When the Screen Becomes a Prison Cell: Iranian Cinema and the Art of Resistance

j7xi8kk / VBMGZN Senior Editorial Team | World Cinema | Society & Culture | Iran | Political Film

From Jafar Panahi filming from house arrest to Mohammad Rasoulof fleeing in the night — how Iranian directors transformed censorship itself into the most powerful cinematic language of our era.

—

The Camera as Contraband

There is a scene that did not happen in a film studio, was not approved by any ministry, and was never supposed to exist. Jafar Panahi, one of Iran’s greatest living directors, is sitting in his own apartment, banned from making films, banned from leaving the country, banned from giving interviews. And yet the camera is running. The film exists. It will be smuggled out of Iran on a USB drive hidden inside a birthday cake and screened at Cannes, where it will win a prize its director cannot travel to collect.

This is what Iranian cinema has become: an art form defined as much by the conditions of its creation as by its content. To understand it is to understand something essential about the relationship between political power, human creativity, and the specific courage required to tell the truth in a country that punishes truth-tellers with prison and exile.

—

That film is This Is Not a Film (2011). And the sentence that titles it is one of the most politically loaded statements in the history of cinema. If this is not a film, the Iranian authorities cannot punish Panahi for making a film. If this is not a film, it cannot be banned. And yet it is, unmistakably, a film — and a devastating one, a portrait of an artist imprisoned in his own home, reading the script of the movie he is not allowed to make, surrounded by walls that cannot contain what he has to say.

Jafar Panahi Filmography

The Context: A Society Watching Itself

Iran is not a simple society, and it resists the flattening that Western media frequently applies to it. It is a country of 90 million people, with one of the youngest and most educated populations in the Middle East, a deep literary and artistic tradition stretching back millennia, and a political system that has been in intense, unresolved tension with a large portion of its own population since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

That revolution replaced a monarchy with a theocracy — the Islamic Republic — governed by the principle of *velayat-e faqih*, or guardianship of the Islamic jurist, which concentrates supreme authority in a religious leader. For decades, the relationship between the state and Iranian civil society — particularly its artists, women, young people, and ethnic minorities — has been one of sustained, sometimes violent repression punctuated by brief openings and followed by renewed crackdowns.

Iranian cinema emerged in this context as one of the few spaces where social reality could be depicted, interrogated, and criticized — not despite censorship but in constant, ingenious negotiation with it. The result has been one of the most distinctive national cinemas in the world, simultaneously celebrated at international festivals and suppressed at home. Films are made, banned, and smuggled out. Directors are arrested, go into exile, or continue working from within constraints that would paralyze most artists.

To watch Iranian cinema is to watch a society think about itself under impossible conditions.

Persepolis: The Drawing That Could Not Be Silenced

Before Panahi filmed himself in his apartment and before Mohammad Rasoulof shot a film in secret while awaiting prison, there was Marjane Satrapi and a black ink drawing of a girl in a headscarf staring out from the page with enormous, furious eyes.

Persepolis began as a graphic novel, published in French in 2000 and 2001, in which Satrapi — who left Iran for Europe as a teenager — drew her own childhood and adolescence against the backdrop of the Islamic Revolution, the Iran-Iraq War, and the social transformations that followed. The adaptation into animated film, co-directed by Satrapi and Vincent Paronnaud and released in 2007, became one of the most celebrated animated features of the century.

What *Persepolis* accomplished was extraordinary in its simplicity. By telling the story of one girl — the young Marji, growing up in Tehran, watching her country transform around her, losing relatives to war and revolution, struggling with the new rules imposed on women’s bodies and behavior — Satrapi made the abstract concrete and the political personal. The stark black-and-white animation, deliberately recalling the graphic novel’s visual language, gave the film a timeless quality that paradoxically made its specific historical moment more vivid, not less.

The film was banned in Iran immediately. It was also briefly pulled from screening in Bangkok after diplomatic pressure from Iran — a reminder that Iranian censorship does not stop at its borders. But it reached audiences worldwide and became, for many Western viewers, their first serious encounter with Iranian social reality from the inside. It showed that the Islamic Revolution had not been uniformly welcomed, that Iranian society was internally diverse and contested, and that the women who bore its restrictions most directly had complex, contradictory, deeply human responses to their circumstances.

Satrapi herself has noted the ironies of her position — celebrated in the West as a voice of Iranian dissidence, sometimes resented within Iran for providing an outsider-facing narrative, and always navigating the question of who speaks for a society she left as a teenager. These tensions do not diminish *Persepolis*. They are part of what the film is about.

