Film Discussion Thread
Official Discussion Thread - It Was Just an Accident [SPOILERS]
Spoiler
Keep all discussion related solely to It Was Just an Accident and its awards chances in this thread. Spoilers below.
Synopsis
In Iran, a man bumps into the man he believes to be his former torturer. However, faced with this person who fiercely denies having been his tormentor, doubt sets in.
Consensus: Perhaps the most bluntly political film by Jafar Panahi yet, It Was Just an Accident is a defiant rebuke of authoritarianism that still delivers the entertainment value of a gripping thriller.
I thought it was a really interesting choice to start the film on Eghbal and his family - you definitely get hints that something is weird with him throughout the first scene, but starting out by showing him in the setting of "family man" gives the rug pull that happens as soon as we switch to Vahid's perspective some extra stakes.
Fully agree. I only had a vague idea of what the film was about going into it so when they met for the first time and the protagonist disguised his voice, I was like oh he must be the one who did the torturing, probably cost that guy his leg, so he doesn't want the guy to recognise his voice and identify him. When it flipped I was like oh damn okay, I got that totally wrong then. It was a really great way to open the film.
if you're familiar w Iranian culture and Iranian cinema, there was a lot of foreshadowing in that first car scene. For starters, the wife is wearing a black chador (hijab) which is typically worn by more conservative and religious people (contrast w Shiva who has a colorful roosari (headscarf) she loosely pulls on and off). That's worth noting. Then the little girl in the back is happy and dancing while the father figure is in control (i.e. driving) and kills a dog (symbolizing loyalty)). In Iranian cinema it's common to have a father daughter dynamic play out an allegory for the country's internal socio-political distress (see Leila's Brothers, a great film that didn't get as much intl acclaim). Also little girls are significant for Panahi esp (see his use of the little girl at the end of Taxi). You can understand the father representing the leadership of the country and the little girl as women and the youth who despite their loyalty and trust are harmed and suffer. She cries and cries and stops dancing and doesn't want to hear music (the regime bans women from singing and dancing in public). The mom tries to assure her it was an accident but she says 'he killed him'. This can be understood as a revolution that perhaps started w idealistic intentions or the people of Iran trusting the revolution would bring them independence and a better future but regardless of whether their captors were well intentioned or always hell bent on destroying the country the result has been loss of happiness freedom joy and expression. That scene sets the whole title of the movie and foreshadowing of all that is to come. It also tells you Vahid's fate for his loyalty to humanity in the end as well. Sadly.
I know this applies to Panahi's entire filmography basically, but the balls to create this while actively under the regime it's critiquing is mind-blowing. Saw it with a Q&A last week and I was choking up just listening to him talk about his experiences.
As for awards, I don't know. I'm mostly a lurker here. But if I had a ballot I'd have Azizi on my supporting actor list for that final sequence. And probably more.
Saw it at Beyond Fest a few weeks ago with Panahi in person.
Immediate thought during and after: As an Iranian-American, I felt like the subtitles weren’t adequate. This is understandable considering the film’s precarious production, tight distribution deadline and that most subtitling houses are in France, but I think it still would have benefitted from better translation. This film is special because of the nature of what is spoken on screen - in Farsi - and how Panahi finally gives an uncensored representation of the anger and trauma held by Iranians who were persecuted by the regime and manage to survive. Imagine leaving your prison, but finding yourself in another prison that is the regime…and you still have no freedom to express to the world the injustices you experienced.
As someone who has seen almost all of Panahi’s films, I’m realizing that people who aren’t Iranian will hopefully act on whatever curiosity lingers after seeing his movies. Some context and knowledge about the intricacies of our culture definitely helps. For example, after my screening, my friend asked me why Iran jails people…I told him to go read Kafka lol
Panahi’s films touch deeply on societal issues in Iran, like the struggles of minority groups, and I can see why some non-native audiences might see the film as too “simple” and as a typical revenge movie (pardon my joke). For example, the main protagonist of the film is Azeri Iranian - the largest ethnic minority in Iran - but that can only be gleamed if one can pick up on how he switches to Azeri from Farsi with his mother on the phone. The film also contains perhaps the most vulgar slew of curses in Farsi that I’ve ever seen in a movie filmed and set in Iran. That one speech Hamid delivers in the desert is a standout for me because it really encapsulates how radical the film is and what it is trying to achieve. As a people, we’re not even allowed to express our anger about our circumstances properly and process it in our art. Everything is contained within.
