"Ghahreman" is a co-production between Iran and France, but with where the film is set and also with the fact that the language from beginning to end is Persian, this is a full-on Iranian film you could say. The writer and director of these slightly over two hours is Asghar Farhadi. After making his big international (especially America) breakthrough film a decade before this one, he quickly worked on foreign projects as well starring renowned international actors, rather European films than Hollywood stuff, but it always seems as if he has not forgotten where he came from and he keeps making Iranian films like this one too. Of course, it came pretty easy for him too because with his previous two Iranian films (including the aforementioned breakthrough project) he won two Best Foreign Language Feature Oscars or whatever the category is called now. This made people (including me) of course curious about his newest project, this film here, and even if he did not manage to go three for three at the Oscars, it is still a success. I think the film made the shortlist, but did not manage to score the nomination. Not 100% sure. The film was still highly successful in Cannes and also managed a nomination at the Golden Globes. Plus a lot more awards attention from so many bodies.

Now let's get into the story: I cannot say really anything about the actors because I don't know them, but I think they did a pretty decent job overall. It feels as if script is always key in Farhadi's releases, but that does not mean you don't get quality performances from the cast. On the contrary actually, there are never poor performances. Here it is surely Amir Jadidi who deserves the mention. He is in pretty much every scene from beginning to end and carries the film nicely. I am not entirely sure if it was intended, but I found his character fairly unlikable throughout the film. From beginning to end basically. Or almost until the end I should say. From the moment when the man said he does not care about the money anymore, it seems as if a burden was off his shoulders and it was easier to appreciate him. Also how he is ready to fight to protect his son. It was already difficult to watch how they put the son on stage at this donation event, but finally Rahim realizes that his family, especially a child, should not be exposed like this. We do hear comments like "oh the poor child" on several occasions before that, but none of them are really sincere and caring to be honest. It seems as if almost everybody in this film only cares for themselves. Be it for their money, for their dignity or for their reputation. Not too absurd compared to how things roll in reality you could say. Not only in Iran. So there was a massive irony of course to the very end when we have the protagonist back in jail again, after he really did the right thing for once in terms of dignity by protecting his son. And has to pay for it that he does not try to keep going with the charade. I mean with the donation thingey the next heroic rise was almost around the corner. Perfect foundation even with people maybe wanting to give back the money to him, the money he lost to save another man's life. Even the prison fella was right there with him again after initially saying that they completely distance themselves from the man. Pay attention to the humiliating scene about how he closes the door.

Another really good example of questionable moral behavior is the protagonist's sister. Early on, she still seemed like a honorable character if you look at her reaction when she sees the handbag. She does not want her brother to be a thief. But later on we understand it is really only about the effect it would have on people and how they would perceive her differently. Her explanation why she looked into his stuff also stopped making sense quickly. But the "best" example is of course how she has absolutely no objections in taking this mess to the next level by agreeing to accompany her brother to his potentially new employer. You can also criticize the protagonist's new girlfriend of course, but she was really blinded by love, which also does not make things right, but somehow justifies her actions, also how she in the end convinces the elderly lady from the foundation to leak to social networks that it was her man who basically saved another man's life by agreeing to give up on the money. I must say this film had almost too many potential twists. I mean it makes total sense how the prison inmate acted in this one scene and also that the ones running the prison have blood on their hands, but the impact it had potentially on the main character was just too minimal in fact. And was intended to be much bigger. Difficult to explain. It felt realistic on the one hand, on the other not so much. I think that the writing here and there felt a bit confusing and maybe that is why the film did not reach similar honors like Farhadi's previous ones. No denying though he has been one of the most impactful filmmakers of the last ten years, especially if we focus on non-Americans. His nationality is of course highly interesting too and I think, when it comes to Iranians, probably more people still think of Panahi first, who is also very, very good, because of the tragic political injustice to him, but Farhadi must not be ignored by any means. Also interesting how the English titles of his films include an article in front: A Separation, The Salesman, A Hero. What these films have in common is that all the focus is on character studies, on people who have to deal with extraordinary challenges in their ordinary lives, sometimes brought on them by themselves, on other occasions through unlucky circumstances.

In this film here, I found it interesting how there is talk about loan sharks who really seem to have a bad reputation in Iran and also how they talked about social media and leaking information to social media. Of course, they could not mention any specific brands. So it was all one. Basically the internet in its entirety. What is there, is never gone. A few more words on the taxi driver. He was an interesting character. Not lots of screen time, but definitely stayed in the mind. He clearly had his own past that turned him into who he is today. Was two years in jail and that really made something with him and as a consequence he sees authority and governments or city councils as the enemy. He really had no business to support the protagonist in this situation, but he went all in for his maybe own little revenge. Look how worked-up he is in this confrontation scene with the officer checking up on the story. I am not too sure how much I liked this scene. I mean it does feel a bit exaggerated that they take a such a close look at new employees, especially if they seem to have such a great reputation with how everybody loved him there. I mean, even if it had been at the police, this scene would have felt a bit too much. However, one interesting thing was the mention how the main character sent this questionable message a week before he even had the gold coins. Which shows us that it was maybe all a scam from the very beginning. So this then really explains the officer's behavior and it makes sense again. And shows us that the main character is really nothing but a criminal.