—

Jafar Panahi: Filming from the Cell

No figure in contemporary world cinema embodies the intersection of artistic courage and political persecution more completely than Jafar Panahi. And understanding his work requires understanding not just the films but the conditions under which they were made.

Panahi came to international attention in the 1990s as a protégé of the legendary Abbas Kiarostami, whose humane, formally innovative cinema had already established Iran as a major force in world film. Panahi’s early films — *The White Balloon* (1995), *The Circle* (2000), *Crimson Gold* (2003) — were formally accomplished and socially precise, depicting the lives of women, children, and the urban poor with a compassion that made the structural violence of Iranian society impossible to look away from.

In 2010, following his participation in protests after the disputed 2009 presidential election, Panahi was arrested, imprisoned briefly, and then sentenced to six years in prison and a twenty-year ban on filmmaking, writing screenplays, giving interviews, or leaving the country. The sentence was staggered, meaning he lived for years under the threat of its full enforcement.

His response was to keep making films.

This Is Not a Film, filmed on a smartphone and a consumer camcorder inside his apartment while under house arrest, is an act of creative defiance so pure it borders on the miraculous.

Closed Curtain (2013), made secretly with co-director Kambuzia Partovi, is a haunting meditation on isolation and persecution.

Taxi (2015), in which Panahi drives a taxi around Tehran and films the passengers who enter, is both a formal marvel and a kind of covert documentary portrait of Iranian society — shot entirely inside the cab, where the camera is just another object, and no filming is technically happening.

Three Faces (2018) and No Bears (2022) continued this body of work produced under the sentence. No Bears, made while Panahi was fighting a reinstatement of his prison sentence, is perhaps his most direct confrontation with his own situation — a film about a filmmaker (played by Panahi) whose remote presence causes harm he cannot control or prevent, a meditation on the cost of bearing witness and the guilt of the artist who survives by watching.

In 2022, Panahi turned himself in to serve his sentence in solidarity with colleagues who had also been arrested. He went on hunger strike. International outcry was significant. He was eventually released, but the message of the Iranian state was clear: the punishment for telling the truth is ongoing, even when the camera keeps running.

The Secret of the Sacred Fig: A Film Made in Fear

Mohammad Rasoulof’s “The Seed of the Sacred Fig*” (released internationally as The Secret of the Sacred Fig, 2024) represents a different but equally significant form of cinematic resistance. Where Panahi’s post-ban films derive much of their power from the conditions of their making — the apartment, the taxi, the border — Rasoulof’s film is a full-scale narrative drama, shot secretly, smuggled out of Iran, and screened at Cannes while its director was awaiting a sentence of eight years in prison, flogging, and asset confiscation.

Rasoulof did not wait to serve the sentence. He fled Iran on foot, crossing difficult terrain to reach safety in Europe. He attended the Cannes premiere in person — a man who had left everything rather than be silenced.

The film itself is a domestic drama that becomes a political horror story. It centers on a family in Tehran whose father, Iman, has just been appointed as an investigative judge in the Revolutionary Court — a position that makes him complicit in the state’s violence during the 2022 Woman, Life, Freedom protests that erupted after the death of Mahsa Amini in morality police custody. As the protests intensify, the father’s pistol — a symbol of his new authority — goes missing in the family home. His suspicion that his own daughters may have taken it to protect themselves or to give to protesters tears the family apart.

The genius of the film is structural. Rasoulof uses the thriller mechanics of a domestic mystery — where is the gun? — to examine the way authoritarian political systems colonize the most intimate spaces. The family home becomes a microcosm of Iran. The father’s violence, rationalized as protection, mirrors the state’s violence rationalized as order. The daughters’ resistance, fragile and terrified, mirrors the resistance of Iranian women in the streets.

The film incorporates actual footage from the 2022 protests — women removing their headscarves, security forces beating demonstrators, Mahsa Amini’s name on protesters’ lips. The boundary between documentary and fiction collapses in a way that feels like both artistic choice and moral necessity. This is not a metaphor. This is happening. These are real people. The film refuses to let you forget it.

—

Tehran (Apple TV+): Society from the Inside Out

The Apple TV+ series “Tehran”, first released in 2020 and continuing into subsequent seasons, represents a different kind of engagement with Iranian society — one produced by Israeli creators, starring Israeli actors, and situated squarely within the genre conventions of espionage thriller. Its relationship to the other works discussed here is complicated by that context and worth examining carefully.

The series follows Tamar Rabinowitz, a Mossad agent of Iranian origin who infiltrates Tehran to carry out a sabotage mission. It is, by genre definition, a narrative in which Iran and Iranians are filtered through the perspective of an adversary intelligence service. The politics baked into that premise are not neutral.

