{"id":5016,"date":"2025-08-30T10:06:55","date_gmt":"2025-08-30T10:06:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/echoespsy.com\/?p=5016"},"modified":"2026-01-14T16:07:26","modified_gmt":"2026-01-14T16:07:26","slug":"cinema-is-a-film","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/echoespsy.com\/en\/cinema-is-a-film\/","title":{"rendered":"Cinema is a Film"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Cinema is a Film<\/h1>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

In the phenomenology of the spirit of Iranian cinema 1<\/sup><\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Iraj E. Ghoochani<\/h4>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Summary<\/span><\/p>

\"\"<\/span><\/p>

This article explores the idea\u00a0that if \u201cthe spirit is a bone\u201d, as Hegel suggested, then this principle can be extended to other domains. Using cinema as an example, it proposes that “Cinema is a Film,” but suggests that the spirit of cinema lives in an inversion with the mere film, much like the spirit with the skull. However, no assertion is intended to be proven true; rather, each pair of insurmountable concepts, such as Spirit and Bone, Word and Flesh, Voice and Image, serves as a tool for contemplating cinema. Drawing on Iranian medieval neo-Platonic philosophy, the article suggests that the materialistic world was rather like a cinema even before the invention of cinema. The author argues that following the suit of this episteme, certain filmmakers, like Aslani, create a sort of cinema that transcends the film, favoring the spirit over the bone, specifically sound over film. For these filmmakers, the voice of the film is the true projector i.e. creator of the film, with the celluloid strips serving as the bone. However, other Iranian filmmakers, such as Abbas Kiarostami, view cinema differently, seeing it as the film itself.<\/span><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Cinema is a Film<\/span><\/p>


<\/span>\u0633\u0627\u06cc\u0647<\/span> \u0642\u062f<\/span> \u062a\u0648<\/span> \u0628\u0631<\/span> \u0642\u0627\u0644\u0628\u0645<\/span> \u0627\u06cc<\/span> \u0639\u06cc\u0633\u06cc<\/span> \u062f\u0645<\/span> \/ <\/span>\u0639\u06a9\u0633<\/span> \u0631\u0648\u062d\u06cc\u0633\u062a<\/span> \u06a9\u0647<\/span> \u0628\u0631<\/span> \u0639\u0638\u0645<\/span> \u0631\u0645\u06cc\u0645<\/span> \u0627\u0641\u062a\u0627\u062f\u0633\u062a<\/span>
<\/span>The shadow of your stature falls upon my mold, O Jesus-breath \/ It is the reflection of a soul cast upon decaying bones.<\/span><\/p>

\u2014 Hafez<\/span><\/p>

Hegel once wrote that \u201cThe spirit is a bone\u201d (<\/span>Der Geist ist ein Knochen<\/span><\/i>)<\/span>. At first glance, the statement seems strange, almost absurd. Does he mean it literally \u2014 that the human skull is the reality of the spirit? Hegel clarifies: the tangible, physical existence of the human being is indeed their skull bone. Is this statement clear? Certainly not. But from the preceding context, we deduce he means the\u00a0skull\u00a0specifically:<\/span><\/p>


<\/span>Die Wirklichkeit und Dasein des Menschen ist sein Sch\u00e4delknochen<\/span><\/i>
<\/span><\/i>The reality and Dasein of man is his skull-bone.<\/span><\/i><\/p>

Thus, spirit is the skull. But how can spirit be “lowered” to the level of a bone? The skull is a rigid, inert object; the spirit, by contrast, is alive and fluid<\/span>. Hegel\u2019s point might be that spirit, in its concrete reality, always appears in a material form \u2014 and in this case, that form is bone. Whatever Hegel\u2019s point might be, such paradoxical pairings \u2014 spirit and bone, word and flesh, voice and image \u2014 can serve as conceptual tools. They allow us to think about other domains, such as cinema, in the same dialectical way. Then, if we extend Hegel\u2019s principle, we might say: \u201cCinema is a film.\u201d Here, \u201cfilm\u201d is the bone \u2014 the physical medium of celluloid or digital recording \u2014 and \u201ccinema\u201d is the spirit that flows through it: movie.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

\"\"<\/b><\/p>

Cinematic Exorcism\u00a0<\/b>The\u00a0<\/span>film projector<\/span><\/i>\u00a0as exorcist: Celluloid = possessed body (light trapped in emulsion)<\/span><\/p>

