## 1. Introduction & Background ### 1.1 From Cinema to Information Networks I was perplexed the first time I watched the film "Where is the Friend's House" by Abbas Kiarastami (hereafter referred to as FH), -- I didn't quite grasp the message he was trying to convey, and all I see is this small and dead village, through which a boy tried to navigate to accomplish an insignificant task of returning the homework to his friend. Later, interested by the Iranian New Wave mentioned in Film class, I watched another film by Kiarastami -- "The Wind Will Carry Us" (hereafter referred to as TW). This time, the story also takes place in a village, but the contrast is quite big. The two vilalges are totally different in terms of how "lively" the community is, how people talk to each other, how information is transferred, and how people work together. All my thoughts came when I began studying network theory out of a mathematical interest. Network theory examines how nodes -- whether people, neurons, or computers -- connect, communicate, and give rise to emerging properties such as resilience (Dorogovtsev and Mendes, 2003). Applying network theory to cinema and human societies, I realized that by telling the stories of society, cinema seeks to encode the structure of social relationships and information network. Through mise-en-scène, editing, sound design, and narrative construction, film can make visible what is normally invisible: the pathways through which information, power, and human connection flow (Jagoda, 2016). In this sense, the idea of information network is an important topic of exploration in the art form of cinema -- which will be the center of discussion of this Extended Essay, in the context of the two films by Abbas Kiarastami. ### 1.2 From Information Networks to Iran #### 1.2.1 What Does Information Network Mean? According to Niklas Luhmann, information and media determines the action of individuals through shaping their perceptions (Luhmann, 1995). As a result, on a larger scale, our collective behaviours and social life is determined by how information is organized and communicated within a society. For example, in some societies, important individuals are held as the source of truth, and information is spread hierarchically; In others, information and power is decentralized, and every one actively shares information each other and has a say in communal affairs. The way information is protrayed and organized in a society determines its exhibiting qualities. The information revolution is undeniably an important event that revolutionizes how people express themselves and how public discourse happen (Edmond, 2000). In the past, news press and certain authority insitutions hold the absolute power of truth as they are the only lgeimitate channel to spread information. Now with the advent of public media, "citizen journalism" began on the rise and every is able to express and comment on social media platforms. As a result, democracic participation becomes possible for the first time in much more geographic regions (Voltmer and Sorensen, 2019). This illustrates the power of information network over shaping the democratic possiblities. In order to more specifically model the different types of information netowrks, consider concepts borrowed from network theory -- the **lattice network** and the **mesh network** (Watts and Strogatz, 1998). A **lattice** is a structured, rigid, and often top-down system where information flows along predefined, inflexible paths. A mesh exhibits order and hierarchy, in which each node connects in a rigit manner. In a mesh, a single point of failure will nullify the entire system, because there is no replacement or flexibility (Watts and Strogatz, 1998). A very simple example is shown in figure 1 (Simha, n.d.). For a **mesh**, by contrast, imagine a web where every point can connect to many other points, not just one or two in a fixed line. A mesh emphasizes connection and horizontal ties. There isn't a single boss or a rigid chain of command for information, so it exhibits resilience even when disruptions occur (Latour, 2005). The internet as we menioned is a great example -- pages are interlinked and no single center. Consider figure 2 (_Visualizing Internet Topology at a Macroscopic Scale_, 2008). | Dimension | Lattice | Mesh | | -------------------- | ---------------------------------- | ------------------------------------ | | **Structure** | Isolated nodes; single path | Connected web; multiple paths | | **Information Flow** | Gatekeepers; vertical command | Transmitters; horizontal dialogue | | **Resilience** | Brittle; failure breaks the system | Adaptive; distributes responsibility | As mentioned above, I believe that cinema, uniquely among art forms, can show these structures rather than merely describe them. #### 1.2.2 The Iranian Context Kiarostami's portrayal of social network through film emerged from specific historical pressures, and understanding those pressures help us understand why he intended to visualize these structures at all. The emergence of Kiarostami’s cinematic “networks” reflects the shifting political and