Today it was announced that the Oscars’ selection committee has removed the strong Iranian film Cause of Death: Unknown from the shortlist for Best International Feature Film—for known and unknown reasons alike. A film that had itself waited for several years in Iran just to receive a screening permit has now been excluded once again. Experience has shown that winning awards at ceremonies that increasingly resemble one another has little real impact on raising the artistic quality of cinema.
At a time when most films—especially comedies—have reached the end of the theatrical road, and through the endless repetition of cheap gags have pushed Iranian cinema toward bankruptcy while damaging audience taste and expectations, the screening of films like Cause of Death: Unknown , directed by Ali Zarrangar, can revive our lost hopes for Iranian cinema. This is one of those films that, like a sun rising at dusk, restores faith in the future of Iranian filmmaking.
The film was banned for three years, and the precise reason was never clearly announced. According to the assumptions of producer Majid Barzegar and director Ali Zarrangar, certain elements of the story—interpreted as resembling protest movements at the time—may have led to the ban. Yet contrary to these assumptions, the film is devoid of political clichés or black-and-white propaganda. It carries no such agenda.
Unknown Cause of Death speaks clearly, ethically, and with restraint, while challenging the audience intellectually.
The story follows several passengers traveling to Kerman in a worn-out local van. The front bumper of this antiquated vehicle is damaged, and during an accident caused by a sudden stop, the passengers lose their balance. One of them is thrown forward and loses consciousness. Each passenger represents a different social group, and under harsh economic conditions—and faced with this unexpected event—they are tempted to deceive one another.
The cast and performances are balanced and effective. The filmmakers place the narrative logic squarely on this unforeseen incident, positioning the characters in a situation that allows the audience to examine their mental and behavioral complexities. The ethical, human, and internal conflicts that emerge among the passengers become a kind of psychological analysis of social dysfunction.
One of the film’s strengths is the director’s attempt to remain neutral, creating moments that observe rather than judge the characters. In several scenes, as we watch the van moving through the desert toward nowhere, we inevitably place ourselves in the characters’ position and feel empathy for them.
These are people full of contradictions and mistakes—people who sometimes even decide to cheat one another. Yet Zarrangar presents all of them as comprehensible human beings. The audience, like the characters, is confronted with a central moral question: “If I were in their place, would I take the money?”
And then the follow-up question: “Now that I’ve taken it, did I do the right thing?”
The story itself is not new; we have encountered similar narratives many times in Iranian and international cinema. What matters is the mode of storytelling, which ultimately determines a film’s value. I believe that had more detail been added to the narrative and greater attention paid to the subplots, the film could have been even more engaging—though as it stands, it keeps the audience involved until the very end.
Cause of Death: Unknown is a dignified and respectable film. It avoids political clichés and pseudo-intellectual slogans, allowing viewers to arrive at their own conclusions—right or wrong.
Most of the characters belong to the lower socioeconomic class, although the director stated at the time of release:
Ali Zarrangar, claims that: “I tried to include people from every social class.”
In reality, we do not see a clearly defined affluent character among the passengers. This raises a question: if there had been a wealthy individual in the group—someone who did not desperately need the money—how would the course of the story have changed?
One of the film’s weaker points is a scene following the passenger’s death, where some of the reactions and viewpoints expressed by the others feel exaggerated. While it is true that under extreme stress people may make irrational decisions, the heavy emphasis on these ideas feels overstated.
By the end, the audience is left with a clear message: in unwanted and crisis situations, one must not abandon ethics and conscience, and must remain humane—because harming others ultimately continues in a domino effect.
Of course, in severe economic conditions, when money enters the equation, many people sadly abandon ethics and think only of themselves. What is often missing from such messages, however, is an exploration of the underlying causes that produce these moral breakdowns in the first place. In such contexts, censorship may always be part of the problem.
There is no doubt that economic crises turn people against one another, transferring the pressure and injustice imposed on one person onto the next.