Projector\u2019s beam = the rite that screams\u00a0<\/span>“Name yourself!”<\/span><\/i>, forcing light to confess its spectral nature<\/span><\/p>

Celluloid is the trembling membrane where light becomes ghost. Here in this essay, “film” refers not to stories or screens, but to cinema’s\u00a0physical body\u2014the quivering strip of celluloid that 1- Intercepts\u00a0light (like a wound receiving a blade) 2-Transubstantiates\u00a0it through silver and gelatin (a chemical reaction) and finally 3-Exhales\u00a0as projection (the resurrection of arrested light)<\/span><\/p>

Traditional metaphysics treats bone as spirit’s antithesis; Hegel collapses them. The <\/span>exercise<\/span><\/i> of spirit becomes synonymous with the <\/span>cultivation<\/span><\/i> of the skull\u2014identical acts. Representation is looped back onto demonstration; reflection onto projection.<\/span><\/p>

Yet the essential point always stands outside language, for words exist in a perpetual strike, juxtaposing themselves against their own opposites. This strike is the serious thinker’s playground\u2014a chance to climb the cord stitching heaven to earth , neither falling nor even moving, since “up” is but the inverted image of “down\u201d As the verse says:<\/span><\/p>


<\/span>\u0645\u0634\u063a\u0648\u0644<\/span> \u0628\u0648\u062f<\/span> \u0641\u06a9\u0631<\/span> \u0628\u0647<\/span> \u0627\u06cc\u0645\u0627\u0646<\/span> \u0648<\/span> \u06a9\u0627\u0641\u0631\u06cc<\/span> \/ <\/span>\u0627\u06cc\u0645\u0627\u0646<\/span> \u0648<\/span> \u06a9\u0641\u0631<\/span> \u0648<\/span> \u0634\u0628\u0647\u0647<\/span> \u0648<\/span> \u062a\u0639\u0637\u06cc\u0644<\/span> \u0639\u06a9\u0633<\/span> \u062a\u0648\u0633\u062a<\/span>
<\/span>The mind agonizes over faith and heresy \/ Yet faith, heresy, doubt, and even their suspension are but your projection\/reflection.<\/span><\/p>

“Spirit is a bone”\u2014our thinker can never escape this phrase. He is condemned to stare it in the eye for eternity, seeking an answer to his own being-or-nonbeing, suspended as he is between spirit and bone.<\/span><\/p>

Cinema as Film: A Kiarostamian Extension on Hegelian Axiom<\/span><\/p>


<\/span>If “spirit is bone,” this axiom extends to all domains. For instance: “Cinema is film.” Just as the spirit finds nothing more like itself than the skull (its earthly throne). Now, like Hegel’s proposition, this statement isn’t meant to be verified, but to provoke thought about cinema’s nature. Where Hegel\u2019s thinker is busy with his axiom, the filmmaker\u2014here, Kiarostami\u2014is defined by their stance toward\u00a0“cinema is film.”\u00a0His famous dictum inverts the terms:\u00a0“Film is nothing but a lie to get closer to the truth.” \u00a0Just as the spirit discovers itself only through its inversive hollow\u2014skull as its\u00a0negative cast\u2014so too does cinema confront its essence in the celluloid strip.<\/span><\/p>

Some Iranian filmmakers\u2014most notably Mohammadreza Aslani\u2014represent a counterpoint to Kiarostami\u2019s approach. Rooted in Iranian medieval Neo-Platonic philosophy, where the visible world consists merely of shadowy projections of essential ideas, these filmmakers view the voice (the Word) as the true creative source\u2014the projector of meaning\u2014while the images trapped in the “bone-yard” of celluloid.<\/span><\/p>

Abbas Kiarostami operates from the opposite premise. For him, cinema resides in the film itself\u2014the visual, tangible artifact. This fundamental opposition frames a crucial duality in Iranian cinema: to what extent does it privilege the disembodied voice (that spectral narrator hovering beyond the frame), and to what extent does it commit to the physical filmstrip as its own subject?<\/span><\/p>

For Aslani, the voice is not simply a soundtrack layered onto images; it is the generative force of the film. The images, captured on celluloid or digital media, are secondary \u2014 the \u201cbone\u201d that supports the life of the work but does not itself contain the soul. This idea resonates with the mystical belief that sound can reveal truths hidden from the eye. In this model, the viewer\u2019s relationship to a film is shaped by listening as much as by seeing. The sound can direct, even command, the audience\u2019s imagination, while the image remains a supporting frame. The true cinema, in this sense, happens in the ear.<\/span><\/p>

