes a similar argument (2002: 6). 5. In a striking metaphor, he illustrates this point elsewhere: “Emotions can originate near the site of perception and prime the body for action without any further need for computation: the groom slips on a banana peel and we burst into laugh- ter. Or the emotion may arise after being processed cognitively, either tacitly or consciously. Professional envy with regard to your colleague’s executive bathroom privileges takes a lot of thinking” (Carroll, 2008: 156). 6. The emphasis is mine. 7. Carroll’s use of the word “hermeneutic” is very restrictive (2001: 215), in the nar- row sense of textual interpretation and not in the ontological way that Heidegger, Gadamer, and Ricœur developed. 8. Added emphasis is my own. 9. I have modified the translation slightly. 10. Recall that a more accurate translation of would have been “The Color of God.” should have been translated as “Children of the Sky,” which is without doubt a less appealing title. Nevertheless, the translation of the title makes the film sound more religious than it is. 11. Bert Cardullo accurately connects the father’s character to Majidi’s faith: from the father’s “point of view, Allah will ultimately reward him and especially his family for the many services he humbly renders unto his maker” (2004: 82). 12. Hamid Dabashi has elaborated in depth on the history of Iranian cinema (2007, 2001). 13. This makes the Western claims about the Green Movement as a Twitter Revolution simply inaccurate. There is no doubt that social media have played an important role in the Movement’s development, but this is a more complicated issue that one should not summarily accept or dismiss (Dabashi, 2010: 205). 14. Hamid Reza Sadr, in his political history of Iranian cinema, remarks that Kho- meini declared that he was not against cinema per se, but against prostitution and obscenity (2006: 169). Sadr’s text in Persian mentions prostitution but the English translation only mentions obscenity (Rezai- Rashti, 2007: 197). 15. In Chapter 5, I return to this idea of women as a threat to the social order, via Lacan’s notion of jouissance. 16. Naficy goes into these rules in detail (2002b: 35– 39). 17. Some commentators have naively misunderstood child actors’ roles. “For Iran is not only a leader in world film; it is the leader in children’s films. This is Iran’s cinema spirit: humanism with a kid’s face” (Corliss, 1999). 198  Notes

Chapter 4 1. The chapter is dedicated to Kiarostami’s Through the Olive Trees (1994), though other works of the director are included in Dabashi’s analysis. 2. I am not claiming this is a complete list, since, for instance, Jean- Louis Baudry is not even mentioned in it. Others have done this work in detail (see McGowan, 2007). 3. Some have argued that the veil does, in fact, have some—limited— redeeming factors, from a Lacanian perspective (Ragland, 2008). But for the most nuanced approach to the question of the veil in Iranian cinema, Negar Mottahedeh’s work is unsurpassable (2008). 4. In French, Lacan and Sartre use the word “regard,” but conventionally Lacan’s translators have used the word “gaze” in English. With Sartre, it is sometimes trans- lated as “look” and sometimes as “gaze.” Steve Martinot has shown the conceptual similarities between Lacan’s and Sartre’s gaze (2005). 5. It is really debatable whether consciousness in phenomenology is that much in control. I have elsewhere argued that Sartre— who is the most misread phenomenologist—acknowledges the equivalent of the symbolic, though he does not emphasize it (Erfani, 2011). 6. The lack is perhaps more pronounced when one is jobless but, as we know, mid- life crises, the bursts of dissatisfaction, plague the more fortunate ones too. 7. Apparently, even the judge of the trial was passionate about films; he “was right up with all this film talk” says Kiarostami (Ciment and Kiarostami, 2009: 218). 8. On the motorcycle ride, we hear the soundtrack of the film, which is not original to Close-Up. Kiarostami uses— copies— a track from his own 1974 film, The Traveler, the story of a young boy who wanted to see a soccer game in Tehran at all costs. He lies and scams friends, family, and strangers to buy his bus ticket. Not only is the intertextual reference to copying and lying fascinating, but in his first meeting with Sabzian, we hear the poor copy- man say in passing that he identified with the protagonist of The Traveler. 9. Others have delved deeply into analyzing Lacan’s relationship to May 1968 (see Starr, 1995: 37– 76; Copjec, 2006a).

Chapter 5 1. To be absolutely fair, the rest of this quote refers to Meshkini’s parabolic realism, a term that Dabashi coined. This is a concept to which I shall return shortly, but which would have been distracting to cover at this point. 2. I use the word “minority” in its broad connotation, which can include Deleuze’s definition which we saw in Chapter 1. 3. Hassan uses the English word “ice cream” while speaking Persian, which is a testi- mony to the island’s unusual setting and the presence of foreign goods, including foreign words. 4. There have been a few detailed studies, showing the similarities and differences between Sartrean existentialism and Lacanian psychoanalysis (Cannon, 1991; How- ells, 1992; Lacoste, 2002, 2004, 2007). Bruce Fink has equated Sartre’s experience of Notes  199

nausea with Lacan’s real as well (2004: 172). Fink’s argument about identifying with the symptom, which I will address later in this chapter, also echoes Sartre’s notion of responsibility. 5. Lacan frequently attacked philosophy, yet he also used philosophy with an equal, if not greater, frequency for his own work (Chiesa, 2007: 5). 6. One cannot help but think of Socrates’ most clever pun. In the Republic, before an audience of eager young philosophers, Socrates sketches out his theory of knowl- edge, known as the divided line. As is well known, he divides the world into two realms: visible and intelligible. Each part is divided into two: the visible world has objects and then pictures, representations, and shadows of object. In his epistemol- ogy, pictures are the most impoverished form of understanding; they are the most ontologically deficient and the wise ones ought to focus on the realm of ideas— within intelligibility. After the divided line, Socrates famously turns to the “Alle- gory of the Cave.” That it is so widely read is somewhat ironic, but that Socrates tells the story of the allegory to the philosophical audience is downright insulting. After having explained that pictures and drawings are the worst access one has to truth, he offers his students a drawing, ironically implying they have a long way to go; they still need pictures. The same young philosophers politely nodded along with the divided line, but they seem to take a good deal of pleasure from the pic- ture. Yet, no one points out the subtle insult. Lacan certainly does not shy away from poking fun at the philosophers in the audience, praising their intelligence in a Socratic way, which is a terrible compliment, as we know since Socrates. But given Lacan’s “anti-,” or at least Freudianism, the graph is less of an onto- logical affront. More importantly, as we shall see, allegories and parables matter to Meshkini’s work. 7. Here, by reality I refer to symbolic understanding and thought, which is not the Real. 8. Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont find it “distressing to see our erectile organ equated to ” (1999: 27). Bruce Fink has addressed in more detail than I have the signifi- cance of the equation. Fink also wonders whether Sokal and Bricmont find “their own performance lacking” (Fink, 2004: 131). 9. Part of the difficulty is not the distance from childhood but the very nature of trauma. “Trauma is the curious condition of a split and yet redoubled state of being: death- in- life” (Boheemen, 1999: 194). 10. The word “zan” in Persian means both woman and wife, as we will see in Ahoo’s episode. 11. Although there is no official law banning bicycling for women, the moral police often reprimands or punishes women for flaunting their physical presence on the social stage. 12. The Qur’an also includes a story about Adam and Eve. Unlike the Judeo-Christian version, however, Eve (which is Hava in Persian), was not made from Adam’s rib (Abdel Haleem, 2001: 125– 29). That detail makes the Qur’an’s version no less patriarchical, as Eve is made to belong and submit to Adam. Moreover, the word Adam, in Persian, is not a first name. It is the noun for “human being.” Men and women, in Lacanian terms, are both detached and made from the symbolic, but 200  Notes

of course the symbolic is overwhelmingly masculine. But I shall come back to this issue later, with Hoora’s episode. 13. Given the scope of my analysis, I cannot address all of the nuances of Lacanian scholarship. Bruce Fink, for instance, believes that we can hypothesize that there are two reals: real 1, prior to the symbolic, and real 2, which is the leftover that was not symbolized (Fink, 1995: 27). For the purposes of my analysis, this distinction is not central, though the real of the body will be addressed in the final section of the chapter, in its relationship to feminine jouissance and the sinthome. 14. This does not mean that a psychoanalytic study of Islamic is fruitless. On the contrary, as I have shown that the specificities of Iranian films challenge, and therefore enrich, the assumptions of film theory, the same applies to the encounter between psychoanalysis and (Copjec, 2009; Benslama, 2009). 15. In more contemporary families, with “softer” father- figures as it were, who are in touch with their emotions, the father still takes the infant away from the mother’s breast when she is through feeding. In all its gentleness, he is still standing between the infant and its desire. Single mothers occupy both roles too (Fink, 1999: 110– 11). All of this is to say that we should not obsess about the “traditional” structure of the Oedipus complex. 16. A sign on the road that indicates it to be a cycling path is the typical stick- figure on a bicycle, which is a male rider. A stick-figure with a veil is unrepresentable, precisely because the symbols do not even make room for women cyclists. 17. Among the many things she purchases is a wedding dress, though it is fairly clear that she will have no use for it. 18. Credit for this expression regarding this scene goes to my friend Peter Wahlberg. 19. The magic has disappeared with the appearance of the two younger women, who are fully integrated in society. The stove no longer works and Hoora asks the boy to find matches. 20. Among Lacan scholars, there is a growing agreement that with the advent of capital- ism and what Lacan named the of the university, we are in the midst of a historical shift within the symbolic framework (Johnston, 2007; McGowan, 2003a). 21. The body is not the same as the organism. Marie-Hélène Brousse points out, “You can’t say you were first an organism, then a body, and then a subject. The subject corresponds to the symbolic level, the body to the imaginary level, and the organ- ism to the real. You never encounter your organism as such” (1996: 121– 22). 22. The diamond sign in the middle is the combination of greater than (>) and smaller than (<). 23. Lacan calls this silent fading away aphanisis (Lacan, 1978: 219). 24. The extent of this festishization is subject to debate. It is clear that for Žižek, Anti- gone represents a revolutionary figure (Žižek, 2008: 161; 1991: 27). Others have resisted going as far as Žižek (Parker, 2004: 114; Stavrakakis, 2007: 109– 49). 25. If there is such a thing as a “normal” subject in Lacan, it would be the neurotic, which is the most common condition, hence considered the norm (Fink, 1999). 26. He has a case of nontriggered psychosis, which is different from an analysand in need of help in the clinical context (Chiesa, 2006). 27. I owe this point to Julie Szymaszek, who unlocked the interpretive knot that held me back regarding Hoora. I was concerned that feminine jouissance was too restric- tive, which I continue to believe. But as Julie pointed out, within the symbolic Notes  201

fabric of the patriarchy, this “nothing” that Hoora obtains, the supplementary jouis- sance, still is more than before, because at least it is Hoora’s own. 28. This is another way of describing sinthome, which “takes every frame of reality as contingent or hypothetical, and thereby it allows us to see oppositions without resolving them” (Brivic, 2008: 219). 29. As cited before, it is assumed that Lacan invites us all to follow Joyce’s model. Joyce’s language is his own, but by virtue of being language, it is shared. Jean- Michel Rabaté reminds us that Lacan found Joyce difficult to approach as a reader: “if Joyce becomes the Symptom, he produces a text that can in no way deeply captivate its readers, since there is no clear reason why anyone should be interested in Joyce’s own symptom” (Rabaté, 2001: 162). I argue that Meshkini takes this fur- ther by de- subjectifying herself and allowing for more identification. Lacan himself indicates that the proper place of the sinthome is social and that it is intersinthomal (Harari, 2002: 211). As I show in Chapter 6, the political efficiency of resistance indeed requires a greater identification with the sinthome of society, the marginal- ized. The Green Movement’s icon, Neda, in this strict sense is intersinthomal. 30. To be clear, Wright is not referring to Lacan’s analysis of Joyce but Kristeva’s, which is similar to Lacan on this issue. 31. Joan Copjec has also analyzed the relationship between the veil and objet a in Ira- nian films (2006b). 32. Which is very much the definition of sinthome: “The sinthome corresponds to that place and moment of transition from the jouissance that represents the absence of the father, to the jouissance that signifies and embodies not the absence but the ultimate emptiness of the Other/father” (Moncayo, 2008: 112). 33. I neglected this particular moment in the film; I had not realized the depth of this metaphor. Tracing its sources took longer than anticipated. The trace that Andrew Wolf, who brought it to my attention in 2008, has left on this chapter and this project will be immeasurably longer. 34. As it has been pointed out, the Lacanian model, applied to feminism, means that we must “implicate all groups that are marginalized by society” (Chaitin, 1996: 250).

