No Bears and No Borders
Jafar Panahi’s recently released movie ‘No Bears’ is a thoughtful meta film-within-a-film with pertinent recurring themes which transcend the borders of nations and highlight the social barriers present within communities. Panahi is a talented director, know for his films which have frequently told stories of the grapples between humanity on an intimate scale, and the national or interpersonal repercussions.
“No Bears” is a poignant yet ultimately emotionally uplifting display of Panahi’s compassionate humanism. It sheds light on Iran as one of many theocratic, flawed democracies which are seemingly allergic to criticism. A crackdown on artistic expression as a part of a wider campaign of censorship, led to his arrest and subsequent imprisonment; his critique of the Iranian government through films like “No Bears” and was met with harsh sentencing.
The film is, at first watch, a half reality and half drama following the parallel love stories of a couple who play themselves recreating their escape from persecution, and also documenting the alternate narrative of an arranged marriage gone awry. It is based in the village Panahi resided in as a retreat while he worked on his film. Panahi worked in this village house to be closer to the national border – to freedom, as the sanctions placed upon him by the government restricted him from leaving the country. The theme of separation manifests in the struggle of the new relationship in the village, they fight to overcome their people’s traditions and live happily together. The satirically portrayed absurd traditions and local culture addresses another common theme in a lot of Iranian cinema: the clash between the inescapable wave of modernity and deep rooted superstitions (such as the village people being wary of jinns and folklore bears which allegedly stalk their surrounding countryside). In “No Bears”, a young woman Sinan is restricted by misogynistic marital traditions, the couple Zara and Bakhtiar are restricted from leaving Iran and the filmmaker himself is restricted from his work by poor internet reception- which is all told by the actors and actresses playing themselves in an almost post modern perspective of storytelling. This agnostic film defies borders by blending the barriers of reality and fiction with self-aware dialogue which examines the ethics of film making and its impact on the lives of its subjects, as well as the filmmakers themselves- hence it’s portrayal of Panahi’s imprisonment.
Besides being a reference to dialogue between Panahi and his host, the originally ambiguous title of “No Bears” transforms into a statement of liberty by the end. The film ultimately argues for no bears, no superstition, no backwardness, no restrictions, no borders, and no control. Despite the subtle protest in this message, the resolution of the intertwining storylines results in the development of a hopeful end by Panahi, even as his personal freedom is revoked. He celebrates the ability of humans to overcome their borders, to unite for freedom socially and- most importantly- to create art.