Kiarostami\u2019s approach reverses this hierarchy. For him, the image <\/span>is<\/span><\/i> cinema; it does not require an unseen \u201cvoice\u201d to validate it. His films often minimize non-diegetic sound and let visual composition carry the meaning.\u00a0 This writer suggests that these two approaches reflect deeper philosophical tendencies in Iranian thought: one that privileges the unseen and immaterial as the source of meaning, and one that accepts the tangible, visible work as complete in itself.<\/span><\/p>

This contrast also invites the question: when we speak of \u201ccinema\u201d as something greater than the film, are we invoking a kind of spiritual metaphysics \u2014 or are we simply romanticizing what is, in essence, a material art form? This pervasive emphasis on film’s “fakeness” ironically proves its hyperreality in Iranian consciousness. I try to explain: In Persian, there are expressions like \u201cIt\u2019s all film\u201d (hame-ash film ast) or \u201cDon\u2019t act like you\u2019re in a film\u201d (film bazi nakon). These phrases are often used in daily conversation to mean \u201cIt\u2019s fake\u201d or \u201cStop pretending.\u201d They draw a sharp line between what is considered genuine reality and what is regarded as staged performance: \u201cbeing in a film\u201d implies a lack of authenticity. Unlike Western traditions that prize cinematic realism as truth, Persian vernacular treats “film” as synonymous with fabrication\u2014a layer of pretense over reality. Kiarostami’s genius was to embrace this stigma: his street scenes (Tehran’s inherent drama) risk being dismissed as “just film” (contrived), while Aslani-style transcendentalists seek the unseen voice behind the image. The tension persists: is cinema the bone (filmstrip as literal artifact) or the spirit (that which shatters it)?<\/span><\/p>

The tension between \u201cfilm as truth\u201d and \u201cfilm as pretense\u201d runs through Iranian culture and, by extension, Iranian cinema. It informs both how films are made and how they are received.<\/span><\/p>

Why else would: Persian “aks” (<\/span>\u0639\u06a9\u0633<\/span>, photograph) etymologically reveals photography’s inverted-image mechanism more precisely than European “photo”: Iranians intuitively grasp cinema’s magic before its machinery.<\/span><\/p>

Spirit Reveals Itself Superior to Bone<\/span><\/p>


<\/span>In the phenomenology of the Persian spirit, death literally constitutes a Hegelian\u00a0<\/span>Aufhebung<\/span><\/i>\u00a0(from Auf + Hebung, “to lift up”): The dialectical process where bone is both negated and elevated into spirit.<\/span><\/p>

The\u00a0<\/span>Homa<\/span><\/i>\u00a0bird,<\/span> whose shadow bestows kingship in legend, is in reality the bone-eating\u00a0<\/span>Gypaetus <\/span><\/i>barbatus\u00a0(bearded vulture) that carries bones aloft only to drop them. Yet in the Iranian <\/span>order of things<\/span><\/i>, this bird solely\u00a0<\/span>ascends<\/span><\/i>\u00a0with bones to the realm of spirit.<\/span><\/p>

The obvious fact\u2014that the vulture lifts bones to shatter them\u2014is censored. This occurs because myth\u2019s purpose isn\u2019t to reconcile social order with cosmic order, but only to\u00a0simulate\u00a0their harmony. Iranian myth operates as ideological suture\u2014concealing the materialist violence (bone-shattering) beneath the symbolic spiritual transcendence.The Homa is thus Iran\u2019s mythic machine for transubstantiating bone into spirit.<\/span><\/p>

Now there is a Forbidden Inverse: Spirit\u2019s reduction to bone is demonic\u2014like trading love for lust, as B<\/span>idil-i Dehlavi <\/span><\/i>warns:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

\u00a0\u0622\u0646<\/span> \u0631\u0627<\/span> \ufb90\ufeea<\/span> \ufecb\ufeb8\ufed6<\/span> \u0627\u0632<\/span> \u06be\ufeee\u0633<\/span> \u06be\ufeae\u0632\u0647<\/span> \u0648\u0627\ufea7\ufeae\ufbfe\ufeaa<\/span>\/<\/span> \ufe91\ufeae\u062f<\/span> \u0627\u0632<\/span> \ufeb3\ufb93<\/span> \u0627\ufeb3\ufe98\ufea8\ufeee\u0627\u0646<\/span> \u0648<\/span> \ufe91\ufeea<\/span> \ufb58\ufbff\ufeb6<\/span> \u06be\ufee4\ufe8e<\/span> \ufb94\ufeac\u0627\ufeb7\ufe96\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