Chapter 6 1. In her analysis of totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt famously argued that totalitarian regimes suppress all novelty; they fear new births (1966: 478– 79). 2. A film summary, for instance, is an object of thought. As an object, it is definable with clear contours, unlike the distressing experience of the abject, as we shall see. In general, I have kept the analytical summaries fairly separate from the theoreti- cal outlines in the preceding chapters. The disruptive of Turtles Can Fly makes this a nearly impossible task. Or better yet, an objective summary would not do justice to the story. Kristeva’s theory does not restore the horrifying experience of the abject to the dignity of an object, but it allows the plot to point rightfully to the inexpressible. 3. As Tina Chanter points out, “Lacan’s mirror image presents the child with an image of himself not as he is—for he is still submerged in nursling dependence, still unstable, still unable to stand by himself—but as he will become: stable, whole, 202  Notes

autonomous” (2008: 34). Stability, though not present, already is clearly aimed at. The abject is already disruptive at the early stages. 4. To the best of my knowledge, this particular issue of the abject child is not covered in Kristeva’s own work, as such. Others have pointed to the particular case of rape victims of war (Diken and Laustsen, 2005). 5. The film is ambiguous about the statues. It appears that Shirkooh’s gift is from the statue toppled before the world’s cameras. Given the northern placement of the vil- lage, it is unlikely that the broken pieces of the Baghdad statue would have made it, so rapidly, to the north of the country. Many years ago, during my own stay in Iraq, I certainly saw many statues, which must have all been toppled in 2003. Neverthe- less, the factual issue does not matter to the plot. 6. The original title, in Persian, would more accurately translate as “No One Knows About Iranian Cats.” Given that Persian cats as a breed are better known in the West, the current translation of the title makes more marketing sense. But it is interesting that Ghobadi, who does not shy away from affirming his own Kurdish identity, used Iranian Cats. 7. Elsewhere I have called this Sartrean reversal a form of “Dark Utopianism,” a theme I also pursue in this concluding essay (Erfani, 2011). 8. Bahram Beizai’s Bashu: The Little Stranger (1986) is a masterpiece of modern Ira- nian cinema that, among other concerns, explored this issue of race (Dabashi, 2007: 253– 76; Mottahedeh, 2008: 20– 48). 9. While anthropologists are rightly concerned about not speaking for others, their own practices, in the case of Iran, have at times “provincialized” culture, ignoring Iran’s own modern heritage (Dabashi, 2008a: 308). 10. One of the ways in which Western film theory remains grounded in its own con- text is the question of race and cinema. The first time I taught a course on Iranian cinema and philosophy, I included a section on The Cyclist in terms of the racial tensions in Iran. The vast majority of what is written on race is literally black and white. Afghans and Persians (and many other Iranians) are hard to discriminate visually. Iran faces its own complex racist categories, however (Asgharzadeh, 2007). 11. Consider CNN’s article on the subject, a few days into the conflict (Fleet, 2003). 12. Vicky Lebeau accurately speaks of “failure of imagination” in the film (2008: 179). 13. To my knowledge, flying turtles do not refer to a proverbial saying. In English, the expression “when pigs fly” refers to an impossible outcome. While it is unlikely that Ghobadi had an English proverb in mind, it is interesting that the origin of the English saying is Scottish. Scotland certainly does not suffer the destitution of the , yet it is also a nation without a state. 14. I say semi- overt because the political message of the film is not always perceived clearly either. On many Internet sites and blogs, it is often mentioned that some leftist thinkers, such as Tariq Ali, believed that Turtles Can Fly was a pro- American- invasion film, which is difficult for me to comprehend. Tariq Ali has not published this view, but he confirmed that this is his impression in response to an email I sent him. 15. In , emphasized the wisdom of the Other, in learning to think otherwise than being (Levinas, 1981; Caputo, 1993a; Critchley, 1999a). Notes  203

16. In Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984, Big Brother (as the Big Other) purposefully sought to reduce the range of language, the Newspeak (Orwell, 1990). 17. While Fukuyama’s position is untenable, Jacques Derrida still carefully, though with even more irony than usual, countered him (2006: 70–88). Hamid Dabashi calls Fukuyama’s position “historical illiteracy” and points to Fukuyama’s “dan- gerous illusions” for which he has never been held accountable (Dabashi, 2009b: 192; 2008a: 8). 18. Elsewhere, I have addressed this Lefortian claim in detail (Erfani, 2002, 2008). 19. Candidly, Spivak recognizes the dilemma in her own situation. “And I am afraid of speaking too quickly in academic situations about the women— the tribal sub- altern, the urban sub- proletariat, the unorganized peasant— to whom I have not learnt to make myself acceptable other than as a concerned benevolent person who is free to come and go. And this is a condition which you share with me. I find that to be a much more difficult problem to work at than all of the differences between living abroad and living at home” (Spivak, 1990: 70). 20. Martin O’Shaughnessy (2004) has used Laclau and Mouffe in contemporary French films. 21. One of the tragedies of Iranian is that even the main opposition move- ment to the regime, The People’s Mojahedin, follows the same path of essentialism, though with a more dangerous political cocktail of Leninism and radical Islam (Abrahamian, 1992; Cohen, 2010). 22. Though it should be clear from the context of this argument, hegemony, as used by Laclau and Mouffe, does not carry a negative connotation. It is the name for the logic of politics. They have sought to rescue it from its pejorative use, as has Laclau tried to restore populism more recently (Laclau, 2005). 23. For more on the denied demands of the Kurds, see the recent work of Farideh Koohi- Kalami (2004: 184– 89). 24. Even though I have emphasized this point, it bears repeating. Once a hegemonic movement is in place, the singularity of the previously positioned identities is fun- damentally changed. Hegemony is not coalition building, which entails bringing together different voices, which insist on remaining the same from the start to fin- ish. President George W. Bush created a hegemonic movement among American conservatives, bringing together a mix of interests and political perspectives that were at times incompatible. Neoconservatives and libertarians, for instance, are not easily reconciled. Under the signifier of the “war on terror,” their differences were negated to push forth a cohesive political front. Since President Bush left office, the American Right is in crisis, precisely because its members seek to return to their pre-Bush positions. Libertarians, for example, are pushing again for small govern- ment, even though the government expanded greatly under the Bush government. Had they fully maintained their initial position against government expansion, they could not have been part of the Republican agenda. Post-hegemonic poli- tics brings about a disconcerting crisis of identity because the initial positions and voices have shifted. That is unavoidable, however. 25. Ali Reza Haghighi does not entirely share this perspective: “If we accept that the basic essence of a political film is an engagement with the most important political issues of the time, and if we assume that the fundamental political issue in Iran is 204  Notes

the above-mentioned characteristics of the structure of political power, then we find that Iranian cinema has not engaged with them. Not only was there an absence of films examining the structure of power from a critical angle; pure propaganda films about the new structure of power were not even produced” (Haghighi, 2002: 113). While I appreciate Haghighi’s perspective, I have argued that cinema cannot always be directly political. As I show in this last section, cinema contributes to the loosening of master- which are required for any political motion. 26. Dabashi rightly wonders about Žižek’s sources. “What happened, how, and by what authority? How did Žižek make that conclusion? Just from the color green? Wow!” (Dabashi, 2009a: 3). 27. One can mention a fortunately failed anecdote that nonetheless emphasizes this point. In his attempt at imposing—pinning down—his vision, Khomeini even tried to rename the Persian Gulf the “Gulf of Islam” (Sadri, 2009: 103– 4). 28. I made this point earlier with Claude Lefort; one can make it entirely from a Laca- nian perspective as well (Stavrakakis, 1999, 2007). 29. Dabashi has a more nuanced position on Shi’ism, as he appreciates its rebellious element. That said, in Dabashi’s own words, “But all is not emancipatory revolt in Shi’ism—and thus the paradox. Precisely the same insurrectionary disposition that inaugurates Shi’ism into history constitutes its Achilles heel. Shi’ism is predicated on a paradox. It fails upon success. Just like the myth of Sisyphus. Shi’ism is a religion of protest. It can never succeed. As soon as it succeeds politically, it negates itself metaphysically. Its material success is its moral failure” (Dabashi, 2008b: 68). 30. This condition is not restricted to Iran. Many citizens, across the world, vote against their interests, duped by different ideological fantasies, as illustrated by Thomas Frank in the case of America (Frank, 2005). 31. Class privilege cannot be ignored. Many of the poor protestors have remained in prison for longer and have not made headlines simply because they lack the means of advocacy (Staff, Saaham News, 2010). References

Abdel Haleem, M. A. 2001. Understanding the Qur’an: Themes and Style. London: I. B. Tauris. Abrahamian, Ervand. 1992. The Iranian Mojahedin. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Abrahamian, Ervand. 1993. Khomeinism: Essays on the Islamic Republic. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Abrahamian, Ervand. 2008. A History of Modern Iran. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press. Adorno, Theodor W. 1991. The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture. Lon- don: Routledge. Adorno, Theodor W. 1997. Aesthetic Theory. London: Continuum. Afary, Janet, and Kevin B. Anderson. 2005. Foucault and the Iranian Revolution: Gender and the Seductions of . Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Afshari, Reza. 2009. “Slavoj Žižek and Iran’s Summer of Discontents: Return to Ayatol- lah Khomeini’s Dreams?” International Journal of Žižek Studies 3(4): 1– 8. Alcoff, Linda. 1991. “The Problem of Speaking for Others.” Cultural Critique 20: 5– 32. Althusser, Louis. 1972. Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. Translated by Ben Brew- ster. London: Monthly Review Press. André, Serge. 1999. What Does a Woman Want? New York: Other Press. Arendt, Hannah. 1966. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt. Aristotle. 1980. Poetics. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Asgharzadeh, Alireza. 2007. Iran and the Challenge of Diversity: Islamic Fundamentalism, Aryanist Racism, and Democratic Struggles. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Aydemir, Murat. 2007. Images of Bliss: Ejaculation, Masculinity, Meaning. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Bashiriyeh, Hossein. 2010. “Counter- Revolution and Revolt in Iran: An Interview with Iranian Political Scientist Hossein Bashiriyeh.” Constellations 17(1): 61– 77. Bauer, Nancy. 2001. Simone de Beauvoir, Philosophy, & Feminism. New York: Press. Beardsworth, Sarah. 2004. Julia Kristeva: Psychoanalysis and Modernity. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Beauvoir, Simone de. 1974. The Second Sex. New York: Vintage Books. Beistegui, Miguel de. 1998. Heidegger and the Political. London: Routledge. Beistegui, Miguel de. 2005. New Heidegger. London: Continuum. 206  References