And yet *Tehran* does something that distinguishes it from cruder representations of Iran in Western media. It takes seriously the texture of everyday Iranian life — the domestic spaces, the social codes, the ways ordinary people navigate surveillance and restriction, the underground culture of parties and romantic lives lived behind closed curtains. The Iranian characters are not villains or ciphers. They are people with competing loyalties, genuine warmth, and the specific creativity that people develop when living under systems that constrain them.

The series works best when read less as a political thriller about espionage and more as an accidental ethnography — a portrait of a city and a society that manages, in the interstices of its genre mechanics, to convey something true about the daily experience of living in Tehran. Its limitations are real: the Mossad-hero framing shapes every choice, and audiences should bring that awareness to their viewing. But as a gateway into the physical and social reality of a city that most Western audiences have never encountered directly, it has genuine value.

What *Tehran* shares with *Persepolis*, with Panahi’s films, and with Rasoulof’s work is an insistence that Iran is a place where real people live complex lives — not an abstraction, not a threat, not a monolith. That insistence, however differently each work achieves it, is the beginning of understanding.

—

Woman, Life, Freedom: Cinema After Mahsa Amini

The 2022 protests ignited by the death of Mahsa Amini — a 22-year-old Kurdish-Iranian woman who died in the custody of the morality police after being detained for allegedly improperly wearing her hijab — represent the most significant mass uprising in Iran since the Green Movement of 2009, and they have already begun reshaping Iranian cultural production in ways that will take years to fully understand.

The slogan *Zan, Zendegi, Azadi* — Woman, Life, Freedom — crystallized something that the films discussed in this article had been documenting for decades: that the primary site of confrontation between the Iranian state and its people is the body of Iranian women, and that Iranian women have never stopped resisting.

Rasoulof’s *The Secret of the Sacred Fig* is the first major film to engage directly with these protests in dramatic form. But it will not be the last. Iranian filmmakers in exile are working. Iranian filmmakers inside the country are working — under risk, under censorship, under threat. The tradition of using whatever camera is available, whatever story can be told in whatever space is permitted, to bear witness to lived reality — that tradition is alive and generative.

What These Works Share: The Aesthetics of Resistance

Across *Persepolis*’ black-and-white drawings, Panahi’s taxi conversations, Rasoulof’s secret-filmed domestic drama, and even *Tehran*’s genre mechanics, a common aesthetic emerges — not by design but by necessity.

These works are all intimate. They work in close physical quarters because those are the only quarters available — the apartment, the car, the family home. They privilege the human face, the human voice, the specific weight of individual experience over the grand historical panorama. They refuse abstraction because abstraction is what authoritarian systems prefer — the abstract enemy, the abstract threat, the abstract population that can be managed and controlled. These films insist on the specific person, the specific moment, the specific choice made under unbearable pressure.

They are also formally inventive in ways that necessity has generated. When you cannot shoot freely, when you cannot cast openly, when you cannot submit your script for approval — you find other ways. The constraints that were meant to silence Iranian cinema have instead produced some of the most formally original work in contemporary film.

This is not an argument for the value of repression. It is an observation about human creativity’s capacity to turn prison walls into canvases.

—

Why You Should Be Watching

For audiences encountering Iranian cinema for the first time through any of these works, the experience is likely to be disorienting in productive ways. You will find a society that is not what the headlines have prepared you for — more complicated, more self-aware, more funny and tender and furious than the flat image of “Iran” that circulates in Western political discourse.

You will find filmmakers who have paid extraordinary prices to maintain their integrity. You will find women at the center of almost every story, because women have been at the center of Iran’s defining social conflict for decades, and the filmmakers who have been paying attention know it. You will find the specific courage of people who understood what it would cost them to keep the camera running, and kept it running anyway.

Jafar Panahi is still in Iran. Mohammad Rasoulof is in exile. Marjane Satrapi has lived in France since her teenage years. The society they depict is still there, still navigating the gap between the world it is officially told it inhabits and the world it actually experiences every day.

The screen is not a prison cell. But when the people making the films understand what prison cells feel like, something about the light coming through the screen changes. It becomes evidence. It becomes testimony. It becomes, in the most precise sense of the word, witness.

This analysis was produced by the VBMGZN Senior Editorial Team as part of our production on world cinema and the societies that create it. We want to express our deep repulse when it comes to any war motivated by economical reasons out of the international laws and with sinister leaders behind that are playing with human lives. From here we call to the different parts participating, to stop the bombings and find a solution without killing more civilians from this very moment, and the day of today.

SAY NO TO WAR!