Forushande (2016)

Grace Sanchez50 said:I was having quite the lengthy discussion with goldenhound32, and...
I actually posted my review over in the other thread... The phone is irrelevant to the actual point being made, much like how our previous debate about whether one needs to sit through an entire movie to form an opinion went nowhere; there is simply no way to prove anything to you because you refuse to step outside your own little bubble... You haven't contributed a single intelligent thought to this forum since you joined, least of all regarding cinema. I am still sitting here waiting for you to actually contribute something meaningful to this discussion about the film, yet you insist on circling back to me and my cell phone. How much longer are we going to do this?...

So, you actually decided to grace this film forum with your presence just to critique the size of someone's bladder... how incredibly sophisticated...
Both the phone and the arguments themselves have become completely irrelevant at this point, and since someone decided to clutter the chat with that tired "you only need to watch the movie once" line, perhaps they should take their commentary over there...
Since there isn't a dedicated thread for this film yet, I suppose we’ll just have to make this one our official hub... so please, go ahead and drop your reviews here, and let's see if we can actually manage to have a decent conversation for once...

Paul Rogers94 said:It sits somewhere in that uneasy space between a heavy social drama and a gripping psychological thriller... A professor and his wife, an actress, move into a new home, only for her to be targeted by some intruder while he’s away at work. He becomes absolutely obsessed with hunting down the culprit and seeing justice served, but there's this lingering, cynical truth to his crusade: when you pursue justice at any cost, you usually end up with a hollow victory where nobody feels satisfied, and even the concept of justice itself feels somewhat unfulfilled...

It isn’t about justice, Paul Rogers94, not really... It’s more that he views her as nothing more than a piece of property, much like how Grace Sanchez50 treats her smartphone. He’s pinned her down with his own rigid expectations, acting as if anyone daring to mess with his settings deserves a lifetime of misery, all while completely disregarding her actual feelings. She can feel that suffocating control, of course, and it’s only a matter of time before the whole relationship simply snaps...

Lawrence Edwards58 said:It isn’t about justice, Paul Rogers94—it’s that he treats her like property, just like how Grace Sanchez50 treats her smartphone. He sets his passcode, and if anyone dares to mess with it, he'll hunt them down to the ends of the earth... meanwhile, he couldn't care less about her feelings. She feels it, obviously, and that's why the connection snaps.

Whether you enjoy a movie or a book depends entirely on how much it aligns with your own personal value system—which, let's be honest, doesn't necessarily have to match the "standard" values used in film and literature as if they were universal truths. Any "relationship" or bond depicted inherently involves certain compromises or a type of psychological dominance; that's just part of the narrative. For me, that's a line I simply won't cross. Having been through enough relationships to know, there's nothing in it for me. I can't stomach any kind of conceptually restrictive relationship—friendship, love, an emotional bond, whatever. To me, those are just empty buzzwords masking what we project onto them. Of course, this inevitably turns into a form of systemic violence while maintaining the outward illusion of "how a relationship should be." And that "should be" only exists because the reality isn't meeting it—not to mention how we ignore what actually *is*. Regarding that specific cinematic issue: treating her as property is standard in those petty, small-minded dynamics, but so is that ultimate pursuit of "justice"... it's like some hardcore Midwestern farmer who identifies so deeply with his land that if someone accidentally steps on his grass, they might as well have stepped on him personally.
Basically, we interpret film through our own lens, filling in the gaps with whatever fits our worldview. That's how we process all of reality, I suppose—wishful thinking at its finest.
The point is to ignore your preconceptions and your biases so the film can be received exactly as it was given, without interference. That's the only way to truly take it in. All these "mindfuck" theories about the viewer being a "co-creator" are just excuses for an inability to accept what's presented without distorting it. In my experience, you get the most out of a work if you let the book or the movie just *be* what it is. Then, and only then, can you judge it properly by one single question: did it touch you or not? If it didn't, the film failed. If it did, it succeeds even if it's technically flawed.
Ugh...
There’s another crucial element in perceiving film: identification. For instance, how is someone supposed to identify with anything in a gay romance if they aren't... well, in that "film"? If they can't, then it's simply not their movie. Perception is as varied as the people experiencing it, though most are swayed by the same subconscious values. But perception is one thing, and reality is another. A Rorschach blot is just a Rorschach blot.