Beistegui, Miguel de. 2010. Deleuze— Immanence and Philosophy. Edinburgh: Edin- burgh University Press. Benslama, Fethi. 2009. Psychoanalysis and the Challenge of Islam. Translated by Bononno Robert. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. 1990. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the of Knowledge. New York: Anchor Books. Bergson, Henri. 2002. Henri Bergson: Key Writings. Translated by McMahon Melissa. London: Continuum. Bernasconi, Robert. 1985. The Question of Language in Heidegger’s History of Being. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press. Bina, Cyrus. 2009. “Post-Election Iran: Crossroads of History and a Critique of Prevail- ing Political Perspectives.” Journal of Iranian Research and Analysis 26(2): 1– 36. Bloom, Livia. 2010. “Rock in Opposition.” Filmmaker Magazine, Spring. Accessed November 15 2010. http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/issues/spring2010/persian -cats.php. Boheemen, Christine van. 1999. Joyce, Derrida, Lacan and the Trauma of History: Read- ing, Narrative, and . New York: Columbia University Press. Borch- Jacobsen, Mikkel. 1991. Lacan: The Absolute Master. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Boulé, Jean-Pierre. 2005. Sartre, Self-Formation, and Masculinities. New York: Berghahn Books. Bowie, Malcolm. 1993. Psychoanalysis and the Future of Theory. London: Blackwell. Brivic, Sheldon. 2008. Joyce through Lacan and Žižek: Explorations. 1st ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Brousse, Marie-Hélène. 1996. “The Imaginary.” In Reading Seminars I and II: Lacan’s Return to Freud, edited by Richard Feldstein, Bruce Fink, and Maire Jaanus, 118–22. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Buchanan, Ian. 2008. “Five Theses of Actually Existing Schizoanalysis of Cinema.” In Deleuze and the Schizoanalysis of Cinema, edited by Ian Buchanan and Patricia Mac- Cormack, 1– 14. London: Continuum. Butler, Alison. 2002. Women’s Cinema— The Contested Screen. London: Wallflower Press. Camus, Albert. 1961. The Rebel. Translated by Anthony Bower. New York: Vintage Books. Cannon, Betty. 1991. Sartre and Psychoanalysis: An Existentialist Challenge to Clinical Metatheory. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. Caputo, John D. 1986. The Mystical Element in Heidegger’s Thought. New York: Ford- ham University Press. Caputo, John D. 1987. Radical Hermeneutics: Repetition, Deconstruction, and the Herme- neutic Project. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Caputo, John D. 1991. “Heidegger’s Kampf.” Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal 14/15(2– 1): 61– 83. Caputo, John D. 1993a. Against Ethics: Contributions to a Poetics of Obligation with Con- stant Reference to Deconstruction. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. References  207

Caputo, John D. 1993b. Demythologizing Heidegger. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Uni- versity Press. Caputo, John D. 2000. More Radical Hermeneutics: On Not Knowing Who We Are. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Caputo, John D. 2007. “Atheism, A/theology, and the Postmodern Condition.” In The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, edited by Michael Martin, 267–82. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cardullo, Bert. 2004. In Search of Cinema: Writings on International Film Art. Montreal: McGill- Queen’s University Press. Cardullo, Bert. 2010. Screen Writings: Partial Views of a Total Art, Classic to Contempo- rary. London: Anthem Press. Carroll, Noël. 1990. The Philosophy of Horror, or, Paradoxes of the Heart. London: Routledge. Carroll, Noël. 1996. Theorizing the Moving Image. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carroll, Noël. 2001. Beyond : Philosophical Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press. Carroll, Noël. 2003. Engaging the Moving Image. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Carroll, Noël. 2004. “Afterword: Psychoanalysis and the Horror Film.” In Horror Film and Psychoanalysis: Freud’s Worst Nightmare, edited by Steven Jay Schneider, 257– 70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carroll, Noël. 2008. The Philosophy of Motion Pictures. Oxford: Blackwell. Carroll, Noël. 2010. Art in Three Dimensions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Caruana, John. 2009. “Kieslowski and Kiarostami.” In After Kieslowski: The Legacy of Krzysztof Kieslowski, edited by Steven Woodward, 186– 201. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press. Chaitin, Gilbert D. 1996. Rhetoric and Culture in Lacan. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press. Chanter, Tina. 2008. The Picture of Abjection: Film, Fetish, and the Nature of Difference. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Chaudhuri, Shohini. 2005. Contemporary World Cinema: Europe, the , East Asia and South Asia. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Cheshire, Godfrey. 2000a. “A Guide to Understanding Kiarostami’s Latest Film: Poetry and Sufism.” Indy Week, December 13. Accessed November 15 2010. http:// www.indyweek.com/indyweek/a-guide-to-understanding-kiarostamis-latest-film/ Content?oid=1182787. Cheshire, Godfrey. 2000b. “How to Read Kiarostami.” Cineaste 25(4): 8– 15. Chiesa, Lorenzo. 2006. “Lacan with Artaud: J’ouïs-sens, jouis-sens, jouis-sans.” In Lacan: The Silent Partners, edited by Slavoj Žižek, 336– 64. London: Verso. Chiesa, Lorenzo. 2007. Subjectivity and Otherness: A Philosophical Reading of Lacan. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Choi, Jinhee. 2006. “National Cinema, the Very Idea.” In Philosophy of Film and Motion Pictures, edited by Noël Carroll and Jinhee Choi, 310– 19. London: Blackwell. 208  References

Ciment, Michel, and . 2009. “Abbas Kiarostami.” In Film World: The Directors’ Interviews, 207– 20. Oxford: Berg. Cohen, Ronen. 2010. The Rise and Fall of the Mojahedin Khalq, 1987–1997: Their Sur- vival after the Islamic Revolution and Resistance to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Sussex: Sussex Academic Press. Colebrook, Claire, and Ian Buchanan. 2000. Deleuze and Feminist Theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Copjec, Joan. 1989. “The Orthopsychic Subject: Film Theory and the Reception of Lacan.” October 49: 53– 71. Copjec, Joan. 2006a. “May ’68:The Emotional Month.” In Lacan: The Silent Partners, edited by Slavoj Z?iz?ek, 90– 114. London: Verso. Copjec, Joan. 2006b. “The Object Gaze, Hejab, Cinema.” Filozofski Vestnik: XXVII (2) 161– 83. Copjec, Joan. 2009. Umbr(a): Islam. Buffalo, NY: The Center for the Study of Psycho- analysis and Culture. Corliss, Richard. 1999. “The Kids Are Alright.” Time Magazine, March 15. Accessed November 15 2010. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,990450,00 .html. Critchley, Simon. 1999a. The Ethics of Deconstruction: Derrida and Levinas. 2nd ed. London: Verso. Critchley, Simon. 1999b. Ethics, Politics, Subjectivity: Essays on Derrida, Levinas and Con- temporary French Thought. London: Verso. Dabashi, Hamid. 1985. “The Poetics of Politics: Commitment in Modern Persian Lit- erature.” Iranian Studies 18(2): 147– 88. Dabashi, Hamid. 2001. Close Up: Iranian Cinema, Past, Present and Future. London: Verso. Dabashi, Hamid. 2006. Theology of Discontent: The Ideological Foundation of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. New York: New York University Press. Dabashi, Hamid. 2007. Masters & Masterpieces of Iranian Cinema. Washington, DC: Mage Publishers. Dabashi, Hamid. 2008a. Iran: A People Interrupted. New York: New Press. Dabashi, Hamid. 2008b. Islamic Liberation Theology: Resisting the . London: Routledge. Dabashi, Hamid. 2008c. Makhmalbaf at Large: The Making of a Rebel Filmmaker. Lon- don: I. B. Tauris. Dabashi, Hamid. 2009a. “The Discrete Charm of European .” International Journal of Žižek Studies 3(4): 1– 8. Dabashi, Hamid. 2009b. Post- : Knowledge and Power in Time of Terror. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Dabashi, Hamid. 2010. Iran, the Green Movement and the USA: The Fox and the Paradox. London: Zed Books. Dallmayr, Fred. 2010. The Promise of Democracy: Political Agency and Transformation. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. References  209

Daniel, Elton L., and Ali Akbar Mahdi. 2006. Culture and Customs of Iran. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Daragahi, Borouz. 2009. “Iran: Ahmadinejad Cuts Wages Raised before Election.” Los Angeles Times, July 26. Accessed November 27 2010. http://latimesblogs.latimes .com/babylonbeyond/2009/07/iran-with-vote-behind-ahmadinejad-cuts-wages -raised-before-election.html. Deleuze, Gilles. 1986. Cinema 1: The Movement-Image . Translated by Hugh Tomlinson and Robert Galeta. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Deleuze, Gilles. 1988. Spinoza: Practical Philosophy. Translated by Robert Hurley. San Francisco: City Lights Books. Deleuze, Gilles. 1989. Cinema 2: The Time-Image . Translated by Hugh Tomlinson and Robert Galeta. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Deleuze, Gilles. 1990. Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza. Translated by Martin Joughin. New York: Zone Books. Deleuze, Gilles. 1991. Empiricism and Subjectivity: An Essay on Hume’s Theory of Human Nature. Translated by Constantin V. Boundas. New York: Columbia University Press. Deleuze, Gilles. 1995. Negotiations, 1972– 1990. Translated by Martin Joughin. New York: Columbia University Press. Deleuze, Gilles. 2003. Desert Islands and Other Texts. Translated by Taormina Mike. Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext(e). Deleuze, Gilles. 2004. Difference and Repetition. Translated by Paul Patton. London: Continuum. Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. 1986. Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature. Translated by Dana Polan. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Deleuze, Gilles, and Felix Guattari. 1988. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizo- phrenia. Translated by Brian Massumi. Mineapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. 1994. What Is Philosophy? Translated by Hugh Tom- linson and Graham Burchell. New York: Columbia University Press. Derayeh, Minoo. 2010. “Depiction of Women in Iranian Cinema, 1970s to Present.” Women’s Studies International Forum 33(3): 151– 58. Derrida, Jacques. 2006. Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, The Work of Mourning & the New International. Translated by Peggy Kamuf. London: Routledge. Devictor, Agnes. 2002. “Classic Tools, Original Goals: Cinema and Public Policy in the Islamic Republic of Iran (1979– 1997).” In The New Iranian Cinema: Politics, Representation and Identity, edited by Richard Tapper, 66– 76. London: I. B. Tauris. Dewey, John. 1980. Art as Experience. New York: Perigee Book. Diken, Bülent, and Carsten Bagge Laustsen. 2005. “Becoming Abject: Rape as a Weapon of War.” Body & Society 11(1): 111– 28. Donmez- Colin, Gonul. 2006. Cinemas of the Other: A Personal Journey with Film- Makers from the Middle East and Central Asia. London: Intellect Books. Dosse, François. 2010. Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari: Intersecting Lives. New York: Columbia University Press. 210  References

Dreyfus, Hubert. 1993. “Heidegger on the Connection Between Nihilism, Art, Tech- nology, and Politics.” In The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger, edited by Charles Guignon, 289– 316. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dreyfus, Hubert. 2005. “Heidegger’s Ontology of Art.” In A Companion to Heidegger, edited by Hubert Dreyfus and Mark Wrathall, 407– 19. Oxford: Blackwell. Duncan, Dean. 2006. “Film Beyond Christianity.” In Encyclopedia of Religion, Commu- nication, and Media, edited by Daniel A. Stout, 148– 52. London: Routledge. Ebert, Roger. 1998. “Taste of Cherry.” Sun Times, February 27, 1998. Egan, Eric. 2005. The Films of Makhmalbaf: Cinema, Politics & Culture in Iran. Wash- ington, DC: Mage Publishers. Ehsani, Kaveh, Arang Keshavarzian, and Norma Claire Moruzzi. 2009. Tehran, June 2009. Middle East Report Online. Accessed 03/15/2010. http://merip.org/mero/mero 062809.html. Eidelzstein, Alfredo. 2009. The Graph of Desire: Using the Work of Jacque Lacan. London: Karnac Books. Elena, Alberto. 2005. The Cinema of Abbas Kiarostami. London: Saqi Books. Erfani, Farhang. 2002. “The Uncanny Proximity: From Democracy to Terror.” Florida Philosophical Review II(2): 5– 22. Erfani, Farhang. 2007. “Committed Perception: Merleau-Ponty, Carroll, and Iranian Cinema.” Philosophy Today 51(3): 320– 29. Erfani, Farhang. 2008. “Fixing Marx with Machiavelli: Claude Lefort’s Democratic Turn.” Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology 39(2): 200– 214. Erfani, Farhang. 2010. “Regarding You: Lacanian Gaze and Ethics in Kiarostami’s Close- Up.” Reconstruction 10(4). Erfani, Farhang. 2011. The Aesthetics of Autonomy: Ricœur and Sartre on Emancipation, Authenticity, and Selfhood. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Erickson, Steve. 1999. “On Taste of Cherry.” Film Quarterly 52(3): 52– 54. Esfandiari, Golnaz. 2010. “In Unusual Move, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Slam Ahma- dinejad Over Comments.” Payvand News, November 3, 2010. Accessed November 10 2010. http://www.payvand.com/news/10/nov/1027.html. Fairbanks, Stephen C. 1998. “Theocracy Versus Democracy: Iran Considers Political Parties.” The Middle East Journal 52(1): 17– 31. Farahmand, Azadeh. 2002. “Perspectives on Recent (International Acclaim for) Iranian Cinema.” In The New Iranian Cinema: Politics, Representation and Identity, edited by Richard Tapper, 86– 108. London: I. B. Tauris. Fink, Bruce. 1995. The Lacanian Subject: Between Language and Jouissance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Fink, Bruce. 1999. A Clinical Introduction to Lacanian Psychoanalysis: Theory and Tech- nique. Cambridge, MA: Press. Fink, Bruce. 2004. Lacan to the Letter: Reading Écrits Closely. Minneapolis, MN: Univer- sity of Minnesota Press. Fink, Bruce. 2007. Fundamentals of Psychoanalytic Technique: A Lacanian Approach for Practitioners. New York: W. W. Norton. References  211