He whom Love has plucked from the rubble of base desire<\/span><\/i>
<\/span>Takes the bone from the dog and lays it before the Homa.<\/span><\/i><\/p>

While Hegel\u2019s system maintains a bidirectional spirit-bone dialectic, Persian belief enforces a\u00a0unidirectional\u00a0ascent: Iranian cosmology allows only Aufhebung (sublation), not materialist reduction. Bones must ascend; their return is foreclosed. Thus, life in the lower world becomes a dog\u2019s existence in a bone-yard. This symbolic is perpetually sweetened through language\u00a0 that censors the bone\u2019s material return, enforcing one-sided transcendence.<\/span><\/p>

Henry Corbin (Cyclical Time and Ismaili Gnosis)<\/span> shows how the Persian psyche endures 9,000 years of demonic shadow-rule, where only the Homa\u2019s shadow\u2014the\u00a0Farr-e Homayoun\u00a0(King\u2019s Divine Glory)\u2014can save. The King\u2019s shadow, unlike Ahriman\u2019s, brings prosperity\u2014a concept Islamized as\u00a0Zillullah\u00a0(Shadow of God). This is the Persian kingship theology: The Shah\u2019s shadow recreates the primal homeland (cf. Rumi:\u00a0 <\/span>\u0645\u0646<\/span> \u0645\u0631\u063a<\/span> \u0644\u0627\u0647\u0648\u062a\u06cc<\/span> \u0628\u062f\u0645<\/span> \u062f\u06cc\u062f\u06cc<\/span> \u06a9\u0647<\/span> \u0646\u0627\u0633\u0648\u062a\u06cc<\/span> \u0634\u062f\u0645<\/span> “I was a Lahuti bird! Alas, Now I am Nasuti!”).<\/span><\/p>

“Similis similibus curantor”\u00a0(Like cures like) applies here: The Water of Life (light) hides in darkness. True light in this illusory world must be the\u00a0darkest\u00a0shadow. This is a Gnostic inversion: In a world of negative inversions, salvation requires embracing the paradox (e.g., poison as antidote). As the verse says:<\/span><\/p>

\u0632\u0627\ufee7\ufb91\ufeea \u0632\ufedf\ufed4\ufeb6 \ufb90\ufb8b\u062f\ufee3\ufeb4\ufe96 \u0648 \u06be\ufeae\ufb90\ufeae\u0627 \ufb90\ufb8b\u062f\u0645 \ufb94\ufeb0\ufbfe\ufeaa \/ \ufee3\ufeae\u06be\ufee2 \u0622\u0646 \u0632\ufea7\ufee2 \u0631\u0627 \ufb90\ufb8b\u062f\u0645 \ufee7\ufbab\ufeaa \ufb90\ufb8b\u062f\u0645 \ufed3\ufeb4\ufe8e\u06cc<\/span><\/p>

His twisted locks are scorpions \/ Yet only a scorpion can heal a scorpion\u2019s sting.<\/span><\/i><\/p>

Thus, the divine\u00a0<\/span>Farr<\/span><\/i>\u00a0(glory) is none other than the King\u2019s shadow. Iran itself\u00a0<\/span>is<\/span><\/i>\u00a0this shadow\u2014the homeland where Persians dwell in symbolic protection.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

The Optics of Power: All of Iran is a Cinema-House<\/span><\/p>


<\/span>Khayyam’s verse illuminates our condition:<\/span><\/p>

\u0641\u0627\u0646\u0648\u0633<\/span> \u062e\u06cc\u0627\u0644<\/span> \u0627\u0632<\/span> \u0627\u0648<\/span> \u0645\u062b\u0627\u0644\u06cc<\/span> \u062f\u0627\u0646\u06cc\u0645<\/span><\/p><\/td>

\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/td>

\u0627\u06cc\u0646<\/span> \u0686\u0631\u062e<\/span> \u0641\u0644\u06a9<\/span> \u06a9\u0647<\/span> \u0645\u0627<\/span> \u062f\u0631<\/span> \u0627\u0648<\/span> \u062d\u06cc\u0631\u0627\u0646\u06cc\u0645<\/span><\/p><\/td><\/tr>

