Death of Yazdgerd (1982) User Reviews

More theater than film

[RareMovieCritic · 7/10 · 13 March 2018]

This film is shot in a particular style that I would be hesitant to call low-budget. It is based on a stage-play and the film is more like theater than cinema.

Although the story is very good, the film could've been a lot better, maybe if Beyzai didn't attempt to do everything. He is the producer of the film and he directs the film that he had adapted from his own stage play. He doesn't do the soundtrack or cinematography, (there are others credited), these are weak points in the film.

The story deserves a lot better and I hope that one day someone adapts it to modern cinema techniques.

I'm not sure that I would recommend this movie to anyone who is not a already a fan of Iranian culture. Being a fan of Iranian cinema is not enough, because the drop in cinematic quality is huge. Perhaps if this film is remastered and released in a higher resolution/color. The currently available film is very dark and has a low dynamic range. The images you see on IMDb are not stills from the movie, but promo photos. The film was also shot on film, but it needs to be rescanned to get that kind of quality.

If you are interested in Iranian history, this film could be for you. If you are interested in Iranian theater, this is a good way of seeing it. If you want to learn Persian and hear non-colloquial pronunciations in dialogue, this could be one of the few places where you could hear it.

It is a good film, but it's not for everyone.

just beautiful

[mahdihonari · 9/10 · 27 January 2022]

By watching this movie you would see what is true acting also it is not practically a movie but an theater play still it was pretty genus the way of making this movie. So if you are true cinema lover I recommend this movie which you will not regret watching.

The most beautiful film from my childhood

[nawrapar · 10/10 · 15 June 2020]

I remember this film since it was my first film I saw since a small child.

I remember how every person felt alive in their performance.

Bahram Beizai is a fantastic vision maker. He capture the actors and actresses well in the camera. And tell the story of a work of art.

Susan Taslimi is shining on her performance very fantastic.

Death of Yazdgerd is the story of death of the last king of Iran before Muslims invade Iran. He escapes to city of Marv and hides in a mill but finally gets killed. The Story is told by the miller, his wife and his daughter but all the stories are different from each other.

Old, theatrical, unrealistic, low-budget

[onceaguard · 4/10 · 13 January 2017]

I applaud the director for choosing this interesting time period to make a film about, but this film simply did not age well.

It is hard to believe that, budget considerations aside, this film came 11 years after Polanski's Macbeth, which looks like it's from the future in comparison to this film.

The film is small and claustrophobic, all done in a very small space. The same lens is used throughout the film, there are no real closeups, no wide shots, no perspective, nothing. Things we take for granted nowadays such as camera movement, refocusing, etc. are nonexistent.

Editing is just cutting the scenes, there's nothing special about it. There is no score or any music that plays any part whatsoever.

The acting is theatrical, people walk across from one point to the other while speaking loudly and clearly, as if aiming for the last row of seats. No one talks like that. No one behaves like that.

The costumes are good and there is an obvious effort to make the language sound both old and understandable. Going too far back with Persian might make it unintelligible without subtitles, but making it Tehrooni slang would make no sense either. This film does a perfect job with the language.

But that's about it. This is theater on film, not cinema. Cinema is realistic acting, not stage acting. Cinema is subtlety - microphones picking up the slightest whispers, not an actor eloquently making loud speeches. Cinema is facial expressions, not arms flailing and actors running across the stage mid-sentence. Cinema is about the camera playing a part, leading your eyes, not just capturing a theatrical performance.

There is only one non-theatrical aspect to this film - the ending and the invasion of the Arabs. The cavalry, with their weapons and armor, with the dusty wings blowing their flags and banners while obscuring their numbers is cinematic. It had a slight feel of Kurosowa, but it was too little too late.

1982 isn't a long time ago, but Iranian cinema has moved light-years from stuff like this. Current and future Iranian directors will not be looking at this for inspiration, but at the variety of high quality medieval films and shows from Game of Thrones to Vikings, from Mongol to Viking, and many more Chinese productions.

If you're looking for a high quality medieval film, this one is not for you. There are many better ones out there. If you're looking for a high quality Iranian film, there are many, many better ones out there.

If you want a high quality medieval Iranian film, well, that's a challenge for the current and future generations.