There are some movies which after viewing for the first time, pose some considerably weighty questions; what was the purpose of the film? what is the director trying to tell us? what have I gained from the film, if anything at all? A Separation had me pondering on the same and, although I’m aware of the fact that the movie I’d seen was a good one, I still don’t have all the answers…but I’ll try my best. At the heart of Asghar Farhadi’s movie is a divorce between a couple who aren’t parting because their marriage is finished, but because they simply have no clear answer to the impasse in their lives.
Simin is an educated woman who wants to leave Iran in search of better prospects for her daughter Termeh, a precocious yet intelligent 11-year-old, as well as for her family, in short, to have a better and prosperous future. Her husband, Nader does not wish to leave because he needs to be there for his father, an aged and helpless Alzheimer patient. The two decide that divorce is the only option, not realising the disastrous impact it would have on Termeh who just wishes for the two to stay together. The problem here, for the viewers, is that both parties are right and siding with one would be an injustice to the other. To add to this complicated situation, we have Razieh, a caretaker who has been engaged to assist Nader’s father in the absence of Simin who has left for her mother’s. Being extremely pious, she is uncomfortable with taking care of the incontinent father, yet stays on due to her impecunious state, despite her husband being in the dark about her job. One day, when Nader comes home early, he finds his father sprawled on the floor half-dead and Razieh missing. When she returns, he is furious with her and accusing her of theft and gross negligence, throws her out of the house. She falls down the stairs, and unfortunately being pregnant, suffers a miscarriage.
Source
This is when things take a turn for the worse, and when Simin and Nader go to the hospital, Razieh’s husband Hodjat, a cantankerous and brusque man, comes to blows with them. The situation having escalated, we see how the cloying situation is tried, unfailingly, to be resolved in a court (resembling a simply bureaucratic office) with different angles being introduced each time, and fingers being pointed at each other and insults being bandied about, with the innocent Termeh caught in this unenviable mess. At the end, when a compromise seems to have been reached, a hidden secret is revealed by Razieh which changes the entire complexion of the already complicated case, and it is assumed that Hodjat and his wife drop the charges. The film’s denouement shows Simin and Nader sitting diagonally opposite from each other at the divorce court, silently awaiting Termeh’s decision as to which parent she has decided to side with.
What I realise about the film’s beauty at this point is that no one is in the wrong; when you actually look at things from each character’s perspective, you come to understand that they did what they had to. Simin was right in wanting to leave the country for a secure future. She was right in wanting Nader to end the mess he was stuck in by paying the blood money required to close the case as she could see the damage it was doing to her daughter. Nader, on the other hand, was right in wanting to stay to take care of his father, and not wishing to pay the blood money as he wasn’t convinced of his role in the miscarriage. Also, in not admitting that he knew of Razieh’s pregnancy when he did in fact, wasn’t exactly the wrong thing because the law sees only black and white and not grey, and his situation wouldn’t have been understood at all.
Razieh did right in working without her husband’s knowledge despite going against her religious beliefs, and from her perspective, not informing Nader about the car crash was understandable because she only did it to save her job, and in turn, her family. Hodjat’s situation too can be empathised with; he was correct in going against Nader who he believed was the reason for the miscarriage, because he wasn’t aware of the car-crash. Not wanting the blood money initially, he later agreed to it; first he wanted to save his honour and get the justice he deserved was due, but being cool-headed later changed his stance, he was in debt and letting go of the money would be a ridiculous thing to do.
This is the true crux and purpose of the film! Farhadi, very convincingly, shows us that law simply isn’t is right or wrong, black or white…there are many situations wherein everyone seems to be in the right despite the outcome being wrong and that ethics and morals of a situation has to be considered before awarding a verdict. Every viewpoint has to be looked at, every angle adds its own gravitas and importance to a case which makes judgement all the more difficult.
A marvel of a film, shot mainly on a handheld camera/tripod to give a real feel of precarious happenings, Farhadi raises important questions about the ethics of human behaviour where a falsity can sometimes be truthful.
Realistic acting from all actors gives this movie its edge and conflictive nature. A must watch.
[FEATURED IMAGE SOURCE]
shaunwanikar.com 