\u0645\u0627<\/span> \u0686\u0648\u0646<\/span> \u0635\u0648\u0631\u06cc\u0645<\/span> \u06a9\u0627\u0646\u062f\u0631<\/span> \u0627\u0648<\/span> \u062d\u06cc\u0631\u0627\u0646\u06cc\u0645<\/span><\/p><\/td>

\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/td>

\u062e\u0648\u0631\u0634\u06cc\u062f<\/span> \u0686\u0631\u0627\u063a<\/span> \u062f\u0627\u0646<\/span> \u0648<\/span> \u0639\u0627\u0644\u0645<\/span> \u0641\u0627\u0646\u0648\u0633<\/span><\/p><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>

take it as a lantern of imagination\u2014<\/span>
<\/b>This celestial wheel that leaves us bewildered within it.<\/span>
<\/b>We are but images, lost in its mystery\u2014<\/span>
<\/b>Know the sun as the lamp, and the world as the lantern.<\/span><\/p>

\"\"<\/p>

Divine Optics of Power: The Hierarchical Gaze at Behistun:<\/b> The monumental Behistun relief depicts King Darius I asserting his divine mandate by subduing rebellious figures: The usurper Gaum\u0101ta lies prostrate beneath the conqueror’s foot Skunkha, the Scythian rebel (added later, disrupting the original inscriptions). A powerful fusion of art and political propaganda from 522-486 BC. The Behistun relief’s composition follows a sacred visual hierarchy mirroring Zoroastrian cosmology: The Faravahar (divine glory) radiates downward. Darius stands aligned with the Faravahar as a Royal Conduit, his raised hand catching its authority. His size (largest figure) and central position mark him as divine energy’s earthly vessel. The chained rebels diminish in scale along a downward diagonal. <\/span>Gaum\u0101ta’s <\/span><\/i>prostrate form receives Darius’ foot like lightning grounding divine wrath. <\/span>Skunkha’s<\/span><\/i> late addition breaks the pattern. The relief functions as a spiritual circuit: <\/span>Divine light (Faravahar) \u2192 King (conductor) \u2192 Rebels (ground).<\/b> Each figure’s size and position mathematically encodes their metaphysical status. Like Persepolis’ ritual: On Nowruz, the just king’s face remains unseen as sunlight emerges behind his throne\u2014subjects mesmerized by this <\/span>anti-light<\/span><\/i>. Source: The first symposium of visual-anthropology, Tehran University, 2007 \u00a9<\/span><\/p>

Another recurring figure is the (shadow of the)<\/span> king<\/b> \u2014 a ruler whose power exists in a mirrored, reflected form. This symbol ties directly to cinema: the image projected on the screen is like a shadow, a visible but insubstantial authority. The \u201creal\u201d source lies elsewhere, behind the projection.\u00a0 The Shah is a mirror reflecting the divine light’s negative downward to his subjects\u2014each receiving their allotted\u00a0<\/span>Kismet<\/span><\/i>.<\/span> Negative <\/span><\/i>is used here as a photographic metaphor for how kingship inverts celestial light into earthly shadows. <\/span>Kismet<\/span><\/i> (<\/span>\u0642\u0633\u0645\u062a<\/span>): From Arabic\u00a0<\/span>qismah<\/span><\/i>\u00a0also means both “fate” and “portion”\u2014like an actor’s pre-written role.<\/span><\/p>

This aesthetic of acceptance transforms denial into grace. Consider the Persian phrase\u00a0<\/span>“Na, khayr” \u0646\u0647 \u062e\u06cc\u0631<\/span><\/i>\u00a0(“No, [but it’s for] your good”) versus German\u00a0<\/span>“Ja-wohl\u201d: <\/span><\/i>The Persian negation carries hidden affirmation\u2014rejection as divine mercy, unlike Germanic literalness.<\/span><\/p>

The Shah mirrors the divine light; his shadow is the inverted image of that celestial light. But what is a shadow? A virtual body obeying its true source as a Platonic-Persian synthesis: The Shah’s shadow as allegory of the Cave, but with collective redemption. By submitting to the Shah\u2014with heart, soul, and bone\u2014we reconnect to the spirit world.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

