This is Not a Film as Third Cinema

This is Not a Film as Third Cinema

Octavio Getino and Fernando Solanas wrote “Towards a Third Cinema: Notes and Experiences for the Development of a Cinema of Liberation in the Third World” and illustrated the differences between first, second, and third cinema.  Their definition of these different types of cinema help us determine what category, if any, Mojtaba Mirtahmasb and Jafar Panahi’s This is Not a Film (2011) would fall into.  I will use the different types of film defined in “Towards a Third Cinema” along with the issues of transnationalism, nationalism, ideology, and conventions of realism exemplified through elements of third cinema to place This is Not a Film in the category of third cinema.

Getino and Solanas argue that “first cinema” is a Hollywood model of cinema used as a consumer product.  First cinema follows the dominant ideology, so most audiences can agree with the content of the film.  They say first cinema “leads to the absorption of forms of the bourgeois world-view...man is viewed as a consumer of ideology, and not the creator of ideology” (2001, 927).  Clearly first cinema tends to not be very controversial, and abides by the values the audience believes in.  It agrees with the Hollywood System and is typically profitable from it.  An example of first cinema is Michael Bay’s Transformers (2007) because it follows the Hollywood System, does not host any controversial topics, and the goal of this film is to make money.  Second cinema on the other hand strays from first cinema in the artistic values of the film.  According to Getino and Solanas, second cinema “signified a step forward inasmuch as it demanded that the filmmaker be free to express himself” (2011, 927-928).  In other words, second cinema is separate from first cinema because it becomes more artistic, utilizes the auteur theory, and is considered more intellectual.  Jean-Luc Godard is quoted in this article, who comes directly from second cinema and the French New Wave.  Godard says that he is “trapped inside the fortress” (2011, 928).  By this Godard is saying that although second cinema is more independent than first cinema, second cinema is still trapped within the Hollywood System and has to abide by it.  An example of second cinema is Francois Truffaut’s The 400 Blows (1959) because it comes straight from the French New Wave and is more intellectual and artistic than films like Transformers, but is still trapped within the Hollywood System.

The last type of cinema, which relates to Mirtahmasb and Panahi’s This is Not a Film, is third cinema.  Third cinema  or revolutionary cinema is more political than the other two types of cinema, in that it encourages revolution.  According to Getino and Solanas, third cinema’s goal is the “cutting off of the intellectual and artistic sectors from the processes of national liberation” (2011, 928).  By this, the aim of third cinema is to spark revolution.  This type of cinema is collaborative, unlike first and second cinema, where there is no individual hero, and everyone helps make the film.  These films hope to provoke the participation of the viewer to spark liberation.  This is an example of cinema of subversion, because the audience needs to have a revolutionary spirit, not the spirit of the passive consumer who tends to watch first and second cinema.  The ideology of third cinema is decolonization.  It tries to undo political structures by using the camera as a gun and a projector as a weapon.  Third cinema or revolutionary cinema is a powerful tool used by those who need to spark a revolution.  This trait is unique to third cinema, because it aims to break free from the dominant ideology, unlike first cinema.  According to Getino and Solanas, revolutionary cinema is “at the same time one of destruction and construction: destruction of the image that neocolonialism has created of itself and of us, and construction of a throbbing, living reality which recaptures truth in any of its expressions” (2011, 930).  Clearly third cinema aims to deconstruct the dominant ideology to construct a revolution.  Another element of third cinema is realism.  By using realist elements like real locations, unprofessional actors, real issues, long takes, and replicate reality as much as possible.  These elements make third cinema more relatable to the audience, so I think making the film more realistic can help the audience believe that the revolution they see on screen is possible in real life as well.  An example of third cinema would be Gillo Pontecorvo’s The Battle of Algiers (1966) because the films ideology focuses on revolution, is combative and political, has elements of realism like on location shooting.