Paul Rogers94 said:When we talk about how a movie is perceived, there’s this critical layer of identification that people often overlook—for instance, what hook is someone supposed to latch onto in a queer film if they don't personally live that life? If they can't find that connection, then perhaps the film simply isn't for them... perception is subjective, as much as it varies from person to person, even if most of us are being nudged by the same subconscious cultural values. But one must distinguish between perception and reality; after all, a Rorschach blot is just a Rorschach blot, regardless of what you think you see in it...

I can identify with the protagonist of a queer film even if I've never harbored any such desires myself (take *Brokeback Mountain*, for example, which is really just a universal story about love).
It was the same way with this film; the woman believed his signals meant far more than he ever intended them to mean, and frankly, it's all just nonsense...

And seriously, why didn't anyone even think to ask what happened when that guy left all that cash sitting in the apartment? I mean, if he was panicking so hard that he bailed and forgot his phone and his car—which, by the way, sounds like a total nightmare—then there's no way he just "forgot" a pile of money behind. I highly doubt he just dropped it the second he walked through the door...

He claims he spotted the exact bike he bought, which suggests he had this little habit of dropping cash wherever he went the moment he stepped inside...

Lawrence Edwards58 said:I can actually relate to the lead in this queer drama—even though I’ve never had those kinds of ambitions myself (take Brokeback Mountain, for instance, which is really just a universal story about love).
It's the same deal in this movie; she kept thinking he cared way more than he actually did, and then all that nonsense follows...

Brokeback didn't hit home for me.🙂 I couldn't get into it at all—to me, it's just cheap, loud filmmaking; a generic, pathetic story about a gay romance.

In this specific flick, her behavior is suspicious from start to finish. She spends the whole time manipulating him—this, that, we're going here, we aren't doing this, you need to do that, this isn't good enough... (she doesn't love him, and honestly, neither does he.)

Paul Rogers94 said:I didn't experience it that way with Brokeback Mountain🙂 I just couldn't get into it; to me, it felt like a cheap, loud attempt at cinema—just a universal, pathetic melodrama about a gay romance.

A "gay romance," huh...
Rogers, have you actually sat through Lust, Caution by the same director?

Paul Rogers94 said:In this specific film, she spends the entire runtime acting suspicious, constantly manipulating him in various ways—this, that, refusing to go here or doing this, claiming things aren't right (it’s clear she doesn't love him, and neither does he).

What exactly is "suspicious" to you?
Maybe she was just looking for a little empathy, for heaven's sake... I mean, how would you feel if you were being violated, and the guy standing next to you remained completely ice-cold...?

Whenever someone tries to shove love at me—regardless of whether it’s queer or straight—it feels just as intrusive as being fed fascism or Christianity. And if this is all playing out in some exotic Shanghai during a supposedly romantic wartime setting, then I think the director is seriously insulting my intelligence. Ang Lee hit his absolute peak with Hulk; Hulk is the purest distillation of what Ang Lee can actually achieve as a filmmaker

Lawrence Edwards58 said:Pedersson, huh.
Paul Rogers94, have you seen Lust, Caution—same director?

What exactly seems suspicious to you?
Maybe she just wanted some empathy, damn it... how would you feel if you were assaulted and the guy next to you was acting like a total block of ice..?

What do you mean "ice cold"? He did everything humanly possible to help her process the trauma. He even let her ruin his performance, despite it being obvious she wasn't ready—she didn't want the doctor, didn't want the police, wouldn't even hold onto the perpetrator's car... so what else could she want? (In the first half of the movie, I thought maybe it was too cliché—that she had a lover and things went sideways—which is probably what the director intended, since the whole plot kicks off like a standard crime thriller search for the culprit)

Paul Rogers94 said:I don't follow the "cold-blooded" label... he really did everything within his power to help her process that trauma. He even let her completely derail their evening together, despite it being painfully obvious she wasn't ready. She doesn't want a doctor, she won't go to the police, and she certainly isn't interested in keeping the perpetrator's car... so what exactly is the expectation? In the first half of the film, I actually entertained the idea—though it felt a bit too cliché for my taste—that she might have had an affair and things just spiraled out of control. I suppose that’s what the director intended, given that the primary engine of the plot is this whole whodunit investigation...