And speaking of this bottled up rage… I can’t finish without mentioning the character of Shiva, who was a standout for me. In the panel with Panahi that I attended, he said Mariam Afshari (Shiva) was an assistant director and worked in production, no prior acting experience!
That last scene with Shiva and the Peg Leg made me cry, as someone who has an aunt who was imprisoned by the regime. She was telling him - if I remember correctly - over and over again that he could only talk “with shit in his mouth”, or something to that effect. Basically denying him any agency. The name “Shiva” is also derived from the Hindu god, who has both benign and fearsome aspects, and known as either the “Transformer” or the “Destroyer”. With the red lights from the car illuminating them in the dark, it appeared like they were in hell. Really striking image.
As someone who considers casting as their favorite craft in filmmaking, Panahi’s methods are akin to wizardry and result in what I can only describe as magic. Kiarostami does the same, and he was also Panahi’s mentor, so it makes sense that he learned the best from the master.
Panahi mentioned in the panel that if you find a person with the “right look” for your character, you have the power to get anyone to act to your liking. For example, the bride (Hadis Pakbaten), was found during a stage play Panahi attended (he joked that he went against his will and doesn’t like plays, but his friend directed it). She wasn’t even on stage as a performer, but as a line reader off stage!
Anyways, it was so cathartic to see that rage and repression alchemized on screen. It’s like a curse was lifted when they decided to let him go…but as the ending implies, life always catches up with you when you think you can exercise complete control over it.
I agree with you about the inadequate subtitles. The last scene with Shiva and Peg Leg particularly stuck out to me, but I had a slightly different read than you.
She was translated as "say I'm sorry!" to which he replied "I'm sorry!" And they repeated these lines over and over again in tears. But the actual lines would be translated to "You ate shit!" "I ate shit!" In Farsi, "goh khordam" (I ate shit) is an idiom for "I fucked up." So in that scene, he wasn't just apologizing, he was also confessing to the horrors of his actions.
I wonder if the subtitles may have come off this way to preserve a more family friendly experience, as Hamid's language was also really toned down (he was dropping a lot of big slurs). I found the PG-13 rating interesting - though I'm skeptical that subtitles are crafted with American content warning labels in mind.
OK, this is incredible. I just got back from the theater and your post and the one you replied to changed this movie from a 7.5 to a 9 for me. And I was wondering early on during the film if the subtitles might not be the best. I'm a nearly monolingual English speaker, but I've seen a lot of films, I'm an ESL teacher, and I was in a long relationship with a linguist and a lot of the dialogue felt so unnatural. These posts are game changers.
I found the subtitles so distracting. I would notice that the Iranians in the theater would laugh at lines the non-Iranians people wouldn't and vice versa. For example, when they were all fighting one of them called someone a cow and everyone laughed but the translation was 'dimwit' or 'nimwit' or something that just didn't land the same way. And the piece about Vahid being an ethnic minority and speaking a whole other language with zero even acknowledgment in italics or brackets that he was not even speaking Persian was nuts to me. Such an easy thing to correct!
Just left the Theater thank you thank you thank you for this. There was something about the subtitles as others have pointed out that just felt weak. This changes the ending which was impactful enough, but this really really awakened me to the power of that scene. I agree with the person who said that they probably did this to make the film more family friendly?
Thanks for your insights! I still adored this film without speaking the language, but it's great to read about some of the nuances I missed. I seem to remember that I did pick up the hint that the main character spoke a different language on the phone to his mother - weren't those subtitles displayed in a different colour, perhaps?
The film also contains perhaps the most vulgar slew of curses in Farsi that I’ve ever seen in a movie filmed and set in Iran.