Mojtaba Mirtahmasb and Jafar Panahi’s This is Not a Film (2011) falls under the category of third cinema for many reasons.  First of all, the film brings forward issues with transnationality and nationality.  Many transnational viewers of this film are shocked at how oppressive the government in Iran is portrayed.  As an American, it is surprising to me that someone can go to jail for making a film.  The transnational reaction to this film evokes a revolutionary attitude like third cinema would suggest, because our ideology says that what the Iranian government is doing is wrong.  Mirtahmasb and Panahi share our ideology and made this film to deconstruct the Iranian government.  I would say this film could spark a revolution with its transnational audience, but because this film is third cinema, most people in America for example will not watch this film.  The people of Iran need to join together for this revolution to happen.  The problem with this film on a national level is that this film is banned in Iran.  How can a revolution start when this oppressive government won’t allow its citizens to view the film?  That is in fact the exact reason why Panahi is imprisoned, because the government accused him of fomenting anti-government propaganda with his films.  This is usually not an issue with first cinema, because it abides by the dominant ideology and is therefore not controversial.  Clearly the Iranian government believes This is Not a Film’s ideology is dangerous.

This is Not a Film represents third cinema once again with its ideology.  Third cinema draws attention to the issues that create a need for revolution.  This is Not a Film draws attention to the oppressive nature of the Iranian government, and hopes to cause the audience to revolutionize.   The title of the film in itself tells us Panahi and Mirtahmasb’s ideology within the film.  By entitling it, This is Not a Film, it is as if Panahi is trying to explain that this is not a film so that he does not get in trouble for it because the government has banned him from making films for twenty years.  This title mocks the government, and shows how extreme measures must be to avoid complications with the law.  The title itself is political and encourages revolution.  The overall ideology of the film encourages revolution, which is entirely third cinema.  In no way does this film’s ideology provoke any dominant ideology seen in first cinema film.

The aspect of third cinema that relates to Motjaba Mirtahmasb and Jafar Panahi’s This is Not a Film (2011) is its elements of realism.  Elements of realism are used  in third cinema to help relate the audience to what is onscreen.  If they believe that what they are witnessing is possible, then it will encourage them to participate with the revolution on screen.  The elements of realism in This is Not a Film firmly place it in the category of third cinema.  First of all, the “actors” in the film are unprofessional.  Panahi is not acting out scenes, but instead going through every day life and capturing it on camera, which is as real as realism gets.  This film was also shot entirely on location and never in a set, which is also an element of realism.  Next, the issues presented in the film are real issues that real people go through.  Facing imprisonment for filming is a real problem in Iran, unlike first cinema issues like saving the world from aliens in Michael Bay’s Transformers (2007).  The last element of realism that places This is Not a Film in third cinema is the use of long takes.  An example of this is in the opening scene of the film.  We have a long shot of Panahi eating his breakfast and calling Mirtahmasb on the phone.  This scene lasts for several minutes without cutting, showing our “character” speaking candidly.  He actions are natural and the conversation is natural.  Every element of this scene fits under realism.  The lighting is natural, it is filmed on location, Panahi is not a professional actor, a long take is used, and the issues he is sharing with his friend are real.  All of these elements relate to third cinema, especially in this film because they show us that these issues are real.  This situation is real and it needs to change.  A revolution has to occur for things to change for Panahi in Iran.

Fernando Solanas and Octavio Getino define the lines between first, second, and third cinema in their article “Towards a Third Cinema: Notes and Experiences for the Development of a Cinema of Liberation in the Third World.”  First cinema abides by the Hollywood System and conforms to the dominant ideology, second cinema is more artistic and intellectual than first cinema, but is still stuck in the Hollywood system, and third cinema uses film as a weapon to start a political revolution with its audience.  Mojtaba Mirtahmasb and Jafar Panahi’s This is Not a Film (2011) fits under third cinema because of its transnational and national relations, ideology,  and conventions of realism displayed in the film.  The film is controversial on a transnational level and banned on a national level.  The ideology encourages revolution within the Iranian government, and elements of realism like long takes and unprofessional actors are used to make the issues in the film more tangible.

Works Cited

St. Martin's, 2011. 927-938. Print.

Getino, Octavio, and Fernando Solanas. "Towards a Third Cinema: Notes and Experiences for the Development of a Cinema of Liberation in the Third World." Critical Visions in Film Theory. Ed. Timothy Corrigan, Ed. Patricia White and Ed. Meta Mazaj. Boston: Bedford/