Cinema in Dabashi’s View: Redefining Power and Identity in the Frame of Image
IBNA Art Service; Hamid Dabashi, an Iranian-born theorist and professor of Iranian and Comparative Studies at Columbia University, is one of the few figures who has been able to establish a link between cultural critique, postcolonial philosophy, and cinema. He is known not merely as a film critic, but as a thinker who views cinema as a field for the reproduction of power, identity, and resistance.
Among contemporary thinkers and writers, some look beyond the traditional boundaries of the humanities at cinema as a tool for understanding society, history, and cultural identity, and Dabashi is one of them. He is a thinker who studies cinema not from a purely aesthetic perspective, but as a social and political phenomenon. In the books he has written about cinema, he has clearly shown how the image in cinema becomes a tool for the representation and sometimes subversion of narratives of power.
Palestinian Cinema and the Dreams of a Nation
Dabashi is the author of several cinematic books, including “Masters and Masterpieces of Iranian Cinema,” “Close-Up: The Past, Present, and Future of Iranian Cinema,” and a book on Palestinian cinema titled “Dreams of a Nation: On Palestinian Cinema.” His book on Palestinian cinema is one of the few collections that examines Palestinian cinema not as a secondary event, but as an important platform for art, identity, and national resistance. This work, by gathering articles from researchers, filmmakers, and critics, seeks to analyze the cinema of a “nation without land,” which has always been shaped by conditions of occupation, exile, and trauma, from an analytical and critical perspective.
This book, published in 2006, includes Dabashi’s introduction and a collection of articles covering various topics such as the history of Palestinian cinema, production challenges, cinematic forms and strategies, identity concerns, and the role of cinema in Palestinian field resistance. In the book’s introduction, Dabashi addresses how a “stateless nation” creates a national cinema, and raises the challenging question of how a national cinema can be produced for a nation without a state. “Dreams of a Nation” also includes case studies of important Palestinian filmmakers such as Michel Khleifi and Elia Suleiman, moving beyond mere war narratives toward more diverse perspectives.
In the introduction, Dabashi refers to the “problem of impossible representation,” questioning how cinema can depict an immense experience of occupation, exile, or destruction. This point is crucial because Palestinian cinema, due to its specific production conditions—occupation, dispersion, lack of infrastructure—faces a challenge that is not only technical but also philosophical and identity-based.
Cinema of a Stateless Nation
The book states that Palestinian cinema is a product of the conditions of a “stateless nation,” and therefore, its production, distribution, exhibition, and even the concept of “audience” differ from typical national cinema. Additionally, one of the articles examines how Palestinian films are archived, preserved, and exhibited—tasks that Dabashi himself has monitored in his book “A Nation Without a Land.”
One article in the book argues that Palestinian cinema differs from conventional Western cinematic forms; these forms strive to break and distance themselves from official narratives and address the experience of Palestinians under occupation.
One of the most central discussions is the relationship between place (territorial identity, refuge, occupied city) and image. For example, films and articles by filmmakers like Michel Khleifi address the representation of memory and abandoned places. The theme of cultural liberation is prominent in the works of Michel Khleifi, one of the leading Palestinian filmmakers; a director who has been a prominent figure in Palestinian cinema since his film “Fertile Memories” in 1980. His works, oscillating between documentary and fiction, hold a symbolic place in this cinema and pave the way for the work of another prominent filmmaker, Elia Suleiman, whose works also traverse the boundaries between these two genres.
Dabashi also points out that Palestinian cinema has transformed “absence” into a fundamental existential condition; that is, the lack of land and home becomes central to the narrative. Dabashi views cinema not just as an art form but as a cultural and political phenomenon. He believes films not only tell stories but also carry ideologies, identities, and social conflicts. For this reason, in his books, such as “Dreams of a Nation,” he examines Palestinian cinema as a mirror of resistance and national narrative.
A Critique of Western Perceptions of Middle Eastern Cinema
He has a serious critique of Western perceptions of Middle Eastern cinema. Dabashi argues in this book that the West often views Iranian or Palestinian cinema through an “Orientalist” lens, meaning seductive, mysterious, or even negative. He attempts to deconstruct these perceptions and show that real filmmakers in Iran and Palestine respond to their own national problems and identities, not merely to Western expectations.
