Navigating Class, Gender, and Urban Mobile Spaces: Dissecting Iranian Car Social Spaces in Cinematic Narratives

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents a theoretically-rich discussion of questions of space, place and mobility in relation to film. It provides a valuable contribution to existing scholarship on automobility and film, particularly in light of its central focus on Iranian cinema as a welcome corrective to the largely Western dominance of studies that characterise much existing research in this area. As is the recognition afforded in the paper that approaching interior spaces of cars as representations of everyday life, replete with the intricacies and micro-social dynamics of everyday social spaces, is an underexplored area in studies of film and social space. Because of this and other evident qualities of the article (e.g. the introduction of the concept ‘diegetic cabinography’), I would like to see the article published as it certainly is warranted. However, some revision and rethinking is necessary before it can be considered for publication.

Part of the problem is the article suffers from a degree of ‘kitchen-sinkism’, by which I mean there is a tendency to throw in a dizzying array of theoretical perspectives covering a range of topics and subject areas that seem disproportionate to what is required for the textual and spatial analysis of the two films under discussion. This wouldn’t ordinarily be a problem, but the sweeping nature of how theory is put to work in the article has served to reduce and simplify some of the ideas being put forward for consideration. This is especially evident in terms of how the author attends to questions of space and spatiality.

There are many spatial concepts that are deployed in ways that are inadequately fleshed out and contextualised. The result is that many concepts appear to be conflated at best, and misrepresented at worst. For example, ‘third spaces’, ‘non places’, ‘liminal spaces’, ‘mobile spaces’, ‘heterotopic spaces’, ‘in-between spaces’, ‘car spaces’, ‘fluid space’, etc. – these are rarely unpacked to the extent that is necessary. The author’s treatment of Augé’s ‘non places’ is very simplistic and in many ways quite misleading. The nuanced anthropological underpinnings to Augé’s writings on non-places are completely disregarded; non places merely serve as a synonym for spaces that are ‘neutral’, ‘empty’ or bound up with ‘isolation’.

More problematic is the use of Henri Lefebvre’s spatial triad. Not only is this not at all appropriate for how the author is proposing to use it (leading to, once again, a distortion or fundamental misreading of key theoretical writings on space and spatiality), the relatively short section (pp. 7-8) in which it is discussed is not followed up in any way whatsoever, leading to the question: what role or purpose does it serve in the article? If the author wishes to maintain the Lefebvrean spatial perspective, it is worth referring to scholarship where these ideas have been applied to analyses of films; for example: Edward Dimendberg’s Film Noir and the Spaces of Modernity (2004) or Les Roberts’s Film, Mobility and Urban Space: A Cinematic Geography of Liverpool (2012).

There is also a tendency in places to make rather sweeping generalisations. For example: “The concept of road space in the West, with its heavy regulations and safety rules, is designed to be efficiently used for the long-term rapid movement of workers and capitalism. In response, Marxist critical perspectives emphasize circulation, exchange, and consumption and ignore the importance of examining mobility space as more than just efficiency” (p. 17)’ or “road films predominantly depict mobile spaces as emancipatory realms characterized by exploration, evasion, self-discovery, and social expression” (p. 19). Without further discussion and contextualisation, neither of these statements holds up to close scrutiny and need to be either removed or reworked.

Similarly, while observations such as “The connection of cinema and urban mobile space could lead to new ways of understanding these spaces and conceptualizing the cinematic space of mobilities” (p. 19) is a valid argument, the follow up implication that existing scholarly approaches to cinema and automobility treat mobile spaces as “dull and uneventful” seems wholly without foundation.

Lastly, a clear an indicator as any that further work and revision is necessary, the conclusion does not connect back to what the article lays out to the extent that it needs to.  The weak conclusion is a symptom of some of the weaknesses and issues in the paper more generally, such as those highlighted above.

 

Author Response

I would like to begin by sincerely thanking you for your careful and thoughtful reading of my manuscript. Your insightful feedback has been instrumental in clarifying the areas that required revision, and I believe the concerns you raised have now been adequately addressed. I have highlighted the revisions to your comments in yellow and the other reviewer's feedback in blue.