Fischer, Michael M. J. 2004. Mute Dreams, Blind Owls, and Dispersed Knowledges: Per- sian Poesis in the Transnational Circuitry. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Flaxman, Gregory. 2000. The Brain Is the Screen: Deleuze and the Philosophy of Cinema. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Fleet, Maria. 2003. “Iraqi Opposition Frustrated at Lack of Involvement in War.” CNN. Accessed March 25. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/25/sprj.irq.iraq .opposition/index.html. Foti, Veronique Marion. 2006. Epochal Discordance: Hèolderlin’s Philosophy of Tragedy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Foucault, Michel. 1995. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. 2nd ed. New York: Vintage Books. Frank, Thomas. 2005. What’s the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America. New York: Macmillan. Freeland, Cynthia A. 1995. “A Realist Horror.” In Philosophy and Film, edited by Cyn- thia A. Freeland and Thomas E. Wartenberg, 126– 42. London: Routledge. Freud, Sigmund. 2004. Totem and Taboo. Translated by James Strachey. London: Routledge. Frodon, Jean- Michel. 2001. “The Universal Iranian.” SAIS Review 21(2): 217– 24. Fukuyama, Francis. 1992. The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Free Press. Ghazian, Hossein. 2002. “The Crisis in the Iranian Film Industry and the Role of Gov- ernment.” In The New Iranian Cinema: Politics, Representation and Identity, edited by Richard Tapper, 77– 85. London: I. B. Tauris. Ghobadi, Bahman. 2009. “To Abbas Kiarostami: How Can I Sleep Well? (in Persian).” Peyke Iran, November 7. Accessed November 7 2009. http://www.peykeiran.com/Content .aspx?ID=9060. Gilmore, Jonathan. 2005. “Between Philosophy and Art.” In The Cambridge Compan- ion to Merleau- Ponty, edited by Taylor Carman, 291–18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gorton, Kristyn. 2008. Theorising Desire: From Freud to Feminism to Film. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Gow, Christopher. 2011. From Iran to Hollywood and Some Places In- Between: Reframing Post- Revolutionary Iranian Cinema. London: I. B. Tauris. Gramsci, Antonio. 2000. The Antonio Gramsci Reader: Selected Writings 1916– 1935. Edited by David Forgacs and Eric J. Hobsbawm. New York: New York University Press. Grigg, Russell. 2008. Lacan, Language, and Philosophy. Illustrated ed. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Grosz, Elizabeth. 2008. Chaos, Territory, Art: Deleuze and the Framing of the Earth. New York: Columbia University Press. Haar, Michel. 1989. “Heidegger and the God of Holderlin.” Research in Phenomenology 19(1): 89– 100. Haghighi, Ali Reza. 2002. “Politics and Cinema in Post-Revolutionary Iran: An Uneasy Relationship.” In The New Iranian Cinema: Politics, Representation and Identity, edited by Richard Tapper, 109– 15. London: I. B. Tauris. 212  References

Hamid, Rahul. 2005. “The Cinema of a Stateless Nation: An Interview with .” Cineaste 30: 42– 45. Harari, Roberto. 2002. How James Joyce Made His Name: A Reading of the Final Lacan. New York: Other Press. Hardt, Michael. 1993. Gilles Deleuze: An Apprenticeship in Philosophy. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Harries, Karsten. 1997. The Ethical Function of Architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hashemi, Nader. 2010. “Religious Disputation and Democratic Constitutionalism: The Enduring Legacy of the Constitutional Revolution On the Struggle for Democracy in Iran.” Constellations 17(1): 50– 60. Haute, Philippe van. 2002. Against Adaptation: Lacan’s “Subversion of the Subject.” New York: Other Press. Heidegger, Martin. 1949. Existence and Being. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company. Heidegger, Martin. 1960. Gelassenheit. Pfullingen: Neske. Heidegger, Martin. 1971. Poetry, Language, Thought. Translated by Albert Hofstadter. New York: Harper & Row. Heidegger, Martin. 1977. “Age of World Picture.” In The Question Concerning Technol- ogy and Other Essays, 115– 54. Translated by William Lovitt. New York: Harper & Row. Heidegger, Martin. 1991. The Principle of Reason. Translated by Reginald Lilly. Bloom- ington, IN: Indiana University Press. Heidegger, Martin. 1996a. Being and Time. Translated by Joan Stambaugh. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Heidegger, Martin. 1996b. Hölderlin’s Hymn “The Ister.” Translated by William McNeill and Julia Davis. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Heidegger, Martin. 2000. Elucidations of Hölderlin’s Poetry. Translated by Keith Hoeller. Amherst, NY: Humanity Books. Hiltunen, Ari. 2002. Aristotle in Hollywood: The Anatomy of Successful Storytelling. Lon- don: Intellect Books. Hoffman, Piotr. 1993. “Death, Time, History: Division II of Being and Time.” In The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger, edited by Charles Guignon, 195–214. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press. Hölderlin, Friedrich. 1990. Hyperion and Selected Poems. Translated by Eric L. Santner. London: Continuum. Howells, Christina. 1992. “Conclusion: Sartre and the Deconstruction of the Subject.” In The Cambridge Companion to Sartre, edited by Christina Howells, 318–52. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press. Hurst, Andrea. 2008. Derrida vis- à- vis Lacan: Interweaving Deconstruction and Psycho- analysis. New York: Fordham University Press. Huson, Timothy. 2006. “Truth and Contradiction: Reading Hegel with Lacan.” In Lacan: The Silent Partners, edited by Slavoj Z?iz?ek, 56– 78. London: Verso. References  213

Hyldgaard, Kristen. 2003. “The Cause of the Subject as an Ill-timed Accident.” In Jacques Lacan: Critical Evaluations in Cultural Theory. Volume I, edited by Slavoj Žižek, 228– 42. London: Routledge. Issa, Rose, and Sheila Whitaker. 1999. Life and Art: The New Iranian Cinema. London: National Film Theatre. Jafari, Peyman. 2009. “Iran’s New Rebellion.” Socialist Review, July/August (338). Accessed November 27, 2010. http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber =10894. Jagodzinski, Jan. 2004. Youth Fantasies: The Perverse Landscape of the Media. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Jahanbegloo, Ramin. 2010. “The Two Sovereignties and the Legitimacy Crisis in Iran.” Constellations 17(1): 22– 30. Johns, A. H. 1999. “Narrative, Intertext and Allusion in the Qur’anic Presentation of Job.” Journal of Qur’anic Studies 1(1): 1– 25. Johnston, Adrian. 2007. “Lacanian Theory Has Legs: Structures Marching in the Streets.” South Atlantic Review 72(2): 99– 105. Kant, Immanuel. 2000. Critique of the Power of Judgment. Translated by Paul Guyer and Eric Matthews. Edited by Paul Guyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kesel, Marc de. 2009. Eros and Ethics: Reading Jacques Lacan’s Seminar VII. Translated by Sigi Jottkandt. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Keyhan- Mansh, Jalal. 2010. “Khamenei’s Critics.” Rooz, September 23. Khosronejad, Pedram. 2011. War in Iranian Cinema: Religion, Martyrdom and National Identity. London: I. B. Tauris. Kiarostami, Abbas. 2001. Walking with the Wind. Translated by Ahmad Karimi-Hakkak and Michael Beard. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Film Archive. Kiarostami, Abbas. 2006. “A Taste of My Cinema: A Conversation with Abbas Kiar- ostami.” In My Sister, Guard Your Veil; My Brother, Guard Your Eyes: Uncensored Ira- nian Voices, edited by Lila Azam Zanganeh, 81– 95. Boston: Beacon Press. Kiarostami, Abbas. 2008. Abbas Kiarostami: textes, entretiens, filmographie complète. Edited by Laurent Roth, Charles Tesson, and Jean-Michel Frodon. Paris: Cahiers du cinéma. Kiarostami, Abbas. 2010. Response to Bahman Ghobadi (in Persian). Pars News. Accessed November 27 2010. http://www.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8809020797. Kiarostami, Abbas, and Phillip Lopate. 1998. “Can Movies Think? Interview with Abbas Kiarostami.” In Totally, Tenderly, Tragically: Essays and Criticism from a Lifelong Love Affair with the Movies, edited by Phillip Lopate, 352– 67. New York: Anchor Books. Kierkegaard, Soren. 1983. Fear & Trembling & Repetition. Translated by Edna H. Hong and Howard V. Hong. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Kockelmans, Joseph J. 1985. Heidegger on Art and Art Works. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Koohi- Kamali, Farideh. 2004. The Political Development of the Kurds in Iran: Pastoral Nationalism. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Kristeva, Julia. 1982. Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection. New York: Columbia Uni- versity Press. 214  References

Kristeva, Julia. 1992. Black Sun: Depression and Melancholia. New York: Columbia Uni- versity Press. Lacan, Jacques. 1966. Écrits. Paris: Seuil. Lacan, Jacques. 1978. Seminar XI: The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycho-Analysis . Translated by Alan Sheridan. New York: W. W. Norton. Lacan, Jacques. 1988a. Seminar I: Freud’s Papers on Technique, 1953–1954 . Translated by John Forrester. New York: W. W. Norton. Lacan, Jacques. 1988b. Seminar VII: The Ethics of Psychoanalysis. Translated by Dennis Porter. New York: W. W. Norton. Lacan, Jacques. 1990. Television. Translated by Jeffrey Mehlman. Edited by Joan Copjec. New York: W. W. Norton. Lacan, Jacques. 1993. Seminar III: The Psychoses. Translated by Russell Grigg. London: Routledge. Lacan, Jacques. 1999. Seminar XX: Encore: On Feminine Sexuality: The Limits of Love and Knowledge. Translated by Bruce Fink. New York: W. W. Norton. Lacan, Jacques. 2001. Autres écrits. Paris: Seuil. Lacan, Jacques. 2005. Le séminaire de Jacques Lacan: XXIII: “Le sinthome.” Paris: Seuil. Lacan, Jacques. 2006a. Écrits. Translated by Bruce Fink. New York: W. W. Norton. Lacan, Jacques. 2006b. Seminar XVII: The Other Side of Psychoanalysis. Translated by Grigg Russell. New York: W. W. Norton. Laclau, Ernesto. 2005. On Populist Reason. London: Verso. Laclau, Ernesto. 2007. Emancipation(s). London: Verso. Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe. 1985. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso. Lacoste, Guillermine de. 2002. “A Lacanian Elucidation of Sartre.” Sartre Studies Inter- national 8(1): 18– 44. Lacoste, Guillermine de. 2004. “Sartre’s ‘New Gaze’ in Saint Genet: A Lacanian Read- ing.” Sartre Studies International 10(1): 44– 60. Lacoste, Guillermine de. 2007. “Sartre’s Philosophical Itinerary: A Psychoanalytic/Femi- nist Interpretation.” Philosophy Today 51(2): 186– 97. Lambert, Gregg. 2002. The Non- Philosophy of Gilles Deleuze. London: Continuum. Lander, Romulo. 2006. Subjective Experience and the Logic of the Other. Translated by Judith Filc. New York: Other Press. Langford, Michelle. 2007. “Allegory and the Aesthetics of Becoming- Woman in Marzi- yeh Meshkini’s The Day I Became a Woman.” Camera Obscura 22(64): 1– 41. Lebeau, Vicky. 2008. Childhood and Cinema. London: Reaktion Books. Lefort, Claude. 1974. “Maurice Merleau-Ponty.” In Histoire de la philosophie III. Vol. 2, edited by Yvon Belaval, 692– 706. Paris: Gallimard. Lefort, Claude. 1988. “The Question of Democracy.” In Democracy and Political Theory, 9– 20. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Lenin, Vladimir Ilich. 2008. Revolution, Democracy, Socialism: Selected Writings. London: Pluto. Levinas, Emmanuel. 1981. Otherwise Than Being or Beyond Essence. Translated by Alphonso Lingis. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press. References  215

