Decadence and Downfall: The Shah of Iran's Ultimate Party

Iran's last Shah was a military dictator, who sought to claim authority by invoking past Iranian emperors. Out of touch with his people (whose interests he probably quite genuinely believed he was serving), in 1971 he held a lavish party attended by dozens of heads of state, to mark the preposterous event of the 2500-year anniversary of the rule of Cyrus the Great. Less than a decade later, he was out of power and a new, Islamic government held sway in his country. This effective film simply shows us how the great celebration was arranged; and how the Shah's fantasy vision of himself jarred with the experience of the people living under his sometimes brutal rule. It's well worth watching, especially when his widow offers a mea culpa so astonishing - that she and her husband did not realise they were living in a Muslim country - that it's amazing they survived in power for as long as they did, police state notwithstanding. Here's to hoping Iran can find a better future in the 21st century than it had in the last one.

In 1971, the Shah of Iran throws a gigantic celebration for 2500 years of the Persian monarchy. He invites all the leaders and royals of the world. He proclaims himself "King of Kings" in the reflected light of the admired biblical king, Cyrus the Great. No expenses are spared creating a tent encampment in the middle of the desert. In reality, his country is a brutal police state. His policy of social liberalization faces opposition. There are water issues and poverty. The lavish spending galvanizes the opposition eventually leading to him leaving Iran in 1979 and the takeover by Khomeini establishing a revolutionary Islamic state.

This is a BBC documentary about an important world history event. Sometimes the event itself is examined. Most of the time, it is about the Americans in the event. Usually, the cause of the event is declared as a given. This one actually spends time looking at one of the causes. While this does not impart any new information to me, it does put pictures to the knowledge. It is easy to see the isolated elitism at the top of the hierarchy. My hot take is that he's one of those newly rich who throws big parties to show that he fits in his snooty rich lavish circle. It's so happens that his circle is the top circle. It is more important to be admired by his peers than to be admired by his people. By this time, he is surrounded by yes men that he doesn't know the feelings of his people. Sadly, he is all too common in that power corrupts.

In order to spread poison about the Shah of Iran and to destroy the culture, the country and the people of Iran, they make any false documentaries and serials that they want and they give it to the public opinion of the West. The fact is that the best government during the time of the Shah in Iran was Khakam, but the greed of Iran's oil and wealth drove the West to rule over Iran with the lies and conspiracy of radical Islamists and terrorists. Now feed your people any lie about Iran and Shah you like.

This film and any other film you make against the Shah of Iran will never change the vile and disgusting reality behind the scenes of your conspiracies.

In 1971 the Shah of Iran, who has been in power for three decades, threw an extravagant party to celebrate 2500 years of the Persian Empire. No expense was spared in creating an environment fit for kings, queens, and statespeople who flocked from far and wide for the occasion. A vast tented city was created in the middle of the desert around Shiraz and the ancient site of Persepolis, with grass, trees, and even birds imported from France. Chefs were brought in to create culinary delicacies complemented by the best wines from France (once again).

The junket subsequently moved from Shiraz to Tehran, where the guests were treated to a colorful pageant with a cast of thousands and sets and costumes to match. As a celebration of Iran's illustrious history the entire event could not be bettered.

The only snag about the whole event was that, far from being patriotic, it actually revealed the Shah's excessive hubris. The self- proclaimed King of Kings, he practiced a reign of terror wherein dissidents were imprisoned and ruthlessly tortured, and any opposition was silenced. Although proclaiming himself an advocate of "modernization" and "westernization," bringing in the latest technologies and expertise to bring Iran up to the social and cultural levels characteristic of the West, he was nothing more than a despot concerned solely with his own self-image.

Hassan Amini's film prompts us to reflect critically on precisely what "westernization" signifies, and how (or whether) it can be successfully introduced into non-western contexts. Many of the Shah's critics claimed - rightly, as it turned out - that his reforms were un- Islamic insofar that they took little or no account of the people's religious sensibilities. Nor did the Shah pay much attention to the often pitiful lives led by the majority of his people. To become "westernized" was nothing more than a show designed to attract investment and thereby increase the Shah's personal wealth still further. Hence it was hardly surprising that opposition to his reign increased, culminating in the revolution of 1979, when he was overthrown and replaced as leader by Ayatollah Khomeini.

History - at least from the western perspective - has taught us to believe that the Khomeini regime was a "fundamentalist" one. This might be certainly true, but DECADENCE AND DOWNFALL suggests that, for many Iranians at least, it represented a more desirable alternative to the Shah's absolutist role, where money was spent mostly on events designed to gratify the ruler at the expense of his people.