All language subtitles for firstcase00011.track_4608

'ALDO;

Institute for the Intellectual
Development of Children and Young Adults

Cinema and Theater Department

FIRST CASE, SECOND CASE

Take 4.

The two back rows,

either you say who did it,

or you're all suspended
for the rest of the week.

Your child is one of these students.

What do you expect of him?

Should he denounce
the troublemaker to the teacher

and sit back down?

Or say nothing and resist
until the end of the week?

Shall I reply?

It's hard to be categorical.

It's filming, I'll reply?

Yes, go ahead.

My son did the right thing.

You learn solidarity from childhood.

So in adulthood,

if you have to fight,
you're more resistant.

Of course he could have denounced
his classmate

by a desire to please the teacher.

But it's a sure thing that later on,

he'd become a bookmaker, a brownnose,

a yes-man.

His silence, his resistance,
missing a week of class,

make him stronger.

Which doesn't stop him, in private,
encouraging his friend

to behave in class

and listen to the teacher.

And then...

to respect class rules.

But denouncing is unworthy.

-Sorry?
-They did wrong.

They have to work.

What can they do in the corridor? Nothing.

We went to all this trouble
so he could study,

not to do these things.

That's all. He must go back to work.

I agree he should show solidarity.

That he doesn't go back.

I'll remind him

how important
the solidarity with the classmate is.

Denouncing whoever did it

would mean destroying this solidarity.

From what I've seen,
it's probably the last one.

The one in front of Mohammad Reza.

It wasn't Mohammad Reza.

One of them drummed under the table.

The teacher didn't know who.

He expelled the last two rows,
including your son.

Your son knows who it was.
What do you expect of him?

I must say, my son isn't a bad boy.

He's not the kind to cheat
or misbehave.

My son is serious.

He works very well,
even better than his older brother.

So, there, I don't know.

Maybe the others tricked him. Maybe not.

I don't know.

I'll explain.

It wasn't Mohammad Reza
but somebody else.

The teacher didn't know who it was,
so he flung all seven out.

Mohammad Reza knows who it was.

Do you think he should denounce him
and return to class,

or spend the week in the corridor?

I think these kids were making a racket

and drumming under the table

and said it was Barati.

But my son would never do that.

That's my opinion.

I struggle to make a living and feed him,

so he goes to school.

So he can't do that.

I'd never allow it.

So he should give his name?

What name? I need to give my name?

No, him, he should denounce
whoever did it'?

Yes, denounce whoever misbehaved,
made a noise.

And go back to class.

Shall I begin?

I think...

the student who...

caused the trouble in class
should be denounced

by those who know who it is.

They shouldn't miss a week of class.

The father and the teacher make an effort,

so the students study,

benefit from school.

Refusing to denounce
the one who disturbs the class...

is wrongfully depriving yourself
of a week's learning.

They should have no hesitation
in denouncing

the troublemaker.

I expect my son

to collaborate with the teacher

by denouncing the unruly student
who created the disorder.

Saturday.

Sunday.

Monday.

Please sir.

It was Mohammad Reza Nemati.

In your opinion,
did this student do the right thing?

Please justify your answer briefly.

I must say...

that if we accord any value
to this gesture of solidarity,

naturally,
the breaking of this solidarity...

is regrettable.

This student doesn't respect
this solidarity as such,

regardless of the reasons
and circumstances that provoked it.

The group united
and one of them broke the union.

A regrettable action.

Of course
this student did not behave well.

But the person who incited
this inappropriate reaction

is the teacher.

The child's personality

was crushed.

This regrettable act is caused
by the teacher, not the student.

The main culprit is the teacher.

I don't blame the one who did it
but the one who caused it.

A wrongdoing was committed, undoubtedly.

But not by the child.

Above all, by the teacher,

by asking him to spy.

Making a spy of him.

And also by the parents
who didn't raise him in such a way

as to know the right attitude
to adopt in this situation

and not give in to the ignominy,

the corruption
he was incited to participate in.

