Even before Saeed Roustayee’s “Woman and Child” premieres at the upcoming Cannes Film Festival, the Iranian director’s new work is sparking heated controversy that reflects deep soul searching within the turbulent country’s filmmaking community.
The upswell of feelings and opinions that “Woman and Child” is already eliciting, sight unseen, has prompted fellow Iranian helmer Mohammad Rasoulof, who escaped from Iran to Europe in May 2024 after receiving a jail sentence from the country’s authorities for making “The Seed of the Sacred Fig,” to come out strongly in Roustayee’s defense. Rasoulof intervened after a group of filmmakers who oppose the Iranian regime claimed that Cannes is bowing to Iran’s repressive authorities by selecting “Woman and Child,” which they say was produced with government permission and should therefore be considered “a propaganda film,” as the Iranian Independent Filmmakers Association (IIFMA) has put it in an Instagram post.
“Woman and Child” is one of two Iranian entries that will soon be bowing in competition at Cannes, the other one being “It Was Just An Accident,” the latest work by revered dissident auteur Jafar Panahi. It is not yet know whether either of these Iran-based directors will be making the trek to the Croisette.
Besides labelling “Woman and Child” as “propaganda,” IIFMA, which is headed by Dubai-based producer Kaveh Farnam, also objects to the fact that the female cast of “Woman and Child,” starting with its protagonist, Parinaz Izadyar, appear in the film wearing the country’s mandatory hijab that many women in Iran have now shed in protest. The organization, which claims to represent hundreds of members of Iran’s film community – more than half of whom they say are in Iran – considers this a betrayal of the “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement spawned by Mahsa Amini, the 22-year-old Iranian Kurdish woman who died in 2022 while in police custody for allegedly wearing a loose headscarf.
“The most important thing after “Woman, Life, Freedom” is that women, especially the young generation, are not wearing the Islamic hijab anymore,” Farnam told Variety. “Women have been fighting for this for years and many have even been killed and have sacrificed themselves for this,” Farnah, who has not seen “Woman and Child,” said.
“If a filmmaker wants to show that people are still obeying the government’s stupid rules, this is a fake depiction of our society that betrays all the fighting, especially by women and the young generation,” Farnam added.
In a nutshell IIFMA’s position is that Saeed Roustayee in making his new movie sold out to the Iranian government and that Cannes by selecting “Woman and Child” is complicit with the Iranian government for giving visibility to what they claim is basically a propaganda film.
The Cannes Film Festival had no comment.
As is often the case with Iranian matters, the reality behind this timely controversy is multifaceted and complex.
“For me, there is a clear distinction between the propaganda films of the Islamic Republic and the films that are made under the constraints of censorship,” Mohammad Rasoulof said in a statement issued to Variety after coming under fire from IIFMA for congratulating Roustayee on Instagram about getting “Woman and Child” into Cannes.
“The idea that some individuals may seek to block others from participating in international festivals goes against the principles of artistic freedom — and even against basic human rights,” Rasoulof added.
“Such an atmosphere also places immense pressure on Iranian filmmakers who are unable to work outside the official system or beyond censorship,” he continued.
“They are caught between two forces: on one side, the pressure of the censorship apparatus; and on the other, the pressure from those who label any kind of professional activity as betrayal of the people or complicity with the regime — denying others their right to choose their own path. It is clear to me that people have different abilities, capacities, and even circumstances. Not everyone is able to take the risks involved in making underground films,” Rasoulof went on to note.
Roustayee issued a statement to Variety in which he describes “Woman and Child” as “a film about a woman who stands up to all the men facing her, and to a patriarchal society that strips her of all her rights including the right to be a mother.”
“I find it strange that I have been accused by some people outside Iran of collaborating with the state,” he said.
‘“Woman and Child” is an independent film,” Roustayee added. The director does not dispute that he made the film with an Iranian government permit, but passionately pointed out that he was forced to get the permit “so that I could finally tell the story of a woman who has been screaming inside my head; waiting to be seen.” See full statement at the bottom of this article.