Regarding the issue of insufficient explanation of spatial concepts, I acknowledge that the problem was partly a result of the word limit constraints of the journal. The revised version remains over the word limit despite efforts to condense the content. Additionally, as the paper draws from a chapter of my dissertation, many of these concepts were previously developed in greater depth, and I overlooked the need to adapt the material more effectively for a journal format, which requires more succinct and self-contained discussion. I have now revised the manuscript to ensure greater clarity. I have highlighted an example for your consideration. 

Regarding Augé’s notion of non-place, I engaged closely with his work and his emphasis on how the excesses of supermodernity are expressed in spaces like airports, highways, and shopping malls. These are spaces he describes as non-places—transitory environments where people often engage more with signs, screens, or systems than with one another. While Augé offers a compelling framework for thinking about these spaces, I find that he sometimes overstates how unfamiliar or disconnected these experiences really are. His examples—such as feelings of isolation or empty spaces under bridges—risk overlooking the diverse and meaningful ways people actually use and experience these environments.

In my own work, I aim to move beyond the strict division between place and non-place and instead focus on how people experience space in more shifting, partial, and relational ways—especially through everyday movement and travel. Due to the word limit of the article, I had to leave out a more detailed discussion of Augé’s ideas, although they remain relevant to the broader context of my research.

Concerning Lefebvre, I directed readers of this paper to another publication in which I more fully develop the connection between Lefebvre’s spatial triad and Gillian Rose’s Visual Methodologies, particularly her framework of the three “sites” of interpretation—production, the image itself, and audiencing—in film analysis. I find Rose’s model useful in drawing parallels with Lefebvre’s view that space is always socially produced. If, as Lefebvre asserts, all space is inherently social, then cinematic space must also be understood as embedded within these social processes. In this sense, film space is not separate from social space but participates in its ongoing production and reproduction. That is why I adopted Lefebvre’s spatial triad as a framework for analysis. While it is certainly possible to apply his triad solely to the filmic image—as in the examples you mentioned—I chose to extend its application beyond the image itself. This includes considering elements at the margins of the filmmaking process, such as audience reception, production contexts, and the broader discursive construction of cinematic space. In doing so, I align with Gillian Rose’s approach, which emphasizes the importance of interpreting the image, its production, and its reception as interconnected sites through which meaning is generated. In this version of the paper, I chose to omit a detailed discussion of Lefebvre’s framework, as incorporating his spatial triad would have required the addition of at least two further sections to adequately develop and connect the concepts to my analysis.

I have also addressed the generalizations you kindly pointed out. Additionally, I would like to clarify that it was not my intention to suggest that scholarly approaches to cinema and automobility uniformly treat mobile spaces as “dull and uneventful.” Rather, as I now articulate more clearly in the revised manuscript, my use of the term “uneventful” draws on Dibazar’s (2017, p. 321) observation that the car often represents a space of “the most trivial, familiar, uneventful, and even tedious form of everyday life.” However, as Dibazar further notes—and as I emphasize in my analysis—filmmakers like Kiarostami attend to these seemingly residual and ordinary aspects of mobility, transforming them into embodied and affective experiences that unfold with the rhythms of everyday life.

I have also undertaken a full revision of the conclusion section in light of your comments. It is highlighted.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a really interesting and well-focused topic within the broader “city and cinema” literature. It’s a strong contribution to the field, and I think it has great potential for publication. The case studies are very relevant and well-chosen. That said, there are two things—one minor, one more significant—that I think need some work.

Minor point:
The literature review is solid, especially when it comes to films made up through the 60s and 70s. But when the paper shifts to more recent films—like experimental road movies or feminist and queer road movies from the 90s—it starts to feel a bit scattered. I couldn’t quite figure out how, for example, Locke (2013) fits into the discussion. Also, the paper seems to mix together “automobility in film” and “road movies” without clearly saying whether they’re considered the same or not. For example, The Grapes of Wrath is very different from the kind of car-based existentialism mentioned in the review. It would help to clarify this.

And more importantly, I think the authors really need to include at least a brief look at this theme in Iranian cinema. That way, readers get a better sense of the local cinematic context from which Ten and Taxi are coming. A few examples come to mind that could be useful: So Close, So Far (Mirkarimi, 2005); Swear (Tanabandeh, 2019); The Night Bus (Pourahmad, 2007); Castle of Dreams (Mirkarimi, 2019); and The Great Leap (Lakzadeh, 2021). I’m sure there are more, but even a short paragraph here would make a big difference.