cultural landscapes of post-revolutionary Iran (Naficy, 2012). Following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the overthrow of the Shah’s autocracy only led to an equally repressive theocratic regime under Ayatollah Khomeini. Those artists who had anticipated liberation now faced censorship and the threat of imprisonment (_Near Eastern Archaeology_, 2005). To express dissent within such constraints, Iranian filmmakers are forced to turn to allegory and indirection -- a style Hamid Naficy calls the “poetics of displacement (Naficy, 1995).” They sought to critique Iran's authoritarianism without over policital reference by setting by setting stories in rural villages and focusing on ordinary or child protagonists (*Unveiled: Art and Censorship in Iran*, 2006). Kiarostami’s _Where Is the Friend’s House?_ (1987) was shot at the height of the Iran-Iraq War and the consolidation of clerical power. As a result, the film’s rigid, hierarchical village seeks to represent the lattice network of post-revolutionary Iran where information flows downward through isolated nodes. Under such structure, individuals act within strict limits and stifled moral agency, and the village thus becomes a metaphor for a society paralyzed by fear and control. By contrast, _The Wind Will Carry Us_ (1999) was shot influenced by the reformist period of the late 1990s. With Mohammad Khatami’s election, the civil society discourse came to life gain, and Iranians began to imagine more participatory forms of connection (_Near Eastern Archaeology_, 2005). Defined by openness and interdependence, Kiarostami’s village in TW embodies a mesh network of shared information and cooperation. Ultimately, the film envisions the democratic potential of Iran’s reformist moment -- a society sustained by trust dialogue, and collective agency. --- This essay argues that Kiarostami uses cinematic techniques to visualize two models of information networks—the lattice and the mesh—and that these contrasting structures reveal the conditions for democratic possibility in post-revolutionary Iran. The following table shows the strucure of the main body of the film analysis, focusing first on network structure and then on the flow of information, with comparisons and contrast between the Lattice network in FH and the Mesh network in TW. | | Lattice | Mesh | | ------------------- | ---------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------- | | Structure | Isolated nodes; single linear path | Connected network; multi-directional flow | | Flow of Information | Gatekeepers; vertical command | Transmirrots; Horizontal conversation | --- ## 2. Film Analysis ### 2.1 Network Structure #### 2.1.1 Isolated Nodes vs Connected Network In FH, the village is depicted as a collection of isolated nodes. Ahmad’s journey is a relentless sequence of closed doors, dead ends, and solitary figures. Each encounter is transactional and linear: Ahmad must approach each adult individually, negotiate for information, and is often rebuffed or redirected. Kiarostami uses windows and doorways as frames to trap the characters, indicating their state of living in isolation and with little communication with the outside world. Not only the households are isolated nodes, but the architecture is also confusing and unwelcoming. Repeatedly framing Ahmad trapped in dead ends and doorways, the mise-en-scene visually separates space and emphasizes separation, signalizing the disconnection between people and people, household and household as the boy tries to navigate. The monochrome greyish color of the walls form a contrast with the light red of Ahmad's clothes, as seen in the images below -- 4signifying his sturggle against the perplexing environment. In contrast, TW presents a village alive with interconnection. Visually, Kiarastami's camera frequently lingers on communal spaces: courtyards, open doorways, and community squares where villagers gather and share news. Althout we don't know what exactly are they talking about, there is the constant presence of villagers by the side, in the background, or on the rooftop within the frame. The emphasis on communal spaces and the presence of people point to the interconnectedness of the community -- no more confusing corridors or individuals living in isolation like in FH, everything and every one is in broad day light. More importantly, the village network is not limited ot the visible. In fact, most important characters -- the well-digger, the dying woman, and even Bezhad's own crew -- never show their face throughout the entire film (Brayton, 2008). Despite being off-screen their presence is felt through voices, rumors, and indirect communication. All these reinforce the idea of a rich and interconnected network. In summary, while FH's village is made up of isolated nodes, the village in TW is interconnected and organic. In the context of post-revolutionary Iran, FH’s rigid network mirrors rigid social order of the 1980s, where most people are unempathetic about the soceity and lives is atomic isolation. TW, emerging in the reformist 1990s, imagines a society where community thrives and people