Bidhan Rebeiro

A Hero: optimistic, questioning film

বিধান রিবেরু প্রকাশিত: মার্চ ১৯, ২০২২, ১২:৫৮ পিএম A Hero: optimistic, questioning film

Thus I entered, and thus I go!

In triumphs, people have dropped down dead.

‘Paid by the world, what dost thou owe

‘Me?’ — God might question; now instead,

’Tis God shall repay: I am safer so.

— Robert Browning, ‘The Patriot’

SOCIETY can make a man hero and turn him into a villain in a matter of moments. Meanwhile, some question marks appear on the foreheads of society and the individual. Society can make someone a hero without checking anything, and if the scale of suspicion is heavy, it can make the same person a villain. But why does society do that? And what is the heroic work of the person? For what deed can he be called a hero?

If one does something out of a sense of propriety, he becomes a hero, as others in society usually avoid that rightful deed. But the work falls within the moral responsibility, so why give him the title of hero separately? Or what are the abilities that elevate a man to the status of a hero?

After watching Asghar Farhadi’s ‘A Hero’ (2021), I remembered the English poet Robert Browning’s poem ‘The Patriot.’ And these questions arose in my mind. The film shows Rahim (Amir Jadidi) going to jail for debt. Once, he gets some gold coins from his girlfriend when they are on a two-day vacation. The girlfriend says that she has found the bag from somewhere. They want to sell it but refrain for moral reasons and decide to return the coins to the original owner.

After the vacation, Rahim returns to jail. Meanwhile, a woman claiming to be the owner comes and takes the bag from Rahim’s sister’s house. Before leaving, the woman gives a few notes to Rahim’s speech-impaired son as a token of the award. So when the jail authorities come to know about the story of returning the lost coins, they start to give attention to Rahim. And somehow the media get the news, and one by one, the newspapers and TV stations start making reports about Rahim. Rahim becomes a familiar face.

A social welfare organisation also gives Rahim a reception, and they immediately collect public money so that Rahim could settle the debt. Not only that, Rahim is also offered a job by the organisation so that he could gradually repay the debt to the creditor. The creditor was on that occasion too. If he gets a job, the creditor will withdraw the complaint. But things get complicated when the employer wants to see the woman who owns the coins. But the woman could not be found.

A helpless Rahim takes his girlfriend to the employer as the coin owner. That intensifies their suspicions. They start communicating with social welfare organisations and prison authorities. In the meantime, rumours begin to circulate through social media about Rahim. Many people think Rahim has arranged these dramas to get the sentence reduced without repaying the loan.

In the middle of the crisis, one day, suddenly, Rahim attacks the creditor for talking harshly about his son. The creditor’s daughter threatens to spread the CCTV footage of the incident to the cyber world. In such a dilemma, he gives the money raised by the social welfare organisation to another family, seeing their greater danger. Rahim does what is proper and humane here too. He is not selfish.

On the other hand, when the jail authorities come to record Rahim’s son’s statement to protect their face through the media, the boy can say almost nothing except that his father is an innocent person in a broken sentence. But Rahim sits back. He is not willing to publicise the boy’s speech impediment in the media. People may think that Rahim is using the boy for his benefit. So, he asks the jail official to delete the video. The officer does not want to delete it. At one point in the argument, Rahim attacks the officer.

The bag with gold coins acts as a McGuffin in the film. The film has tested society, institutions, and individuals’ morality, selfishness, and humanity based on this bag.

When people find out about Rahim through newspapers, they congratulate him because of what he has done even after having been a prisoner and a debt-ridden man; because he did curb the greed and uphold morality. At first, the jail authorities try to use Rahim to draw light on themselves. Later, the social welfare organisation wants to associate their organisation with Rahim’s reputation. That is why it offered him a reception, financial aid, and a job. They all became friends in good time.

But there is always a reverse current of thought flowing in society. A group of people start thinking that since no one had seen the coin owner it is almost certain that Rahim has made a false drama. The number of people asking this question increase. The attitude of society also starts tilting away from Rahim. And this tilted attitude is followed by institutions like social welfare organisations and state apparatus like the prisons. But only a few days ago, they were full of praise for Rahim. Now, Rahim and his family have got into a crisis in the middle of this oscillation. Rahim’s family also resort to lies to establish the truth. They give false testimony to the employer.

Rahim also goes through turbulent times. Sometimes, he clings to morality while, at times, he rejects morality. Rahim rejects morality when it comes to selling coins but sticks to ethics to return it. Desperate to get a job, Rahim rejects morality and convinces the family to lie and then again, abandoning the illusion of a job, he expresses his willingness to abide by morality. Rahim defends morality by donating the fund raised for him to the woman in jeopardy and eventually returns to prison. Even though he knows he has to sacrifice the precious time of his life he chooses prison for moral reasons. But, deep down, Rahim settles in hope.

In the last scene, the director shows us an older man going out of prison, hugging a woman, distributing sweets to everyone and leaving while Rahim is seen seated at the entrance of the prison. With this scene, the director raises hope in the audience’s minds. He wants to say that Rahim will get the same reunion with his family in this way.

In addition to showing the dilemma of human beings in the test of morality, ‘A Hero’ is finally an optimistic film. After watching a documentary called ‘All Winners, All Losers’, I realised that ‘A Hero’ is a film based on actual events. However, Asghar Farhadi does not mention it anywhere in the movie.

Bidhan Rebeiro is a film critic, FIPRESCI jury member and editor of Cinema Darshan.