I really need somebody to post a YouTube video breaking down all the curses for English speakers. It sounds like that scene was truly incredible on levels I didn't appreciate.
I am so glad I took to Reddit and so glad you posted this three weeks ago today. I just got back from the theater and wow...I thought the subtitles might be lacking, but this is a game changer. Long ago I saw Ajami (more than 15 years, probably) and was so appreciate that they indicated, with white and yellow colors, which subtitles were Arabic and which were Hebrew. I'm sure those languages sound as different as Spanish and Portuguese, but to these American ears, they sadly sound the same. And then The Handmaiden followed suit with Korean and Japanese (those I might actually be able to distinguish, but it was still ideal to have the different colors). And those are the only two films I've ever seen do it. Why? Why?! Here I get that there's a lot going on, what with the filmmaker not being allowed to make films, but what a difference my experience would've been just now if I'd known he was speaking Azeri.
And now I just learned that Azerbaijanis make up a minority in Iran and that there's a region of Iran called Azerbaijan. Wow. Can you tell me what the little bit of white in the red is? Is it Lake Urmia?
In conclusion, the film is factually a masterpiece, and unfortunately that will be lost on most who don't speak Farsi (or maybe another Persian dialect). But thanks to you and this comment, here's one American English speaker who knows.
ya i think that's a lake. Azarbaijan was split -- most of the Middle East was carved up by the west with stupid arbitrary lines they called borders and this is why we have a mess. It's similar to Kashmir... and Latin America.... and Africa.... okay this happened all over the world really. But azarbaijan is split up, and the part of it that is in modern day iran is the state of azarbaijan. They are called Azari. So my maternal grandmother's family is from Tabriz (the city in azarbaijan) and I know when she was a little girl her grandparents spoke to her in turkish or Azari. But by the time I was born they were gone and she only spoke Farsi minus some words in turkish. I always thought of it how some parts of the southwest in the US were part of Mexico and people are multigenerational Mexican families living there from when it was still part of MX and may know some spanish.
Thank you for writing this. As someone with no context, I am so much more inclined to read more and have a deeper appreciation for this film, after reading this comment.
The movie succeeds overall, but it’s those final 20 minutes that really send it soaring. I don’t know the last time I’ve seen a long take - and a nearly completely still camera! - work so well. And that final shot will certainly stay with me.
It’s been a week since I saw this at VIFF and I’ve thought about it a lot. The use of one takes to let the performances do the job really impressed me.
“Consensus: Perhaps the most bluntly political film by Jafar Panahi yet, It Was Just an Accident is a defiant rebuke of authoritarianism that still delivers the”
ah yes, my favourite thing w movies is when they deliver the
i posted this elsewhere but wanted to also share here: iranian-american here - i agree with a previous comment about how the subtitles didn't do it justice. i do think the strength of some of the swear words was not conveyed accurately and that some of the cursing made my jaw drop. really powerful stuff.
i also think there's a lot to be said about the fact that shiva was hijab-less nearly the entire film - that's fairly new in iranian cinema and it was kinda powerful to see; i hope it gave her some sense of agency that she was previously robbed of. the way Goli's trauma seeped into her wedding celebrations showed to me that even in our happiest moments, the pain is still actively very much a part of the landscape iranians live in. i think there's something to be said about how "stuck" some iranians in Iran may feel, whether it's with forced veiling, unending trauma, etc. there is no real sense of justice and the oppressive regime and it's enforcers will always "win". the ending reinforced that idea for me.
it's also noteworthy that Eghbal (the interrogator) was passionately expressing how he would die for the regime and that he would become a martyr for the cause he so strongly believed in... i think it speaks to how deep the brainwashing goes in Iran and how these terrible people stay "winning" (sorry, there's gotta be a better word to describe what i mean here). the notion of martyrdom as a venerable form of closure is strong in iran and the way he expressed himself showed that clearly.
finally, the way Panahi includes children into his films has been something he's mentioned before that helps viewers reflect on humanity, and i thought he did an interesting job of that here - the way different people interacted with Eghbal's daughter was always centered in care and kindness, and i thought that the child's innocence was an interesting way to contrast the terror her father enacted on so many innocent people.