Dabashi considers cinema a tool for historical record and memory. In his book on Palestinian cinema, he shows that films, aside from their entertainment aspect, bear witness to life under occupation and resistance. His books are typically a combination of interviews with filmmakers, film analyses, historical and cultural context, and personal narrative. This combination makes his critique scholarly, humane, and engaging. He critiques Western images of the Middle East and seeks to highlight the true narratives of filmmakers and nations, rather than stereotypical and imposed images.
Abdullah Karimzadeh, the translator of this book, has also stated: “The book ‘Dreams of a Nation’ explores the subject of Palestinian cinema from multiple discourses, and it appears to delve into this topic primarily from the perspectives of cultural studies, colonial studies, and literary criticism. This book argues that Palestinian cinema must be examined within its historical and social context; otherwise, any research on it will be incomplete. Accordingly, Palestinian cinema engages in resistance on two fronts; in other words, resistance forms the core of this cinema. The first front is the dialectic of appearance against disappearance. The author believes that the Palestinian nation has faced this dialectic since the beginning of its struggles. International Zionist media are attempting to shift the authentic identity of the Palestinian people from a state of appearance to one of disappearance.”
Filling a Significant Gap in Palestinian Cinema Studies
Emphasis on cinema’s role as a tool for cultural-artistic resistance, an expression of the experience of occupation, displacement, and exile, a critique of Western or colonialist views on Palestinians and their cinema, and an exploration of how Palestinian cinema strives to find its voice and reconstruct its visual identity are among the topics discussed in this book.
This book is one of the few works that comprehensively addresses Palestinian cinema at a time when the subject received less attention. It thus enables students, researchers, and enthusiasts of cinema and Palestinian studies to understand the specific conditions (such as the absence of an independent state, financial limitations, production obstacles, censorship, exile) that have impacted the production of Palestinian cinema. However, there are various critiques regarding the author’s analytical approach and perspective, such as how cinema can be effective against the absence of a national state.
Overall, this first collection in English on Palestinian cinema fills a significant gap in the field, especially with its accurate and informative filmography, although its reference library is limited and does not include some published English articles. It is regrettable that the scope of this collection could not encompass many other important works and filmmakers. The numerous images in the book also contribute to a better understanding of the subject and bring the reader closer to the world of Palestinian cinema.
Although “Palestinian Cinema” is a political book, Dabashi also discusses Arab cinema after the 2011 uprisings in parts of it. He believes that new Arab cinema, following the Arab Spring, is moving beyond postcolonial discourse and towards new expressions of collective identity and popular resistance.
Iranian Cinema and the Redefinition of the Oriental Subject
Addressing Iranian cinema has been one of Dabashi’s cultural concerns. In his critique of cinematic Orientalism, he states that just as Edward Said analyzed Orientalism in literature and history, we must also examine in cinema how the image of the “Oriental Other” is constructed and how it can be reclaimed. In this sense, cinema for Dabashi is a tool for redefining the Oriental subject.
In Dabashi’s view, post-revolutionary Iranian cinema exemplifies a “politics of presence”; a presence born out of limitations. He believes that Iranian films, despite all their constraints, have created a new language for Third World cinema; a language that is neither an imitation of the West nor a return to the past, but rather a search for an intermediary space between tradition and modernity.
This critic, in his book “Close-Up: The Past, Present, and Future of Iranian Cinema,” argues that Iranian cinema after the 1979 revolution represents a “philosophical rethinking of cinema itself,” as it is forced to grapple with censorship, gender restrictions, and a national identity crisis. He shows how Iranian filmmakers contend with political and social limitations and, from within these very limitations, create creative and poetic forms of expression. Dabashi also examines the lives and works of 12 Iranian filmmakers (from Farrokh Ghaffari to Abbas Kiarostami) in his book “Masters and Masterpieces of Iranian Cinema.” In this book, he calls Iranian cinema “visual poetry” and believes that Iranian filmmakers have discovered poetic freedom in a world without political freedom.
Dabashi considers Kiarostami part of the “film-philosophy of postcolonialism” project; that is, a cinema that separates itself from Western frameworks and creates an image for itself from the conditions of Third World Iran. Dabashi has always been an admirer of Kiarostami’s cinema and has said about him that this director, even before being discovered by festivals, found a special place in cinema due to his camera’s position and the importance of imagery in his films. Dabashi points out that Kiarostami has few professional actors, the film’s space is often open, and the viewer must be invited to mental participation, which is one of the unique characteristics of Kiarostami’s cinema:
“When cinema sees reality and enables us to complete it ourselves, then we are invited to participate.”
