This shows the importance of institutionalizing women's cinema. By providing a platform, these women's film festivals and institutions create networks in an attempt to fill the sexist void in the industry. Such institutions can help contribute significantly to women's participation in cinema.

This shows that even after struggling to overcome economic barriers to film production, women who adopted the art film category of cinema were harmed by the non-sustainability of this category. Therefore, at the intersection of sexism and noncommercial cinema, these women faced many challenges to a successful carrier. The industry was clearly reluctant to promote these films due to sexist and economic reasons.

It is interesting to note that the "the take-off"in Turkish cinema was a result of two types of films that are often regraded as very different from one another. The purpose of commercial cinema is often differentiated from that of art films to an extent that each category has its adherents. The growth of both of these categories shows how comprehensive this period in Turkish cinema was.

These traumatic memories are too threatening to revisit and therefore they must be "disremembered" or fragmented. Such fragmentation provides a method of expressing events that were so dangerous that they cannot be fully recalled. So these disremembered memories are a way of portraying atrocities that, in their fully threatening nature, could not be portrayed.

This idea of "deferred action" in traumatic experiences brings out the horrific repeatedly in connection with the past. Both trauma and cinema stay in one's memories for a considerable period of time (or forever). Therefore, cinema that portrays trauma can be very effective: the image combined with the trauma it elicits can stay with the viewer for a long time. The portrayal of the trauma may be traumatizing at a delayed time, but is often repeated in one's memories.

I find it interesting how collective memory can gradually transform into individual memory and, in turn, present a completely different narrative rooted in physiological elements rather than historical aspects. This changes the entire interpretation of the film to exhibit a more subjective and personal experience as opposed to the shared story of the masses and therefore elicits a different response from audiences.

This key idea is depicted above and in the film when Riad says "West, I guess", thereby implying that before the war, people did not perceive themselves as very different from other fragments of society. In other words, there was no divide between East and West Beirut. Throughout the film, we notice that people in Beirut refused to recognize major differences between the two religions and instead kept indicating similarities. The film slowly redefines nationalism to develop the concept of the Other and, in turn, shows the fragmented society that caused the war. The start of the film has a completely different, culturally harmonious tone than the end of the film.

This shows how the war has a lasting impact on all areas of society and life in a way that it is impossible to imagine a film that is not centered on the war. This quote emphasizes not only the drastic conditions during war, but also the need for art to remind and warn after the war. So, in this way, such postwar films are both a reminder of the atrocities and a kind of therapeutic expression that is needed after undergoing such atrocities.

This reminded me of West Beirut, in which people had, by the end of the film, become accustomed to wartime. For instance, there were vendors selling glass to those who saw their windows destroyed. Moreover, the father continued to talk about how he had also grown up in times of war and that would not stop them from relocating. However, the film also shows how such normalization was mentally harmful for the people of Beirut, such as the mother who wanted to leave Lebanon.

Since personal history is so important in creating an artist's work, it is interesting to note how she went about reinventing herself in this way. It was marked not only by the erase of her personal history, but also by her self-awareness. In other words, Farrokhzad's response to patriarchy was so strong and vehement that such reinvention could take place.

It is interesting how one often needs to break the barriers of society in order to establish "a unique artistic self-representation". This is particularly the case when an artist identifies her poetry with feminism. For instance, the authors perpetually mention Farrokhzad's struggle with society's inherent patriarchy in her own life and how her personal experiences were responsible for shaping much of her poetry. This further shows how aware and experienced an artist must be in order to be effective.

I find it interesting how Ghasemi and Pourgiv present this definite dilemma that the modern woman encounters. She can either follow stereotypes or completely break away from all conventions. So there is no middle ground and a woman must choose between the two. This adds intensity to the already heavy theme of patriarchy. I am also interested in the use of the word "daring", which indicates that a woman needs to "dare" to merely live a life of her own decisions. What may seem like a right to many does not actually exist as such.

This shows the importance of the frame of a character's actions. As opposed to the mighty statue of Ramses, Kinawi is now in front of the photo of Marilyn Monroe, which reminds him of the love that he is losing to About Saria while he listens.

It's interesting that the author uses the word "rediscovered" because it indicates how some works of art are ahead of their time. This also shows that the tastes of critics and viewers are ever-changing.

It is important to note that the different socio-economic and political events described in this article are, indeed, "the backdrop" of the film. In other words, these events are, in many ways, part of the film. They are associated with many occurrences in the film, such as the statue of Ramses or even the very idea of a poverty-struck Kinawi as the male-lead. This paragraph also shows how Chahine, as part of the new generation of directors, kept testing and pushing the boundaries on what is cinematically acceptable in order to truthfully comment on such socio-economic and political events. These interesting findings illustrate the significance of films in a societal context, as both indicative and testing of society.