Project Description

The main rhythm

The 45th Research Summit of Rokhdad Taze was held with the film “Iranian Pasta” directed by Vahid Sedaghat. Pooria Jahanshad summarized the five previous Diaspora-based events with two approaches: one was the Diaspora as a group that is almost identical and dependent upon the homeland while their identity is directly related to geography. Another approach was Diaspora as a decentralized subject that has some kind of conscious resistance. The land is replaced with memory in this case of Diaspora identity. Ultimately, he said that it should be borne in mind that Diasporas are different. The question is what kind of features does this Iranian diaspora have? Moreover, how is the distribution of Iranians defined in different geographic locations?

Vahid Sedaghat said: “On a trip to Rome, I captured some scenes with the handy-cam for research on another film, but then I noticed that the sensation that exists in these scenes cannot be found in another film. He added that the average population of the Iranian students abroad had a better life in Iran compared to Italy, but they still felt satisfied with their immigration. Sedaghat said that the words such as dissatisfaction and grievance from the current situation in Iran mentioned by Iranian students arose from a critical period in Iran that sparked an outrage among a large group of people.


Multi-rhythms do not integrate and they adopt opposing positions against a seemingly unanimous combination. This is how multi-rhythms remind us of the disagreement, where cooperation never happens and different rhythms and the tunes that have never had a chance to be heard in the creation of the unseen areas all come forward.

Sedaghat classified the immigrants into three categories. Those who try to maintain their relationship with Iran through whatever means possible in the new country, for example, by calling their families in Iran, forming the Iranian support groups and even having Iranian food. The second group is made up of those who have left the country for a specific purpose and have cut off their connections with Iran as much as possible. The third group is made up of those who are not clear about what they want and are stuck between the two borders. Sedaghat’s experience shows that the second group consists of more successful people. Jahanshad pointed out that, at another meeting on Diaspora identity, Farzad Tohidi also said that adaptability to the target community was a win-win game. He added that the win-win game that is implied in Vahid Sedaghat’s words is a controversial point regardless of any values associated with it.

In what followed, the director said that the issue of “being exotic” is not a tangible phenomenon in Italy and the Iranian immigrants integrate themselves into the society. Then, Poorya Jahanshad said that this issue is also related to adaptability and adaptability is a spectrum. Does adaptability work in such a way that an Iranian becomes an Italian? On the other hand, does it remove an Italian’s expectations of an Iranian? Alternatively, is this adaptation something between the two cases? Is this adaptability a necessary condition for immigration?

One of the audiences said that, firstly, the arrival of immigrants is an issue of adaptability outside the homeland. Concepts do not make sense by themselves. In contrast to other cultures, concepts acquire meanings and adaptations and he finally pointed out that the film does not penetrate the deep layers of immigration. Another member of the audience said the concept of Diaspora is a slippery and flexible notion.

In the end, hearing the words of those who emigrated from Iran and are deeply content with their migration could have helped the debate, especially when the meeting ended with the statement that “there are different answers as there are different immigrants.” In any case, it might be said that these meetings are one of the first attempts to achieve the Diaspora identity and the Rokhdad has started this course very effectively.


Co-rhythms are the result of unanimities, the consensus, and the coverage of all the existing gaps with a narrative of the unified forms. Although co-rhythms might occur at the moment of change on the subordinate side, they are usually the outcome of an unwritten agreement in accepting the rules that consolidate the situation from the submissive sides.

The co-rhythm at this meeting was shaped by the principles that Iranian immigrants leave the country in the hope that they can achieve the aspirations or pursue the “self” that cannot be developed inside Iran. Nevertheless, they face and struggle with new problems in the host country. They might have access to new facilities but, on the other hand, they will have other problems. Consequently, with regard to all these new concerns and struggles, the expectation of active social participation of the immigrants in the new country is unreasonable. In addition, the implications of what were made clear at the meeting as we have all experienced and heard them in our everyday life is that the artist is more successful in his own country rather than outside his own community. The next point is that the immigrants are not interested in meeting more immigrants.

The desire of the Iranian people to experience the European lifestyle along with all the restrictions in the country, even with the critical representation of the situation of Iranian immigrants, cannot diminish even a bit of the sweetness in hearing different experiences of the people living outside Iran. It seems to us that life is still to be found elsewhere.


Arrhythmias are born in several places. Some are created at the moments of failure, when every door is closed, and these moments have some potential – potentials to exit the rhythm and find some alternatives to the other modes of life. Another area where arrhythmias are used is not the moments of failure, but the moments when the cries of pure harmony are heard. Only a quiet noise has the potential to create arrhythmia.

Today, Iran and the Iranians are not in the same situation that they had 40 or 50 years ago. The political, social and economic situations have evolved a great deal. Look at the immigrants from 30 years ago and study today’s immigrants. As a result, the social activist has also changed. Migration is much more complex today than the past, because the actor has become more aware and the conditions have changed; the color of the sky outside the borders is not very questionable, but is still attractive. However, why do some people emigrate despite having good living conditions in Iran to find themselves in a more difficult situation? Are today’s immigrants more like the immigrants during the Sassanid or Constitutional eras? Have any changes occurred? It seems that a new changing and growing generation has emerged in the world. A class of people that cannot be analyzed simply by the concept of the social class. A class that is going to forget that it has been forgotten; a confused and abandoned class whose good memory does not allow it to forget. It is an angry and rebellious class that runs through the boundaries in a zigzag fashion and seeks salvation. This class is divided into two groups: those who have undergone a physical migration and those who have not. The second group is behind the keyword of “resistance” and the first one is in the shadow of loneliness. Maybe they should be asked them to become united today.