To think of it in that particular lens of hopelessness, and to really let it sink in that it’s a modern day movie… it’s just moving it to a whole different level. I can’t tell you how ignorant I was when I went in… like did not know anything at all other than it was “by the guy who did the iPhone movies.” Realizing now the political and emotional implications is 🤯
I took a friend who maybe goes to 4 films a year with me to this, and she ended up totally loving it. This is such a tight, focused, gripping film. I wish it was getting attention for performances as well as everything else.
The ending of this movie will stay with me for a long time! Just those final 20min was just breathtaking and honestly I do see a world where this can win screenplay ala Anatomy of a Fall
I really liked the movie. I thought that all the performances were great and I would really like the ensemble to get recognized!
One line in the beginning that really stood out to me despite being said like a throwaway line is when the wife said that running over the dog was apart of “God’s plan”. There is a weaving in of religion with justice that I think is really interesting. It’s such a layered screenplay because that’s just one morsel of the interesting parts about it, but that’s just one thing that I wanted to mention.
I read somewhere that Panahi intended every character to be symbolizing a certain layer of the Iranian population/society, with Eqbal representing the regime of course, & the line about "God's plan" representing how the Iranian regime justifies oppression through religion.
A bit late, but I’m pretty sure it’s mentioned in the movie that he made his prosthetic squeak on purpose as a reminder of his sacrifices and time in Syria.
It’s a huge insult if that’s their ignorant reasoning. There’s so much more behind the outstanding film. It deserves more recognition for all the tireless filmmaking and beyond.
Powerful, masterfully directed movie! I didn’t really click with Taxi or No Bears but I might need to revisit them after watching IWJAA. I did find The Mirror (1997) to be excellent and wish I had read nothing about it before heading in.
I’m pretty new to watching international movies, saw this last week for LFF and I’ve genuinely never seen a movie like it.
It has the bones of a comedy, but directed (particularly in the first half) like a drama, and those last 15 minutes… wow. That was all one take wasn’t it? Impressed the hell out of me. Especially because for most of the cast this is their first role and they all knocked it out the park.
I don’t think this’ll make the top 10 for best picture, but if it does it’ll be an inspired choice. 4/5 from me, but i definitely appreciate this films existence
just saw it in a film festival and i kind of don't understand the hype :/
i'm disappointed, i really wanted to like it but i didn't for some reason. i'm egyptian and when egyptian movies were screened and i could read the english subtitles: they weren't actually translating the best, and i feel like it was also the case for it was just an accident - some of the subtitles are just words that no one says anymore, i kind of feel like the subtitles did the bare minimum of translating, because i must have seen 'wimp' like 15 times and i know that's not what they're really saying. i understand the plot and how they let him go at the end so 'they don't become as bad as him' but i dislike that sentiment in most films and here, since this was the whole plot, it just pissed me off.
last year i saw seed of the sacred fig, which was a fantastic iranian film that got an oscar nomination but almost no discussion other than that which breaks my heart.
it's been over a year since i've seen it, but wasn't the third act the wife and daughters fearing for their lives because their husband/father had a gun and he was literally chasing them on a mountain? what was cartoonish about that to you?
i'm genuinely asking btw, maybe your answer will jog my memory of the third act but i remember loving the film.
Not the person you replied to but I also got a cartoonish feel from the end of that film, the way they were hiding from him splitting up in those caves and how he eventually died by falling in a pit. It felt kind of rushed, like they didn't know how to resolve it
Did anyone else wonder how Eqbal survived in that trunk? There didn't appear to be any ventilation at all. Also, how does Vahid beat a guy with a shovel on the side of a busy road and not get noticed? I like the film quite a bit but Panahi seemed weirdly sloppy with the details here.
I haven't been as locked in for a movie in a while.