Pioneering Figures of Iranian Cinema
In his book “Masters and Masterpieces of Iranian Cinema,” Dabashi examines some prominent Iranian cinematic works. The list in this book includes films such as: “The House is Black” by Forough Farrokhzad, “Brick and Mirror” by Ebrahim Golestan, “The Cow” by Dariush Mehrjui, “The Spring” by Arby Ovanessian, “Prince Ehtejab” by Bahman Farmanara, “Still Life” by Sohrab Shahid Saless, “The Runner” by Amir Naderi, “Bashu, the Little Stranger” by Bahram Beyzai, “Through the Olive Trees” by Abbas Kiarostami, and others.
In a chapter of the book related to Dariush Mehrjui and the film “The Cow,” he states: “Before Forough Farrokhzad and Ebrahim Golestan became pioneering figures in Iranian cinema, Farrokhzad was a renowned poet and Golestan a successful storyteller. But the generation of Iranian filmmakers after them was one that relied on the inevitable collaboration between prominent writers and novice filmmakers. The best example of this collaboration is the relationship between Dariush Mehrjui and Gholamhossein Sa’edi. Mehrjui became a prominent filmmaker through his association with Sa’edi. The connection between these two figures was the source and a factor in the continuation of Mehrjui’s important position as a director.”
The film “The Cow” (1969) is considered the first collaboration between this young, ambitious filmmaker and the renowned playwright. By the time Mehrjui joined him, Sa’edi was already known as the undisputed master of modern Iranian psychological realism.
Following Forough Farrokhzad’s “poetic realism” and Ebrahim Golestan’s “emotional realism,” Sa’edi’s unique style of realism was based on a peculiar clinical psychoanalysis. In his stories, with unprecedented precision in Persian literature, he described and represented states of psychosis and nervous anxiety.
Sa’edi’s psychological realism, by evoking concepts beyond reality and creatively utilizing superstition, illusion, and delirium, created a greater awareness of reality and, simultaneously, a sensory understanding of the unusual and terrifying. Mehrjui’s cinematic adaptation of Sa’edi’s type of realism added a new dimension to what Farrokhzad and Golestan had presented in the form of poetic and emotional expression of Iranian realism. But if we consider all these different styles and forms of expression together, we can gradually achieve a more precise and specific understanding of realism and its place in Iranian cinema.
Amir Naderi’s Unique Vision in Cinema
Or elsewhere in the book, in the chapter on Amir Naderi’s “The Runner,” he says: “Amir Naderi is, above all, an aesthetician, and then a metaphysician. He perceives reality with a visual and sublime gaze and from this perspective engages in metaphysical contemplation of reality, all accompanied by his particular style of visual realism. I am certain that Naderi’s solitude is chosen, not accidental; he has prepared himself in such a way as to reflect the concerns and anxious world of his nation, while simultaneously offering a broad image of the world. His politics are apolitical, and his art is the expression of his politics. By distancing himself from ideology and utopia, Naderi has been able to find a unique vision of reality in his cinema and guide his life’s path as a blueprint for a nation and a world limited by its unique bonds.”
The fabric of Naderi’s solitude has deep roots in his personal life. Today, looking at Naderi, one realizes that he is the Iranian filmmaker who first attracted global attention to Iranian cinema, initially with “The Runner” and then with his poignant film “Water, Wind, Dust” (1989). If he astonished the world, this achievement was the result of his long and hard work.
In the films Naderi made in Iran, there are few female characters. One reason for this might be his aunt, in whom Naderi invested all his extraordinary storytelling talents. Stories he told over the years to his closest friends and family. Instead, the central theme of all Naderi’s films is a solitary soul: the adolescent boys in “Harmonica,” “The Runner,” “Water, Wind, Dust,” and “Sound Barrier,” the lonely men in “Tangsir,” “Deadlock,” “Elegy,” and “Manhattan by Numbers,” and the young women in “A, B, C… Manhattan” and “Marathon” – all these are versions and variations of Amir Naderi himself.
In Dabashi’s view, national cinema is not produced solely within political boundaries but also takes shape in relation to global cinematic trends. Dabashi also regards cinema not just as an artistic tool, but as a field for defining the postcolonial world. He sees Iranian cinema as part of a global discourse that has drawn inspiration from numerous sources.
