The Iranian documentary Mashgh-e Shab (1989) was shown in the U.S. with the translated title Homework. It was written and directed by Abbas Kiarostami.
Kiarostami is a great documentary director. I think he's almost at the level of Frederick Wiseman. However there are important differences between Wiseman and Kiarostami.
Wiseman never appears onscreen in his movies. Kiarostami is on the screen constantly. He's the one who asks the children each question. Wiseman lets the camera roll, records what he sees and hears, and presents us with the edited version of reality. Kiarostami continually (too often) shows us the cinematographer at work, reminding us that we're watching something that isn't organic. Both filmmakers create a reality, but Wiseman is subtle, and Kiarostami isn't.
The movie is dated 1989, but it was certainly produced earlier, because there are references to the Iran-Iraq war, which ended in 1988. It may have been made earlier than the great film Where is the Friend's House? (Where is the Friend's House is dated 1987.)
In any case, both movies feature the question of homework, and its importance in the Iranian educational system.
In this documentary, Kiarostami interviews about 20 first- and second-grade students, mostly about homework. He's especially interested in why they often don't finish their homework. Some of their answers are probably self-serving, but most of their answers appear genuine.
In the first place, about 1/3 of the students have parents who are illiterate. For many of the literate parents, the "new math" is beyond their comprehension. And, of course, the parents are tired from work and from caring for their large families. (Most of the children have multiple siblings.) Often the students get help from distant relatives. One child is helped by the landlord's daughter. One child is helped by his sister. He has scratch marks on his face. He tells matter-of-factly tells Kiarostami that his sister scratched him.
The problem is that teachers aren't interested in excuses. They're interested in homework. One student, who clearly has mental health issues, was punished by his first-grade teacher, who hit him so hard with a ruler that the ruler broke.
Most of the children expect punishment when they don't do their schoolwork. They get hit in school, and they get hit at home. (Often with a belt.) They are matter of fact about this.
The movie is enlightening, but very sad. My hope is that these children, who were becoming literate, would treat their children better than they were treated. However, I have no way to know if this is true.
We saw this film as an extra on the same Criterion DVD as Where is the Friend's House. It will work independently, but I'm sure that some people will find it boring or excessive. However, clearly most people enjoyed it--it has an very high IMDb rating of 7.9. I rated it 9.
Kiarostami is a great documentary director. I think he's almost at the level of Frederick Wiseman. However there are important differences between Wiseman and Kiarostami.
Wiseman never appears onscreen in his movies. Kiarostami is on the screen constantly. He's the one who asks the children each question. Wiseman lets the camera roll, records what he sees and hears, and presents us with the edited version of reality. Kiarostami continually (too often) shows us the cinematographer at work, reminding us that we're watching something that isn't organic. Both filmmakers create a reality, but Wiseman is subtle, and Kiarostami isn't.
The movie is dated 1989, but it was certainly produced earlier, because there are references to the Iran-Iraq war, which ended in 1988. It may have been made earlier than the great film Where is the Friend's House? (Where is the Friend's House is dated 1987.)
In any case, both movies feature the question of homework, and its importance in the Iranian educational system.
In this documentary, Kiarostami interviews about 20 first- and second-grade students, mostly about homework. He's especially interested in why they often don't finish their homework. Some of their answers are probably self-serving, but most of their answers appear genuine.
In the first place, about 1/3 of the students have parents who are illiterate. For many of the literate parents, the "new math" is beyond their comprehension. And, of course, the parents are tired from work and from caring for their large families. (Most of the children have multiple siblings.) Often the students get help from distant relatives. One child is helped by the landlord's daughter. One child is helped by his sister. He has scratch marks on his face. He tells matter-of-factly tells Kiarostami that his sister scratched him.
The problem is that teachers aren't interested in excuses. They're interested in homework. One student, who clearly has mental health issues, was punished by his first-grade teacher, who hit him so hard with a ruler that the ruler broke.
Most of the children expect punishment when they don't do their schoolwork. They get hit in school, and they get hit at home. (Often with a belt.) They are matter of fact about this.
The movie is enlightening, but very sad. My hope is that these children, who were becoming literate, would treat their children better than they were treated. However, I have no way to know if this is true.
We saw this film as an extra on the same Criterion DVD as Where is the Friend's House. It will work independently, but I'm sure that some people will find it boring or excessive. However, clearly most people enjoyed it--it has an very high IMDb rating of 7.9. I rated it 9.