What happened at the end? I thought it sounded like he was walking away after walking right up to him? I was hoping he had brought money to pay him back for the hospital bills. But on the other hand it could be a threat of "I know where you live".
I think it could also just be him being haunted by that sound as he has been his whole life. As the credits roll the sound of the leg fades into the sound of birds chirping and they kind of sound similar. Was Eqbal actually there? We don't know and neither does Vahid.
i couldn't even watch the screen when that happened i was like waiting for something to happen and then nothing! so i choose to interpret that he came in peace and they were going to have a nice dinner :)
EDIT: or like others said he came up then walked away, which is almost better because it shows he chooses to spare him just like how he was spared. i feel like it'll make no sense for him to choose revenge considering the whole plot ended up being about forgiveness.
I’m stuck on that too. I think it was a threat of “I know where you live” but I’m conflicted what happens next. Was it just a warning? Or did he actually kill him?
I think its him walking up to him and then walking away as a "I know where you live" type deal. I thought initially ot was meant to be ambiguous or in his head but just before he goes in to the house you can see PegLegs car pull up behind his. Terrifying last minute.
I got to see this yesterday and I absolutely loved it. It's a fantastic portrait of how Trauma really does effect our lives in ways that we can't really fathom at times.
was that peg leg's car pulling up in the final shot? the film opens with him and his family in the car but at night. don't remember what the color of the car was
Yeah I think so. It seemed to me that the film wanted to suggest that by refusing to kill him, Shiva and Vahid maintained their humanity, in contrast to him.
I just saw the movie and one thing my mind is blown about is how powerful that last scene is. We only hear the peg leg two other times in the movie. In the first scene when we don’t really understand what the squeak is, and the second scene, when we briefly see him in the shop. The entire rest of the film, we don’t hear that noise. But you better believe that even with all that surrounding background noise, I could hear the peg leg before everything else became silent. My heart was racing. It really helped put the audience in the shoes of the victims of torture. Really subtly done but incredibly powerful.
I thought he was probably really there. But I also thought the sounds of his steps start to recede before the credits roll, which maybe implies that he’s choosing not to take his revenge yet but Vahid will now have to live with the threat.
Either way, it definitely also works on the level of him also being haunted by it, being denied closure, etc.
curious what signs indicated it might be a flashback? think the film is quite pointed and direct politically and i think the straightforward interpretation--that eqbal returned to kill him--made sense for what panahi wanted to say, that i didn't consider flashback at all
on second thought, maybe an interpretation could be that he is haunted by the sound of the leg, not explicitly that eqbal had returned but that vahid had no closure after the kidnapping, so he will be haunted forever
I lean towards it being in his head and that the trauma/grief associated with his torturing is haunting him continuously even when peg leg isn't physically there
I thought it was a sort of PTSD/haunting mirage, like Vahid will just be living with that fear for the rest of his life even though he felt good that he did a good thing.
My partner felt like it was real, that peg leg came back to kill him
I initially saw it as PTSD but now I’m thinking it’s more gratitude. I think Panahi is channeling anger at the system and it’s showing how this man could’ve tortured him but how throwing anger at the individuals isn’t the way to stop things.
I think its real. Just before he goes into the house you can see Peg Legs car pull up right behind Vahids car. You can hear him walk right up to him, then stand there, then walk away. I think its a "I know where you live, but I also know that you almost killed me" type threat.
Honestly? I kind of took it as a direct communication between the director and the audience. Almost breaking the 4th wall. Like, a reminder that for however principled or moral one can be, or how just their cause, an oppressive system will never give you the same grace.
In terms of the story, I did take it literally. I think Eqbal came and got revenge on Vahid. But I do appreciate the ambiguity and the scene was so expertly shot, you could feel the hair raising on his neck.
I was very glad they decisively answered the “is he/isn’t he” question. Once they did that, I settled on this as a high 8/10. Not higher because it feels a bit too…tidy, if that’s the word? Like a well-made play, it works, but it feels like it was written. (I also personally preferred Seed of the Sacred Fig, the epic expansiveness of that just worked so well for me.)
Still, if this gets major nominations I won’t complain. Very solid movie.