French sales company Goodfellas, which is selling “Woman and Child,” in a statement for Variety underlined that “Woman and Child,” which they co-financed with an unspecified private investor, received “no support from the Iranian government.”
The company added that throughout the shoot in Iran there were “pressures on the production” and that shooting of the film was “strongly discouraged by Iranian authorities.”
A rep for “Woman and Child” specified that though Iranian producer Jamal Sadatian is nominally part of the “Woman and Child” production team, the filmmakers do not consider Sadatian – whose Boshra Film also produced Roustayee’s 2019 international breakout, action movie “Just 6.5” – an actual producer on “Woman and Child.” That’s because Sadatian, who works within the Iranian system, did not bring any financing. “He just got the permit to shoot” without which they would not have been able to make this film, the film’s rep stated in an email.
Goodfellas in its statement also underlined that Roustayee is known to be a dissident director. In 2023 Roustayee was sentenced to six months in prison for showing his film “Leila’s Brothers” at the 2022 Cannes Film Festival and banned from making movies, though the conviction and ban were eventually lifted following a legal battle.
“To state that Mr. Roustaee is supported by [the] regime in any context would be sheer absurdity,” the Goodfellas statement said. It went on to note that Leila’s Brothers” is widely considered a symbol of the “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement in Iran and that the film’s protagonist Taraneh Alidoosti was arrested in 2023 for supporting the movement and posing on Instagram without a hijab.
Mohammad Atebbai, whose Tehran-based shingle Iranian Independents handled Roustayee’s “Just 6.5,” said he did not see much difference between Saeed Roustayee, Jafar Panahi and Mohammad Rasoulof, or several other name Iranian directors.
“I know their ideas; I know their obsessions. They are all filmmakers who are depicting the people’s problems here,” Atebbai, who is a fixture on the international festival scene, he said.
“But one guy can decide to make an underground movie and another may be trying to get a permit in order to make his film because he actually wants to release his film in Iran for Iranian people too,” Attebai pointed out.
Full statements from Saeed Roustayee and Mohammad Rasoulof below:
Saeed Roustayee:
I speak from the heart. The very things we only whisper in private, among close friends.
Now I say them here, to all of you: Woman, Child. Woman and Child.
My fourth film is about a woman who stands up to all the men facing her, and to a patriarchal society that strips her of all her rights including the right to be a mother.
The hijab is not my choice but it is part of our life in Iran. It’s a law forced on women but we’ve grown used to resisting from within, for freedom.
After the dormitory protests, after 2009, after 2017 and 2019 protests, filmmakers living in Iran kept making films. And during those same years, some of the most important works in the history of Iranian cinema were made—including Oscar nominated films.
My previous film, Leila’s Brothers, according to the authorities, was accused of predicting the women’s uprising, and of having set in motion the dominoes of that movement. As a result I was summoned for interrogation dozens of times, dragged through the courts, brought within a step of prison. In the end, the film was banned, and then leaked illegally in Iran. I was sentenced to prison. Banned from working. Branded an “enemy” by the state.
I have made a film about a woman fighting against a patriarchal society, and I find it strange that I have been accused by some people outside Iran of collaborating with the state.
Woman and Child was made with great pain and difficulty, with private funding and in collaboration with a French production company. The film is part of a form of resistance cinema that, under the Raisi administration, was on the verge of being wiped out. We made Woman and Child to revive the tradition of social cinema, which in our context is inherently political. We made the film to offer an image of women and mothers standing firm against a patriarchal system.
Woman and Child is an independent film. The only compromise being the permit, which I was forced to obtain, so that I could finally tell the story of a woman who has been screaming inside my head, waiting to be seen.
Mohammad Rasoulof:
Yes, when the Cannes Festival announced Saeed Roustaee’s new film, I congratulated him, while at the same time expressing the hope that all Iranian filmmakers could create their films without the restrictions of censorship and mandatory regulations.
