‘An Eye for an Eye’ Review: Provocative Doc Poses Big Questions About Vengeance and Mercy in the Iranian Justice System

by

The idea of retributive justice, often expressed as “an eye for an eye,” can be traced back to ancient codes like the Code of Hammurabi and numerous religious scriptures. However, it has encountered criticism from various perspectives – biblical (“I will take revenge; payback is mine”), Shakespearean (“The spirit of mercy goes beyond what is required”), and universal (“Retaliation for retaliation leaves everyone blind”).

Tanaz Eshaghian and Farzad Jafari’s “An Eye for an Eye” documentary pushes the limits of justice, revenge, and compassion to their extremes. The 84-minute film presents a tight, intense, and thought-provoking narrative. It seems that the filmmakers choose to explore more personal and concise aspects rather than delving into grander philosophical ideas, but this decision allows for much praise of their disciplined approach. If the film attempted to address every question it posed, it might have become overwhelming or unfocused.

Titled “An Eye for an Eye,” this series is based in Tehran and provides insights into the Iranian legal system’s key aspects directly related to the storyline. The narrative revolves around Tahereh, who has recently been released on bail after spending 14 years behind bars due to murdering her husband Hossein. She alleges that Hossein was subjecting her to drug-induced abuse for years, a point she made to protect her young daughters and son Mohsen. However, the system seems indifferent to her plight.

Tahereh’s future hangs in the balance, with her brother-in-law, Bashir, holding the power to make a crucial decision that could determine her life or death. In essence, Bashir can either sentence Tahereh to execution or negotiate a blood money payment, which would spare her life in exchange for a fee. Bashir’s mother strongly desires Tahereh’s death due to her perceived lack of remorse.

In addition, Tahereh and her children don’t have a lot of financial resources, nor do they have many opportunities to earn money in a country that is on the verge of uprising or economic downturn. Originally, Mohsen felt hurt by his mother’s actions, but now he believes she should be doing everything possible to survive. He also thinks that his uncle and grandmother ought to consider the safety of their other family members who appear to be innocent.

(In this rephrased version, I have attempted to maintain the original meaning while using simpler, more natural language and clearer sentence structure.)

Playing “An Eye for an Eye” was intense, but I can’t help but wonder about the possibilities of a more comprehensive storyline.

The directors express concern, sometimes criticism, towards the law that upholds patriarchy based on religion. It’s worth noting that Tahereh’s lawyer is a woman, as are the mediators opposing execution during the early stages of the case (before presenting to a judicial tribunal made up only of men). Issues regarding the gender dynamics in this process are consistently raised, but Eshaghian and Jafari opt not to make this a documentarian piece that solely focuses on the hardships faced by women in modern Iran, instead choosing to maintain a broader thematic focus.

In this case, Tahereh appears to be the victim, yet the documentary seems to dodge the central crime. Interestingly, both of her daughters admitted to their involvement in the murder and disposing of the body initially, contradicting Tahereh’s solo claim of responsibility. This is in contrast to Mohsen’s initial account to the police, made when he was only six years old. The filmmakers bring a local journalist and a law enforcement official into the picture to highlight discrepancies in the case, particularly regarding the supposed role of an unknown individual named Hamed.

Is this a case of impulsive anger or carefully planned? Are we limited to the scenarios we’re familiar with, or is there something more complex going on behind the scenes? Why are those in authority so quick to condemn Tahereh, yet hesitant to believe a woman could be responsible for such a crime? The growing demand for true crime series leaves many viewers baffled and annoyed by the directors’ reluctance to act as investigators or detectives.

Eshaghian and Jafari seem to be inviting viewers to ponder: “Is it significant now what transpired?” The decisions Tahereh and her family make about earning money and seeking forgiveness from Hossein’s family are no longer influenced by the past events. Whether it’s a flawed system that granted Bashir and his kin the authority to decide life or death for people who, under different circumstances, they would have considered as family, is not crucial to the documentary. The focus here isn’t on crusaders or symbols, but on individuals grappling with their choices, regardless of whether the systems they interact with are just or unjust.

The documentary captures intense discussions that unfold right before the cameras – debates, negotiations, appeals, and manipulations. I can’t help but wish there was more investigative work or activism in this film. However, as events progress and tensions rise, it becomes difficult to focus on such matters and instead, you find yourself drawn into Mohsen’s growing sense of urgency and Tahereh’s seemingly unbreakable resolve not to beg for her life or fight aggressively.

The documentary effectively evokes sympathy for Hossein’s family, despite Hossein being portrayed as the antagonist and Tahereh as the victim. We witness Bashir grappling with a moral dilemma: choosing between financial aid that could alleviate his family’s hardships or contributing to a cycle of violence that might not bring them true tranquility.

Regardless of how the documentary concludes, the questions it raises – both explicitly posed and subtly implied – continue to persist in complex and thought-provoking manners.

Read More

2025-06-07 03:01