"All profoundly original art looks ugly at first."
- Clement Greenberg

One of the fascinating things about the weirdly vituperative reviews that my film seems to generate is the degree to which critics have resorted to attacking my physical appearance as part of their critique of my film.

Here are just two examples from yesterday. The first is from a film reviewer named Roger Moore (!) who wrote the following in the Orlando Sentinel :

"Zahedi, a Woody-Allen homely little weasel with a thing for drugs (his I Was Possessed by God recounts a vivid mushroom trip), women, and most of all, himself, creates these little pseudo-biographical essays that suggest he's either a spoiled jerk with access to cameras, or a wit whose jerkiness is something of a pose."

The second is from a film reviewer named M. Faust (these all sound like pseudonyms, don't they?) who described my physical appearance in Buffalo's Art Voice in the following way:

"A thin, toothy, curly-haired fellow who might be called "nebbishy" if it weren't for his Persian roots (the uncharitable might classify him as the type for whom the practice of prostitution exists in the first place)..."

Okay. So what's going on here?

First of all, I'd like to say to Mr. Roger Moore that I, personally, think that weasels are quite cute. I'm actually a big fan of rodents in general, and find them all rather adorable, even rats. Which brings us to the question of subjectivity.

Do these critics really believe that beauty is non-subjective?

And do they really not see that our society's incredibly narrow notions of beauty are oppressive not only to others but also to themselves (and create the utterly American spectacle of shows like "Extreme Makeover")? The whole point of my film is to say: "No one is ugly. I am not ugly and neither are you." To Roger Moore and M. Faust, I say: "I think you're beautiful. I think we're all beautiful. Beauty is not a given, but in the eye of the beholder. Everything is beautiful if seen from the right perspective."

The act of callling me a "homely little weasel" or "the type for whom the practice of prostitution exists in the first place" further reinforces social pressure to live up to an inhuman (and utterly non-existent) standard of beauty. We all suffer unnecessarily when we fail to live up to this standard (as we all, eventually, must).

I recently received the following email from a filmmaker friend:

"One of the most interesting ideas you touched upon was the various critics' description of you, your physicality, etc. Interesting how so many critics are so conservative in their notions of "beauty." I wonder how many of them are aware of the fact that, at least in part, we learn our ideals of beauty from society, the media, etc. Interesting how so few "progressive" critics fail to comment on standard notions of beauty, most obviously in casting, but also in overall aesthetics. What does that say about people who don't fit the mold?

How people define beauty, more than any other issue, is a telling indicator of their "political" beliefs. For instance, has any one critic commented on Malick's insistence on casting traditionally "beautiful" people? Or how many critics admire the "beauty" of his images. Just a standard emotive response to particular stimuli - over and over again. In this regard, Reygadas is light years ahead of Malick. Not to pick on Malick - I am an admirer of his work, but he serves as a fitting example."