\"\" \"\"<\/p>

The entire Persian bureaucracy constitutes a colossal optical system\u2014a cosmic\u00a0<\/span>camera obscura<\/span><\/i>\u00a0:<\/span>
<\/span>Literally “dark chamber”: Pre-photographic device projecting inverted images. It is a good metaphor for Iran’s political theology. Iran itself is this camera\u2014not a geographic entity but the Shah’s shadow given spatial form or shadow: Corbin’s\u00a0<\/span>mundus imaginalis<\/span><\/i>\u2014Iran as metaphysical projection rather than territory<\/span>.<\/span><\/i> Persian literature crystallizes this:\u00a0<\/span>s\u0101ya<\/span><\/i>\u00a0(shadow) semantically knots together father, king, mercy, tent, and homeland.<\/span><\/p>

The <\/span>mirror<\/b> that also appears frequently in Persian poetry and Sufi thought, serves the shadow as an anti-light. In cinema, the screen can be seen as such a mirror, showing not reality itself, but a reflection shaped by the filmmaker\u2019s choices. Iranian cinema often carries a double consciousness aware both of the seen image (the bone) and of the unseen source (the spirit). Filmmakers like Aslani lean toward evoking the unseen through voice and sound, while others, like Kiarostami, let the visible image bear the weight of meaning.<\/span><\/p>

Cinematic Poets: The Echo of Arslani and the Narcissus of Kiarostami<\/span><\/p>

If we consider\u00a0Arslani and Kiarostami as two poets\u2014one who chose the\u00a0language of <\/span>cinema<\/span><\/i>, the other the\u00a0language of <\/span>film<\/span><\/i>\u2014we can draw the echo and Narcissus analogy. To\u00a0 understand\u00a0Arselani\u2019s Echo-like nature, one need only listen to the\u00a0<\/span>repetition of voices\u00a0<\/span><\/i>in his films\u2014an\u00a0<\/span>unseen voice<\/span><\/i>, echoing endlessly. A voice that\u00a0<\/span>demands to be seen<\/span><\/i>. Kiarostami, on the other hand, is someone for whom\u00a0<\/span>cinema is film itself. <\/i><\/b>In the\u00a0<\/span>Lumi\u00e8re and Company<\/span><\/i>\u00a0project\u2014where Kiarostami joined 40 international filmmakers in crafting\u00a0<\/span>52-second films\u00a0<\/span><\/i>using the original Lumi\u00e8re camera\u2014his work stands apart. His film?\u00a0The story of two eggs frying: <\/span>the\u00a0sizzle of oil in a pan. A\u00a0telephone answering machine\u2019s beep\u00a0at the start and end.<\/span><\/i><\/p>

Like a\u00a0bookbinder in love with the smell of paper and glue, or a\u00a0typesetter enamored with lead type, Kiarostami is in love with\u00a0film itself\u2014the\u00a0actual celluloid strip. The logic of his short film is\u00a0tactile, material. He has slipped\u00a0<\/span>between the skin and the shirt<\/span><\/i> of the filmstrip itself. What unfolds here is the\u00a0burning of a film that does not burn\u2014the melting oil in the pan\u00a0simulating the film\u2019s own combustion\u00a0under the projector\u2019s heat.<\/span><\/p>

Lumi\u00e8re and Company (1995, original title “Lumi\u00e8re et Cie”)\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