So I don't consider the child at fault

but the environmental parameters.

Which is deplorable.

This child's conscience awoke.

When it became clear to him...

that he had wrongfully violated
another's liberty, he went back in.

I admire his courage.

Although he is isolated,

once he knows he's right,

he goes for it.

The others will end up following him.

In my opinion, he behaved badly.

But you must ask yourself
what upbringing he has had,

what has happened in his life
for him to act like this.

It's easy to imagine the future
of a child who behaves like this

and the kind of person he'll become.

This student, who couldn't resist,

thinks he did the right thing.

But in principle,

it's up to the teacher not to create

a situation
that gives rise to such behavior.

Nonetheless, we have to admit
that individuals' resistance varies.

Of course he was wrong.

I consider that education
is not only in this setting.

You can't justify his action...

by returning to class to study.

Because education is in the corridor too.

I utterly condemn what he did.

He harmed the collective.

The course didn't suit them,

they acted collectively
and this person betrayed them.

They should beat him up,
so he doesn't do it again.

This adolescent's attitude
after his return

shows considerable agitation.

He seems anguished.

Maybe he has a bad conscience.

He went against his age group,

against the value system of his group.

I therefore disapprove of what he did.

He himself acted
against his own deepest desires.

We see the symptoms of this

when he's in class.

It's obviously his bad conscience
making him fidget.

In any case, he's suffering.

He risks being rejected by the group
he abandoned.

The student himself gave the answer

in the shame he felt.

In my opinion, his action is just.

He realized he'd made a mistake.

He knew the truth and didn't tell it.

After two days,

his inner turmoil,

his inner conflict

pushed him to do it,

quite rightly.

What interests me

is this teacher who imposes
a collective punishment.

Although nothing is happening in class

and he's just drawing.

The students are bored

and the teacher can't manage
to include them.

Concerning the student we saw come
and denounce his classmate,

once again,
I hold the teacher responsible.

Through his punishment,
he incited one of them

to become an informer.

In human and religious terms,
denunciation is a fault.

In my opinion,
this student was wrong to act like this.

He cut himself off from the group,
while humans live collectively.

He may have sat down,

but he will have a bad conscience

for the rest of the school year

or even longer.

In my opinion, yes.

As the subject of the solidarity
is illicit,

the solidarity loses its noble value.

It becomes a counter value.

So,

while resisting injustice

has a value as resistance,

resistance in the face of justice
becomes a counter value,

as resistance.

Resisting a crime

has value.

But if the same resistance opposes
preventing the crime,

it's a counter value.

In the present case,
the student's action is just.

He is defending his right.

His right and the one of the society
that feeds this individual

and looks after him.

This boy defended society

by denouncing this individual
who doesn't deserve solidarity.

I don't approve of this child's action.

The origin of rebellion in the class
doesn't disappear through this action.

I think if one wants

to track social ills

and reveal them,

they can do so according to principles,
with a wider, deeper vision.

Not in a private, personal framework.

In my opinion, no.

The dominant value system tends,
in these circumstances,

to divide individuals

and transform collective issues

into individual actions.

And this happens in most fields
and social relations.

We are dealing with a regimented system

confronting collective resistance.

It tries to force to yield
through one of its members' betrayal.

This emblematic situation
can be extended to all levels of society.

So it's from this point of view...

that I condemn this student's action.

I'm convinced that, as the film shows,

this adolescent feels uneasy

because he's well aware

that he betrayed a group he belongs to

and regrets doing it.

Such an attitude will directly
impact the social and political life

of the population
we are trying to educate.

To my mind, there are two sides
to this student's action.

On the one hand,
he's faced with a difficult problem--

The fact that he and his classmates
miss a week's lessons.

--He's trying to solve.

On the other hand,
there is a solidarity among friends

that, despite its questionable goal
or manifestation,

has positive aspects.