Actually, no, that isn't his "performance." They aren't actors making executive decisions here; they're just playing parts while the director decides when to pull them into the spotlight...
The empathy you're describing is what you offer a stranger, but that's precisely what he's doing. A spouse or a parent in a situation like this would expect something much more substantial...
In a rigid, deeply conservative society like the one depicted in the film, he really should have stood firmly by her side, yet he failed to do so...

Don't worry about Farhad.

I just wanted to mention how my husband showed some actual empathy toward a woman in a taxi—he even gave his student a whole lesson on it, explaining how much women have to deal with in this society. But the second a woman actually suffers? The whole system just falls apart. 🤷

Paul Rogers94 said:When someone tries to force romance on me—regardless of whether it’s portrayed as queer or otherwise—it feels about as intrusive as being shoved face-first into fascism or a sermon from a preacher... and if this all takes place in an exotic setting like Shanghai amidst some overly sentimental wartime backdrop, then I think the director is seriously patronizing my intelligence. Honestly, Ang Lee reached his true zenith with Hulk; that film is essentially the purest distillation of his directorial vision...

I have to disagree here; I never felt like anything was being forced upon me as a viewer... though, truth be told, I couldn't even make it through the end of Hulk.

It’s funny how everyone seems to have a vendetta against the husband. 😁

Honestly, the movie just leaves me feeling frustrated—kind of like how Coetzee’s disgrace did. It’s all those gray areas in the moral compass. I can’t help but spoil it a little bit: a woman who has been repeatedly assaulted doesn't follow the "typical" victim script. She sweeps things under the rug, refuses to file any reports, and from her father's perspective (which eventually becomes ours), she stubbornly bypasses any righteous anger toward the perpetrator. She even refuses to terminate a pregnancy resulting from the crime. And then she tells her father something along the lines of: "I'm not just some side character in your book who shows up halfway through to drive the plot."
🙏(And honestly, that’s exactly what happens!)
I find myself angry at her—mostly because I despise those predators and just want justice. Then again, I’m stepping into the shoes of her egocentric father, who isn't exactly a saint himself, and despite his best intentions and genuine outrage, he just can't wrap his head around his daughter. Everything becomes a coping mechanism for her—everything from colonial guilt to that frustrating hint of understanding toward her attackers. But really, can anyone ever truly grasp what’s going on inside someone's head? Can anyone tell them how they *should* behave? Especially when it involves someone close to you making a decision that feels completely irrational.

Now, back to the film... even though the subject of assault is never explicitly highlighted—the word is never even uttered, the husband never asks her directly (and she wouldn't say anything anyway)—it’s just there. We all know. No one expects her to act rationally when she says she won't report it or when she "forgives" her attacker toward the end. We understand the social pressure, the stigma, the trauma; sometimes it's just easier to move on. But he couldn't understand her, nor could he stomach what happened, so he went on this vengeful crusade because he felt it was his duty to "fix" things. As problematic as that is, the bigger issue is that the criminal isn't being reported after attacking someone in their own home, leaving the door open for them to do it again. I think it's unfair to call him a cold husband who is purely acting to protect his "property" (even if that's likely his main driver). It’s natural that he can't make sense of her choices, and he probably shows a lack of respect for her autonomy by treating her like a "character in his book"—much like we see her as a secondary character in a film centered on him. But shouldn't the attacker's family have a right to know what kind of person he is? Why is it so hard to empathize with the person who has to live with someone traumatized and clearly shaken, yet that person refuses to take any action? For reasons that are deeply private, sure, but totally incomprehensible.
Her silence and his insistence on that silence aren't helping their marriage, or anyone else for that matter. The situation is tainted either way.

Ironically, keeping it all bottled up saved the old man from having to confess his sins. We'll never know what would have happened if he hadn't been so pathetic and helpless, or if the attacker had been a younger guy instead. Pretty clever, actually!

Ashley Grant66 said:I find it quite curious how everyone seems to be targeting the husband. 😁

It strikes me that it’s rather difficult to discuss a detached husband who appears to be acting solely to 'defend' his property—even if that is likely his primary driver... It stands to reason that he cannot comprehend her, viewing her decision as entirely irrational, which perhaps serves as his way of disregarding her autonomy... essentially treating her like a minor character in his own story, much like we view her as a secondary figure in a film centered on him. But why shouldn't the perpetrator's family have a right to know what kind of man he is? And why is it so hard to empathize with the person forced to live alongside someone so visibly traumatized and shaken, yet who refuses to take any action? For reasons that are deeply intimate, clearly significant, yet utterly incomprehensible to outsiders...