A film in love with itself, burning eternally in an unreal flame. <\/b>This is Narcissism. In this film,\u00a0sound is enslaved to the image. The crackling oil\u00a0does not command us to turn our heads\u00a0to seek its source\u2014rather, it\u00a0rises from the image itself, luring us deeper into the frame. Just as Narcissus was drawn into the water\u2019s mirror.<\/span><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
  1. Esmaeilpour Ghoochani, Iraj. (2012). Cinema is a Film: In the Phenomenology of the Spirit of Iranian Cinema. Anthropology and Culture. Retrieved from: https:\/\/vista.ir\/w\/a\/21\/kbey4<\/li>
  2. “\u0639\u06cc\u0633\u06cc \u062f\u0645” (Jesus-breath): A Sufi metaphor for divine animation\u2014referencing both Christ’s life-giving breath (Quran 3:49) and the wine-intoxicated sigh of mystical ecstasy. The “mold” (\u0642\u0627\u0644\u0628) suggests both bodily form and a sculptor’s cast awaiting spirit. \u0639\u0638\u0645 \u0631\u0645\u06cc\u0645 (\u201crotten bones\u201d) symbolizes mortal fragility, contrasting with the eternal “shadow” of the divine.<\/li>
  3. Hegel’s phrase appears in the Physiognomy section, reducing absolute spirit to its most absurd materialist extreme. The shock-value lies in asserting identity between transcendental consciousness and inert matter.<\/li>
  4. Following Hegel’s logic: the bone, when placed within the field of spirit, evolves into the form and direction of a skull. Therefore, spirit itself must be something like a bone\u2014a skull. The original German passage reads:
    “Die Wirklichkeit und Dasein des Menschen ist sein Sch\u00e4delknochen… Wenn das Sein als solches oder Dingsein von dem Geiste pr\u00e4diziert wird, so ist darum der wahrhafte Ausdruck hiervon, dass er ein solches wie ein Knochen ist.”
    Translation: \u201cThe reality and concrete existence of man is his skull-bone… When Being as such or thingness is predicated of Spirit, the authentic expression of this is that Spirit is a thing like a bone.\u201d
    (Hegel, G.W.F., Ph\u00e4nomenologie des Geistes, Ullstein, 1973, pp. 180\u2013202)<\/li>
  5. This mirrors the Persian concept of “\u0631\u0648\u0627\u0646” (rav\u0101n, psyche) as fluid spirit contained in the cranial “bowl” (\u06a9\u0627\u0633\u0647 \u0633\u0631). The skull becomes a wine-cup shaping its own intoxicating content\u2014a material vessel that paradoxically generates the spiritual.<\/li>
  6. Homa: The mythical Persian phoenix whose shadow confers sovereignty. Its real counterpart, the ossifrage vulture, performs a materialist inversion of this myth.<\/li>
  7. Corbin\u2019s analysis of Zoroastrian “exile in time”: Iranians await the Homa\u2019s redemptive shadow as counter to Ahriman\u2019s darkness.
    Corbin, H. (1983). Cyclical Time & Ismaili Gnosis (1st ed.). Routledge. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4324\/9781003209560<\/li>
  8. Keshavarz Afshar, Mehdi. (2007). Tahlil-i tasavir-i Shahnameh az mazamin-i ostoure-i ta tarikh-i ejtemaii moaser. In: Catalogue of the First Symposium on Visual Anthropology. Chairman: Iradj Esmailpour Ghouchani. Faculty of Social Sciences, Tehran University.<\/li><\/ol>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    In the phenomenology of the spirit of Iranian cinema 1 Iraj E. Ghoochani Summary This article explores the idea\u00a0that if […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5025,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_uag_custom_page_level_css":"","site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[56],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5016","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-art-articles"],"uagb_featured_image_src":{"full":["https:\/\/echoespsy.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Picture1-e1768406842122.jpg",238,119,false],"thumbnail":["https:\/\/echoespsy.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Picture1-e1768406842122-150x119.jpg",150,119,true],"medium":["https:\/\/echoespsy.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Picture1-e1768406842122.jpg",238,119,false],"medium_large":["https:\/\/echoespsy.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Picture1-e1768406842122.jpg",238,119,false],"large":["https:\/\/echoespsy.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Picture1-e1768406842122.jpg",238,119,false],"1536x1536":["https:\/\/echoespsy.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Picture1-e1768406842122.jpg",238,119,false],"2048x2048":["https:\/\/echoespsy.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Picture1-e1768406842122.jpg",238,119,false],"pk-small":["https:\/\/echoespsy.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Picture1-e1768406842122-80x80.jpg",80,80,true],"pk-thumbnail":["https:\/\/echoespsy.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Picture1-e1756551264545-238x225.jpg",238,225,true]},"uagb_author_info":{"display_name":"shima","author_link":"https:\/\/echoespsy.com\/en\/author\/shima\/"},"uagb_comment_info":2,"uagb_excerpt":"In the phenomenology of the spirit of Iranian cinema 1 Iraj E. Ghoochani Summary This article explores the idea\u00a0that if […]","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/echoespsy.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5016","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/echoespsy.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/echoespsy.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/echoespsy.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/echoespsy.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5016"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"https:\/\/echoespsy.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5016\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5038,"href":"https:\/\/echoespsy.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5016\/revisions\/5038"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/echoespsy.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5025"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/echoespsy.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5016"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/echoespsy.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5016"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/echoespsy.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5016"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}