I think that before acting like this,
this young man

should have started a debate in the group.

He should have invited his classmates
to find a collective solution.

A solution that would avoid division.

He antagonized six classmates.

And would no doubt be disowned
by some of his other classmates.

So his reaction provokes
critical reactions among classmates,

while they should be friendly, fraternal.

Still, he was trying, quite rightly,
to solve the problem.

We can neither condemn him

or say he was absolutely right.

In any case,

it's the school leadership
I hold responsible.

It's up to them
to adopt the suitable attitude

to avoid creating
these critical situations

within groups of young people.

They should show great flexibility
in the matter.

Forcing this child to confess...

is a kind of...

confiscation of opinion.

It comes down...

to exercising oppression

similar to what it seems
foreigners call "Inquisition."

It's confiscation of opinion.

It is trying to...

expose someone's opinion,

manipulate it.

That's how,

I suppose,

a child's humanity,

by this maneuver,

is completely subjugated
to your domination.

He becomes your thing,

a tool devoid of free will
between your hands.

As I see it,

that has a negative impact on the child.

Progressively,

he loses loyalty
towards his own personality.

A child who, in one situation,
denounces a friend,

can perfectly well, in another situation,

in a sensitive situation,
behave treacherously.

His action is bad.

It is contrary to the teachings of Islam

to force a person

to testify against another.

A poem comes to my mind.

As Hafez says:

"Take things gently because by nature

the world deals harshly
with those who mistreat it."

If you act harshly and violently,

that will inevitably provoke
unpleasant consequences.

Case number 2, Take 1.

Saturday.

Sunday.

Monday.

Tuesday.

Wednesday.

Thursday.

Saturday.

What do you think of the collective act
of these students?

Their action,

the resistance they showed, is it just?

Please justify your answer briefly.

Shall I start?

In my opinion,
what they did, that is to say...

not denounce their classmate,
is absolutely just.

But their collective action
wasn't complete.

What I mean is,

they obtain no benefit from it.

In reality, the teacher can also learn
from the student.

Here, in a totally justified way,

the teacher could have been
taught a lesson.

Because his class

was of no interest to the students,

who baited and drummed on the tables.

While doing what they did,

denounce nobody, quite rightly,

they could have guided the teacher
towards a better approach.

I think
their reaction is totally justified.

It's the least you can expect
from a human being.

The reaction is just.

What is regrettable here
is the teacher's mistake.

He should ask himself why,
while he seems busy working,

the others ignore him
and do something else.

I insist that these children did
what they had to do.

Acting otherwise
would have been a mistake.

As long as we don't condition
our children,

their reactions are always just.

At their age, you can't expect
anything else from them.

It seems to me that this solidarity

is a good thing as such.

What we have to observe precisely here

is the origin of this phenomenon.

In short,

I'd say it was a reaction
to the teacher's failings.

This reaction could even perhaps

prompt the teacher to take account
of his weaknesses

and overcome them.

In any case,

I judge this action positively.

Rather than criticize it,

I insist on the need

to reflect on the root causes
of such a reaction,

the context it appears in.

The resistance of these young people
is unworthy.

They united in disgraceful action.

Resistance is essentially sacred.

But their goal

in leaving the classroom is not just.

The class does not belong
to these seven individuals

but to a group

whose liberty was violated by one of them.

I am convinced that, in general,

there is no such thing
as an offending, a guilty child.

Any more than a child behaving badly.

The fault lies only with the adults.

Just as at the doctor's,

the patient is right, on principle,

the child is right, on principle.

So, in my opinion,

their action,

as an initiation of a resistance,

undoubtedly englobes

an extremely rich social
and political value.

It develops their revolutionary spirit.

It builds them,
so they can build the country.

Especially since, to my mind,
they didn't commit any misdemeanor.

Their solidarity is infinitely
more praiseworthy.

If their solidarity came
after committing a fault,

maybe it would be different.