talk to each other, imagining a community of trust and interconnection. #### 2.1.2 Single Linear Path vs Multidirectional Flow In a network of isolated nodes, in order to get from one place to another, there is often only one single way. Meanwhile, in an interconnected mesh, it is often the case that "all roads lead to Rome", and information, people, and objects flow freely. In FH, Ahmad’s repeated journeys along the same zigzag path is the best exemplification of the "single linear path" in the lattice of the network. In order to go into the village, Ahamd has to go through the same zig-zap path every time. Throughout the film, he clims up and down the hill at least four times (Zahedi, 2020). All the shots are filmed in real time, with long, unbroken takes that refuse to compress or romanticize his labor. This underlines the exhausting, circuitous nature of work and communication. There are no shortcuts, no lateral connections -- just a brittle, linear chain that Ahmad must traverse again and again. In the scene with the long stairs Ahmad has to climb, the camera remians static and uses a low-angle, making even just a few steps look like a long and steep mountain to underline the efforts. TW, by contrast, is full of multidirectional flows of paths, objects, and information. "There is more than one way to go into the village," the boy tells Hezhad when they first enter the village. Even if their car broke down in the middle of the road, the boy easily guides Bezhad up a mountain by the road side when they easily find an alternative entry. The message of "more than one way" is repeated multiple times -- even a cut-off tree trunk can become a bridge to cross a river in fig.x Apart from roads, object also flow freely. The recurring motif of the rolling apple, kicked by Behzad and collected by children, becomes a metaphor for how news and objects circulate freely, passed hand-to-hand. Another symbol is the human bone Hezhad collected at the cemetry. Floating in the flow of the river at the end of the film, it solidifies the idea of fluity and circularity of life (Smtih, 2011). This echoes Heraclitus's idea of everthing is in a constate state of flow (Graham, 2023). In summary, while there is only one single, exhasuting way to navigate the village in FH and finish a task, there are always multiple ways for an object to be passed around or to reach a destination. FH’s linearity and rigity embodies the exhaustion of navigating a bureaucratic system, where every request is a negotiation with power. On the other hand, the multidirectionality of TW embodies the hope for an interconnected society navigation is flexible and free. #### 2.1.3 Implication in Crisis Resolution Similar to complex systems, the implication of the network structure can be seen from crisis resolution -- how the societies react to emergent events or requests (Albert, Jeong and Barabási, 2000). In FH, the system is fragile. An seemingly harmless error -- Ahmad bringing his friend’s notebook home by mistake -- turns out to be laborious to fix. Each attempt to correct the mistake is faced with indifference from elders or obstruction. This resonates what organizational theorists such as Charles Perrow points out: It's inevitable for tightly coupled, hierarchical structures to produce “normal accidents” -- system failures that arise inevitably due to the nature or structure of the system. Ultimately, Ahmad’s journey implies the impossibility of reform in a hierarchical society, where the smallest error is catastrophic and individual initiative is punished. That is exactly what makes Ahmad's quest and fight against the system so rare and so laudable (Lim, 2007).  TW, by contrast, depicts a resilient and adaptive network. When the well-digger is trapped in a collapsed tunnel, villagers quickly came and help following Behzad's call, mobilizing to take actions without hesitation. There is no need for explanation or permission -- Kiarastami uses nearly no dialogue in this plot, only diegetic sound of people running and quick pace editing of people working. The network responds organically, almost as if self-healing. Another powerful case already mentioned is the car Bezhad's crew breaking down upon first arrival -- even though they seem to be in the middle of nowhere, the boy easily guides them to into the village through a small path by the side. The system is robust due to its decentralized nature, in which no single node is indispensable (no single path into the village, no single source of information). FH’s crisis is a vivid symbol of authoritarian failure: a society so rigid that it cannot adapt and afford errors. TW’s crisis, by contrast, is a celebration of communal resilience: a society rooted in trust and mutual aid, where most possibilites remain open. ### 2.2 Flow of Information #### 2.2.1 Gatekeepers vs Transmitters In the two villages, the role of individuals within each network in dealing with information is hugely different. In FH, adults in each household essentially work as gatekeepers to information. Ironically, the informatino they try to "protect" is as simple as what the the direction to go. Ahmad’s