Lewis, William S. 2005. “Art or Propaganda? Dewey and Adorno on the Relationship between Politics and Art.” Journal of Speculative Philosophy 19(1): 42– 54. Lippard, Chris. 2009. “Disappearing into the Distance and Getting Closer All the Time: Vision, Position, and Thought in Kiarostami’s The Wind Will Carry Us.” Journal of Film and Video 61(4): 31– 40. Lorraine, Tasmin. 2003. “Living a Time Out of Joint.” In Between Deleuze and Derrida, edited by Paul Patton and John Protevi, 30– 45. London: Continuum. Lyotard, Jean François. 1984. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Min- neapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Mahdi, Ali Akbar. 1998. “In Dialogue with Kiarostami.” The Iranian, August 25. Accessed 03/15/2010. http://www.iranian.com/Arts/Aug98/Kiarostami. Majd, Hooman. 2010. The Ayatollahs’ Democracy: An Iranian Challenge. New York: W. W. Norton. Mansfield, Nick. 2000. Subjectivity: Theories of the Self from Freud to Haraway. New York: New York University Press. Marks, John. 1998. Gilles Deleuze: Vitalism and Multiplicity. London: Pluto Press. Marks, Laura U. 2000. The Skin of the Film: Intercultural Cinema, Embodiment, and the Senses. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Marks, Laura U. 2002. Touch: Sensuous Theory and Multisensory Media. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Marrati, Paola. 2008. Gilles Deleuze: Cinema and Philosophy. Translated by Alisa Hartz. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Martin-Jones, David. 2006. Deleuze, Cinema and National Identity: Narrative Time in National Contexts. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Martin-Jones, David. 2009. “Demystifying Deleuze: French Philosophy Meets Contem- porary US Cinema.” In Film Theory and Contemporary Hollywood Movies, edited by Warren Buckland, 214– 33. London: Routledge. Martinot, Steve. 2005. “The Sartrean Account of The Look as a Theory of Dialogue.” Sartre Studies International 11(2): 43– 61. Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 1978. The Marx- Engels Reader. Edited by Robert Tucker. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton. Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 2008. The Communist Manifesto. London: Pluto Press. McGowan, Todd. 2003a. The End of Dissatisfaction: Jacques Lacan and the Emerging Society of Enjoyment. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. McGowan, Todd. 2003b. “Looking for the Gaze: Lacanian Film Theory and Its Vicis- situdes.” Cinema Journal 42(3): 27– 47. McGowan, Todd. 2007. The Real Gaze: Film Theory after Lacan. Albany, NY: State Uni- versity of New York Press. McNeill, William. 2006. The Time of Life: Heidegger and Ethos. Albany, NY: State Uni- versity of New York Press. MedyaNews. 2010. “The Main Iranian Kurdish party Speaks to the ‘Green Movement,’” January 21. Accessed November 21 2010. http://medyanews.com/english/?p=389. 216  References

Mehrabi, Massoud. 2004. “Mr. Bush’s Coffee House: An Interview with Bahman Gho- badi, Director of Turtles Can Fly.” In Massoud Mehrabi: Blog. Accessed November 10 2010. http://www.massoudmehrabi.com/articles.asp?id=1103372842. Merleau- Ponty, Maurice. 1992a. Sense and Nonsense. Translated by Dreyfus Patricia Allen. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Merleau- Ponty, Maurice. 1992b. The Visible and the Invisible: Followed by Working Notes. Translated by Alphonso Lingis. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Merleau- Ponty, Maurice. 2002. Phenomenology of Perception. Translated by Colin Smith. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. Meshkini, Marzieh. 2000. “Production Notes.” Fox 11 Online. Accessed November 15 2010. http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/entertainment/movies/dvd_releases/The-Day -I-Became-A-Woman_91349397. Metz, Christian. 1982. Psychoanalysis and the Cinema: Imaginary Signifier. London: Pal- grave Macmillan. Mir- Ehsan, Mir- Ahmad. 1999. “Dark Light.” In Life and Art: The New Iranian Cinema, edited by Rose Issa and Sheila Whitaker, 105– 14. London: BFI. Mirsepassi, Ali. 2010. Democracy in Modern Iran: Islam, Culture, and Political Change. New York: New York University Press. Moallem, Minoo. 2005. Between Warrior Brother and Veiled Sister: Islamic Fundamental- ism and the Politics of Patriarchy in Iran. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Moncayo, Raul. 2008. Evolving Lacanian Perspectives for Clinical Psychoanalysis: On Nar- cissism, Sexuation, and the Phases/Faces of Analysis in Contemporary Culture. London: Karnac Books. Monshipouri, Mahmood, and Ali Assareh. 2009. “The Islamic Republic and the ‘Green Movement’: Coming Full Circle.” Middle East Policy 16(4): 27– 46. Mottahedeh, Negar. 2004a. “‘Life Is Color!’ Toward a Transnational Feminist Analysis of ’s Gabbeh.” Signs 30(1): 1403– 24. Mottahedeh, Negar. 2004b. “Where Are Kiarostami’s Women?” In Subtitles: On the For- eignness of Film, edited by Atom Egoyan and Ian Balfour, 309–34. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Mottahedeh, Negar. 2006. “New Iranian Cinema.” In Traditions in World Cinema, edited by Linda Badley, R. Barton Palmer, and Steven Jay Schneider, 175–83. Edin- burgh: Edinburgh University Press. Mottahedeh, Negar. 2008. Displaced Allegories: Post- Revolutionary Iranian Cinema. Dur- ham, NC: Duke University Press. Moulard- Leonard, Valentine. 2008. Bergson-Deleuze Encounters: Transcendental Experi- ence and the Thought of the Virtual. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Mulhall, Stephen. 2002. On Film. London: Routledge. Mullarkey, John. 2009. Refractions of Reality: Philosophy and the Moving Image. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Mulvey, Laura. 1989. Visual and Other Pleasures. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Mulvey, Laura. 2002. “Afterword.” In The New Iranian Cinema: Politics, Representation and Identity, edited by Richard Tapper, 271– 78. London: I. B. Tauris. References  217

Mulvey, Laura. 2006. Death 24x a Second: Stillness and the Moving Image. London: Reak- tion Books. Naficy, Hamid. 1995. “Iranian Cinema under the Islamic Republic.” American Anthro- pologist 97(3): 548– 58. Naficy, Hamid. 2001. An Accented Cinema: Exilic and Diasporic Filmmaking. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Naficy, Hamid. 2002a. “Cinematic Exchange Relations: Iran and the West.” In Iran and the Surrounding World: Interactions in Culture and Cultural Politics, edited by Nikki R. Keddie and Rudolph P. Matthee, 254–80. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. Naficy, Hamid. 2002b. “Islamizing Film Culture in Iran: A Post-Khatami Update.” In The New Iranian Cinema: Politics, Representation and Identity, edited by Richard Tap- per, 26– 65. London: I. B. Tauris. Naficy, Hamid. 2005. “Close- Up: Questioning Reality, Realism, and Neorealism.” In Film Analysis, edited by Jeffrey Geiger and R. L. Rutsky, 794–812. New York: W. W. Norton. Nakjavani, Erik. 2006. “Between the Dark Earth and the Sheltering Sky: The Arboreal in Kiarostami’s Photography.” Iranian Studies 39(1): 29– 46. Nancy, Jean- Luc. 1991. The Inoperative Community. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Nancy, Jean- Luc. 2001. Kiarostami Abbas: The Evidence of Film. Bruxelles: Yves Gevaert. Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. 2002. The Heart of Islam: Enduring Values for Humanity. San Francisco: Harper. Nehamas, Alexander. 1988. “Plato and the Mass Media in Aesthetics and the Histories of the Arts.” The Monist 71(2): 214– 34. Neroni, Hilary. 2004. “Jane Campion’s Jouissance: Holy Smoke and Feminist Film Theory.” In Lacan and Contemporary Film, edited by Todd McGowan, 209–32. New York: Other Press. Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. 2006. Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None. Translated by Adrian Del Caro. Cambridge: Cambrige University Press. Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. 2007. On the Genealogy of Morality. Translated by Carol Diethe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O’Shaughnessy, Martin. 2004. “Suffering in Silence: Bodily Politics in Post- 1995 French Film.” French 15(3): 219– 33. Olivier, Bert. 2009. Philosophy and Psychoanalytic Theory: Collected Essays. Bern: Peter Lang. Orgeron, Devin. 2007. Road Movies: From Muybridge and Melies to Lynch and Kiar- ostami. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Orwell, George. 1990. 1984. New York: Signet. Over, William. 2006. “Worlds Transformed: Iranian Cinema and Social Vision.” Con- temporary Justice Review 9(1): 67– 80. Pak- Shiraz, Nacim. 2007. “Filmic on the Role of the Clergy in Iran.” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 34(3): 331– 49. Papadopoulos, Dimitris, and Vassilis Tsianos. 2008. “The Autonomy of Migration: The Animals of Undocumented Mobility.” In Deleuzian Encounters: Studies in 218  References

Contemporary Social Issues, edited by Anna Hickey-Moody and Peta Malins, 223–35. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Parker, Ian. 2004. Slavoj Žižek: A Critical Introduction. London: Pluto Press. Perez, Gilberto. 1998. The Material Ghost: Films and Their Medium. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Pisters, Particia. 2003. The Matrix of Visual Culture: Working with Deleuze in Film The- ory. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Plato. 1991. The Republic of Plato. Translated by Allan David Bloom. 2nd ed. New York: Basic Books. Plato. 1997. Complete Works. Edited by John M. Cooper and D. S. Hutchinson. India- napolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company. Pluth, Ed. 2007. Signifiers and Acts: Freedom in Lacan’s Theory of the Subject. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. PressTV. 2010. “Ahmadinejad hails Cyrus Cylinder.” PressTV, September 12, 2010. Accessed September 20 2010. http://www.presstv.com/detail/142251.html. Rabaté, Jean- Michel. 2001. Jacques Lacan: Psychoanalysis and the Subject of Literature. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Rabinovich, Diana. 2003. “What Is a Lacanian Clinic?” In The Cambridge Companion to Lacan, edited by Jean- Michel Rabaté, 208– 20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ragland- Sullivan, Ellie. 1986. Jacques Lacan and the Philosophy of Psychoanalysis. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Ragland, Ellie. 2008. “The Masquerade, the Veil, and the Phallic Mask.” Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society 13: 8– 23. Rezai-Rashti, Goli M. 2007. “Transcending the Limitations: Women and the Post- Revolutionary Iranian Cinema.” Critique: Critical Middle Eastern Studies 16(2): 191– 206. Ricœur, Paul. 1969. “Symbol Gives Rise to Thought.” In The Symbolism of Evil, 346– 56. Translated by Emerson Buchanan. Boston: Beacon Press. Ricœur, Paul. 1986. Lectures on Ideology and Utopia. New York: Columbia University Press. Robin, Michael. 1982. “Abuse of Status Offenders in Private Hospitals.” In Institutional Abuse of Children & Youth, edited by Ranae Hanson, 79–88. New York: Haworth Press. Rodowick, D. N. 1997. Gilles Deleuze’s Time Machine. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Rosenbaum, Jonathan. 2004. Essential Cinema: On the Necessity of Film Canons. Balti- more, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Roudinesco, Elisabeth. 1997. Jacques Lacan. New York: Columbia University Press. Sadr, Hamid Reza. 2006. Iranian Cinema: A Political History. London: I. B. Tauris. Sadri, Houman A. 2009. “The Straw That Broke the Camel’s Back: Iranian Election of June 2009.” Journal of Iranian Research and Analysis 26(2): 97– 107. References  219

