Mehdi Tehrani's Cinematic View and Narrative of Dead New Wave

As an academic colleague, we looking for an answer to our question, why Mehdi Mirza Mehdi Tehrani, a postdoctoral Researcher of advanced film studies at Charles University in Prague and Tehran University, who has more or less stopped writing academic articles, still remains a film critic?

Iranart: By: Catarina Klarcsonova* and Vera Kotelevskaya **

At the graduation ceremony of PhD students in advanced film studies at McGill University in June 1999, McGill University Professor Christine Ross and San Francisco University Professor Arthur Asa Berger, referring to three followers of the British New Wave Cinema, Vertov and Podokin, including Sofia Vertega , Veronika Lebenston and Mehdi Mirza Mehdi Tehrani, who were prominent members of these graduates, said: If they can voice their radical thoughts about Tony Richardson, Lindsay Anderson, the new British cinema, and in the case of Zhiga Vertov and Vysivalad Podovkin, the Russian assembly, they will become teachers or film critics. Ten years ago, film director Randal Kleiser was told by renowned scholar and film critic Arthur Knight that Mehdi Tehrani was still looking for kitchen cinema when they met at University College London in 1990. It's unfortunate that he is correct!

It may come as a surprise to film buffs, students and teachers that Vertov and Podovkin, as well as the British New Wave, have been acknowledged by a limited number of film writers, historians and critics, and these people are actually the last. A generation of followers of this school, Mehdi Tehrani, whom I have known since 1999, is one of these people. He has several important scientific papers that have been consistently cited in recent years:

1. "The Influence of Local Journalism on British Cinema in the Last Two Years of the Second World War": his own dissertation, written with his professors Arthur Assaberger and Christian Ross.

2. Iranian cinema and its audience: periodic dynamism and periodic helplessness of Iranian cinema (a look at the dynamics and identity of Iranian cinema in the last twenty-five years): this treatise is about the audience's interaction with Iranian cinema and its motivations.

3. "Like a Cartoon": It is an article about the position of large companies and independent studios in the development process of animation cinema (1927-2003).

4- "Challenges of Meaning and Religion in Iranian Cinema": This article is about the theoretical and general foundations of cinema in relation to the semantic foundations of the concept of religious and spiritual cinema in Iran.

5- "Role and Position of Research Management in Broadcasting in Iran and the World": This scientific article is about the importance of what experts outside the management body of televisions in the world present as media research.

But what happened that this professor of advanced film studies at the Faculty of Arts of Charles University in Prague and Tehran University more or less stopped writing scientific articles for academic reference, but never stopped writing criticism in the specialized field of film and cinema?

He has been writing film reviews for 35 years. The reason, in my opinion, is only his attachment to the general definition of cinema and the role of editing in shaping a film. In each of his reviews, one to two paragraphs should be devoted to editing the film. Let me give an example:

In most of Mehdi Tehrani film works as a teacher and film critic, he has mentioned Kurosawa a lot, although without mentioning the school he is interested in, he actually uses Akira Kurosawa to explain his opinion. This process becomes natural when we know that Kurosawa was probably the only movie giant in the world who considered film editing as the most basic task.

In 2014, in his last meeting with Arthur Asa Berger, the topic that the two discussed as teacher and student is a film by Kurosawa. Asa Berger discussed Rashomon from the point of view of communication, and Mehdi Tehrani discussed this timeless Kurosawa film from the point of view of configuration, editing and direction.

Mehdi Tehrani believes that the new wave of British cinema among European film movements; it has probably the most influential title. Young filmmakers belonging to this movement took the camera out of the luxurious studios and put it in front of the common people. Expensive historical scripts gave way to street life stories, and as a result, the poor and poor middle class of England managed to make a lasting impression between the late 1950s and the mid-1960s. This British New Wave cinema movement abandoned the conventional rules of filmmaking and took the camera to the streets and turned ordinary people and their everyday problems into films. These classes included the middle classes neglected by the government as well as the deprived and the poor who lived in the context of the society and next to the rich class.

He insists that: this movement in form and content still has an unmatched application in the first decade of the third millennium. Pay attention to the list of young people who entered Il Cinema and brought new blood. They still see Ken Loach as the leader and Rossellini. Not the pioneers of commercial Hollywood cinema. Daily social issues are the concern of the filmmakers of this cinema trend. In the 60s, issues such as women's labor rights; Abortion; Rent; Legal ownership was a common theme for filmmaking؛ A process that continues. The school of Zhiga Vertov and Vasivalad Podovkin, which is highly regarded by Mehdi Tehrani, is a school that is not very popular even in Russia and among the great directors of the recent generation of Slavs. According to these people, all the theories of Zhiga Vertov and Vysivalad Podovkin end in film editing, while today editing has progressed and digital cinema has skyrocketed in editing.

Mehdi Tehrani believes: Editing in cinema is not dead. The editor is a pioneer and his skill will make a great work. Editing began with Podofkin and Vertov, and this blood will never be sterile. Because a film that can be edited is a film that has borrowed from its script and its director has presented decoupage as an inherent feature. The basic concepts of cinema are image and editing. Editing is the root of the film and will solve the problems of a film. Because as Podofkin so eloquently said, outline an image, then you've done the editing. You made simple pictures meaningful by editing.

He sees the role of a critic as taught by Arthur Knight. Mehdi Tehrani says: Critic is just an intermediary; we have no duty to force our writings about a movie. What the critic means is that you say, friends, this movie were good! Or how stupid this movie is! We do not have the right to assign assignments to the audience. We do not have the right to define the reader with cinematic and technical terms and discourage him from watching the movie or encourage him to watch the movie. The critic should write that this is the road map. I guess there is a map if you like to use it.

Mehdi Tehrani is like an old football coach who prefers old habits over modern science. With all the opinions and theories of the school of Vertov-Podovkin, although they are still valid and necessary for university classes, they cannot be used in a practical context.

*Dr. Catarina Klarcsonova : Currently holds the position of Director of Film Institute at Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv.

**Vera Kotelevskaya: Associate Professor of the Department of the History of World Literature, Faculty of Linguistics and Journalism, Rostov University, Russia.