He isn't being cold; he's actually in an impossible situation. I mean, look at how much he snapped at the colleague who was basically handed a cheap apartment by that woman! You live in such a rigid, conservative society that you're forced to maintain this specific kind of decorum...
If the neighbors hadn't been there, he probably would have just swept the whole thing under the rug, mostly because he's preoccupied with whether the bastard is going to lash out at someone else next.

They actually had a decent relationship before the assault occurred—before anything was even put to the test—but since then, he’s changed:
- someone laid hands on his property
- everyone witnessed it
It's hard to say which part haunts him more; he just withdraws into himself, and instead of finding her husband beside her, she finds herself facing a polite, polished stranger...

goldenhound32 said:"The attacker"?
So, the old man walked into the bathroom and she went flying through the glass shower door from pure terror, if my memory serves me correctly...

Yeah, exactly.
The neighbor recalls, if I remember rightly, saying, "When I saw her, she looked more dead than alive," while the old man admits, "I couldn't resist the temptation."
A lot has gone down here...
One thing is certain—it wasn't the shower glass's fault.

I can’t quite recall the specifics of what my neighbor was saying, but I vividly remember the exchange between her husband and an old man.

The husband asks him, "When you walked into the apartment and saw a woman in the bathroom—realizing she wasn't the one you were looking for—why on earth didn't you just walk out right then?"... To which the old man simply replies, "I couldn't resist the temptation."

I suppose we could spend our time speculating about what actually went down there.

So, my take is he went in thinking he was just having a quick little fling with a sex worker—left her cash like he always does. But then the neighbors hear screaming and sounds of a struggle, and the guy ends up hurting his foot stepping on some broken glass. Honestly, if she hadn't walked out on him and he’d just stuck to the bathroom, he probably would've been fine. Sounds like a total brawl broke out.

I totally agree that they kept things blurry on purpose, so everyone watching basically interprets it how they want. The IMDb synopsis explicitly calls it a 'rape,' and a few reviews I skimmed mentioned the sexual element too. I mean, having a stranger burst into your shower is traumatic enough, but maybe calling it 'rape' feels a bit like a leap here. Lawrence Edwards58, do you think the whole vibe changes if we take the sexual aspect out of the equation?

Ashley Grant66 said:I figured he went in there thinking he was just having a quick little fling with what he assumed was a sex worker, and he left her money just like he usually does. The neighbors heard screaming and some kind of "struggle," and the guy ended up injuring his foot by stepping on glass—which certainly wouldn't have happened if he’d just stepped into the bathroom and she hadn't bolted out the door seeing him. It definitely felt like some sort of invasion and physical altercation...

I agree that the filmmakers intentionally kept things vague, which leaves anyone watching it to come to their own conclusions based on how they perceive the subtext. The IMDb synopsis explicitly uses the word 'rape,' and a few reviews I skimmed also highlight the sexual dimension of the scene. Personally, I think the sheer trauma of a stranger breaking into your shower is intense enough on its own, though perhaps labeling it 'rape' might be a bit of an easy assumption for some viewers. Lawrence Edwards58, do you think the entire interpretation of the film shifts if we remove that sexual element from the equation?...

The sexual dimension is a taboo subject in Iranian society. You can see how much he struggles right from the moment he moves into the apartment, constantly being interrogated about that woman and her belongings, who she is, why she's there...

He injured his foot because he was barefoot (and likely naked)...

If there weren't a sexual component involved, it would be an entirely different story, but even if there wasn't, his wife, the neighbors, and his colleagues would probably assume there was... it's a complicated situation when you can't be completely open with the people closest to you...

@Ashley Grant66/">@@Ashley Grant66
As far as I can tell, he likely just put the money exactly where he always does—upfront, out of pure habit.

But there is no doubt in my mind that he knew she wasn't his usual contact.

He swears he thought she was already in there when he walked into the bathroom—if he’s lying, though, that makes it even worse, since then it’s just straight-up harassment against some random woman.
The real question is what he actually did once he realized his mistake.

As they say, "I just couldn't resist."
What exactly is there to resist when you accidentally stumble into a bathroom and find an unexpected woman standing there? You offer a polite apology and promptly make your exit... Unless, of course, the unspoken rule is that you're expected to strip naked and start a physical altercation...