Saeed-Vafa, Mehrnaz. 2002. “Location (Physical Space) and Cultural Identity in Iranian Films.” In The New Iranian Cinema: Politics, Representation and Identity, edited by Richard Tapper, 200- 214. London: I. B. Tauris. Saeed-Vafa, Mehrnaz, and Jonathan Rosenbaum. 2003. Abbas Kiarostami. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Salecl, Renata. 1994. The Spoils of Freedom: Psychoanalysis and Feminism after the Fall of Socialism. London: Routledge. Salecl, Renata. 2004. On Anxiety. London: Routledge. Sartre, Jean- Paul. 1956. Being and Nothingness; an Essay on Phenomenological Ontology. Translated by Hazel E. Barnes. New York: Philosophical Library. Sartre, Jean- Paul. 1964. The Words. Translated by Bernard Frechtman. New York: G. Braziller. Sartre, Jean- Paul. 1988. “Black Orpheus.” In What Is Literature? and Other Essays. Trans- lated by John MacCombie, 291– 330. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press. Satrapi, Marjane. 2006. “How Can One Be Persian?” In My Sister, Guard Your Veil; My Brother, Guard Your Eyes: Uncensored Iranian Voices, edited by Lila Azam Zanganeh, 20– 23. Boston: Beacon Press. Schmidt, Dennis J. 2001. On Germans and Other Greeks: Tragedy and Ethical Life. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Schmidt, Dennis J. 2005. Lyrical and Ethical Subjects: Essays on the Periphery of the Word, Freedom, and History. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Sharify- Funk, Meena. 2008. Encountering the Transnational: Women, Islam and the Poli- tics of Interpretation. Hampshire: Ashgate. Sheibani, Khatereh. 2006. “Kiarostami and the Aesthetics of Modern Persian Poetry.” Iranian Studies 39: 509– 37. Shohat, Ella. 1991. “Gender and Culture of Empire: Toward a Feminist Ethnography of the Cinema.” Quarterly Review of Film & Video 13(1– 3): 45– 84. Siavoshi, Sussan. 1997. “Cultural Policies and the Islamic Republic: Cinema and Book Publication.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 29(4): 509– 30. Sjöholm, Cecilia. 2004. The Antigone Complex: Ethics and the Invention of Feminine Desire. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Smith, Anna Marie. 1998. Laclau and Mouffe: The Radical Democratic Imaginary. Lon- don: Routledge. Sokal, Alan, and Jean Bricmont. 1999. Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science. New York: Picador. Solano- Suárez, Esthela. 2007. “Identification with the Symptom at the End of Analysis.” In The Later Lacan: An Introduction, edited by Véronique Voruz and Wolf Bogdan, 95– 104. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Spivak, Gayatri. 1988. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” In Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, edited by Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg, 271–313. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Spivak, Gayatri. 1990. The Post-Colonial Critic: Interviews, Strategies, Dialogues. London: Routledge. 220  References

Staff, Saham News. 2010. Sabzhayeh Gomnam. Saham News. Accessed November 15 2010. http://sahamnews.org/?p=11242. Starr, Peter. 1995. Logics of Failed Revolt: French Theory after May ’68. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Stavrakakis, Yannis. 1999. Lacan and the Political. London: Routledge. Stavrakakis, Yannis. 2007. The Lacanian Left: Psychoanalysis, Theory, Politics. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Sullivan, Zohreh T. 2008. “Iranian Cinema and the Critique of Absolutism.” In Media, Culture and Society in Iran: Living with Globalization and the Islamic State, edited by Mehdi Semati, 193– 203. London: Routledge. Tafazoli, Hamid. 2001. Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von. In Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. Accessed November 1 2010. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/goethe. Tahmasebi- Birgani, Victoria. 2010. “Green Women of Iran: The Role of the Women’s Movement during and after Iran’s Presidential Election of 2009.” Constellations 17(1): 78– 86. Tapper, Richard. 2002a. “Introduction.” In The New Iranian Cinema: Politics, Represen- tation and Identity, edited by Richard Tapper, 1– 25. London: I. B. Tauris. Tapper, Richard. 2002b. The New Iranian Cinema: Politics, Representation and Identity. London: I. B. Tauris. Tehran Times. 2010. Majidi to make film on childhood of Prophet Muhammad. Teh- ran Times, March 15. Accessed November 15 2010. http://www.tehrantimes.com/ index_View.asp?code=215143. Tocqueville, Alexis de. 2000. Of Democracy in America. Translated by Harvey Claflin Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Valla, Marie. 2005. “Death Is a Better World.” Newsweek, 21 January. Vedder, Ben. 2007. Heidegger’s Philosophy of Religion: From God to the Gods. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press. Verhaeghe, Paul. 1998. Does the Woman Exist?: From Freud’s Hysteric to Lacan’s Feminine. Revised ed. New York: Other Press. Verhaeghe, Paul. 2001. Beyond Gender: From Subject to Drive. New York: Other Press. Verhaeghe, Paul, and Frederic Declercq. 2002. “Lacan’s Analytic Goal: Le Sinthome or the Feminine Way.” In Re- Inventing the Symptom, edited by Luke Thurston, 59– 82. New York: Other Press. Vighi, Fabio. 2005. “Lacan for Cinema Today: The Uncanny Pouvoir de la Vérité.” Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society 10(3): 232– 51. Ward, Terence. 2003. Searching for Hassan: A Journey to the Heart of Iran. 1st Anchor Books ed. New York: Anchor Books. Wartenberg, Thomas E. 2006. “Beyond Mere Illustration: How Films Can Be Philoso- phy.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 64(1): 19– 32. Weinberger, Stephen. 2007. “Neorealism, Iranian Style.” Iranian Studies 40: 5– 16. Witkin, Robert W. 2003. Adorno on Popular Culture. London: Routledge. Wright, Elizabeth. 2000. Speaking Desires Can Be Dangerous: The Poetics of the Uncon- scious. London: Polity. References  221

Young, Iris Marion. 2005. On Female Body Experience: “Throwing Like a Girl” and Other Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Young, Julian. 2001. Heidegger’s Philosophy of Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zeydabadi-Nejad, Saeed. 2007. “Iranian Intellectuals and Contact with the West: The Case of Iranian Cinema.” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 34(3): 375– 98. Zeydabadi-Nejad, Saeed. 2009. The Politics of Iranian Cinema: Film and Society in the Islamic Republic. London: Routledge. Žižek, Slavoj. 1991. Looking Awry: An Introduction to Jacques Lacan through Popular Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Žižek, Slavoj. 1992. Enjoy Your Symptom!: Jacques Lacan in Hollywood and Out. London: Routledge. Žižek, Slavoj. 2001. Enjoy Your Symptom!: Jacques Lacan in Hollywood and Out. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. Žižek, Slavoj. 2006. Interrogating the Real. London: Continuum. Žižek, Slavoj. 2008. The Sublime Object of Ideology. 2nd ed. London: Verso. Žižek, Slavoj. 2009. “Berlusconi in Tehran.” London Review of Books 31(14): 3– 7. Zupančič, Alenka. 2000. Ethics of the Real: Kant and Lacan. London: Verso. Zupančič, Alenka. 2003. “Ethics and Tragedy in Lacan.” In The Cambridge Companion to Lacan, edited by Jean- Michel Rabate, 173– 90. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Index abandonment, 5, 16, 26, 33, 175 Aqa Soltan, Neda, 189– 92, 201. See also Abraham, 33 Green Movement Abrahamic (religions), 25 Arendt, Hannah, 201 absurd, 97, 103– 4, 125, 139, 141, 163, Aristotle, 6, 40, 69, 71, 197 166 artist, 12, 37, 40, 46– 47, 49– 50, 55, 58, activism, 64, 158, 180, 183, 190 62– 63, 72, 77, 93, 102, 104, 107, actor, 13– 14, 44– 45, 52– 53, 58– 59, 73, 115, 158, 176– 77, 192 77, 80– 82, 84– 85, 91, 152, 158, asymmetry, 6, 70– 71, 73, 76, 88, 97 160, 191, 194, 197 atemporal, 20, 30, 55, 65 Adam, 132, 199 atheism, 15, 32, 65– 67, 196 Adorno, T. W., 10, 41, 79 attunement, 70 aesthetic, 40– 41, 45, 47– 49, 54– 55, authoritarian, 62– 63, 181 58, 62, 64, 69, 72– 73, 77– 78, 84, autonomy, 10, 41, 114, 116, 170– 72, 87– 88 181 Afghans, 90, 107, 168, 170– 71, 202 avant- garde, 1, 176, 182 agency, 24, 41, 50, 52, 65, 79, 135, 139, 148, 157, 173, 175 Beauvoir, Simone de, 117, 120, 126 agonistic, 56 Bergson, Henri, 18– 22, 30– 31, 33– 34, Ahmadinejad, Mahmoud, 1, 186– 88, 63 190– 91 Bernasconi, Robert, 48, 52– 53 Alcoff, Linda, 157, 159, 168– 71, 176, body, 48, 71– 72, 74– 78, 81, 84, 96, 125, 179, 181, 192 152– 53, 160, 185 alienation, 41, 99, 117, 120, 123, 125, Bollywood, 80 146– 48, 152, 154, 163 bourgeoisie, 103, 114, 146, 184, 188 Allah, 30, 33, 188, 197 allegoric, 10, 44, 69, 135, 150– 52, 154, camera, 6– 8, 23, 28, 42– 46, 58, 64– 199 65, 83, 88, 92– 96, 135– 37, 140, alterity, 97, 153, 158, 180 151– 52 Althusser, Louis, 4, 95, 188, 194 Camus, Albert, 30 ambiguity, 22– 23, 29, 33, 64, 177– 78 Cannes Festival, 42, 87– 88, 114 anamorphic, 155 capitalism, 29, 61, 181, 200 antagonism, 152, 154, 187 Caputo, John D., 60– 61, 67, 193, 195– anthropology, 169, 193, 202 96, 202 anticolonialism, 168, 173, 176, 180. See Cardullo, Bert, 25, 34, 174– 76, 195, 197 also orientalism Carroll, Noël, 6– 7, 46– 47, 50, 58, 69– Antigone, 113, 139, 148, 200 77, 84– 86, 197 apolitical, 88, 180 prefocused, 72– 74 224  Index