But for me, they didn't do anything.

They simply reacted
to environmental factors.

Moreover, their solidarity is superb.

In the entirety
of a teacher-student relation

such as we observe it,

the question
of our society's dominant values,

and the value system
our culture flows from,

is clearly visible.

In fact,

the students express their revolt

against the system
by reacting against the teacher.

At the same time,

the teacher's attitude
to such a phenomenon

is characteristic of a society
marked by rebellion.

Without examining the situation,

relying only on assumptions,

he condemns a group for the action

of a single individual.

In such a climate,
the collective reaction of the students

may appear natural.

The film doesn't tell us

if the teacher finally unmasks
the culprit or not.

All the students

are penalized for a week

with no effort to identify the culprit.

One person committed this fault,

implying the other six are innocent.

It is therefore obvious
they were punished for no reason.

That proves
that this teacher's judgements

are made with disregard for humanity.

For if we refer
to the Islamic penal system,

better an unpunished culprit

than an innocent punished unjustly.

That innocent would experience injustice,
while Islam forbids injustice.

In my opinion, they behaved badly.

I don't see here any unity

or positive resistance.

Because they disturbed the class.

If we were in a political framework,
it would be different.

But in the atmosphere of a class,

where telling the truth should be
the absolute priority,

these students behaved badly in my view.

I should say

that given the teaching methods
imposed by the teacher,

such as we see them in the film,

for me, the students...

at least proved by their resistance
that they're alive...

and combative.

It's the education system that isn't fair.

In this system,

this kind of resistance is
the students' best option.

They proved their humanity,
their resistance, their militancy.

I think you should keep quiet.
They should say nothing.

In any case, that's my belief.

It's a collective action...

you should stick to.

At this age at least.

At other ages,
things could be different,

other things are at stake.

But in this phase,

in this age group,

their action is the right one.

I support them.

They're supposed to sit in silence
until he finishes his drawing.

It's impossible.

You can't expect 50 students

not to protest while he draws,
to talk about it after.

He could do his drawing earlier,

so that when they arrive,
the students benefit from it.

The course should interest
the pupil or student.

I approve of their attitude.
They did right.

They resisted. They rose up...

against the injunction,
against the arbitrary order.

I totally approve.

They behaved
in a very just, worthy fashion.

This kind of attitude...

is only worthy
of a healthy society and culture.

What will happen among them,

with regard to the troublemaker,

we don't know.

It's a different problem.

But their reaction to the problem
seems to me absolutely just.

This type of action,

in your perspective,

is a first step to cleaning out

the highly flawed monarchical culture

historically widespread among our people.

I'm referring to my childhood.

This culture is not specific
to the past 25 years.

It goes back at least 50 years.

The culture instilled
by tyranny and oppression.

The people has to allow

the continuation of despotic power

and tyranny.

These are the premises
of suppressing that culture.

The culture of making informers.

From schooldays on.

So these students are absolutely right,

their approach is good.

This act,

of not denouncing the troublemaker,

does not constitute either psychologically

or religiously speaking

a betrayal.

It is, on the contrary, a mark of loyalty.

But teachers,

educators,

all those in charge

of educating children,

should not behave like this
towards students.

This situation is despicable.

They're actually asking them
to betray their peers.

You should choose other ways
to approach them,

so as not to break
their spirit of loyalty.

You have to call upon collaboration,
compassion.

You shouldn't use youngsters,
children in the flower of youth,

their purity intact,

as spies,

denouncing others' secrets,

disloyal traitors,

that's not what they are.

That shatters their personality

and lowers them,
including towards themselves.

Solidarity and collective action

have a value in the absolute.

But the question of upbringing arises.

In the misdemeanor,

in mediocrity,

going even further,
in crime, in addiction,

does solidarity have as much value
as in a good deed,

in revolutionary action,
in resisting injustice?

Therefore,

the value of solidarity...

depends directly on its subject.

In this case, it seems
that solidarity exceeded its subject.

