Mehran Tamadon, a French-Iranian atheist, set himself up for an uphill battle when he came upon the idea of gathering four Iranian clerics, who also happen to be firm believers in the existing system of an Islamic Republic, and spending two days with them in a house to discuss and confront their competing ideologies. After four years, and many a dismissal, Tamadon finally manages to bring his project to life, one through which he hopes to question the prevailing religious authority and come to a reasonable compromise in the societal microcosm that is to become this shared house.
After a brief instance of chit-chat on arrival, during which the clerics seem more than happy to light-heartedly dig at some of their customs, it is swiftly apparent that Tamadon’s project has little chance of going as smoothly as he might have hoped. The first reason for this is, on one hand, that one of the invitees is an experienced debater whose finely-tuned talents of rethoric soon earn him a position as mouthpiece for his three colleagues. The second is that Tamadon reveals himself as a timid opponent, one who evidently wasn’t expecting to be confronted to such a master tactician. Many a viewer will likely feel on occasion compelled to be there and assist Tamadon as he struggles with finding strong arguments for his belief in a secular and democratic society.
From then on, without ever stepping into truly confrontational territory, Tamadon and his guests (or, more accurately, the leader and his silent cohorts) strike up a variety of societal issues such as the controversial wearing of the veil, women’s freedom, free speech and press. On every occasion, the chief cleric exerts his proficiency at pointing out flaws in Tamadon’s secular vision in something approximating Socrates’ use of irony. Shifting between these conversations and casual moments of daily routine, the film threatens to become a 100-minute excruciating recording of a somewhat depressing absolute rejection of the director’s desperate and doomed suggestions at the hands of one cunning manipulator.
Yet out of nowhere, just as the experiment enters into its final hours, the audience is privy to a minor breakthrough, but one that, in these circumstances, appears like a shining beacon of light in world of almost hopeless single-mindedness. The three other clerics finally muster the courage to express their own personal views, revealing a palette of rather more nuanced views than was suggested by their self-elected leader. As they try and articulate their position, a shy willingness to concede to certain progressive values rises to the surface. The moment of hope is short-lived however, as the leader swiftly reasserts his absolute authority, sensing a breach in what he feels is an otherwise satisfyingly uniform defense of religious authority.
Clocking in at an hour and forty minutes, the film’s homemade quality and minimal device will likely challenge even the most curious, but as a failed experiment in micro-diplomacy Iranien offers valuable insight into the world of current Iranian religion and politics, a surprisingly large amount of laughs (though more often than not the result of the audience’s removal from its subjects’ beliefs), and a scathing review of democracy’s chances in a State ruled by religion.