Carroll, Noël (continued) Dabashi, Hamid, 2, 4, 11, 14, 22, 40, sociopaths, 72– 73, 76 42, 52, 99, 109, 115, 118, 135 symmetry, 70, 73– 74, 76– 77 on Green Movement, 184– 85, 188– cathedral, 15, 32, 63 90, 193, 195– 98 Catholicism, 31– 32, 152, 154 on Kiarostami, 61– 66 causality, 72– 73, 116, 192 on Lacan, 88– 89 censorship, 3– 4, 7, 11, 14, 62, 69– 70, on Majidi, 79– 80 73, 78– 84, 86– 87, 89– 90, 96, 109, on Meshkini, 150– 51, 154 127– 28, 150, 153, 176 on orientalism, 169– 71, 177, 180 certainty, 51, 59, 65, 88, 161, 192, 194 Dadaist, 125 Cézanne, Paul, 56, 77– 78 Day I Became a Woman, The, 8, 115– 54 chador, 119, 129, 136, 140. See also birthday, 117– 20, 128– 29 headscarf lollipop, 127– 29 Chaplin, Charlie, 16, 111 zan, 135– 36, 199 character, 6– 7, 21– 24, 69– 71, 73, 79, death of god, 30, 112 81– 85, 93, 96, 106– 7, 129– 30, Deleuze, Gilles, 3, 5, 13, 15– 25, 27– 37, 160, 191– 92 41, 63, 79, 157, 159, 170, 173, childhood, 8, 85, 118–19, 125, 129, 144, 176– 79, 194– 95, 198 164, 199 action- image, 20– 22, 24, 194 Children of Heaven, 7, 17, 69– 70, 78– 79, crystal- image, 34 82, 84– 85, 162, 176, 197 deterritorialization, 36 child actors, 7, 73, 82, 85, 197 duration, 18– 19, 21 surrogate, 73, 82, 85 immanence, 5, 16, 20, 24, 30– 31, 33, Christianity, 30, 32, 70 35– 36, 63, 178 citizen, 79, 81, 107, 186, 188, 204 minoritarian, 35–36, 195 classism, 181, 183 missing people, 35 clergy, 10, 28–29, 80–81, 116, 183, 186– movement- image, 5, 15– 17, 20, 24, 87, 193 28, 30, 34– 35, 37, 41, 79, 160 cliché, 17, 37, 48, 108, 187 seer, 5, 24, 28, 33– 34, 195 colonialism, 3, 101, 168– 69, 172– 73. See sensory- motor, 21– 22, 24– 25, 194 also orientalism sound- image, 22, 25 Color of Paradise, 5, 7, 13, 16– 17, 24, 28, time- image, 5, 15– 17, 20– 22, 24, 27, 33– 34, 78– 79, 85, 152, 197 30, 32– 41 consciousness, 17, 72– 73, 100, 103, 120, World War II, 5, 15, 21– 22, 32, 41 172, 198 democracy, 59, 109, 177– 79, 181, 188, contingency, 20, 31, 55, 178 190 contradictions, 29, 61, 109, 118, 168, Derrida, Jacques, 203 170, 176, 187 Descartes, René, 95 Copjec, Joan, 64, 88, 90, 132, 162, 198, destitution, 4, 9, 33, 39, 61, 66, 141, 200– 201 152, 165, 171, 202 cosmopolitan, 1, 61, 184– 85, 188, 193 determinism, 143, 151, 181, 183 counternarrative, 62, 150 disability, 29, 76, 83 crisis, 1, 4– 6, 24, 30, 39– 40, 51, 66, 107, disempowerment, 56, 106 134, 148, 153– 54, 181, 194– 95, disenchantment, 39– 41, 154 203 disenfranchised, 106, 163, 173, 190 Critchley, Simon, 134, 202 disinterestedness, 54 Index  225 displacement, 5, 10, 24, 41, 194 exotic, 1, 3, 41, 147. See also orientalism dispossessed, 32 disruption, 5, 45, 54, 63, 81, 89– 90, faith, 24, 28, 30, 32– 33, 48, 66, 74, 85, 100– 101, 103, 107, 109, 112, 134, 120, 132, 183, 194, 197 164, 201 fallibility, 117, 139, 143, 145 dissatisfaction, 90, 102, 131, 136, 198 fantasy, 8, 21, 91– 93, 98– 99, 101, 105– dissidence, 11, 89, 171, 174, 176, 179, 17, 130– 31, 138– 39, 144– 48, 154, 183– 85, 188, 191 185, 189 distanciation, 23, 164 feminism, 2, 8, 115– 16, 148, 154, 169, divinity, 16, 27– 28, 54, 65– 67, 132, 153 180, 195, 201 documentary, 23, 90, 108, 158 finitude, 56– 57, 59– 60, 63, 99, 103, dualism, 21, 37, 72– 74, 77, 179 105– 7, 112– 14, 120, 130, 138 dystopian, 174, 202 Fink, Bruce, 97– 98, 104– 5, 108, 120, 122, 126, 130, 132, 134, 138– 39, earthquake, 22– 24, 42, 182 145, 150, 175 Ebert, Roger, 48, 59 Finnegans Wake, 149 egalitarianism, 146, 179 Ford, John, 24, 37, 79 ego, 95, 97– 98, 112, 122– 23, 126, Foucault, Michel, 94– 95, 170, 173, 179, 130– 32 185, 196 Elena, Alberto, 2, 23, 42– 44, 46, 62, 66, fragility, 31, 54, 162– 63, 165 90, 116, 195 fragmentation, 172, 180, 183 elitism, 10– 11, 17, 21, 48– 49, 186 freedom, 3– 4, 14, 60, 64, 81, 87, 114, emancipation, 31, 173, 175, 178, 181, 129– 30, 148, 155, 171, 182, 188, 204 190 embodiment, 18, 21, 29, 43, 51, 53– 54, Freud, Sigmund, 43, 101, 112, 121, 124, 66, 70– 74, 89– 90, 117– 18, 131, 130, 133– 34, 144, 147, 199 169, 179, 183, 188, 201 dark continent, 147– 48 emotion, 6– 7, 16, 26– 27, 69– 74, 77, fruition, 161 84– 85, 160, 163– 64, 175, 197, 200 frustration, 99, 104– 5, 107– 8, 113, 122, emptiness, 109, 114, 178, 201 126, 129, 134, 142– 43 engagement, 56, 75, 203 Fukuyama, Francis, 177, 203 enjoyment, 55, 58, 101, 117, 119, 134– 37, 148– 49. See also Lacan, Jacques Gadamer, Hans G., 197 equality, 14, 188 gap, 4, 24, 89, 99, 128, 135, 152, 154, eroticism, 76– 77, 81, 116, 127– 29 163, 188 escapism, 48, 80, 91, 106, 146, 154 gaze and ideology, 109– 10 essentialism, 14, 36, 40, 47, 50– 51, 55, gender, 8, 82– 83, 96, 116– 20, 126, 128– 76, 98, 109, 119, 124, 132, 181– 29, 138– 43, 173, 175 82, 196, 199, 203 gender and ideology, 126, 150 ethics, 87, 89, 92, 109, 112– 14, 120, genocide, 159 139, 148, 151, 193 genre, 10, 64, 70– 71, 78, 87, 193 ethos, 31, 52, 90, 178 geopolitics, 1, 184, 190 Eve, 132, 139 Ghobadi, Bahman, 9– 13, 62– 63, 87– 88, exile, 62, 80, 132, 137, 147, 168, 184 106, 109, 114, 157– 79, 182, 191– existentialism, 2, 7, 30, 75, 113, 120, 92, 202 198 Kurdish identity, 159 226  Index

Gramsci, Antonio, 172– 73, 179– 81 identification, 6– 7, 9, 22, 70– 71, 85, 91, Green Movement, 4– 5, 11– 12, 14, 28, 111, 135, 138, 148, 152– 55, 189, 201 67, 81, 126, 155, 158, 179, 181, ideology, 79, 81, 170, 172 183– 97, 201 Iranian regime and ideology, 4, 17, 37, protestors, 188, 190, 204 176– 77, 188, 193– 94, 204 Twitter, 187, 197 illusion, 31– 32, 34, 95– 96, 99, 114, 124, guilt, 57– 58, 71, 84 133, 145, 170, 180– 81, 191 immediacy, 180 Hafez, 40, 196 imperialism, 169, 173. See also Hamlet, 113 orientalism headscarf, 127, 140. See also chador impressionism, 22 Hegel, G. W. F., 29, 48, 54, 121, 194 incest, 132– 33, 162– 63 hegemony, 9– 12, 179– 84, 187, 189– 90, incommensurability, 122, 143, 168, 183 203 Heidegger, Martin, 3, 6, 15, 17, 36– 37, individualism, 81, 170, 194 39– 44, 46– 67, 73, 88, 99, 109, infancy, 75– 76, 84, 95, 98, 101, 120– 21, 152, 176– 78, 193, 195– 97 125, 130, 133, 144, 200 belongingness, 52, 55 integration, 101, 189 busyness, 55, 58 ghettoization, 168– 69, 182 Dasein, 50– 51, 56– 60 intelligibility, 54– 55 equipmentality, 50– 51 interconnectedness, 11, 18, 51 everydayness, 39, 57– 58, 62, 66 interpellation, 95, 103, 135 facticity, 57, 60– 61 intersinthomal, 201 Gelassenheit, 67 intersubjectivity, 95 quietism, 62, 65 intertextual, 90, 117, 198 resoluteness, 58 intolerable, 27, 31, 157, 165 technicity, 41, 63 Iranian regime (government), 4, 10– 12, thematization, 52, 59– 60, 63 14, 28, 33, 59, 61– 62, 80– 82, 87, thrownness, 40, 57, 73 89, 91, 109– 16, 120, 153, 175– 94, unconcealed, 52, 59, 62 203 unthematizable, 54, 63 absolutism, 10– 11, 65, 151 van Gogh, Vincent Willem, 51– 52, 59 fundamentalism, 1, 5, 80, 116, 147, worldless, 49, 51 154, 184, 191 hermeneutics, 6, 49, 73, 197 reformists, 28, 37, 185– 87 heterogeneity, 18– 19, 173 totalitarianism, 6, 10, 56, 64– 65, 109, historicity, 178, 185 Holbein, Hans, 99, 103 114, 176, 178, 183, 192, 201 Hölderlin, Friedrich, 39, 56, 63, 66, 88, Iranian Revolution, 15, 40– 41, 178, 182 196 and Iranian culture, 4, 61, 133, 196 Hollywood, 21, 35, 37, 79– 80, 84, 93, theocracy, 3– 4, 19, 28– 33, 87, 154– 104, 107, 160, 194 55, 175– 78, 181– 83, 189– 90, Homer, 40, 60 194 humanism, 10, 28, 36, 59, 90, 197 Iran’s 2009 presidential election, 1, 4, Hussein, Saddam, 4, 9, 164, 167, 171– 11– 12, 28, 40, 183– 91 72, 184 Iraq, Second Gulf War, 1, 4, 9, 159, 164, hybrid, 17, 36 169– 73 Index  227