Major point:
I’m not really comfortable with the claim that “Lefebvre’s triad as a methodological framework … has been comprehensively discussed.” Honestly, I don’t think that’s true. More importantly, I don’t think Lefebvre’s theory is a “methodological framework” in the first place—it’s more of a conceptual or theoretical framework to help us think about urban space. And in Lefebvre’s own work, he eventually moves toward the idea of the “appropriation of space,” which doesn’t really work when applied to cinematic space. That’s not what he was talking about. And that’s why he himself referred to “oeuvre” rather than simply pointing to cinema as an illustration of his thoughts.

So I don’t understand why the authors didn’t just refer to Gillian Rose’s Visual Methodologies. She clearly talks about the three “sites” of interpretation—audiencing, production, and the image itself—and connects those to actual methods. That seems way more aligned with what the authors are doing in their analysis.

To be honest, the analysis and discussion in the manuscript are interesting and thoughtful, but I didn’t really see how Lefebvre’s framework shaped or led to those insights. It feels like it’s just kind of layered on top. Lefebvre’s work is really useful when talking about spatial struggles and everyday life in cities, but it doesn’t map neatly onto film analysis. And even the references to heterotopia felt a bit forced—they didn’t add much to the core argument.

Honestly, I think a more straightforward framework, like discourse analysis, might work better here. The authors are already doing something close to that anyway, and it might just make the whole thing more coherent.

Author Response

I would like to begin by sincerely thanking you for your careful and thoughtful reading of my manuscript. Your insightful feedback has been instrumental in clarifying the areas that required revision, and I believe the concerns you raised have now been adequately addressed. Revisions made in response to your comments are highlighted in blue. The other reviewer's feedback are marked in yellow.

To begin with your minor point, I acknowledge your remark regarding the brief mention of experimental or feminist/queer road cinema. I intentionally touched on these subgenres only briefly for two main reasons. First, they are not the central focus of my study; my aim was simply to acknowledge their presence within the broader landscape of road cinema and to situate the films I analyze in relation to the current film industry. Second, by their very nature, these subgenres often present fragmented and highly diverse interpretations of urban mobility space, making it challenging to identify a cohesive thematic core. Based on my experience attending film festivals and reviewing literature across various film studies platforms, I found that these works offer rich, yet often diffuse, contributions that would require a separate, in-depth analysis to do them justice. 

I also highlighted in blue the areas that emphasize the reason behind the use of road movies as part of mobility and film connection.  

Regarding the references to Locke (2013) and The Grapes of Wrath, I must admit I am uncertain as to where they appear in the manuscript and may have included them unintentionally.

Additionally, I have since revised the text and added a more targeted paragraph that situates Iranian cinema within the context of mobility. it is highlighted in blue. Notably, there is a significant gap in the scholarship: few studies have systematically examined mobility in Iranian films, and this paper attempts to begin addressing that overlooked area.

Concerning Lefebvre, I directed readers of this paper to another publication in which I more fully develop the connection between Lefebvre’s spatial triad and Gillian Rose’s Visual Methodologies, particularly her framework of the three “sites” of interpretation—production, the image itself, and audiencing—in film analysis. I find Rose’s model useful in drawing parallels with Lefebvre’s view that space is always socially produced. If, as Lefebvre asserts, all space is inherently social, then cinematic space must also be understood as embedded within these social processes. In this sense, film space is not separate from social space but participates in its ongoing production and reproduction. That is why I adopted Lefebvre’s spatial triad as a framework for analysis.

This framework has been used with a different take in other scholars’ work like Edward Dimendberg’s Film Noir and the Spaces of Modernity (2004) or Les Roberts’s Film, Mobility and Urban Space: A Cinematic Geography of Liverpool (2012). While it is certainly possible to apply his triad solely to the filmic image, I chose to extend its application beyond the image itself. This includes considering elements at the margins of the filmmaking process, such as audience reception, production contexts, and the broader discursive construction of cinematic space. In doing so, I align with Gillian Rose’s approach, which emphasizes the importance of interpreting the image, its production, and its reception as interconnected sites through which meaning is generated. In this version of the paper, I chose to omit a detailed discussion of Lefebvre’s framework, as incorporating his spatial triad would have required the addition of at least two further sections to adequately develop and connect the concepts to my analysis.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx