Andrei Tarkvosky’s 1972 film Solyaris is regarded by many as a seminal piece of work, garnering the Grand Prix Special du Jury and a nomination for Palme d’Or at Cannes when released, and is often mentioned alongside Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey as a masterpiece of science fiction. Ingmar Bergman described Tarkovsky as, for him, "the greatest [director], the one who invented a new language, true to the nature of film, as it captures life as a reflection, life as a dream.” Solyaris perhaps best lays bare what Bergman describes as 'life as a reflection', dealing directly with that idea as a central theme. A meditative adaptation of Stanislaw Lem’s 1961 novel of the same name, Solyaris examines a number of grand themes concerning the human condition, notably the destructive power of guilt and the existential and psychological quandaries involved in both literal and metaphorical isolation. With Solyaris, Tarkovsky attempts to adapt the themes of the novel into a form that escapes the confines of the science fiction genre. This is achieved through using the grander societal implications of the conflicts inherent in human progress and expansion through the universe as an analogy for the more individual suffering involved in confronting one’s own conscience and braving painful memories.

The plot of Solyaris concerns the arrival of psychologist Kris Kelvin to a space station that orbits the planet Solyaris, a constantly shifting, liquid world that – as Kelvin soon discovers – is a conscious entity capable of manifesting human memories as apparitions. Kelvin’s investigation into the value of continued study of Solyaris is interrupted when he is visited by his own apparition, that of his wife Hari, who committed suicide following the failure of their marriage ten years ago. As the apparition evolves to conform more closely to Kelvin’s memory of Hari, the activity of Solyaris’ surface increases and a debate between Kelvin and the scientists as to the nature of the planet and the apparitions begins.

Cinema motefävet was a revolutionary development in 1960's Iranian cinema that borrowed poetic tropes from Iran's New Poetry and set the course for a cinematic renaissance. Led by Nima Yushij, Shi'r-i naw, or New Poetry, was a response to a perceived remoteness in the traditionalist poetry of the 19th century, the so-called Return Movement. The New Poets argued that the Return Movement fetishized medieval poetry and produced imitative works that said nothing of the present-day issues in Iran, using language which was difficult for ordinary Iranians to understand. Still influenced by historical works, but seeking to bring poetry closer to the common man, these New Poets began to explore more contemporary social themes with a sense of social consciousness and deep sympathy for the down-trodden, rather than a preoccupation with the continuation of poetic precepts. With a revised thematic focus, the New Poets articulated the realities of poverty and repression with novel poetic language that brought together literary and common modes of speech.

The Cow, produced in 1969, was a pioneer in this artistic insurgency, in which Iranian filmmakers, influenced by Italian Neorealism and the French New Wave, presented social realist themes in a codified film language adapted from Persian poetry. Directed and co-written by Dariush Mehrjui, the film concerned a poor rural villager’s mental breakdown following the death of his beloved cow and marked an artistic turning point in Iranian cinema, highlighting the complicated relationship between the state and the artistic film community in Iran that continues to this day.

A poetic-realist, working-class fable, adapted by Mehrjui and the popular writer Gholam-Hossein Sa'edi from Sa'edi's short story, The Cow expresses a bleak outlook on the socio-economic situation in Iran, rebelling against the self-congratulatory modernism of the Shah. The narrative of the film exemplifies Sa'edi's interest in the rural poor, and the complex psychology of characters, translating the themes from Persian literature and folklore into a modern mode, much like the New Poets.

​Mehrjui and Sa'edi's film presented the poverty of the Iranian rural underclass in realistic terms, contrary to the desires of the Shah, who pushed for cinema to convey a propagandistic image of a modernised Iran, and the more conservative Islamic authorities, who considered aniconism in art haram (forbidden) – especially representations outside of the idealized image of the eternal Quranic man. Ironically, the film was funded by the Ministry of Culture and Arts as an effort to produce a home-grown cinema that could display the modernisation of Iran to the outside world. The film was subject to a ban following its completion and was only released by the censors after being smuggled to Europe and winning international acclaim, such as the critics' award at the 1967 Venice film festival, with the Shah being inclined to capitalise on any Western approval of an artistically mature Iran. However, the censors did hedge their bets by adding a note, preceding the film, which reconfigured the story as occurring before the modernisation project of the Shah.