quest is repeatedly stopped by these "authority figures". In contrast, in TW, villagers act as transmitters rather than gatekeepers -- They share rather than monopolize information. When Behzad looks for updates on the dying woman’s health, he doesn't plead or negotiate door by door like Ahmad; the local boy, Farzad, is always informed and can give relevant help. News circulate quickly here. Throughout the film, there are multiple repeateted shots of women talking with each other -- seemingly random but stressing the idea of open communication and flowing of information. While the boy introdcues Bezhad to the village and udpates him on the news, Hezhad also sneaks answer for the boy for him to pass the test (fig.x), signifying a reciprical and mutual flow of information. In FH, elders and officials control the flow of information and exclude the young from meaningful participation. This embodies the hierarchical and paternalistic culture of post-revolutionary Iran. When information channels are monopolised (state or elite controlled), the public may feel their voices are not heard, which fosters total distrust, cynicism and withdrawal from the political and social system, creating a negative feedback loop where even fewer are willing to speak up (Fuchs, 2025). On the oher hand, TW’s transmitters reflect the emergence of a more participatory, dialogic culture in the late 1990s. Trust and collaboration are possible thanks to the free sharing and communication of information. #### 2.2.2 Vertical Command vs Horizontal Dialogue The dialogue in both films reveal the underlying power dynamics of their respective networks. In FH, communication is vertical and unidirectionally downward. This is shown in Ahmad’s asymmetrical interactions with adults: he asks genuine questions, but receives either irrelevant instructions or dismissal. For example, in the scene below, an elderly man who, instead of listening to Ahmad’s plea, starts a monologue about discipline and tradition, completley ignoring the boy’s urgency. As shown in fig. the framing is meticulously desgined so that the old peoplel are literally talking "over" Ahamd -- both spatically and metaphorically. Another old man in the foreground is looking the opposite direction of the boy, as if they were not in the same two dimensional palne. The camera lingers on Ahmad’s frustrated face, underscoring his powerlessness asshown in fig. -- still, he and the old man is not looking each other. The use of multiple wooden pillars to divide the image also covey the idea of vertical control and separation of indivduals. The beginning and closing scene of the classroom highlights the disciplinary nature of school -- where instructions flows downward, and the young are expected to obey, not to question or contribute. The entire plotting device is the fact that Ahmad's friend will be seriously introuble if he couldn't finish and hand in his homework tomorrow. In fig.x, the low-angle shot of Ahmad looking up at the teacher with innocent eyes embodies his fear for authority. By contrast, TW is built on horizontal dialogue and communication. Whoever Bezhad talks to, no one instructs him to follow the rules of the community or prohibits him from knowing any gated information. The film’s sound design reinforces this by using clean, back and forth dialogues. There are no unexplained silence or unanswerd questions, and an answer is followed by a direct answer, and another question, so on and so forth. Again, Kiarastami's camera always focuses communal spaces: courtyards, open doorways, and community squares where villagers gather and share news. This creates the effect otaht all dialogues are open and horizontal, and no one is hiding anything or trying to manipulate others. Culture-wise, FH’s vertical pathway represents the authoritarian structures that dominated Iranian society in the 1980s, where dissent was dangerous and conformity was enforced. TW’s horizontality, by contrast, reflects the openr public discourse in the reformist era. #### 2.2.3 Noise vs Signal FH is filled with meaningless "noise" -- both diegetically and metaphorically. The opening shot of a prolonged view of the closed classroom door at the film’s outset is emblematic. Noise and chatter filled the classroom behind the door, drowning over what's truly important and those individuals who actually have a message to tell the world. Ahmad's attempt to persuade his mother of the urgency of the issue is futile -- she only cares about getting the alundry done and not allowing Ahmad to play outside, no matter for reason and not listening. Meanwhile, she constantly distrupts Ahamd's attempt to quietly study, giving him all kinds of chores. On his journey to return the notebook, the soundtrack is sparse, punctuated by silences and abrupt interruptions, creating an alienating and desolate effect. Most people did talk to Ahamd -- but whether they are either too focused on their own businesses or genuinely don't want to be helpful, most of the conversation is inefficient and gets nowhere. Most of what Ahmad hears is noise. The diegetic soundtrack of the film refues to cut out irrelevant