Analysis of war discourse and its relationship with cinema in three decades after the Iranian revolution

Master thesis in the field of social communication sciences

Abstract:

In this thesis, an attempt is made to investigate the historical, social and cultural contexts of war and its relationship with cinema, as well as how those "contexts" are reflected in cinema, in the three decades after the revolution. In fact, the author has distinguished three main periods in the representation of war-themed movies in these three decades. Each of these three periods has its own characteristics and social conditions, which can be identified in the objects represented in Ebrahim Hatamikia's films (texts). All selected films are Hatamikia films. The three considered decades include the first decade when the war was going on, the second decade which coincided with the construction process, and the third decade which is the decade of reforms. In this thesis, only one discourse of war is identified, and this discourse changes and evolves during three periods. In other words, there are not three discourses of war, each of which defines itself in opposition to the other, but one discourse is taken into consideration, how it changes during three decades. The author has distinguished three main periods in the discourse of war in these three decades. Each of the three periods has its own characteristics and social conditions, which can be identified in the objects represented in the films. The method of this treatise is based on cultural studies and discourse analysis - the theories of Laclau and Mouffe. In this thesis, the method of discourse analysis is used, which is mainly considered both as a method and as a theory. Indeed, the approach of cultural studies assigns a cognitive role to art and goes beyond the mere attention to the aesthetic category and places it in relation to our understanding of the universe, hence the texts (films) of Hatamika become discourse areas to understand the situation of the times. 

Introduction:

The main goal of this research is to examine the historical, social and cultural contexts of war and its relationship with cinema in the three decades after the revolution. In this treatise, the author has distinguished three main periods in the representation of war films over the course of three decades. Each of these three periods has its own characteristics and social conditions, which can be identified in the objects represented in the films. The main focus of this thesis is to pay attention to the central signs of war and its representation in war cinema during the last three decades. In terms of research method and theoretical foundations, this dissertation is based on cultural studies and discourse analysis - Laclau and Mouffe's point of view. Indeed, the approach of cultural studies assigns a cognitive role to art and goes beyond the mere attention to the aesthetic category and places it in relation to our understanding of the universe. In this thesis, only one discourse of war is identified, and this discourse changes and evolves during three periods. In other words, there are not three discourses of war, each of which defines itself in opposition to the other, but one discourse is taken into consideration, how it changes during three decades. The author has distinguished three main periods in the discourse of war in these three decades. Each of the three periods has its own characteristics and social conditions, which can be identified in the objects represented in the films. Accordingly, Hatamikia's films have been selected in this research. Hatamikia can be known as a war cinematographer who was present in all three mentioned periods. In the following, I will briefly describe the chapters of the treatise.

In the beginning, it was tried to select films in each period, based on which the main concepts and signs of this discourse can be determined. In the first decade, three films, "Watcher", "Immigrant" and "Identity" have been analyzed. Most of these films were made from 1365 onwards, and in fact, this delay of several years was the most important factor for the emergence and formation of this discourse. This does not mean that this discourse was not formed until 1365, but it is because cinema as an art field has its own equipment and tools, and it took several years for this discourse to acquire these tools and use cinema as an area for discourse representation. The previous discourses that made films about the war are mainly nationalist and patriotic discourses (such as the Eagles film) or in terms of genre.The previous discourses that made movies about war are mainly either nationalist and patriotic discourses (such as the Eagles film) or they are very similar to Hollywood films in terms of genre, which are mostly action. However, the official discourse was able to draw a clear boundary between itself and other discourses that somehow represented the war.

However, in the second decade, the discourse of war changes and evolves to a great extent. The first decade, which is associated with the end of the war and the discourse of war has been precipitated, is made in a film like "Kerkheh to Rhine" which finds itself in a different way in a European country like Germany. This discourse, thinking of eliminating other competitors inside, is looking for another gaze outside of the country and rebuilds its identity by making this gaze fake. But it is in the beginning of this decade that with the entry of other discourses in the field of representation, and the gaining power of competing discourses, this discourse also suffers a crisis. The format procedure in this discourse is no longer rejection and denial of the other, but confrontation with the other. This implies at least another representation, although this representation takes place in the form of inequality and in most cases it is the insider discourse that speaks instead of other discourses. However, this discourse, as shown in the movie "Glass Agency", suffers a crisis and mainly tries to exonerate its discourse with the strategy of removing impure items from itself. But this form of purification goes so far that nothing remains of this discourse. For this reason, the confrontation of this discourse by marginalizing itself shows itself in the form of elegies and finally in the form of melancholy. For example, in the movie "Glass Agency", Abbas becomes an object that is being lost and becomes a symbol of values ??that are being lost, values ??that even their existence is questionable. This kind of looking at the lost object is done by idealizing the past and purifying all the impurities from it. The way of representing the body in this period is also associated with a kind of contradiction. On the one hand, the body has become a symbol of oppression and the loss of values, and it has become the most important reference for the official discourse, which emphasizes the physical dimension of the body, and on the other hand, as it was shown in the first decade, it should point to the spiritual dimension or the warrior's metaphysics. For this reason, in this film, the warrior's body is represented in an aesthetic way.

In the third decade, however, everything changes and the confrontation and conflict of the discourse is accompanied by a difference in discourse and another understanding. The film of the third decade, which is called "The Name of the Father", is more than anything related to the confrontation between the discourse of those who went to war and the discourse of the third generation of war. But as mentioned, the official discourse of war has been transformed to a great extent and everything is going on in a cultural difference and mutual understanding. In the discourse of this decade, the representation of the body finds a completely opposite aspect to the first decade, and unlike the first decade, which was de-embodied from the warrior's body, the body and its physical strain have become a symbol of resistance. For this reason, the wounded body of a female student becomes a symbol of opposition and resistance to a war that seems to have lasted too long and is expected to be forgotten.

Another concept that will be discussed further is "transformation". Transformation here does not mean a fundamental change in a discourse, but rather a gradual change in central concepts and signifiers, to such an extent that the discourse of the seventies can be considered the same as the discourse of the sixties, and the discourse of the seventies the same as the discourse of the eighties. If we recognize this discourse in its historical process, it is possible to consider the discourse of the 80s as different or even opposite to the discourse of the 60s. This is why, in my opinion, it is clear to adopt a genealogical approach to analyze any discourse. What is the limit of a discourse, or in other words, is it possible to identify a specific origin for a discourse, but it is possible to identify when a discourse has been able to dominate its hegemony to a certain extent. Therefore, the official discourse of war undoubtedly has its roots in the decades before the revolution, but what is important is the position that this discourse was established in the 1960s by reaching a field of discourse, i.e. cinema, to introduce itself as the dominant discourse in the first decade. Another important issue comes back to the country's official discourse during these three decades. In fact, my goal in choosing war cinema was to follow the dominant discourses of the Islamic Republic during these three decades