Islam, 4, 14– 15, 28– 30, 32, 36– 37, jouissance, 8– 9, 91, 115– 17, 119, 61– 64, 79– 81, 152– 53, 159, 175, 121– 27, 129, 131, 133– 55, 197, 187– 88, 191, 200– 204 200– 201 Islamicization, 80, 89, 177, 187, 191 lack in the other, 131, 138, 144– 47, 185 law of the father, 105, 112, 114, 131– 36 Joyce, James, 9, 149– 52, 154– 55, 201 mirror stage, 95, 97, 120, 163 Judeo- Christian, 4, 29, 65, 132, 199 objet petit a, 101, 144– 45, 153, 201 point de capiton, 126, 149, 185, 187 Kafka, Franz, 36 psychosis, 123, 149, 152, 200 Kanoon, 7 scansion, 108, 110 Kant, Immanuel, 53– 54, 112 sexuation, 143– 44, 147 Karroubi, Mehdi, 185– 87 sinthome, 148– 50, 152, 155, Khatami, Mohammad, 186 200– 201 Khayyám, Omar, 46 traversing the fantasy, 114, 117, 139, 145 Khomeini, Ruhollah, 1, 4, 14, 29, 61, unsymbolizable, 99, 103, 113, 131, 151 80– 81, 89, 114, 153, 177, 182, vase, 109, 114 185, 187, 194, 197, 204 Laclau, Ernesto, 9, 11, 158, 172, 179– Kiarostami, Abbas, 2– 3, 5– 10, 16– 17, 85, 188, 203 21– 24, 37, 39– 69, 79, 87– 115, Lefort, Claude, 95, 178, 203– 4 152, 158– 59, 167, 169, 175– 76, Lenin, V. I., 178– 81, 203 Levinas, Emmanuel, 202 179, 192, 194– 96, 198 linearity, 25, 33, 108, 117, 160 amateur style, 45, 47, 64 literature, 35– 37, 46, 64, 66, 88, 170, 179 Bread and Alley, 66 Lizard, The, 10, 81 Kierkegaard, Søren, 48, 95– 97, 112 Lyotard, Jean- François, 177 Kieślowski, Krzysztof, 13 Kill Bill, 42 Majidi, Majid, 5, 7, 9, 13, 16– 17, 22– 37, Kish, island of, 118, 148 70, 73, 77– 79, 82, 85– 86, 152, Klee, Paul, 56 157, 162, 176– 77, 192– 95, 197 Koker trilogy, 22, 42 conformism, 5, 17, 28– 29, 85, 152, Kristeva, Julia, 9, 157, 163– 65, 173 177, 194 abject, 9, 152, 157, 160, 162– 65, 173 Makhmalbaf, Mohsen, 2, 8, 17, 79, Kuhn, Thomas, 66, 196 90– 94, 106, 110– 16, 145, 158– 59, Kurdistan, 9, 13, 43, 62, 87, 157– 87, 170– 71, 175, 179, 192 190, 192, 202– 3 Cyclist, The, 90– 91, 170– 71, 192, 202 marginalization, 8– 9, 12– 13, 118, 147, Lacan, Jacques, 3, 7– 9, 11, 37, 54, 63, 152, 154– 55, 157– 58, 162, 168, 87– 91, 94– 140, 142– 55, 163– 64, 175, 178– 79, 189– 90, 192, 201 168, 174– 78, 180, 182, 185– 89, Marrati, Paola, 15, 17, 19– 21, 30– 31, 41 195, 197– 201 Marx, Karl, 1, 10, 95, 179, 181, 183 adaptation, 94, 125, 147 Marxism, 172– 73, 181– 82 analysis and, 104– 5, 108, 200 masquerade, 139, 142 analyst, 102– 6, 108, 113, 146 McGowan, Todd, 89, 95, 107, 198, 200 castration, 113, 121, 138, 144– 45 media, 1, 18, 46, 58, 78, 80, 172, 187, 197 feminine jouissance, 117, 127, 140– 49, mediation, 6, 11, 45, 47, 50– 51, 64, 66, 154 95, 101, 121, 128, 170 228  Index mediators, 47 Muslim, 4, 15, 32, 187 medieval, 48, 185 mutilation, 128, 145, 160, 164, 175 Merleau- Ponty, Maurice, 2, 7, 15, 69– 78, mysticism, 31, 61, 67, 146– 48, 150, 84– 85, 94– 95, 100, 176, 178, 197 161– 62, 196 attitude, 75– 76, 84 cognitive, 7, 70, 72– 73, 75– 76, 84 Naficy, Hamid, 13, 61, 80, 89– 91, 104, ideology, 77 106, 193, 197 intentionality, 73, 76 Nancy, Jean- Luc, 45, 59, 64– 65, 178, perception, 69– 79, 81, 83– 85, 95 196 psychology, 73, 78 narcissism, 90– 91, 97, 106 stimulation, 74, 76 narrative identity, 14, 92, 105, 191 Meshkini, Marzieh, 8– 10, 37, 115– 55, Iranian narrative identity, 4, 33, 37, 168, 175, 192, 198– 99, 201 118, 191– 92 messianic, 65 national cinema, 1, 5, 9, 13– 15, 17, metanarratives, 151 28, 33, 35– 37, 79, 157, 169, 176, metaphor, 44, 52, 76, 103, 109, 113, 178– 79 117, 135– 36, 147– 48, 151, 159, needy times, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 168, 171, 174– 75, 179, 197, 201 53, 55– 57, 59, 61, 63, 65– 67, 192, metaphysics, 10, 18, 25, 31, 60, 63, 66, 196 82, 88– 89, 151, 196, 204 neorealism, 5, 15– 16, 21– 24, 28, 33– 34, metonymy, 135, 151, 175 63, 90, 141, 176 Metz, Christian, 95– 96, 99– 100 neurosis, 112, 133, 149, 200 migration, 36 newspeak, 202 Mij Films, 87, 168. See also Ghobadi, Nietzsche, Friedrich, 18, 22, 30– 33, 43, Bahman 63, 125, 168 milieu, 21– 22, 28. See also Deleuze, nihilism, 22, 57, 66, 176 Gilles minorities, 9, 11, 35– 37, 87, 116, 152, objectification, 74, 81, 96, 125, 142, 157 159, 168, 172, 187, 198 objectivity, 74, 97 mise- en- scène, 12, 32, 45, 140 Olivier, Bert, 163 misrecognition, 91– 92, 95, 112 ontotheology, 20 modernity, 10– 11, 18, 39– 41, 48, 56– oppression, 35, 45, 116, 136, 147, 151, 57, 61– 65, 115, 154, 173, 187, 195 168, 171– 73, 179, 181– 82, 187, monotheism, 152– 53 189, 192 mortality, 41– 42, 45, 54, 56– 60, 103, 113 orientalism, 1, 41, 147, 169, 178, 187 motivation, 71– 72 originary, 52, 61, 153, 188 Mottahedeh, Negar, 2, 33, 35, 42, 61, orphan, 13, 15– 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 81, 153, 193, 195, 198, 202 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 160– 61, 166, 168 Mouffe, Chantal, 9, 11, 158, 172, 179– Oscars, The, 82, 84 82, 185, 188, 203 otherworldliness, 20, 30– 31, 161, 178 Moussavi, Mir- Hossein, 28, 81, 185– 88 overdetermination, 11, 181– 82 mulberry, 43, 58, 196 mullah, 5, 10, 114, 137, 154 pacifying, 7, 85, 95 multiplicities, 13, 18– 19, 33, 36, 180, 194 painting, 11, 77– 78, 102, 110 Mulvey, Laura, 6, 44, 59, 63, 65, 95– 96, Panahi, Jafar, 12, 87 99– 100, 104, 110, 135, 194 panopticon, 94 Index  229 parabolic, 117, 150– 51, 154, 198 Oedipus complex, 71, 84, 88, 116, paranoid, 133– 34 133, 144, 150, 200 patois, 35 patriarchy, 11, 96– 97, 117, 120, 138, Qur’an, 30, 137, 199 147, 165, 173, 175, 183, 199– 200 peasant, 51– 52, 59, 203 Rabaté, Jean- Michel, 150, 152, 201 performance, 70, 77, 105, 111, 180, 199 raboutage, 152 periphery, 170– 71 racism, 66, 90, 107, 168, 170, 185, 202 Persianism, 191 reactionary, 1, 11, 63, 116, 176– 77, 186 phallic, 116, 139, 143– 45, 153. See also realism, 4– 5, 14, 16, 21– 24, 35, 90, 141, Lacan, Jacques 150– 51, 158, 198 phallic jouissance, 139, 143– 45. See also recognition, 8, 71, 75, 84, 95, 98, 101, Lacan, Jacques 123, 130– 31, 133, 137– 38, 146, phallocentrism, 138– 39, 142– 44. See also 174, 181 Lacan, Jacques reconfiguration, 44, 66 phenomenology, 2, 50, 56, 71, 74– 76, reenactment, 8, 23, 90, 92, 105, 125 78, 95, 100, 102– 3, 198 repression, 12, 98, 105, 119, 131– 33, philosophy of film (film theory), 2– 3, 6, 163, 189– 90 8, 10, 13, 15– 16, 35, 41, 46, 63, Ricœur, Paul, 62, 79, 154, 174, 177, 197 70, 88– 89, 94– 95, 99, 102, 176, Rossellini, Roberto, 195 200, 202 , 40 photography, 11, 47 Plato, 6, 18, 30– 31, 33, 40, 60, 69, 82– saint, 149– 50 83, 89, 121, 197 Sartre, Jean- Paul, 35, 88, 94– 95, 98, 100, plenitude, 98, 101, 133 102– 3, 105, 111, 120, 133, 168, poetry, 5– 6, 11, 29, 35, 39– 41, 46– 47, 174, 198– 99, 202 55– 56, 61– 67, 88, 154, 168, 176, bad faith, 120 195– 96 “Black Orpheus,” 35, 168 polyfocal, 180 polyphony, 158 defrenchify, 35 polysemy, 52, 88, 101, 126, 177, 181 satisfaction, 8, 77, 101, 105, 126, 133– populism, 79, 190, 203 34, 137, 143– 45, 148 postcolonialism, 35– 36, 168– 69, 180. Satrapi, Marjane, 15 See also orientalism sculpture, 18, 48, 167, 196 projection, 21, 64– 65, 75, 77, 85, 90, secularism, 173, 190 95– 96, 107, 117 semidocumentary, 8 proletariat, 172, 180, 203 sentimentalism, 5, 9, 17, 37, 78, 162 propaganda, 10, 62, 81, 177, 204 sexuality, 116, 133, 147 prophet, 29, 33, 81, 85, 93, 110, 152 shah, 4, 14, 40, 61, 80– 81, 118, 153, protagonist, 5, 9, 23– 25, 42, 44, 73, 81, 182, 188 96, 160, 170, 175, 194, 198 siblings, 26, 82– 83, 163 psychoanalysis, 6– 7, 70, 91– 152, 162– signification, 130, 146, 173– 74 64, 197– 98, 200 signified, 124– 26, 143, 175, 189 conformity, 104– 5, 108, 112– 13, 120, signifier, 11, 101, 109– 10, 121– 30, 132, 123, 125, 127, 133– 34, 137, 137– 44, 149, 151– 52, 175, 182– 139, 146 89, 191– 92 230  Index singularity, 58– 60, 64, 128, 146, 174– transcendence, 18– 19, 30, 34, 48, 178 75, 179, 203 transgression, 8– 9, 11, 63, 89, 105– 7, socialization, 8, 117, 123, 125– 26, 137, 114, 129, 132– 39, 148, 162, 171 139, 141, 143 translation, 19, 40, 169, 173, 195– 97, solipsism, 97 202 spectator, 6– 7, 69– 70, 77– 78, 85, 94, 96, transnational, 2 110, 135– 36, 147, 160 trauma, 9, 13, 15– 16, 22, 24, 28, 40– 41, Spielberg, Steven, 79 63, 107, 121, 125, 146, 165– 66, Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty, 148, 157, 173, 189, 199 168, 170, 172– 76, 179– 80, 182, Turtles Can Fly, 9, 87, 157– 92, 201– 2 184, 203 tyranny, 4, 60, 114, 178, 182– 83 Stavrakakis, Yannis, 109, 126, 200, 204 subaltern, 9, 148, 155, 157, 168, 170– UCLA, 66 84, 189, 203 unconscious, 36, 96, 98, 121, 123, 139, subhuman, 120, 138– 39 151 subjection, 102, 117, 121, 201 undecipherable, 71, 108, 149 subjectivity, 11, 64, 70, 74, 76– 77, 85, unjustifiability, 32, 103– 4, 109, 131, 97, 120, 124, 157, 181, 194 139, 142, 185 sublime, 54, 151 utopianism, 146, 148, 152, 154, 174– 75, submission, 123, 137, 143, 148, 175 202 subtitles, 137, 160 subversion, 7, 36, 117, 121, 150 vanguard, 178– 79 suicide, 43– 44, 58– 59, 160, 163, 166, viewer, 14, 22, 25– 27, 69– 73, 102, 104– 173– 74 11, 135– 36, 142, 160, 162, 165– 66 surrealistic, 7, 140– 41, 161, 167 violence, 7, 35, 53, 71, 80, 84, 160, 168, suture, 9, 150, 154, 182 188– 89 symptom, 117, 134, 136, 148– 50, 152, virtuality, 34– 35 189 vitalism, 30, 33 voiceless, 155 taboo, 63, 133, 162 voyeurism, 103– 5, 110, 147 Tabrizi, Kamal, 10 Taliban, 43, 80, 177, 184 Westerners, 70, 116, 177 Tarantino, Quentin, 42 Westoxification, 14 Taste of Cherry, 6, 39, 41– 44, 47– 49, 55, women, 2, 7– 9, 35, 42, 76, 81– 82, 89, 57– 59, 61– 64, 66– 67, 69, 88 96, 115– 21, 123, 128– 30, 135– 37, Armstrong, Louis, 46, 66 139, 141– 48, 151– 54, 168, 173, epilogue, 44– 45, 48– 49, 58– 60, 175– 76, 183, 187, 192, 197, 199– 64– 67 200, 203 jazz, 66 taxidermist, 43, 45, 57– 59 Young, Iris M., 131 technology, 40– 41, 46, 57, 65, 80, 187 temporality, 22, 30, 34 Zidane, Zinedine, 161 theology, 30, 43, 53, 57, 65, 153, 188 Žižek, Slavoj, 106– 7, 111, 114, 126, Titanic, 161 134, 147, 174, 180, 185, 188– 89, Tolstoy, Leo, 93, 105 200, 204