I had a feeling kinda that the woman who came to collect the coins and lost handbag was not the actual owner. Too bad probably there was no ID card in the bag. My idea was that they could have simply given her another handbag and if she had reacted in a way that this is not the one that belongs to her, they would have known she's the right one. On the other hand she was able to describe the handbag accurately, so we cannot 100% say even if she really fooled them. Maybe she just wanted to be left alone with her man's critical background. Good decision then. By the way, near the end I thought that she was the wife of the one sentenced to death, which could have been interesting closure and would have fit the idea that he was an unemployed drug addict who has broken the law before. But I don't know. There are so many question marks to the story in this film. Maybe too many, which hurts the outcome in the end a little but. Maybe also that there are no likable characters at all in this film, even if this can never be a negative criticism as long as it feels authentic. And it does. My positive rating and recommendation were never in doubt. It is a good film, albeit not a great one. Surely one you can watch several times and it will help with understanding all that is going on, but the question is: Do you really want to? I personally do not really have the intention to give this one another go. But seeing it once is surely recommended. Farhadi always delivers nice attention to detail too with his works. And also manages to bring out emotions in his audience. I did feel bad for the protagonist in the end for sure, seeing him with his shaven head and ready to go to jail again when he gave a hug to his boy and said goodbye to him for quite some time again. That is all. Go see this film, although I am sure if you consider doing so, you have seen other works from Farhadi and know how good he is and you will not need my recommendation here. Just don't expect a groundbreaking film this time. It's still nice to see him and others deliver quality movies in the 21st century, so people understand there is more, much more in fact, to Iranian film than Kiarostami. May he rest in peace. As for Farhadi, I have seen people call him one of the biggest humanists in film history. That, to be honest, may be a bit much.

There is no filmmaker working today who can match Farhadi's ability to portray real-life family dynamics, everyday occurrences, and all the small details of life. Farhadi is the master when it comes to bringing a true sense of realism in his movies, and in this latest effort, he makes sure of making that obvious. Yet, although 'A Hero' conveys successfully that Farhadi touch for genuine realism, the film is deprived of the kinetic energy Farhadi's most triumphant films enroll on.

Here Farhadi decides to go for seemingly a more rewarding path regarding the script. He chooses to construct a long pattern of conflicts, hoping to keep the audience constantly interested. But Asghar goes overboard with it. It's like someone dared him to create the twistiest story he could come up with, and voila, this is the result. But this amount of plot-heavy nature of the screenplay didn't play as Farhadi was hoping. The film gets tiresome; too convoluted - not that I wasn't able to keep up with the story because Farhadi does an incredible job constructing it meticulously, but it lacks that spark that, as I said, made Farhadi's other films such masterpieces.

But my problem with the script is from a story standpoint only (that later would cause some plot holes with the character development of the main protagonist, which I can easily overlook - minor issue). As for the dialogue, here we get to enjoy some of the best character interactions Farhadi has ever created. And the actors deliver, at worst, grounded performances. I loved the performance of the actor playing the protagonist. I appreciate non-verbal acting, and Amir Jadidi shines in those moments here. His face is naturally compelling. He says so much with a sole glare - terrific performance!

As all Farhadi's movies, 'A Hero' is a film told with an enormous grace; a nuanced portrait of domestic life that's so far-reaching as it deals with thematics that are true to life in any culture and society. Again, the film is not up to mark with the best's of Farhadi. The numerous twist and turns seem to pile up and can become exhausting, plus the film feels longer than its running time due to its gradual pacing. But the simple approach, the assured direction, and outstanding performances make this one of the finest portrays of intricate human drama.

"Reputation is an idle and most false imposition; oft got without merit, and lost without deserving." Iago to Cassio in Othello.

Modern Iranian society, with its challenging urban Shiraz, is the subject of auteur writer/director, Asghar Farhadi's A Hero. At a bit over two hours, the story of a hapless sign writer and calligrapher caught in a deception spirals into one of the greatest punishments of all in Iran, loss of reputation. In this case, Rahim (Amir Jadidi) partially deserves the loss but to an excessive degree by Western standards.

The ultimate disgrace is to have his peccadillos revealed in social media, where his transgressions like dealing with a loan shark or being with a single woman leave him vulnerable to gossip and without a job. Hard enough to land work after two years in prison for the debt he can't repay and being shamed by his debtor.

The streets and homes are narrow, no doubt in part to shield from the intense heat; such conditions can serve as figurative for the suffocating media and poverty, both of which are common in the Mideast. But then again, A Hero could be set in middle-class USA as well.

The title carries metaphoric baggage, especially with Rahim's son, Siavish (Saleh Karimael),whose speech impediment his father uses to improve his own reputation and convince authorities of his innocence. Such moves alternately repel and ingratiate him, in no small way because he has a pleasant visage and a smile that after a while becomes sinister as he tries to get through his misfortunes and misdeeds with it.

A Hero is a slice of Iranian life whose heft is supplied by modern relentless social media reporting, a cautionary tale about anyone in any society today who tries to hide from public scrutiny. Nothing less than reputation rides on it.

"Reputation, reputation, reputation! Oh, I have lost my reputation! I have lost the immortal part of myself, and what remains is bestial." Cassio in Othello.