Since the obstinacy focuses on an action

that happens to be a misdemeanor.

A more logical approach was called for

as much from the teacher

as the students.

In short,
although solidarity is essentially good,

when its subject is unjust,
it loses its value.

Resistance, in all its forms,

is for me a gesture...

that is sacred and noble.

No matter what

the real or supposed motive.

Here it's exactly as if we imagined

drug traffickers smuggling substances

showed solidarity among themselves.

And we said that
since solidarity is virtuous,

among drug traffickers it is too.

I approve the attitude
of these young people.

For me, faced with a common enemy,
it's the best means of protection.

Thanks to my experience
and work with young people,

I know this kind of incident happens.

I support them wholeheartedly,

even if their unity sometimes
goes against our work.

And we may be tempted to divide them
to be able to teach them.

But I'm against division.

Because their unity can be beneficial

for our teaching programs.

Beyond the question of resistance,

an unhealthy culture has been instilled
these past 25 years,

notably since 1956,

with the creation
of the intelligence services...

in our society by the old regime.

It's a culture of denunciation
and snitching.

If you study the history

of the Iranian people's struggles
of the past ten years,

you observe...

that most of the far-left groups

were dismantled due
to these indiscretions, these intrusions

we're used to living with.

The prying to identify one's neighbor,

know everything about
his comings and goings...

Recently, the intelligence service
ordered all the notaries

and real estate agents

to send them the list
of all the new tenants.

And in fact,

it was these agencies or neighbors

who, in this spirit of informing,

denounced people,

unaware of the consequences
for these people,

or ultimately for society.

Therefore, I venerate
the action of these young people.

If I were one of their fathers,

I'd be proud to have such a child.

I don't think we can answer the question

whether these students did right or wrong.

This problem with young people
is posed worldwide today

for all education experts.

It's very difficult here
to totally approve of them,

or disapprove.

If these students hadn't acted like this,

if one of them had denounced the culprit,

he would have been partly right.

But with that, he would have lost
his classmates' trust.

One negative aspect for a positive one.

But if we deny that
and say they did the right thing,

there's still positive and negative.

They stuck together around a fault.

But it is a fault.

So it's hard to adopt a position

one way or the other.

There's good and bad, in both cases.

It's hard for the students

to find the right balance
and you must understand them.

At their age,

in their environment,

in their unity,
you have to understand them.

Given all these problems of young people,

you need pedagogical rigor

in educational methods.

The answer is necessarily global.

Was this reaction just,

and especially, how could
this situation have been avoided?

You have to take a longer view.

If they had benefitted
from a fairer education system,

one would have tried to understand
why they weren't interested.

We think of them as children,

but they're humanity condensed

and quite numerous.

It's worth trying to understand

why they held out for a week.

I wonder why they went back each day.

Why didn't they try
to overthrow this system?

They go back to class,
with the same teacher,

they can't even mess around anymore.

So it seems to me
they were quite right to resist,

but wrong to go back.

They shouldn't have done it.

Each to his own.

If I were them, I wouldn't denounce.

You could call it fear or...

Maybe I was fearful as a child.

But today, I wouldn't do it,

for I'm convinced

that this denunciation
would do more harm than good.

First,

you submit the child
to a kind of inquisition.

Next, he'll get used

to being society's policeman
and feel entrusted with a mission

to report deviance,
ready even to incite it,

by provoking conflict between people.

Morally, when a group lives
and works together,

to me, informing isn't just,
even if a fault has been committed.

The effort should have focused on trying

to convince his classmate
not to mess around.

Denouncing him only
exacerbates the situation.

If the teacher expels the culprit,
another will take his place.

The rebellion will persist
and nothing will be solved.

Screenplay, directed and edited by
Abbas Kiarostami

Director of photography:
Houshang Baharlou

Sound recording:
Changiz Sayad

Assistant:
Nasser Zeraati

KAN OON
1979