For me, there is a clear distinction between the propaganda films of the Islamic Republic and the films that are made under the constraints of censorship.
Roustaee’s previous film (Leila’s Brothers), despite being banned from official screening in Iran, leaked into the black market and created a major impact on public opinion. It depicted a woman’s fight against male dominance and an incompetent father clinging to outdated traditions, sacrificing his family for his ideological selfishness — a character many saw as a metaphor for the leader of the Islamic Republic.
But the situation is now different. After the Mahsa Amini movement in 2022, underground cinema in Iran has grown significantly. This is amazing. However, some now expect that no filmmaker in Iran should accept censorship rules or mandatory hijab.
This is an idealistic and admirable vision — but is it practically achievable?
The Mahsa movement brought changes within society, but in Iran’s official cinema, which operates under the supervision of the government, censorship laws remain firmly in place.
Some filmmakers have decided to expand Iran’s underground cinema. I truly enjoy this idea and feel overwhelmed with joy and a sense of victory.
Yet, tens of thousands of people and their families still rely on the censored film industry for their livelihoods. They are forced to keep their jobs to survive.
Their participation in these types of films does not mean they support the regime.
Many of them still refuse to work on propaganda films that directly serve the Islamic Republic’s interests.
This has been the reality for the past 47 years.
Even under censorship, some filmmakers found ways to bypass restrictions.
Asghar Farhadi is a clear example of someone who has been very successful in this regard.
In fact, he previously collaborated with the producer of Saeed Roustaee’s new film — and even with another producer who had an even worse reputation.
Farhadi managed to make his own films, present them at international festivals, and have them screened both inside and outside Iran. He was able to create remarkable works.
Of course, it is not ideal for us to submit to censorship, but we must not give up the effort.
The Iranian people need Persian-language films they can watch in cinemas.
We, the Iranian filmmakers, must reclaim the cinemas from the authorities.
The non-violent struggle for freedom is a slow but steady process.
On the other hand, as people who believe in freedom of expression and view censorship as a tool of control and erasure, we cannot ourselves become instruments of exclusion.
I would like to emphasize once again: for me, there is a clear line between the Islamic Republic’s propaganda films, which I oppose, and films that manage to tell their stories under the pressure of censorship.
Perhaps you have heard that a few years ago, when Asghar Farhadi’s A Hero was screened at the Cannes Festival, I publicly criticized a comment he made during the press conference. He said, “An actor is just an actor,” meaning that it doesn’t matter what kind of film an actor chooses to appear in.
This statement was a reference to Amir Jadidi (the lead actor in A Hero), who had also played in another film that was pure government propaganda — a project that had been very openly and directly funded and produced by the security apparatus of the Islamic Republic.
I believe that under a dictatorship, it is crucial not to become a tool for the expansion of authoritarianism.
While I truly valued the fact that Mr. Farhadi cast Amir Jadidi in his film, his comment unintentionally sent a green light to certain actors — actors who, until then, had refused to collaborate with the regime’s propaganda machinery.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that Iranian cinema consists of a wide spectrum of filmmakers.
The idea that some individuals may seek to block others from participating in international festivals goes against the principles of artistic freedom — and even against basic human rights.
Such an atmosphere also places immense pressure on Iranian filmmakers who are unable to work outside the official system or beyond censorship.
They are caught between two forces: on one side, the pressure of the censorship apparatus; and on the other, the pressure from those who label any kind of professional activity as betrayal of the people or complicity with the regime — denying others their right to choose their own path. It is clear to me that people have different abilities, capacities, and even circumstances. Not everyone is able to take the risks involved in making underground films.
I deeply support Iranian filmmakers who reject censorship, but I am not willing to contribute to the pressure placed on those who, for whatever reason, are forced to work within the system of censorship.
From my perspective, they themselves are victims of censorship.
I would rather direct my struggle toward those who impose it.
