While I haven't yet seen the film (is Austin, TX the next stop after Paris and New York?), I have read Satrapi's graphic novels numerous times, and I believe what Wessler has written is a very astute take on the cinematic translation of Persepolis I/II, not to mention a skillfully and poetically written piece itself. I would, however, like to make a couple additional comments on the point Wessler gears up to make in the final two paragraphs. It is certainly a point worth making, and I think it is made well (I especially enjoyed the description of taking from the film Satrapi's critical messiness rather than her clearer surroundings). And yet perhaps this take is a bit simplistic itself. My first reaction was: forgetting North American audiences for a second, i have little doubt that a great majority of western (as the first audience was in France)-Iranians (those living in France, Germany, Canada, and the States especially) will be among the first to make disparaging comments about the "bearded mullahs" manipulating Islam for their benefit. Of course, this is a particular Iranian immigrant constituency-- one not entirely estranged from those who were able to send their children off to Europe, CA, and the US -- yet the fact of this sentiment cannot be disregarded.

Additionally, amongst Iranian-living Iranians in fact, male hair growth and female hijab style in part serves a greater purpose than mere aesthetic or religious affiliation-- it is political. For many it is a signifier of political opinion used to size up a fellow citizen. While I have no doubt that certain western audiences will say, "ah...yes. just as I thought-- look at those bearded fanatics in comparison to the main characters family's western appearance, signifying their desire for the freedom we have here in the west," I think it may be crossing the line a little to say that the film is making "characterizations," if this suggests that the characterizations are not realistic representations albeit ones whose complications are not addressed in Marjanes film (her family cannot be representative of Iran, and unfortunately the audience will mostly likely assume it is). Perhaps Wessler's concern is not so much the fact that the "Islamic state is represented by bearded, swarthy, working class men" as it is that these men are being made to represent Islam. I think if is important to make this discrepancy, between a state using Islam as their pretense, and Islam itself, in the varying and fascinating ways that it is interpreted by Iranian people (see- Marjane's relationship with God/Marx).

Secondly, and separately, just over Christmas a relative of mine was a little disturbed over the film that was created from The Kite Runner, as he was when the film Osama came out and as he was when we saw the preview for this new Julia Roberts/Tom Hanks film about Afghanistan (none of which I have seen myself). There is a very clear trend, both in the mainstream film industry, and in the literary industry (at the airport, i perused the bookstore only to count 3 books in a span of a couple minutes bearing titles including words like "shadow," "veil," "oppressed" about various women in Muslim nations as overly-simplistically documented by Western journalists/novelists/etc.) , a very clear trend of showing how oppressive it is "over there," with no political or historical context whatsoever (it would be too distracting from the shock value). As my relative pointed out, these films seem to consistently neglect to recollect how the U.S. has backed or aided in the creation of "oppressive" regimes that Americans now shake their finger at. Among this sea of films/novels, Satrapi's graphic novels are a gem-- voicing the experience of a girl coming of age in/and outside of revolutionary Iran from the girl herself.

I think these are very good points. I am especially taken by what you say about separating the state from Islam. Thanks for complicating and clarifying.