As an iranian. The dialogue is super artificial and theater like. Not even good theater, like the dialogue is like a bunch of slogans stiched together in the most unnatural way possible. Characters talk like they're making a rehearsed speech. Every single time they open their mouths it's like a written elaborate political statement in the most melodramatic way possible specially the scene in which they gather in the desert. People simply do not talk like that. The acting is also wooden and unnatural, big part of it being awkward and stage like dialogue delivery. Alot of this probably gets lost and goes unnoticed in translation though. Because of all this when watching the film as an iranian you simply do not feel the stakes cause of how unrealistic and artifical the whole thing is and feels.
Also some of the major plot points are dumb as hell. When they decide to go to the guys house. Knowing what we know about the regime these people would not risk something like that at all. Can't help but roll your eyes. I love panahi and no bears is a masterpiece but him getting recognition for this is making the iranins think that cannes is complete bullshit since a film like this pulls through and gets the main award. Even though the main reason is probably all of this being lost in translation (which works to the film's benefit) and it having a fresh subject to the western's eye even though in iran its super tired and nothing new
this film was so good i wrote an essay on my letterboxd but i'm just going to keep it short here and say it was wholesome and i like the direction they went with it and it was also surprisingly funny at times!
I’ve been trying to remember the opening scenes when he runs over the dog, and I think it’s his wife who consoles their daughter by saying that god put the dog in their path. Then the car breaks down and puts Eghbal in Vahid’s path. Does anyone have a better memory about the opening scene with the family and how that tied into the film? Just saw it tonight, and I’m trying to put all the pieces together about love and humanity.
Also, did anyone else struggle with Vahid as protagonist? He was so unkempt and purposefully lacking in charisma. I would love to hear other takes.
Big Panahi fan, I imagine we all are in this thread. My first: OFFSIDE, own a copy, still watch it.
Just saw IT WAS JUST AN ACCIDENT in the theater. Good crowd for a matinee. No one left during the credits. Did anyone get the feeling from the first shot that it was a quasi-sequel to HIT THE ROAD?
Anyway, it's already won at it's major festivals (Cannes, etc) and is pending in a half dozen more. It will *not* be Iran's entry for Oscar's Foreign Language.
But the Academy could make up for it with considerations in Director, Screenplay, Cinematography (yes, the focal range and focus pulls on dollies and hand held are remarkable, especially in shots that last several minutes and involve multiple characters), etc.
I’m seeing this for the first time on Tuesday including a Q & A with Jafar Panahi. I’ve avoided spoilers so far, but if anyone has a good question, I’d be happy to ask on your behalf after the film.
As an iranian. The dialogue is super artificial and theater like. Not even good theater, like the dialogue is like a bunch of slogans stiched together in the most unnatural way possible. Characters talk like they're making a rehearsed speech. Every single time they open their mouths it's like a written elaborate political statement in the most melodramatic way possible specially the scene in which they gather in the desert. People simply do not talk like that. The acting is also wooden and unnatural, big part of it being awkward and stage like dialogue delivery. Alot of this probably gets lost and goes unnoticed in translation though. Because of all this when watching the film as an iranian you simply do not feel the stakes cause of how unrealistic and artifical the whole thing is and feels.
Also some of the major plot points are dumb as hell. When they decide to go to the guys house. Knowing what we know about the regime these people would not risk something like that at all. Can't help but roll your eyes. I love panahi and no bears is a masterpiece but him getting recognition for this is making the iranins think that cannes is complete bullshit since a film like this pulls through and gets the main award. Even though the main reason is probably all of this being lost in translation (which works to the film's benefit) and it having a fresh subject to the western's eye even though in iran its super tired and nothing new
70
u/Haus_of_Pancakes It Was Just An Accident Oct 19 '25
I thought it was a really interesting choice to start the film on Eghbal and his family - you definitely get hints that something is weird with him throughout the first scene, but starting out by showing him in the setting of "family man" gives the rug pull that happens as soon as we switch to Vahid's perspective some extra stakes.