chatter and other miscallaneous background noise. Oppositely, the soundtrack of TW is an interweaving symphony of news and conversations. Simple questions and answers sound like music, without the need of non-diegetic soundtrack. Questions like where to get milk is guided by multiple villagers, all offering the help and information they can. To sum up, the prevalence of noise over signal in FH reflects how a tight control over communication within a society leads to alienation and inefficiency. In TW, the abundance of signal points to a society where information is shared and relationships are strong. Simha, R. (no date) _Network Theory for Biologists_. Available at: [https://www2.seas.gwu.edu/~simhaweb/cs177/networklecture/](https://www2.seas.gwu.edu/~simhaweb/cs177/networklecture/). ## 3. Conclusion & Further Reflections on Cinema ### 3.1 Summary In general, this essay looks into how Abbas Kiarostami uses cinematic techniques to 1. visualize information networks 2. reveal their implications for democratic life. A brittle lattice, _Where Is the Friend's House?_ (1987) constructs a "lattice'-like village that is filled with isolating mise-en-scène and vertical dialogues. The result is a brittle system where the moral agency of individuals suffocates, hinting at the rigidity of the authoritarian post-revolutionary Iran. Meanwhile, _The Wind Will Carry Us_ (1999) creates a "mesh" through open spacescand free-flowing information and communication. The village demonstrates collective resilience, and can be interpretaed as showing the democratic possibilities in the reformist era. Kiarastami makes the social struture visible through cinema and visually demonstrates how the structure of information network helps civic life flourish. This demonstrats how cinema can be used a diagnostic tool for reading the hidden geometries of power -- from elders and centers of information to common citizens and communities (Bruno, 2002). ### 3.2 Further Implications However, a higher-level thinking makes me realize that at the same time cinema *protrays* the social networks of societies, it also plays an important role in *shaping* it. More specifically, cinema itself can be a powerful tool to spread ideas and rewire the information network by reshaping how people think and communicate. Due to censorship pressure, Kiarostami's works circulated underground screenings and bootleg VHS tapes passed hand-to-hand (Naficy, 2012). This echoes Iran's constant effort to sirculate information and fighting against infomation control from the past decades. For example, in 1978 to 1979, Cassette-tapes of Ayatollah Khomeini’s speeches had to be duplicated and passed from hand to hand in order to bypass the Shah’s media monopoly (Gholizadeh and Hook, 2012); During late 1990s -- 2000s, as President Khatami pushed for reforms, a wave of student bloggers groups ands emerged to express political criticism -- Persian-language blogs (“weblogestan”) became a vibrant underground press (Rahimi, 2003); In 2009, during the Green Movement, protesters used SMS, Twitter, Tor, VPNs, and even rooftop chants (the most primitive form of information network) to coordinate and express dissent (Morozov, 2009). Here, we see citizens actively trying to reshape the information network, create new information channels and establish connections with each other to colelctively fight against oppression. Historically, the Iranian New Wave itself is the best representation of a mesh network: artists collaborating across hierarchies, developing collective strategies to bypass official gatekeepers, and using aesthetic innovation to imagine alternative social architectures (Anderson, 2017). The implciations continue to be significant in our present day world. Today, many of us inhabit increasingly lattice-like digital structures -- algorithmic feeds isolating us in information bubbles and corporate platforms functioning as gatekeepers. Recommendation systems eliminat the fluidity of genuine meshes by manipulating the information we get access to and our emotions (Tufekci, 2015). The internet promised a democratic mesh enabling free horizontal exchange; instead, unfrotuantely, it has evolved into new hierarchies of surveillance and control. In 2025, lots of us don't know our neighbors and rarely encounter unexpected voices. Our civic spaces are curated by invisible authorities and corporations (Gillespie, 2018). Ahmad's quiet triumph in _Where Is the Friend's House?_ is a symbolic of the success of lateral solidariy (helping his freind complete his homework) against authoritarian system (school) (Wood, 2011). Refusing to accept imposed isolation, Ahmad fought against it alone and succeeded. I think this is my biggest learning: even under oppressive architectures, we retain capacity to forge horizontal connections and to build networks of care that power cannot fully suppress. The question then, is whether we see clearly enough to do the same: whether we remain passive nodes in someone else's lattice, stay addicted to our Tiktok feeds, or become active transmitters weaving meshes and of our own making and taking authorship of our reality.